The Tehran Conference is the first of three conferences of leaders of three world powers. It was not so easy to get together. The main problem was in Stalin.

Why Tehran

At previous meetings, Stalin refused to come, justifying the refusals with various reasons. Stalin did not come to the conference held in Tehran before Tehran because the representative of China was there. China was at war with Japan, and the Soviet Union remained neutral with Japan. In addition, it is also known that Stalin was afraid of airplanes. Even in Tehran, he, as a result, most likely arrived by train through Baku.

Tehran was chosen as a meeting place for several reasons. The main one is that, in fact, Iran was occupied by Soviet and British troops and controlled by a "puppet" government. De facto. Several parts of the Soviet troops were located in the capital of Iran. Cairo, Basra, Beirut were considered as compromise options, but Tehran was the most convenient.

Roosevelt and Stalin

Roosevelt Byd is interested in meeting with Stalin most of all. It was fundamentally important for him to know the position of the USSR in the war with Japan. Roosevelt was about to “charm” Stalin; he was famous for his “courting”. The American president saw the Tehran Conference as not as a meeting of three, but as a meeting of "two and a half." Churchill was the "half."

Security

Security issues at the Tehran Conference were resolved at the highest level. The English embassy, \u200b\u200bin which the meetings were held, was surrounded by several security rings; during the conference in Tehran, communications were disconnected and media outlets were banned. Such "sterility" would be impossible elsewhere. An excellent security organization prevented the "assassination attempt" organized by Otto Skorzeny.

Churchill

Churchill at the Tehran Conference solved his tasks. It was they who proposed a solution to the "Polish question". It was important for Churchill that both the USSR and the USA begin to consider Great Britain as an equal power. Churchill was certainly an experienced politician, but during the Tehran Conference, he played, by and large, the second violin. The first were Stalin and Roosevelt. Churchill did not like either one or the other, and it was precisely on the basis of Churchill's dislike that Roosevelt and Stalin came closer. Diplomacy is a delicate matter. Incidentally, on the occasion of Churchill's birthday, November 30, a reception was held at the embassy.

Long jump

Operation "Long Jump" was characterized by breadth of purpose and the same breadth of stupidity. Hitler planned to kill the “three birds with one stone” with one blow, but the miscalculation was that the “birds with one stone” were not so simple. Eliminating Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt in Tehran was entrusted to a group led by Otto Scoceni. The operation was coordinated by Kaltenbrunner himself.

German intelligence learned about the time and place of the conference in mid-October 1943, deciphering the American naval code. Soviet intelligence quickly uncovered the plot.

A group of Skorzeny’s militants trained near Vinnitsa, where Medvedev’s partisan detachment operated. According to one version of the development of events, Kuznetsov has established friendly relations with the German intelligence officer Oster. Having borrowed Kuznetsov, Oster offered to pay him with Iranian carpets, which he was going to bring to Vinnitsa from a business trip to Tehran. This information, transmitted by Kuznetsov to the center, coincided with other data on the upcoming action. 19-year-old Soviet intelligence agent Gevorg Vartanyan gathered a small group of agents in Iran, where his father, also an intelligence officer, posed as a wealthy merchant. Vartanyan managed to find a group of six German radio operators and intercept their negotiations. The ambitious operation "Long Jump" failed, the "Big Three" remained unscathed. This was another failure of Otto Skorzenni, a great adventurer and not the most successful saboteur. The saboteurs wanted to enter the British Embassy through a pipe leading from the Armenian cemetery.

Skorzeny’s operation even helped Soviet intelligence: about four hundred people were detained in Iran. The German network was almost destroyed.

Stalin and the Prince

According to the memoirs of Gevork Vartanyan, when the Tehran conference ended, the only one of the three leaders of the world powers - Joseph Stalin went to express his gratitude to the young Shah of Iran Mohammed Reza Pahlavi for the reception, and the British sent the Reza Shah out of the country. Of course, the young shah was not ready for such a visit. When Stalin entered the Shah’s chamber, the young tsar jumped up from his throne, ran up, knelt down and wanted to kiss Stalin’s hand, but the Soviet leader did not allow this and lifted the shah from his knees. The event itself, that Stalin expressed gratitude for the reception to the head of Iran, had a huge resonance. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill did this.

Redivision of the world

At the Tehran conference, in fact, all those decisions that were developed during the Yalta and Postdam conferences were adopted. The Tehran Conference was the most important of the three. The following decisions were made on it:
  1. The exact date was set for the Allies to open a second front in France (and the "Balkan strategy" proposed by Great Britain was rejected).
  2. Discussed the issues of granting independence to Iran (“Declaration of Iran”).
  3. The beginning of the solution of the Polish question.
  4. The question of the beginning of the USSR war with Japan after the defeat of Nazi Germany.
  5. The outlines of the post-war world were outlined.
  6. A consensus has been reached on issues of ensuring international security and lasting peace.

Briefly, the Tehran Conference is the first meeting of the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition, which took place from November 28 to December 1, 1943. This meeting addressed important strategic issues that influenced not only the course of World War II, but also the entire post-war world.
When choosing a venue for the conference, the parties had their own motives. The English side preferred to resolve all issues in London, where, including, there were many governments in exile, or in Cairo, where there was a strong presence of British troops. For Roosevelt, North Africa was preferable. Still, Stalin insisted on his option - Tehran.
Tehran was beneficial to Stalin, primarily for personal reasons. Stalin, always paranoid in his concern for security, was reliably defended by a large group of Soviet troops based in the region, and he could always quickly return to the USSR if necessary.
The Allies agreed with Stalin's option, primarily because in these military and political realities, he could dictate terms. The situation was such that there was no longer a need for a second front to defeat Nazi Germany. It was clear to everyone, and especially the Allies, so now it was not the Soviet Union that showed great interest in the second front, but the USA, which wanted to gain influence in post-war Europe and prevent the USSR from completely dominating the region. In addition, Roosevelt generally believed that cooperation with the USSR should continue after the war. Otherwise, he believed that countries would be doomed to an arms race, and it would negatively affect the global economy.
The US delegation took a wait and see attitude at the conference, but on the whole, regarding the opening of a second front, the Americans were guided by the principles developed at the Anglo-American conference in Quebec. Briefly, the essence of the decisions of this conference was that it was impossible to delay more with the opening of a second front.
However, the delegates from Britain had their own interests. Churchill insisted on revising the adopted strategy in Quebec and proposed postponing the opening of a second front in Normandy in exchange for targeted operations in the Mediterranean with subsequent access to the borders of the USSR. Thus, the British hoped to cut off the further progress of the Soviets to Europe. Churchill relied on the support of the Americans on this issue, but Roosevelt was more interested in the opinion of the Soviets on this matter. The Soviet delegation insisted on the opening of a full-fledged second front by carrying out an invasion operation called Overlord and the possible support of the operation by invading southern France.
The position of the British delegation on the postponement of a large-scale invasion of Normandy due to the development of the military campaign in the Balkans did not find support from the rest of the participants in the conference. Stalin needed a second front, despite the possibility of the independent defeat of Germany, because without it, Germany, which had taken up defense, could easily transfer and regroup its forces, greatly complicating the further Soviet offensive. Only the opening of a full-scale second front from the western borders of German forces could contribute to the extension of communications and significantly reduce the maneuverability of German troops.
The Soviet delegation showed firmness, as a result of which the decision to open a second front was made, only questions about its date, command and support operations remained open. All of them were resolved between the American and English delegations within the framework of the same conference.

Summarizing the Tehran Conference, the main decisions of the Allies were the final decision to open a second front in the north-west of France and the obligation of the Soviet Union to enter the war with Japan after the victory over Germany. This conference consolidated the further cooperation of its participants in the framework of the new post-war world.
The decisions taken can be called the success of Stalin and his delegation, because they fully met not only his interests, but also the interests of the anti-Hitler coalition.
In addition to these crucial decisions, other issues related more to the post-war world order were discussed at the conference. Thus, the question of the new borders of Poland along the “Curzon line” was resolved, thus joining part of the Polish lands to the USSR, a declaration was adopted supporting Iranian independence, the decision to transfer East Prussia to the Soviet Union as reparations, and options for post-war Germany were discussed.
Speaking briefly about the Tehran Conference, we can say that despite the differences in opinions of its participants and initial difficulties, the conference reached the most important agreements on key points of military operations, and the main one was the decision to open a second front, which determined all priority points, such as the issue of date and command.
The “Declaration of Three Powers” \u200b\u200badopted at the end of the Tehran conference confirmed all the decisions of the working groups, contributed to the establishment of close contacts between the Allies, the early end of the war and marked a new world order, redistributing and consolidating the post-war spheres of influence for decades. Thus, this conference became the largest diplomatic event of the Second World War and, possibly, of the entire twentieth century.

Meetings of the Big Three

During the war years, three meetings of the top leaders of the USSR, England and the USA took place. It was quite difficult to agree on a venue. Stalin did not want to leave the territory occupied by the Red Army. Therefore, the first meeting of the "Big Three" was held in Tehran, where then Soviet troops stood. The meeting began on November 28, 1943 and lasted four days.

Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, and US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt arrived in Tehran. The main issue at the meeting was the opening of the so-called “second front,” that is, the landing of the Allies in France. At one point, Churchill made it clear that she could break loose. Then Stalin rose abruptly, pushed off the chair and said to Molotov: “Come on, we have nothing to do here. We have a lot to do at the front. ”

Roosevelt saved the situation, who suggested taking a lunch break. The next day, he promised Stalin that a second front would open in May 1944 (in fact, it happened on June 6, 1944).

As Marshal G. Zhukov recalled, Stalin told him when he returned from Tehran: “Roosevelt gave a firm word to open wide action in France in 1944. I think he will keep his word. Well, if he doesn’t hold back, we will have enough of our strength to beat Hitler Germany. ”

The second time the "Big Three" gathered in the Crimea, in the resort city of Yalta. The meeting began on February 4, 1945 and lasted eight days. It was about the fate of Germany after the war. In addition, the borders were redrawn and the entire political map of Eastern Europe redrawn. At the same time, the Allies recognized the right of peoples to “create democratic institutions of their own choosing”.

The third and final conference of the Big Three took place in Potsdam, near the defeated Berlin. This meeting was the longest - it began on July 17, 1945 and lasted 17 days.

The composition of the "big three" has changed - instead of Roosevelt who died on April 12, Harry Truman represented America. At the height of the meeting, Churchill was replaced by Labor leader Clement Attlee - in England his party won the election. The Berlin meeting clarified the borders in Europe and the future of Germany.

At this meeting, another noteworthy event occurred. On July 24, Truman received news of the successful test of an American nuclear bomb. After the meeting, he took Stalin aside and said that the United States now has new weapons that are superior to any other. Stalin listened to this message quite calmly, asked nothing and only congratulated the president.

Tehran Conference  - The first conference of the "Big Three" during the years of World War II - the leaders of three countries: F. D. Roosevelt (USA), W. Churchill (Great Britain) and I.V. Stalin (USSR), held in Tehran November 28 - December 1 1943 year.

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

Conference Objectives:

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

• the exact date was set for the Allies to open a second front in France (and the "Balkan strategy" proposed by Great Britain was rejected),
• issues of granting independence to Iran were discussed ("Declaration of Iran")
• the beginning of the solution of the Polish question
• about the beginning of the USSR war with Japan after the defeat of fascist Germany
• contours of the post-war world structure were outlined
• consensus reached on international security and lasting peace

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

47. The USSR in the postwar years: the restoration and development of the national economy and social life.

With the end of World War II, the Soviet people had to do a tremendous job of restoring the economy, raising the material standard of living of people, and embarking on peaceful creative work.

Measures were taken aimed at the resumption of normal working conditions in enterprises and institutions. Mandatory overtime work was canceled, an 8-hour working day and annual paid leave were restored. The state budget for W and IV quarters of 1945 and for 1946 was revised. Allocations for military needs were reduced, and expenditures on the development of civilian sectors of the economy increased. In August 1945, the USSR State Planning Commission was tasked with preparing a draft plan for the restoration and development of the national economy.

The restructuring of the national economy and public life in relation to peacetime ended mainly in 1946.

In March 1946, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR approved a plan for the restoration and development of the national economy for 19461950. It identified

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

occupied countries, reach the pre-war level of development of industry and agriculture and then surpass them

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

The enterprises were equipped with new technology. The mechanization of labor-intensive processes in the steel and coal industries has increased. Electrification of production continued. The electrical equipment of labor in industry by the end of the five-year period was one and a half times higher than the level of 1940.

The end of World War II had a significant impact on the socio-political development of society. Over the course of three and a half years, about 8.5 million former soldiers were demobilized and returned to civilian life. Over 4 million repatriates returned to their homeland - prisoners of war, residents of the occupied regions stolen in captivity, and some emigrants.

Transferring the incredible hardships of wartime, the population expected improvement in working and living conditions, positive changes in society,

easing the political regime. As in previous years, the majority of these hopes were associated with the name of I.V. Stalin. At the end

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

remain a member of the Politburo and the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the VKSCb). The authority over the years of the war, I.V. Stalin was supported by the entire system of administrative-bureaucratic and ideological apparatus. In 1946-1947. on behalf of I.V. Stalin was developing projects

the new Constitution of the USSR and the VKSCb Program). The constitutional draft provided for some development of democratic principles in the life of society. So, simultaneously with the recognition of the state form of ownership as dominant, the existence of a small peasant economy based on personal labor was allowed. In the process of discussing the draft Constitution in the republican party and economic structures, wishes were expressed for the decentralization of economic life. Suggestions were made to expand the economic independence of local management organizations. The draft Program VKPShb) was proposed to be supplemented with a provision on limiting the terms of elective party work, etc. However, all proposals were rejected, and after that work on draft documents ceased. The expectations of the population for a change for the better were not destined to come true. Soon after the end of the war, the country's leadership took measures to tighten the domestic policy.

48. The world and the USSR in the state of the Cold War: the main directions of foreign policy in the postwar years.

Changes in the international arena. The foreign policy of the Soviet state in the second half of the 40s was carried out in the midst of profound changes in the international arena. Victory in World War II increased the authority of the USSR. In 1945, he had diplomatic relations with 52 states (against 26 in the prewar years). The Soviet Union took an active part in resolving the most important international issues, and above all, in resolving the post-war situation in Europe.
  In seven countries of Central and Eastern Europe leftist, democratic forces have come to power. The new governments created in them were headed by representatives of the communist and workers parties. Leaders of Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania. Poland, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia carried out agrarian reforms in their countries, the nationalization of large-scale industry, banks and transport. The prevailing political organization of society was called popular democracy. It was considered as one of the forms of proletarian dictatorship.
In 1947, at a meeting of representatives of nine communist parties of Eastern Europe, the Communist Information Bureau (Kominformburo) was created. He was entrusted with the coordination of the actions of the Communist Parties of the states of people's democracy, which began to call themselves socialist. In the documents of the meeting, the thesis was formulated on the division of the world into two camps - imperialist and democratic, anti-imperialist. The provision on two camps, on the confrontation on the world stage of two social systems, lay at the basis of the foreign policy views of the party-state leadership of the USSR. These views are reflected, in particular, in the work of IV Stalin, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”. The paper also concluded that war was inevitable in the world as long as imperialism existed.
  Between the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe, treaties of friendship and mutual assistance were concluded. Identical treaties connected the Soviet Union with the German Democratic Republic, established on the territory of East Germany, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The agreement with China provided for a loan of $ 300 million to him. The right of the USSR and China to use the former CER was confirmed. Countries agreed on joint action in the event of aggression by any of the states. Diplomatic relations were established with states that gained independence as a result of the national liberation struggle that developed in them (the so-called developing countries).
The beginning of the cold war.  With the end of World War II, changes occurred in relations between the USSR and former allies in the anti-Hitler coalition. “Cold war” - this is the name given to the foreign policy pursued by both sides in relation to each other during the second half of the 40s and the beginning of the 90s. He was characterized primarily by hostile political actions of the parties. To solve international problems, forceful methods were used. The USSR Foreign Ministers of the initial period of the Cold War were V.M. Molotov, and since 1949 - A. Y. Vyshinsky.
The confrontation of the parties was clearly manifested in 1947 in connection with the Marshall Plan put forward by the United States. The program, developed by US Secretary of State J. Marshall, provided for the provision of economic assistance to European countries affected during the Second World War. To participate in the conference on this occasion, the USSR and the countries of people's democracy were invited. The Soviet government regarded the Marshall Plan as a weapon of anti-Soviet policy and refused to participate in the conference. At his insistence, countries of Eastern Europe invited to the conference also refused to participate in the Marshall Plan.
  One of the manifestations of the Cold War was the formation of political and military-political blocs. In 1949, the Alliance was created (NATO). It included the United States, Canada and several states of Western Europe. Two years later, the signing of the military-political alliance between the USA, Australia and New Zealand (ANZUS) took place. The formation of these blocs contributed to the strengthening of US positions in various regions of the world.
  With the confrontation between the former allies tightened, the Soviet Union worked against propaganda for a new war. The main arena of its activities has become the United Nations (UN). This international organization was created in 1945. It united 51 states. Its goal was to strengthen peace and security and the development of cooperation between states. At UN sessions, Soviet representatives came up with proposals for reducing conventional weapons and banning atomic weapons, and for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the territories of foreign countries. All these proposals, as a rule, were blocked by representatives of the USA and their allies. The USSR unilaterally withdrew troops from the territories of several states where they were introduced during the war years.
  Representatives of Soviet public organizations actively participated in the movement of peace supporters, which took shape organizationally in the late 40s. Over 115 million citizens of the country put their signatures on the Stockholm Appeal (1950) adopted by the Standing Committee of the World Congress of Peace Supporters. It contained requirements for the prohibition of atomic weapons and the establishment of international control over the implementation of this decision.
The confrontation of the former allies reached the greatest acuteness at the turn of the 40-50s in connection with the Korean War. In 1950, the leadership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea made an attempt to unite the two Korean states under their leadership. According to Soviet leaders, this association could strengthen the position of the anti-imperialist camp in this region of Asia. In the period of preparation for war and during hostilities, the USSR government provided financial, military and technical assistance to North Korea. The leadership of the PRC, at the insistence of JV Stalin, sent several military divisions to North Korea to participate in military operations. The war was stopped only in 1953 after lengthy diplomatic negotiations.
USSR and countries of Eastern Europe.  One of the leading areas of foreign policy in the postwar years was the establishment of friendly relations with the states of Eastern Europe. Soviet diplomacy provided assistance to Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania in the preparation of peace treaties with them (signed in Paris in 1947). In accordance with trade agreements, the Soviet Union supplied East European countries with preferential terms grain, raw materials for industry, fertilizers for agriculture. In 1949, in order to expand economic cooperation and trade between countries, an intergovernmental economic organization was created - the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA). It included Albania (until 1961), Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and since 1949 - the GDR. The seat of the CMEA Secretariat was Moscow. One of the reasons for the creation of CMEA was a boycott of Western trade relations with the USSR and the states of Eastern Europe.
  The main areas of relations between the USSR and the East European countries were determined by bilateral treaties between them. Military and other forms of assistance were envisaged if one of the parties turned out to be involved in hostilities. It was planned to develop economic and cultural ties, hold conferences on international issues affecting the interests of the contracting parties.
Already at the initial stage of cooperation between the USSR and the states of Eastern Europe, contradictions and conflicts manifested themselves in their relations. They were mainly associated with the search and choice of the path of building socialism in these states. According to the leaders of some countries, in particular V. Gomulka (Poland) and K. Gottwald (Czechoslovakia), the Soviet development path was not the only one for building socialism. The desire of the USSR leadership to establish a Soviet model of building socialism, to unify ideological and political concepts led to the Soviet-Yugoslav conflict. The reason for it was the refusal of Yugoslavia to participate in the federation recommended by the Soviet leaders with Bulgaria. In addition, the Yugoslav side refused to comply with the terms of the agreement on mandatory consultations with the USSR on issues of national foreign policy. Yugoslav leaders were accused of abandoning joint actions with socialist countries. In August 1949, the USSR broke off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia.

The results of the foreign policy of the USSR in the second half of the 40s and the beginning of the 50s were contradictory. Strengthened his position in the international arena. At the same time, the policy of confrontation between East and West greatly contributed to the growth of tension in the world.
  Difficulties in the economic sphere, the ideologization of socio-political life, the intensification of international tension - these were the results of the development of society in the first post-war years. During this period, the regime of personal power of I.V. Stalin became even stronger, and the command and administrative system tightened. In those same years, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe need for change in society was increasingly formed in public consciousness. The death of I.V. Stalin (March 1953) facilitated the search for a way out of the contradictions that entangled all spheres of public life.

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

Political reforms N, Khrushchev

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

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

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

Having achieved, with the help of a course towards a certain liberalization of the regime of relative political stability, Khrushchev faced difficult economic problems. The reform was decided to start fromagriculture.It was supposed to increase government procurement prices for collective farm products and expand sown areas through virgin and fallow lands. The development of virgin lands at first gave an increase in food. On the other hand, it was carried out to the detriment of not only traditional grain districts, but was not scientifically prepared. Therefore, "soon the virgin lands fell into decay. Reforms in agricultural production planning began in March 1955. The aim was to combine centralized management of agriculture fromexpansion of rights and local economic initiative, i.e., decentralization of republican administration. Almost 15 thousand enterprises were transferred to the jurisdiction of republican administrative bodies. In 1957, the government began to abolish sectoral ministries and replace them with territorial governing bodies. In the republics were created CHX (Councils of National Economy). The central apparatus of managing the national economy became the USSR CHX, the Supreme Economic Council of the USSR. At the end of 1962, one of the most unsuccessful reforms was carried out: party organizations were divided into industrial and rural.

In development industrymuch attention was paid to the development of light industry, the result was a 1.5 times increase in gross output of the food industry. Significant place in the overall strategy of Khrushchev was given to scientific and technological progress in the development of heavy and light industry.

Serious shortcomings of economic reforms were managerial miscalculations, increased spending on military needs, politicization and ideologization in the management of the national economy. Such experiments as the so-called "Ryazan meat experiment", "corn saga", the eviction of agricultural scientists from Moscow to villages, and others are widely known. The growth of crisis phenomena led to social destabilization (suppression of workers ’performance in Novocherkassk in 1962, dispersal of student demonstrations in 1958). In order to reduce tension, the authorities went to increase salaries in the public sector, doubling the size of pensions, reducing the retirement age, reducing the length of the working day. The crisis of the control system was obvious, but Khrushchev laid the blame on the rural party organizations. The situation was aggravated by a significant increase in the bureaucratic apparatus, a mixture! functions, duplication of decisions, etc. The reform of the central apparatus of managing the national economy (the creation of economic councils) also had the same consequences.

Thus, the economic and political reforms of Khrushchev and had a limited character of democratization and. reduced to a formal structural reorganization, which inevitably led to crisis phenomena. The crisis of reforms has led to the emergence of conservative trends and the restoration of some elements of totalitarianism. Khrushchev’s line on the one-man rule of the party and state apparatus was regarded by the party and state apparatus as a desire for a new dictatorship. As a result, in October 1964, at the Plenum of the Central Committee, Khrushchev was removed from his posts in the party and government.

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

Of great importance in the ongoing liberalization of socio-political life was XX Congress of the CPSU  (February 1956). At the congress, the report on the work of the Central Committee of the party and the directives of the sixth five-year plan for economic development were discussed. Due to a sharply negative

the positions of V. M. Molotov, K. E. Voroshilov, L. M. Kaganovich and G. M. Malenkov did not raise the question of Stalin.

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

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

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

Party groups formed:

1) recognizing some of the "mistakes" of Stalin and guided by the CPSU;

2) do not recognize critics of Stalin and are guided by the Communist Party of China;

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

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

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

Socio-political situation. The period of the 70s - beginning of the 80s. in the history of Soviet society received the definition of "stagnant". The causes of stagnation and crisis phenomena, along with the subjective factor (the personality of L.I. Brezhnev and his entourage), lay in the socio-economic relations that prevailed in the country, the model of society that had formed back in the 30s. In the new USSR Constitution of 1977, the party abandoned the idea of \u200b\u200ban imminent transition to communism and the withering away of the state. The modern political period was defined as “developed socialism”. The Constitution announced the creation of a "new social and international community - the Soviet people." In its 6th article, the monopoly position of the CPSU in the political system was legally enshrined, and the party itself was defined as

"The leading and directing force of Soviet society, the core of the political system." From 1966 to 1985 the number of the CPSU increased from 12.4 to 19 million people. In the Brezhnev period there was a process of further centralization of the party apparatus, the strengthening of the power of partocracy. Such phenomena as corruption, criminalization, etc. completely undermined the authority of the authorities. The ideological dictatorship of the CPSU restrained the development of creativity, encouraged unanimity. There was a return to neo-Stalinism in ideology, literature, science, culture. In society

increased social apathy caused by double morality and the growth of social injustice. The dissident movement continued to be a radical expression of disagreement with the current situation in the country.

The results. A characteristic feature of the social production of those years was: the predominant development of the industries of Group A compared with Group B and the military-industrial complex. At the same time, the Soviet economy remained predominantly at the industrial stage, while the economy of several countries of the world rose to the scientific and industrial stage. Reform of 1965 was replaced by counter-reforms that strengthened centralization and the position of departmental bureaucracy. Soviet foreign policy for 1965-1985 it also went through a complex and contradictory path from a tough confrontation with the West to detente and from it to a new aggravation of international tension, which put the world on the brink of a world war. It was based on the concept of ideological confrontation and the struggle of two systems. The Brezhnev leadership turned out to be two major achievements: ensuring strategic-military parity with the United States and a policy of detente from the first beginning of the 70s. By the first half of the 80s, the USSR was drawn into the next round of the arms race, which undermined the state of the Soviet economy.

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

After abandoning the “Kosygin reform”exclusively administrative methods of management again began to dominate, from year to year the decisions of the same type were made, which eventually led to stagnation in the national economy. Key indicators of the country's economic growth continued to deteriorate steadily.
  The arms race required an increase in the output of military products, which determined a certain militarization of the economic sphere. Military spending absorbed up to 20% of gross national product.
  The lagging behind the Western countries in scientific and technological progress was accumulating, especially in the non-military sectors, and the number of officially registered inventions in the USSR was greater than in the USA, Japan, Great Britain, Germany and other countries. However, within the framework of the existing system, they were mainly not introduced into the socialist economy.
The extensive raw material nature of economic development continued to prevail. Since the second half of the 1960s. An unprecedented development of oil and gas fields in Siberia and the export of fuel abroad began. The so-called "petrodollars" flowed into the country, which were aimed at patching up bottlenecks in the national economy. This process objectively increased the raw material orientation of the domestic economy. The situation in the agricultural sector in the late 1970s. began to take a catastrophic nature, so in 1982, agro-industrial complexes (AIC) were created. Collective farms, state farms, agricultural processing enterprises located on the same territory were combined into regional agribusinesses. However, for all the years of its existence, the agro-industrial complex did not justify itself, did not become a viable economic organism and did not fulfill the food program.
  Political development of the USSR in 1965-1985 proceeded within the framework of the Stalin's political system with the dominant role of the Communist Party in society. The dictates of the party-state apparatus were all-encompassing and constituted the core of the country's administrative and managerial system.
  In the political and ideological sphere, a return to hidden Stalinism gradually began. Name I.V. Stalin began increasingly to emerge in memoirs, various kinds of books and articles. These memories were, as a rule, apologetic in nature. A gradual drift began to the side of the decisions of the XX and XXII party congresses.
  An important milestone in political development was the adoption of the USSR Constitution in October 1977. Its main provisions were:
  - a description of the then stage of development of Soviet society, which received the official name "developed socialism";
  - fixing the nation-wide character of the state instead of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat;
  - legislative consolidation of the leading role of the CPSU in society (Article 6) as the core of the political system;
  - the presence of a wide range of rights and freedoms of citizens that are poorly realized in real life.
Another serious problem of the functioning of political-power relations was gerontocracy ("power of the elders"). In the 1970s the average age of the top party leadership was approaching 70 years, and, despite physical ailments and illnesses, they continued to decide the fate of the country. Their sole purpose was to preserve personal power, therefore, conservation of all spheres of life in Soviet society took place, and in this sense the term “stagnation” that appeared later quite accurately reflected the situation of this period of time.
  Since the mid-1960s In our country, a movement of dissidents arose as a form of dissent in relation to the ideology and politics of the Soviet system, a form of public disagreement and protest.
  Authorities responded by intensifying repression against dissidents. Some of them were sent abroad (A. Solzhenitsyn, V. Bukovsky, A. Galich and others), while others were convicted and imprisoned (A. Marchenko, N. Sharansky and others). Academician A.D. Sakharov was isolated and exiled in 1980 to the then closed city of Gorky (Nizhny Novgorod), where he remained until 1986.
  Dissidents, by today's estimates, shook the totalitarian system and brought democracy closer to the country.
  Crisis events have also embraced the social and spiritual spheres of society. Serious changes have taken place in the social structure of the population. A privileged position was occupied by a group of leading workers, or party state nomenclature. Its share in the social structure of Soviet society compared to the pre-war period increased by 2.4 times and by 1979 amounted to 6%. In material terms, they were the most wealthy and enjoyed all sorts of privileges.
  The number of workers occupied the first place (60% in 1979), but about half of them were engaged in heavy and low-skilled jobs. A negative effect on their position was exerted by the egalitarian nature of remuneration.
  For a number of reasons, the number of villagers decreased three times (15% in 1979), and the question arose of who will work in the agricultural sector. Harvesters were sent in droves by mass citizens, mainly employees and the intelligentsia.
  There was an increase in negative phenomena in the social sphere (drunkenness, corruption, etc.).
  In the spiritual sphere, a loss of moral guidelines was observed. The suppression of dissent, all kinds of religious freedom, continued. People and the country were going through a phase of spiritual crisis.

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

In the context of building up nuclear potential in the world, one of the main directions of Soviet foreign policy was the struggle to achieve military-strategic parity between East and West. And although it was achieved in 1969, the Soviet leadership nevertheless considered the buildup of arms and their improvement as an integral part of the struggle for peace.

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

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

In the early 80's. The foreign policy of the USSR yielded predominantly disappointing results, crossing out the successes of the period of detente.

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

The doctrine remained valid until the end of the 1980s, when under Mikhail Gorbachev it was not replaced by a different approach, which was jokingly called the “Sinatra Doctrine” (referring to Frank Sinatra's song “My Way” - “My Way”).

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

In 1968 in Czechoslovakiathe process of renewal, the rejection of deformed socialism, which bore all the features of the Stalinist model, began. Re-forms began part of the leaders of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, headed by A. Dubcek under the slogan of building "socialism with a human face." Initially, the Soviet leadership welcomed the Prague Spring. Soon, however, articles began to appear in the Soviet press in which fears were expressed whether the rapid renewal process in Czechoslovakia would lead to the rejection of socialist principles. The concept of “pluralism”, “the diversity of models of socialism”, which were regarded as a departure from the Soviet model, was widely used in propaganda by the Czechoslovak press. On August 21, 1968, units of the Soviet Army crossed the border of Czechoslovakia. Together with them were parts of the GDR, Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria. This was an aggressive action against a sovereign country.

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

In the early days of December 1979, USSR Minister of Defense Marshal of the Soviet Union D.F. Ustinov informed the senior staff of the General Staff that in the near future a decision could be made to send up to 75,000 Soviet troops to Afghanistan. people
  Final discharge crash occurred after input soviet troops to Afghanistan   in December 1979, special units of the KGB seized the palace of X. Amin, the president of Afghanistan, who was quite loyal to the USSR, but suspected of sympathy for China. Amin was killed. President B. Karmal, planted with Soviet help, approved the introduction of Soviet troops by an appropriate "invitation." Such an ill-conceived decision was made only by a few members of the Soviet leadership, headed by Brezhnev. Even some members of the government learned about this from the newspapers, not to mention all the people. The world community sharply negatively regarded the actions of the USSR in Afghanistan. The extraordinary session of the UN General Assembly declared the violation by the Soviet Union of the sovereignty of the Third World states. According to official data (which remains to be examined and thoroughly checked), in this undeclared war more than 15 thousand Soviet soldiers died, 35 thousand were wounded, more than 300 were missing or captured. The total losses of the Afghan people amounted to about 1 million people. The participation of the Soviet Union in the Afghan war entailed a decline in its credibility in the international arena. His contacts with the countries of the West and the USA were reduced. One indicator of this was the US Senate's refusal to ratify the agreement signed with the Soviet Union on further limiting the nuclear arms race (OSV-2). Thus, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union in 1965-1985. a difficult path has passed - from a tough confrontation with the West (in the second half of the 60s) to a relaxation of international tension (70s) and from it to a new aggravation of international relations (in the late 70s and early 80s. ), which put humanity on the brink of a new world war. The main reason for this was not only mutual distrust between the East and the West, the continuation of the arms race, but also the extreme ideologization of foreign policy.

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

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

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

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

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

Third stage (June 1989-1991). The final stage, during this period there is a sharp destabilization of the political situation in the country: after the Congress, the opposition of the communist regime begins with the new political forces that arose as a result of the democratization of society. Difficulties in the economy escalate into a full-blown crisis. A chronic shortage of goods is reaching its peak: empty store shelves become a symbol of the turn of the 1980-1990s. Perestroika euphoria in society is giving way to disappointment, uncertainty about tomorrow and mass anti-communist sentiments. Since 1990, the main idea is no longer the "improvement of socialism", but the construction of democracy and a market economy of the capitalist type. “New thinking” in the international arena boils down to unilateral concessions to the West, as a result of which the USSR is losing many of its positions. In Russia and other republics of the Union, separatist forces come to power - the “parade of sovereignty” begins. The logical outcome of this development of events was the liquidation of the power of the CPSU and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

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

ACCELERATION OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTRY  - the party’s strategic course aimed at the qualitative transformation of all aspects of the life of Soviet society.
  The program for accelerating the country's socio-economic development, put forward by the April (1985) Plenary Session of the CPSU Central Committee, received extensive justification in the decisions of the 27th Party Congress and the January (1987) Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the CPSU. The policy of accelerating the country's socio-economic development presupposes deep transformations in the economy, pursuing an active social policy, consistent adoption of the principle of social justice, improving social relations, updating the forms and working methods of political and ideological institutions, deepening socialist democracy, resolutely overcoming inertia, stagnation and conservatism . In the economic field, acceleration means, first and foremost, decisively overcoming the negative trends that appeared in the 70-80s and increasing growth rates.
In the twelfth five-year plan, it is planned to increase the growth rate of labor productivity to 23% compared with 16.5% in the eleventh five-year period. The increase in national income will be 22.1%, real per capita income 14% compared with 16.5 and 11% respectively. The essence of acceleration is to achieve a new quality of economic growth, that is, on the basis of comprehensive intensification of production, scientific and technological progress, structural adjustment of the economy, effective forms of management, organization and stimulation of labor.
  By 2000, it is planned to achieve a doubling of the country's national income without increasing the number of workers in material production and reducing its metal consumption by 2 times and energy consumption by at least 1.4 times. By the middle of this period, it is necessary to stabilize the capital intensity of products, and then reduce it. Given the intensification of social production and the consistent implementation of the resource-saving policy, accelerating socio-economic development involves focusing on improving the final economic results, improving product quality, producing fundamentally new, more productive equipment, and rapidly increasing the efficiency of social labor. Important indicators of acceleration are a reduction in the timing of the renewal of fixed assets, the range of products, a radical increase in its technical level and quality.
  To accelerate the socio-economic development of the country, two groups of reserves and sources are activated. The first of them includes the best use of the existing production potential and available labor resources, a decisive struggle against the loss of raw materials and working time, restoring order, strengthening organization and discipline. The mobilization of these reserves does not, as a rule, require significant costs and gives relatively quick results. In the long run, acceleration requires the use of deep reserves of economic growth, the decisive role of which belongs to scientific and technological progress.
It is necessary to carry out a cardinal transformation of the productive forces, based on the mastery of the latest achievements of the scientific and technological revolution. Of paramount importance is the rapid updating of the production apparatus through the widespread introduction of advanced technology, the most advanced technological processes and flexible manufacturing, which allow for prompt restructuring of new products and giving the greatest economic and social effect. Accelerating the country's socio-economic development also depends on further improving the entire system of production relations, restructuring farms and management methods, and introducing effective forms of material interest and responsibility. Particular attention is paid to the democratization of all public life, the development of the social activity of the masses, the upbringing of the employer attitude to work and its results (see also Pace of Economic Development, Economic Policy of the CPSU).

Economic reforms. Key in MS reform strategy Gorbachev was the acceleration of economic growth, scientific and technological progress, the increase in the production of means of production, the development of the social sphere. The priority task of economic transformation was recognized as the accelerated development of mechanical engineering as the basis for the rearmament of the entire national economy. The emphasis was on strengthening production and performing discipline (measures to combat alcoholism and alcoholism); control over product quality (law on state acceptance). Prominent economists (L.I. Abalkin, A.G. Aganbegyan, P.G. Bunin and others) were involved in the development of the reform, it was carried out in accordance with the concept of self-supporting socialism. The reform project provided for : - expanding the independence of enterprises on the principles of cost accounting and self-financing; - the gradual revival of the private sector of the economy, primarily through the development of a cooperative movement; - abandonment of the monopoly of foreign trade; - deep integration into the world market; - reduction of sla branch ministries and departments between which it was supposed to establish partnerships; - recognition of equality in rural areas of the five main forms of management (collective farms, state farms, agricultural enterprises, rental cooperatives, farms). The reform was characterized by inconsistency and half-heartedness. During the reforms, there was no reform of the credit, pricing policy, or centralized supply system. However, despite this, the reform contributed to the formation of the private sector in the economy. In 1988, the Law on Cooperation and the Law on Individual Labor Activities (ITD) were adopted. Under the new laws, an opportunity was opened for private activity in more than 30 types of production of goods and services. By the spring of 1991, more than 7 million people were employed in the cooperative sector, and another million were self-employed. The flip side of this process was the legalization of the “shadow economy.” In 1987, the Law on the State Enterprise (Association) was adopted. Enterprises were transferred to self-sufficiency and self-financing, obtaining the right to foreign economic activity, the creation of joint ventures. At the same time, most of the manufactured products were still included in state orders and, therefore, were withdrawn from free sale. Under the Law on Labor Collectives, a system for electing managers of enterprises and institutions was introduced. Changes in agriculture began with the reform of state farms and collective farms. In May 1988, it was announced the appropriateness of switching to a rental contract in the village (under a land lease agreement for 50 years with the right to dispose of the products received). By the summer of 1991, on lease terms (based on the 1989 law on leases and lease relations), only 2% of the land was cultivated and 3% of the livestock was kept. In general, the agrarian policy failed to achieve major changes. One of the main reasons was the nature of government food security policies. For many years, prices for basic foodstuffs were kept low at low growth rates of agricultural production, which was facilitated by subsidies from both the producer (up to 80%) and the consumer (1/3 of the Russian budget) of food. The budget deficit could not cope with such a load. Laws were not passed on transferring land to private ownership and increasing personal plots. Economic results showed the inconsistency of the reforms. Remaining within the framework of the socialist economic system (general planning, allocation of resources, state ownership of the means of production, etc.), the country's national economy also lost administrative-command levers of coercion on the part of the party. However, no market mechanisms were created. After some initial successes related to the renewal enthusiasm, an economic downturn began. Since 1988, there has been a general decline in agricultural production. As a result, the population was faced with a shortage of food products, even in Moscow their standardized distribution was introduced. Since 1990, a general reduction in industrial production began. In the summer of 1990, instead of accelerating, a course was adopted for the transition to a market economy, scheduled for 1991, i.e., towards the end of the 12th Five-Year Plan (1985-1990). However, in contrast to the plans of the official leadership for the phased (within several years) introduction of the market, a plan was developed (known as the “500 Days” program), aimed at a “quick breakthrough” in market relations, supported by B.P.F. N. Yeltsin. The authors of the project were a group of economists - academician S.S. Shatalin, G.A. Yavlinsky, B.G. Fedorov and others. During the first half of the term, it was planned: transferring enterprises to forced rent, large-scale privatization and decentralization of the economy, introduction of antitrust laws. During the second half, it was supposed to remove mainly state control over prices, to allow for a decline in the basic sectors of the economy, regulated unemployment and inflation in order to drastically restructure the economy. This project created a real basis for the economic union of the republics, but contained significant elements of utopianism and could lead to unpredictable social consequences. Under pressure from conservatives, Gorbachev refused to support this program.

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

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

The choice of an evolutionary or “shock” way of transition to a market economy depends not so much on the will of political leadership as on a complex of political, economic, social, historical and other factors. The evolutionary transition is supported by the presence of a fairly developed agriculture and artisanal production, in which generations of workers who retain the skills of private enterprise are employed; the relatively low proportion of heavy industry and especially the military-industrial complex; financial system stability; the prevalence among the political and economic elite of layers interested in carrying out reforms, etc.

Choosing a “shock” option is usually a necessary measure. It is connected in most cases with the need to overcome the extremely difficult financial situation inherited from the administrative-command system, as well as the acute shortage of goods caused by accumulated structural imbalances.

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

Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill at the Tehran Conference.

From the historical dictionary:

TEGERAN CONFERENCE 1943 - the first meeting of the leaders of the three leading powers of the anti-Hitler coalition: USSR (I.V. Stalin), USA (F. Roosevelt) and Great Britain (W. Churchill) - November 28 - December 1 in Tehran (Iran). The terms of the agreements were largely determined by the great military successes of the USSR in the summer and fall of 1943.

The Allies agreed on joint action in the war against Germany and on the opening in the North. France of the second front no later than May 1944

The specially adopted Declaration expressed confidence in the future post-war cooperation of the three powers and emphasized the need to create the United Nations to ensure peace and security of peoples.

On the question of the post-war territorial structure of Europe, the Allies decided: to transfer part of the East to the USSR. Prussia (now the Kaliningrad Region of the Russian Federation); recognize the entry of the Baltic states into the USSR; restore independence of Poland within the borders of 1918; proclaim the independence of Austria and Hungary.

The question of the future structure of Germany was postponed.

The USSR, meeting the wishes of the allies, promised to declare war on Japan no later than three months after the end of hostilities in Europe.

Orlov A.S., Georgieva N.G., Georgiev V.A. Historical Dictionary. 2nd ed. M., 2012, p. 508.

Tehran Conference 1943 year , a conference of the heads of pr-in the three allied powers in World War II - the USSR, the USA and Great Britain: pre. SNK of the USSR I.V. Stalin US President F. D. Roosevelt   and the prime minister of Great Britain W. Churchill with the participation of diplomas, advisers and representatives of the military. headquarters. Held in Tehran November 28 - December 1, 1943. The main issues were military issues, in particular the question of a second front in Europe, which, contrary to US and British obligations, was not opened by them either in 1942 or in 1943. In the new situation resulting from the victories Owls The army, the Anglo-American allies began to fear that the Sov. Armament. Forces will free Zap. Europe without the participation of the armed forces of the United States and Great Britain. At the same time, during the negotiations, there was a difference in the points of view of the heads of the United States and Great Britain on the place, scale and time of the Allied invasion of Europe. At the insistence of the owls. T. delegation to. decided to open a second front in France during May 1944 (see. "Overlord"). Since it also took note of the statement of JV Stalin that the Soviet troops would launch an offensive at about the same time in order to prevent the transfer of German forces from the Eastern to the Western Front. In Tehran, owls. the delegation, meeting the requests of the pr-in the United States and Great Britain, and also taking into account the repeated violations by Japan, Soviet-Japanese. Treaty of 1941 on neutrality and in order to reduce the time of the war in the East, declared the readiness of the USSR to enter the war against Japan at the end of the military. action in Europe. On T. to. The United States raised the question of the dismemberment of Germany after the war into five autonomous states. England put forward its plan for the dismemberment of Germany, providing for the isolation of Prussia from the rest of Germany, as well as the exclusion of its southern provinces and their inclusion together with Austria and Hungary in the so-called. Danube Confederation. However, the position of the Sov. The union prevented the Western powers from realizing these plans. On T. to. The agreement was reached in advance, on the establishment of the borders of Poland on the "Curzon Line" of 1920 in the east along the river. Oder (Odra) - in the west. The “Declaration of Iran” was adopted, in which the participants declared “their desire to preserve the full independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran.” Other issues were also discussed at the conference, including those related to the post-war period. world organizations. The results of T. to. Indicate the possibility of military. and politic. cooperation of the state with various societies, we are building in the decision of the international. problems. The conference helped strengthen the anti-Hitler coalition.

Literature:

The Soviet Union at international conferences during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. T. 2.

The Tehran Conference of the Leaders of the Three Allied Powers - USSR, USA and Great Britain November 28 - December 1, 1943. Collection of documents. M., 1978;

Correspondence of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR with the Presidents of the USA and the Prime Ministers of Great Britain during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. Ed. 2nd. T. 1-2. M., 1976.

Used materials of the Soviet military encyclopedia