134.31kb.
Stalin's missed chance.
The Soviet Union and the struggle for Europe: 1939-1941
Project "Military Literature": militera.lib.ru
Edition: Meltyukhov M.I. Stalin's missed chance. The Soviet Union and the Struggle for Europe: 1939-1941 (Documents, Facts, Judgments). - M.: Veche, 2000.
Book on site: militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/index.php
Illustrations: militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/ill.php
OCR, proofreading, layout: Hoaxer ( [email protected])
^ Publisher's abstract:: The book is dedicated to one of the most mysterious pages of Russian history of the 20th century - the events that led to the tragedy of 1941. In the last decade, the prehistory of the Great Patriotic War has been at the center of a fierce and overly politicized discussion. If some authors continue to accuse the then Soviet leadership of insufficient preparation for war, then others, with the light hand of V. Suvorov, on the contrary, of preparing an attack on Germany. In this work, on a wide range of documents, including little-known and only recently declassified, the events of 1939-1941 are studied in detail. The foreign policy of the USSR and the actions of the Red Army in Eastern Europe at the beginning of World War II, the military planning of the Soviet General Staff, the organizational development and strength of the Soviet armed forces, the views of the Soviet leadership on the events of the European war and the content of Soviet propaganda are shown. Such a comprehensive study allows us to sum up the ongoing disputes and provide answers to the following questions: is the USSR guilty of causing the Second World War; why Moscow agreed to sign the Non-Aggression Pact; what did the Kremlin know about the German plan "Barbarossa"; whether the German attack on the USSR was a preventive war, and many others. This book is addressed not only to specialists, but also to a wide range of connoisseurs of thoughtful reading who are interested in the history of their country.
Introduction
The main law of History is not to dare to lie, the second is not to be afraid to tell the truth.
Pope Leo XIII
September 1999 marked the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, the largest military-political conflict of the 20th century, in which our country also took an active part. As in any other events in human history, many secrets are hidden in the history of the Second World War. However, the period from September 1, 1939 to June 22, 1941 causes the greatest discussions. This is due both to the complexity of the process of forming two opposing military-political groups, and to the ongoing attempts of official historiography to present the activities of their countries during this period in a more favorable light, what it really was. For the Russian reader, this period of the Second World War is the prehistory of another war - the Great Patriotic War, which began with the tragic defeats of the Red Army and became one of the most difficult in the history of the Russian state.
For decades, historians from different countries have sought to answer questions about how the war arose, why a relatively local European conflict turned into a world global war, and who and to what extent is responsible for such a development of events. Of course, the answers to all these questions were given on the basis of the documents available at the time of writing various works, as well as taking into account the political situation. However, the source base of historical research is gradually expanding, and until recently secret documents are becoming available to historians. Naturally, this causes new attempts to comprehend the information that has appeared, to clarify our knowledge of the past. Now this process is going on in Russian historical science as well. In an effort to cover as fully as possible all the details of the events that led to the tragedy of 1941, Russian researchers in the 1940s and 1980s did a great job on the basis of available sources. However, since the late 1980s the appearance of new documents, the expansion of access to archival funds and the liberation of historians from the harsh ideological dictates of the authorities set the task of rethinking this topic.
Domestic historical science is not the first time faced with a similar problem. Similar processes took place in it in the 19th - early 20th centuries. in relation to the study of the history of another Patriotic War - 1812. During the first 50 years, the study of the history of that war was carried out exclusively within the framework of the official version of events, which was supported by the personal proximity of leading historians to the throne. But in the 60s of the 19th century, a process of reassessment of established views began, which was far from easy and painless. As now, there were also enough hasty conclusions, biting statements, the prevalence of emotions over the essence of historical problems. So, in particular, the world-famous epic L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". Be that as it may, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the war of 1812, a new fundamental work was published, summarizing the results of research and still retaining a certain scientific significance. Now, almost 90 years later, Russian historical science can rightfully be proud of the results of studying those distant events, which once again confirms the well-known truth - a calm and impartial analysis is always preferable to overly emotional assessments that only obscure the essence of the matter.
In the development of research into the history of the Great Patriotic War, apparently, a similar process is going on. For 50 years, within the framework of the official Soviet version of events, formulated back in 1941-1945. and enshrined in the speeches of the leaders of the Soviet state and the Communist Party, a description of the most important events of the war was given, many documents of those years were published, and an extensive literature on various problems arose. However, it gradually became clearer that the more we learn about the events of those years, the more difficult it is to keep the official version unchanged. Therefore, the ideological control over the study of these topics gradually increased, and by the beginning of the 1980s, the vast majority of studies on the history of the Great Patriotic War began to resemble each other like two drops of water. Naturally, this gave rise to feelings of dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction among many historians: after all, what could be harder for a researcher than knowledge that cannot be made public, discussed with colleagues? This, to a certain extent, explains the boom in historical sensations that swept the country in the second half of the 1980s.
In the early 1990s, the process of reassessing the history of the Soviet Union went far enough, and the thesis about "Stalin's mistakes" that led to the tragic start of the war had already become a commonplace in literature. By this time, many previously unknown facts and documents had been introduced into scientific circulation, but, unfortunately, due attention was not always paid to the generalization of these materials. This process was mainly developed in studies of the foreign policy of the USSR in 1939-1941 on the basis of borrowing a number of concepts typical of Western historiography of this period. And although these studies, as a rule, did not use a significant array of sources not directly related to the foreign policy activities of the USSR, their appearance was the first step towards revising the official concept of the eve of the Great Patriotic War. Already in 1991, A.G. Dongarov suggested that "behind the events of the first plan in the fall of 1939 - summer 1941, as if indicating active preparations to repel possible German aggression, there were some secret goals and calculations of the Kremlin, in which the option of a German attack on the USSR is simply not provided" (1). A certain reassessment of the military-historical problems on the eve of the war was proposed in the works of B.N. Petrov and V.N. Kiselev (2), published in 1991 - 1992, which, however, did not receive a proper response.
Since 1993 military-political problems on the eve of the Great Patriotic War were at the center of the discussion caused by the publication in Russia of V. Suvorov's books (3). Although these works are written in the genre of historical journalism and represent a kind of "layer cake" when the truth is mixed with half-truths and lies, they quite clearly outlined the circle of the least developed problems in historiography. Over the past years, the discussion around the books of V. Suvorov has split into several directions. Some authors simply reject his version. Others reject it, referring to a whole series of mistakes and inaccuracies of the author, which, however, have no fundamental significance. Still others, taking into account the controversial and weak provisions of these books, attract new documentary materials for the analysis of the author's version, which confirm the need for further development of these topics (4). Oddly enough, during the discussion, the desire of a number of foreign historians, who are rather mediocrely familiar with the issues under discussion and Soviet archival materials, to act as mentors of Russian historical science, was manifested.
Be that as it may, the discussion that unfolded led to the identification of new archival documents on the history of the USSR in 1939-1941, indicating that the Soviet leadership, of course, had its own view of the political situation of that period and tried to use it to its advantage. The materials and studies that have appeared have shown that the traditional official version of the exclusively defensive intentions of the USSR is becoming less and less substantiated. Naturally, a new round of discussion did not escape a certain politicization, which was primarily due to Suvorov's support for the old version of German propaganda about Germany's "preventive war" against the USSR and blaming the Soviet leadership for unleashing World War II. The inconsistency of these theses has already been repeatedly shown in the literature (5), but supporters of the traditional version continue to refer to them, thus justifying their refusal to consider the option of Soviet offensive preparations. For example, O.V. Vishlev believes that "the desire to prove that the Soviet Union had 'offensive' intentions towards Germany serves to substantiate the old thesis about Hitler's Germany's 'preventive war' against the USSR" (6). Therefore, everything that speaks in favor of Moscow's "offensive" intentions should be denied always, everywhere and no matter what.
By tradition, the unfolding controversy continues to use non-scientific arguments. Instead of presenting a point of view on the issues under discussion, argued by previously unknown documents and thorough research, some defenders of the traditional version declare the ongoing discussion a manifestation of an “anti-scientific trend” and call for “not allowing” opponents to publish their research (7). This confirms T. Mann's opinion that "we are more often angry and indignant, opposing some idea, when we ourselves are not too sure of our own position and are internally ready to take the opposite side." As a rule, supporters of the traditional version prefer to debate precisely around the concept of V. Suvorov, which is rather strange, since, perhaps, none of the serious researchers support it in full. As a result, one gets the impression that these problems can only be considered from the point of view of the author of "Icebreaker" or from the point of view of the traditional version. However, this is not the case, and the documentary materials and studies of recent years that have become available allow us to propose other conceptual approaches to the problem under discussion. Nevertheless, the defenders of the official version do not stop at outright falsification, just to avoid discussing the problems of 1941 on the basis of the Soviet documents now available and the latest Russian historiography. So, for example, the leadership of the Association of Historians of the Second World War acted when a report devoted to these problems, discussed at a meeting on December 30, 1997, was presented during publication in such a way that everything that did not correspond to the views of V. Suvorov was removed from it. This, apparently, was supposed to give greater credibility to the rebuttals of opponents (8).
Moreover, falsified documents were also used. So, V.A. Anfilov, in order to substantiate his traditional point of view, refers to the works of I.V. Stalin (M., 1997) documents: "Speech at an extended meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (end of May 1941)" and "Conversation with A.M. Lavrov on June 18, 1941" (10). The first of them should confirm the absence of any offensive intentions from the Soviet leadership, and the second one should show that the omniscient Soviet intelligence reported to the Kremlin only the most reliable information about the intentions of Germany, Japan, the USA and other countries. Unfortunately, both of these documents are fakes, the author of which, apparently, is V.M. Zhukhrai, in whose artistic and publicistic book they first appeared (10). An analysis of the content of the text of the first of them shows that it is a rather crude compilation from the memoirs of G.K. Zhukov and other materials. Regarding the second document, it is stated that Colonel-General A.M. Lavrov was the head of intelligence and counterintelligence and was personally subordinate to Stalin. However, not a single researcher of the history of Soviet intelligence knows about such a strange special service, and even about its boss, too. By the way, a colonel-general with such a surname in 1941 is also unknown. True, V.M. Zhukhrai prudently writes that A.M. Lavrov is a pseudonym, that is, we have before us another version of the "privy adviser to the leader." The content of his report, which, according to V.M. Zhukhrai, June 12, shows that it is a compilation of materials from contemporary studies of the Second World War. Unfortunately, some authors uncritically took these "documents" on faith and, probably, they will be referred to more than once to confirm the official version.
It should be noted that in the domestic historical literature there are no studies devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the events of 1939-1941. As a rule, this period is considered in various works as a simple prelude to the events of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. The emergence of this situation was facilitated by the fact that the events of the prehistory of the war, like most other events in Soviet history, had to be considered in the literature exclusively within the framework of the official Soviet version, under which all the new facts accumulated over the past decades and reflecting different aspects of these events were adjusted. Initially, the prevailing version was that the peaceful Soviet country was suddenly attacked by an insidious aggressor. Later, it was supplemented by an indication that the German attack led to such dire consequences due to Stalin's mistakes in assessing the situation. Accordingly, the opinion prevails in the public mind that until June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union was a neutral country that did not participate in the ongoing war in Europe. However, secret documents that have become available to researchers yesterday show that everything was much more complicated. Unfortunately, the expansion of the source base has not led to the emergence of works that would summarize all the facts and documents known to date.
Therefore, in our opinion, the current discussion turned out to be in a situation where the process of introducing new documents into scientific circulation must be supplemented by their comprehensive understanding, which requires the formulation of new concepts of the participation of the Soviet Union in the events of 1939-1941. This will allow, first of all, to sum up some of the results of the discussion and take one more step towards a more objective picture of the history of our country during the Second World War. To accomplish this task, it is necessary to analyze the foreign policy activities of the Soviet leadership in the interwar twenty years and in 1939-1941, its views on the events of the European war, the military preparations of the USSR and the content of Soviet propaganda against a broad historical background. Only such a comprehensive study will make it possible to show how justified the revision of the traditional version of Russian historiography is and to give impetus to further study of these problems. To accomplish this task, it is necessary to abandon the double standard in assessing the actions of participants in the events of the eve and the beginning of World War II, which comes from propaganda approaches characteristic of Soviet historical literature.
At the heart of Soviet propaganda, and after it historiography, was the idea that the foreign policy of the state depends on its internal structure. Accordingly, it was concluded that the policy of the capitalist state is exclusively imperialist, while that of the socialist state is purely peace-loving and defensive. In the 1920s and 1940s, when only the USSR was considered a socialist state, this idea as a whole seemed to be convincing, but in the 1950s and 1980s, when the socialist system arose, it became clear that not all of these states were necessarily in good relations with each other, there were even wars between them. In this case, Soviet propaganda found a way out by declaring a number of socialist countries that pursued a policy independent of Moscow as non-socialist (Yugoslavia, China). On the other hand, it turned out that the vast majority of the so-called capitalist countries are present on the world stage as extras and it is simply impossible to declare them "imperialist predators." All this completely refutes the above postulate about the direct relationship between the socio-political system and the foreign policy of states. A similar thesis is also used by V. Suvorov, who believes that it was the communist ideology, to which he ascribes all possible sins, that was the motive for Soviet foreign policy. To be convinced of the inconsistency of this statement, it is enough to recall at least such famous figures of world history as Thutmose III, Ashurbanipal, Ramses II, Nebuchadnezzar II, Cyrus II, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Trajan, Attila, Charlemagne, Genghis Khan, Napoleon , etc. Not only was none of them a member of the Communist Party, but they were not even acquainted with a single communist, which, however, did not in the least prevent them from creating great empires.
In principle, it has long been known that the foreign policy of a state depends primarily on what place this state occupies in the world hierarchy. A "great power" has one policy, a regional one has another, and a small country has a third. In addition, one should take into account the goals that a particular country is trying to achieve. For example, a state may strive to maintain its position in the world, or it may try to increase its status on the world stage. In the first case, as a rule, defensive methods prevail, and in the second, offensive ones. However, there is a difference in this matter as well. Since countries with equal status also compete with each other, the “great power” cannot simply take a defensive position, because this will be a signal to other “great powers” that the enemy is weak and pressure can be increased on him. Therefore, in order to be safe, a "great power" must always demonstrate its strength to both friends and rivals. There is also a certain hierarchy among the "great powers" themselves. Thus, in the 1920s and 1930s, England and France were superpowers (although such a term was not used then - they were simply considered the leading countries of the world). It was this status of these countries that was secured within the framework of the Versailles-Washington system of international relations. In the 1940s and 1950s, the USA and the USSR became superpowers, which was reflected in the Potsdam system of international relations.
Although interstate rivalry is a system-forming factor in international relations, one should not perceive the "great powers" only as "imperialist predators", since they also perform a number of important functions - establish and maintain world order, concentrate resources for a radical improvement of the environment and technological breakthroughs. . As a rule, the sphere of influence of a "great power" is an area of relatively calm and stable development. That is, the "great powers" perform the function of a leader, stimulating the development of both the region it controls and the world as a whole.
At all times, international politics has been a fierce struggle for control over the available resources, which were taken away from a weak neighbor in various ways. The 20th century was no exception, at the very beginning of which another battle of the "great powers" broke out for a new redistribution of the world and its resources. Unfortunately, the Russian Empire was not among the winners in the First World War, which, due to a number of internal and external reasons, experienced an acute crisis (revolution and civil war), which led to its weakening and reduction of its status on the world stage to the role of a regional power. Although the Bolsheviks actively contributed to the collapse of the Russian Empire, they were able to create a new large state on its ruins - the Soviet Union, which faced a choice: accept the status of a regional power or re-engage in the struggle for the return of the status of a "great power". The Soviet leadership in Moscow chose the second alternative and actively embarked on the path of its implementation. The fact that everything was done under the slogans of peacefulness and strengthening of defense capability is quite understandable - any smart leadership tries not to advertise its true intentions.
Therefore, in his study, the author sought to consider Soviet foreign policy without any propaganda blinkers, but from the point of view of the real interests, goals and capabilities of the Soviet Union. At the same time, we are not talking about justifying or accusing the Soviet leadership, as is often practiced in Russian historical literature, which continues the moralizing traditions of Soviet propaganda. The author believes that each reader is able to give their own assessment of the described events on the eve and the beginning of World War II, based on personal preferences and ethical values. This point should be emphasized, since in the overwhelming majority of cases, two or more parties act in the events described, each of which seeks to achieve its goals and defend its interests. In historiography, however, an evaluative approach prevails, when the historian, based on his own likes and dislikes, divides all participants in historical events into "good" and "bad" ("progressive" and "reactionary", etc.), which ultimately leads to certain distortion of historical perspective. This situation is connected not so much with the "maliciousness" of certain researchers, but with the traditionally close relationship between historiography and propaganda, which, in turn, "is based on the emotional perception of the surrounding world inherent in any person.
However, this feature of the human psyche is a breeding ground for the emergence and consolidation of prejudiced opinion, which is the most serious obstacle to the development of historical science, which, like any other science, is based on the principle of reasoned proof of conclusions. Therefore, we should not talk about dividing the participants in the historical process into "good" and "bad", but about the perception of history in its entirety as a great drama, in the course of which the acting forces defend their own truth and, because of this, are in a certain sense doomed to a collision. . Of course, such an approach is unusual for everyday consciousness, but only in this way can a historian approach an objective reconstruction of historical reality. Therefore, before giving one or another assessment of the events of 1939-1941, the author tried to generalize the materials known today in order to offer his own answer to the traditional two-pronged question of any historical research: how did the events take place and why did they take place in this way? Of course, this does not mean at all that the author has managed to find definitive answers to all questions and that his research is "the ultimate truth." Due to the versatility of the historical process, the appearance of works of this status is apparently not yet possible at all. The author saw his task in that, on the basis of generalizing the sum of the facts known to him, to impartially analyze the events of the eve and the beginning of World War II at the level of interaction between the USSR and other great powers, and on this basis to clarify the usual views on the problems of this period.
The great connoisseur of the human soul, Honore de Balzac, argued that "there are two stories: official history, which is taught at school, and secret history, in which the true causes of events are hidden." This kind of axiom can be applied to almost any period of human history. The Second World War is no exception, which over the past decades, it would seem, has been studied far and wide. However, as soon as it comes to the calculations and intentions of those in power, some kind of strange eclipse attacks all official historiography and a set of common traditional propaganda phrases is usually reproduced. Soviet historiography was no exception, within which the possibility of unofficial views on the history of our country in the 20th century was completely excluded. As a result, a tradition of touching trust in any official documents and statements of the authorities has developed in Soviet historical literature. Propaganda clichés were repeated countless times in literature, which became an indisputable truth in the public consciousness, and as a rule, any new knowledge was adjusted to this preconceived opinion.
Even now, when it would seem that there is an opportunity to take a more calm and unbiased look at the history of the events on the eve and the beginning of World War II, the inertia of the usual clichés continues to act. So, publishing finally declassified documents that
M. Military Publishing. 1963. 437 pages. Circulation 12000. Price 82 kopecks.
Before us is a major work on the first period of the Second World War (from September 1, 1939 to June 21, 1941). Its author used Soviet and foreign specialized literature, memoirs of military leaders, collections of documents, materials from the Archives of the USSR Ministry of Defense, TsSAOR, etc. The book is of an acutely polemical nature. D. M. Projector puts forward the most pressing problems
history of the initial stage of the last war, shows how they are solved by bourgeois historiography, refutes the falsifications that permeate the work of many bourgeois historians, and develops his own, in a number of cases, new point of view.
The paper gives an original interpretation of the history of the German-Polish war. With few exceptions, all bourgeois authors portray it as a continuous triumph of the Hitlerite Wehrmacht. Introducing into scientific circulation sources not previously used in our literature, D. M. Proektor resolutely rejects the position that prevails in modern West German historiography that the German-Polish war was "a continuous chain of German victories and triumphs" (p. 78). The Poles, who fought bravely, thwarted the implementation of the original strategic plan of the Nazi command, which sought to encircle the Polish army west of the Vistula. The German generals had to change their original plan and shift the main efforts of their troops to the central regions of the country. German aviation was not able to completely paralyze the mobilization transports of the Polish army and destroy the entire Polish aviation in the first days of the war, as bourgeois historians unanimously repeat about this. The maps of the Nazi generals were also greatly confused by the heroic defense of Warsaw by the Polish workers in the autumn of 1939, which is given considerable attention in the book.
Analyzing the influence of the "strange war" policy on the strategy of the belligerent powers, D. M. Proektor notes that the planning of the armed struggle against fascist Germany by the French and British General Staffs proceeded, as it were, on idle and ultimately turned out to be deeply erroneous, primarily for political reasons. Thus, some layers of the French bourgeoisie, in a situation where the Nazi armies were already preparing to jump on France, were still counting on a clash between Germany and the Soviet Union. The author's interpretation of the process of preparing the German armed forces for an attack on France, Belgium and Holland is also interesting. According to the view established in bourgeois historiography, the Nazis, planning an attack to the west initially for October 1939, then postponed the attack to the spring of 1940, allegedly due to bad weather. DM Proektor gives a different, in our opinion correct, explanation of this fact, based primarily on an analysis of the internal situation in Germany and especially its armed forces in 1939-1940. The fact is that already in October 1939, the bottlenecks of the German war economy and the state of the Wehrmacht began to seriously disturb the fascist generals. Their calculations of the country's resources gave a disappointing result (p. 198). The author comes to a well-founded conclusion: in the fall of 1939, the Wehrmacht was not ready for a long war. The state of the material and technical base of the armed forces was of particular concern to the Hitlerite elite. Unfavorable weather conditions were a secondary factor.
A new point of view is also expressed in the book on the question of the German command planning a war against France. The well-known plan "Cut with a sickle" ("Manstein's plan") is considered by the author not as the result of the sole work of the "best mind of the General Staff" (as West German historians call Manstein), but as a military-political plan of German fascism as a whole, aimed at strangling the peoples of Western Europe (p. 223). Such a concept of the "Manstein plan", rightly notes D. M. Proektor, aims to exaggerate the role of the German General Staff in the Second World War and prove that there were serious disagreements between him and Hitler, and also to convince that in cases where the General Staff acted independently , without the intervention of Hitler, he seemed to invariably ensure the victory of the Wehrmacht over the enemy (p. 223).
In connection with the general complex of political problems, the question of the "Dunkirk miracle" is considered in the book. Our literature has already emphasized that the events at Dunkirk were the first step towards the implementation of Hitler's plan, which originated in May 1940, to make peace with England and, with her support, attack the Soviet Union 1 . The author also adheres to this point of view, which seems much more convincing than the "military-technical" explanations of the reasons for the issuance by Hitler of the notorious "stop order" that stopped the fascist troops near Dunkirk. The book contains new data
1 See, for example, V. G. Trukhanovsky. Recent History of England. M. 1958. p. 328.
data on the development of plans "Sea Lion" and "Barbarossa". Contrary to the opinion established in bourgeois historiography, the author shows that Hitler's intention to attack the Soviet Union after the victory over France followed from the general policy of the Third Reich, and by no means from the results of the "fight against England". The reader will also find in the work some previously unknown facts confirming that the Nazi generals greatly underestimated the power of the Soviet state and the ability of the Red Army to deliver a crushing retaliatory strike against the enemy.
Well written, illustrated with useful diagrams, the book of D. M. Projector is not without some shortcomings. Thus, the author's presentation of issues related to the events in the Balkans in the spring of 1941 is too brief, and hence superficial; it does not go to any comparison with the analysis of the course of the war in Western Europe available in the work. In our opinion, the state of the German armed forces before the start of the Second World War should have been more fully characterized. The information discussed in the introduction, of course, deserves attention, but it is not enough to draw reasoned conclusions. Assessing the state of French aviation before the defeat of France (p. 131), D.M. May French aviation has already suffered significant losses. Chapter 5 clearly lacks information about the composition of the German army groups before the start of the "Western Campaign". It is known that this number was as follows: group A - 45 1/3 divisions; group B - 29 1/3 divisions; group C - 19 divisions; the reserve of the main command - 42 divisions and 1 brigade 2. All these shortcomings, however, do not change the overall positive impression of the book under review.
2 B. Müller-Gillebrandt. Ground Army of Germany. T. II. M. 1958, pp. 54 - 55.
The “policy of appeasement” pursued by England and France in relation to Germany and its allies led in fact to the unleashing of a new world conflict. Indulging Hitler's territorial claims, the Western powers themselves became the first victims of his aggression, paying for their inept foreign policy. The beginning of World War II and events in Europe will be discussed in this lesson.
World War II: events in Europe in 1939-1941.
The "policy of appeasement" pursued by Great Britain and France in relation to Nazi Germany was unsuccessful. On September 1, 1939, Germany attacked Poland, setting off World War II, and by 1941, Germany and its allies dominated the European continent.
background
After the National Socialists came to power in 1933, Germany set a course for the militarization of the country and an aggressive foreign policy. In a few years, a powerful army was created, possessing the most modern weapons. The primary foreign policy task of Germany during this period was the annexation of all foreign territories with a significant proportion of the German population, and the global goal was to conquer the living space for the German nation. Before the start of the war, Germany annexed Austria and initiated the partition of Czechoslovakia, bringing a large part of it under control. The major Western European powers - France and Great Britain - did not object to such actions by Germany, believing that meeting Hitler's demands would help avoid war.
Events
August 23, 1939— Germany and the USSR sign a non-aggression pact, also known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. A secret additional protocol was attached to the agreement, in which the parties delimited their spheres of interest in Europe.
September 1, 1939- having carried out a provocation (see Wikipedia), which in the eyes of the international community should have authorized an attack on Poland, Germany begins the invasion. By the end of September, all of Poland was captured. The USSR, in accordance with a secret protocol, occupied the eastern regions of Poland. In Poland and beyond, Germany used the strategy of blitzkrieg - lightning war (see Wikipedia).
September 3, 1939- France and Great Britain, connected with Poland by treaty, declare war on Germany. Active hostilities on land were not conducted until 1940, this period was called the Strange War.
November 1939- The USSR attacks Finland. As a result of a short but bloody war that ended in March 1940, the USSR annexed the territory of the Karelian Isthmus.
April 1940- Germany invades Denmark and Norway. British troops are defeated in Norway.
May - June 1940- Germany occupies the Netherlands and Belgium to attack the Franco-British troops around the Maginot Line, and captures France. The north of France was occupied, in the south a formally independent pro-fascist Vichy regime was created (after the name of the city in which the government of the collaborators is located). Collaborators - supporters of cooperation with the Nazis in the countries they defeated. The French, who did not accept the loss of independence, organized the Free France (Fighting France) movement, led by General Charles de Gaulle, which led an underground struggle against the occupation.
Summer - autumn 1940- Battle for England. Unsuccessful German attempt by massive air raids to withdraw Great Britain from the war. Germany's first major setback in World War II.
June - August 1940- The USSR occupies Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and establishes communist governments in these countries, after which they become part of the USSR and are reformed according to the Soviet model (see Wikipedia). The USSR also seizes Bessarabia and Bukovina from Romania.
April 1941- Germany and Italy, with the participation of Hungary, capture Yugoslavia and Greece. The stubborn resistance of the Balkan countries, supported by Great Britain, forced Hitler to postpone the planned attack on the Soviet Union for two months.
Conclusion
The outbreak of World War II was a logical continuation of the previous aggressive policy of Nazi Germany and its strategy for expanding living space. The first stage of the war demonstrated the power of the German military machine built in the 1930s, which could not be resisted by any of the European armies. One of the reasons for Germany's military successes was an effective system of state propaganda, thanks to which German soldiers and citizens felt the moral right to fight this war.
Abstract
September 1, 1939 Germany attacked Poland using a pre-planned war plan codenamed "Weiss". This event is considered to be the beginning of World War II.
September 3 England and France declared war on Germany, since they were connected with Poland by an agreement on mutual assistance, but in fact they did not take any hostilities. Such actions went down in history as " strange war". German troops using tactics "blitzkrieg" -lightning war, already on September 16 they broke through the Polish fortifications and reached Warsaw. September 28, the capital of Poland fell.
After conquering its eastern neighbor, Nazi Germany turned its eyes to the north and west. Associated with the USSR by a non-aggression pact, it could not develop an offensive against Soviet lands. AT April 1940 Germany captures Denmark and lands in Norway, annexing these countries to the Reich. After the defeat of the British troops in Norway, the Prime Minister of Great Britain becomes Winston Churchill- a supporter of a decisive struggle against Germany.
Not fearing for his rear, Hitler deploys troops to the west in order to conquer France. Throughout the 1930s. on the eastern border of France, a fortified " Maginot Line”, which the French considered impregnable. Considering that Hitler would attack "on the forehead", it was here that the main forces of the French and the British who arrived to help them were concentrated. To the north of the line were the independent countries of the Benelux. The German command, regardless of the sovereignty of the countries, delivers the main blow with its tank troops from the north, bypassing the Maginot Line, and simultaneously capturing Belgium, Holland (Netherlands) and Luxembourg, goes to the rear of the French troops.
In June 1940, German troops entered Paris. Government Marshal Pétain was forced to sign a peace treaty with Hitler, according to which the entire north and west of France passed to Germany, and the French government itself was obliged to cooperate with Germany. It is noteworthy that the signing of the peace took place in the same trailer in Compiègne forest in which Germany signed the peace treaty that ended the First World War. The French government, collaborating with Hitler, became collaborative, that is, voluntarily helped Germany. led the national struggle General Charles de Gaulle, who did not admit defeat and stood at the head of the created anti-fascist committee "Free France".
1940 is marked in the history of the Second World War as the year of the most brutal bombing of English cities and industrial facilities, which received the name Battle for England. Lacking sufficient naval forces to invade Great Britain, Germany decides on daily bombardments, which should reduce English cities to ruins. The most severe destruction was received by the city of Coventry, whose name has become synonymous with merciless air attacks - bombardments.
In 1940, the United States began to help England with weapons and volunteers. The United States did not want to strengthen Hitler and gradually began to withdraw from its policy of "non-intervention" in world affairs. In fact, only US help saved England from defeat.
Hitler's ally, the Italian dictator Mussolini, guided by his idea of restoring the Roman Empire, launched military operations against Greece, but got stuck in the fighting there. Germany, to which he turned for help, after a short time occupied all of Greece and the islands, annexing them to itself.
AT Yugoslavia fell in May 1941, which Hitler also decided to annex to his empire.
At the same time, starting from the middle of 1940, there was an increase in tension in relations between Germany and the USSR, which eventually turned into a war between these countries.
Thus, June 22, 1941, by the time the German attack on the Soviet Union, Europe was conquered by Hitler. The “appeasement policy” has completely failed.
Bibliography
- Shubin A.V. General history. Recent history. Grade 9: textbook. For general education institutions. - M.: Moscow textbooks, 2010.
- Soroko-Tsyupa O.S., Soroko-Tsyupa A.O. General history. Recent history, 9th grade. - M.: Education, 2010.
- Sergeev E.Yu. General history. Recent history. Grade 9 - M.: Education, 2011.
Homework
- Read § 11 of the textbook by Shubin A.V. and answer questions 1-4 on p. 118.
- How can one explain the behavior of England and France in the first days of the war in relation to Poland?
- Why was Nazi Germany able to conquer almost all of Europe in such a short time?
- Internet portal Army.lv ().
- Information and news portal armyman.info ().
- Encyclopedia of the Holocaust ().
The countdown to World War II began on September 1, 1939, with the German attack on Poland. Following this, on September 3, 1939, Great Britain and France declared war on Germany.
The first stage of the war, 1939-1941 At the first stage of the war, Germany, using methods of “blitzkrieg” (blitzkrieg) unusual for the allies (lightning war, where the role of the main striking force was assigned to tank and mechanized formations that bypassed fortified lines and smashed the rear of the enemy), brought almost all of Western Europe under its control. The neutrality of the USSR, friendly towards Germany, played an important role, which, using the war in Europe, advanced its borders to the west by 250-300 km, and strengthened its own military power.
Convinced of the inability of the Polish army to contain the offensive of the Wehrmacht, the Soviet leadership on September 17 sent troops into the territory of Western Belarus and Western Ukraine. On September 28, 1939, a new friendship and border treaty was signed between the USSR and Germany. In a joint Statement, the governments of the two countries asserted that with the disintegration of Poland, the grounds for continuing the war between England and France against Germany disappeared. Germany and the USSR pledged to consult on joint measures to ensure peace. Foreign sections of the Comintern, including the Communist Party of France, were tasked with exposing the governments of their countries as the perpetrators of the continuation of the war. This put the foreign communists in an extremely ambiguous position.
In November 1939, the USSR, under the pretext that its territory was under fire from Finland, began military operations against it. In the city of Terioki, a puppet government of Finland was created, headed by one of the leaders of the Comintern, O. Kuusinen. However, the expectation of a quick victory and the transformation of Finland into a dependent state did not materialize.
The Soviet-Finnish war dragged on, putting the USSR on the brink of conflict with Great Britain and France. They refrained from active actions against Germany, considering them senseless. At the same time, the military leadership of the Western countries, recognizing the USSR as a "non-belligerent ally" of Germany, was preparing for war with it as well. Preparations began for military operations in Transcaucasia, it was planned to send an expeditionary corps to help Finland. This prompted the USSR to hurry with the conclusion of the peace, which was signed in March 1940. The Soviet Union managed to achieve the correction of the borders in its favor, but it had to give up hopes of subjugating Finland. The expeditionary corps of the allies in April 1940 was sent to Norway, where, like Denmark, German troops invaded.
In May 1940, the offensive of the German troops in France began. Tank and mechanized divisions of Germany, having passed through the territory of Belgium and Holland, went to the rear of the Anglo-French troops, not ready to wage a mobile war. A large group of them was pressed to the sea in the Dunkirk area and evacuated to England. The disorganized French command lost the will to continue the fight, Paris was declared an open city and surrendered without a fight. Believing in Germany's ability to win, on June 10, Italy declared war on England and France. June 22, 1940 France capitulated.
The defeat of France changed the situation in Europe, which was almost completely under the control of Germany. With minimal losses, less than 100 thousand people, Germany annexed territories with a population of 27 million people, captured more captured weapons than it had at the beginning of the war. In September 1940, the Tripartite Pact was signed - an agreement on the military alliance of Germany, Japan and Italy. Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria soon joined. Great Britain remained its only belligerent enemy, which Germany tried to break during the “battle for England” with air raids and a naval blockade.
The lightning defeat of France was unexpected for the leadership of the USSR, which, based on the experience of the First World War, believed that the war would become protracted. Under the changed conditions, the Soviet Union rapidly began to establish control over the sphere of interests assigned to it. On the same day that Paris fell, on June 14, the USSR accused the governments of the Baltic countries of violating the terms of mutual assistance treaties imposed on them in 1939, and obtained their consent to deploy their troops on their territory. Less than a month later, in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, under the conditions of actual occupation, the communists came to power. These states were proclaimed Soviet republics and accepted into the USSR. Immediately after the capitulation of France, the Soviet Union, having concentrated large forces on the Romanian border, achieved the transfer of Bessarabia to it.
In 1940, Soviet diplomacy again faced a difficult choice. In November 1940, during the visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR V.M. Molotov in Berlin, he was made an offer to join the Soviet Union to the Tripartite Pact. This assumed that the USSR would have to take part in the war with England, rewarding itself with the possibility of expansion towards the "South Seas", towards Iran and India. If these proposals were accepted, then after the defeat of England, the security of the USSR would depend on the plans of the leaders of Germany and Japan, who have repeatedly shown that international obligations mean little to them. The leadership of the USSR was seriously concerned about the inclusion of the countries of Eastern Europe and Finland in the system of German alliances.
German attack on the USSR. The history of the German attack on the USSR on June 22, 1941 still keeps many mysterious pages. A clash between them was inevitable, since A. Hitler considered the conquest of Western Europe as a prelude to the realization of his main idea - the creation of a "living space" in the East. At a meeting of the top German generals on November 23, 1939, A. Hitler announced a speech against Russia after he had put an end to resistance in the West. A. Hitler's approval of the Barbarossa plan, which assumed the lightning defeat of the USSR before the end of the war with England, followed immediately after the refusal of the Soviet Union to join the Tripartite Pact.
The official version of fascist propaganda was that the attack on the USSR was of a preemptive nature, since the latter was allegedly preparing an invasion of Western Europe. This version is not supported by facts.
The USSR began to actively prepare for the war, which was considered inevitable, from the beginning of the 1930s, while a specific enemy was not identified. Soviet military doctrine proceeded from the fact that the answer to any attack would be a crushing counterattack, as a result of which the war would be transferred to the territory of the aggressor. Like Germany, the basis of the striking power of the Red Army was large mechanized formations capable of a rapid offensive. A large role was assigned to the political factor - the friends of the USSR, whose influence was greatly exaggerated.
In 1941, the USSR continued to take measures to strengthen its military power. The rearmament of the army with new equipment (in particular, the T-34 and KB tanks, which were superior to the German ones) was to be completed in 1942. In early 1941, both the US and British governments and Soviet intelligence warned I.V. Stalin about the possibility of a German attack on the USSR. These warnings were received with disbelief. Nevertheless, in April 1941, 800 thousand reservists were called up in the USSR. In May, in one of the speeches by I.V. Stalin, the idea was voiced that the interests of the USSR did not meet the complete hegemony of Germany in Europe. Even assuming that German leaders interpreted this as an indication of the USSR's intention to be the first to attack the countries of the Tripartite Pact, this does not change the fact that Germany itself began preparations for the invasion much earlier. An operation of such magnitude as "Barbarossa" required many months of preparation and could not be carried out impromptu.
The main reason for choosing the USSR as an object of attack in 1941 was the conviction of the German command that, although the combat capability of the Red Army was not high, it could increase significantly over the next few years due to re-equipment with new equipment and improved training of command personnel.
The fact that German aggression turned out to be sudden for the USSR belongs to one of the greatest miscalculations of I.V. Stalin. He underestimated the seriousness of the warnings about the impending attack, forbade taking measures to increase the combat readiness of the border districts, fearing to provoke the Germans to attack. He believed that England, which was interested in a clash between the USSR and Germany, was the source of the rumors about the war. He underestimated the power of Germany, did not believe in her ability to fight on several fronts. In April 1941, Germany and Italy captured Yugoslavia and Greece, in May the German troops drove the British out of Crete, and fighting was going on in North Africa. The leaders of the USSR could not even imagine that the German generals considered the Red Army militarily so weak that they thought it possible to destroy it in three months.
The suddenness of the attack led to the fact that a significant part of Soviet aviation was destroyed at the airfields, command and control of troops and their supply were violated. But this was not the only reason for the disastrous failures of the USSR at the beginning of the war. The army was weakened by the repressions of 1937-1938, during which it lost most of its experienced commanders. The fortifications on the old frontier of 1939 were dismantled, the new frontiers were not yet fortified. The doctrine that an invading enemy would be crushed by a counterattack required that frontier guard forces be deployed in offensive rather than defensive readiness. Because of this, during a sudden attack, they suffered huge losses. It was not taken into account that the German command had already accumulated experience in sudden, massive strikes, having managed in the summer of 1940 to surprise even France, which was at war with Germany. The attempted counteroffensive of the Soviet troops, undertaken in the first days of the war, made it easier for the Germans to encircle and destroy the main forces of the Red Army.
Creation of the anti-Hitler coalition. The aggressive policy of the powers of the Tripartite Pact became a prerequisite for the emergence of an alliance of countries with such different interests that it would have been impossible under other conditions. However, after the attack of Germany and its allies on the USSR, for him, as earlier for Great Britain, the interests of protecting the lives of his own citizens and preserving independence came to the fore.
With the German attack on the USSR, British Prime Minister W. Churchill and US President F.D. Roosevelt declared their solidarity with him.
There was no direct threat to the territory of the United States, however, the ruling circles of this country were well aware that the victory of Germany in Europe in the near future would create a serious threat to America as well. Despite strong isolationist sentiments, in March 1941, the US Senate passed the Lend-Lease Act. Under this law, the United States provided assistance to states whose resistance to aggression was recognized as vital to the defense of the United States itself. Lend-lease deliveries were payable after the war only if they were not used up for military purposes. Thus, although the US was in no hurry to enter the war, it played the role of a non-belligerent ally of Great Britain.
In August 1941, the United States and Great Britain signed a declaration on the principles of cooperation during and after the war (the Atlantic Charter). In this document, the parties assumed obligations not to seek territorial or other acquisitions, to respect the right of peoples to choose their own form of government, to strive to restore the sovereign rights of those peoples who were deprived of them by force. They expressed their commitment to the principles of equal access for all countries to trade and world raw materials, ensuring the peoples a high standard of living, economic development and social security, and lasting peace. In September 1941, the USSR adopted the basic principles of the Atlantic Charter; in November, the lend-lease law was extended to it.
The entry into the war of the United States and the final formation of the anti-Hitler coalition was accelerated by the war unleashed by Japan in the Pacific.
After the conclusion of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact (1939), Japan settled the conflict with the USSR and Mongolia, continued the war with China and waited for developments in Europe. With the defeat of France, Japan brought the former French colony of Indochina under its control. Britain's predicament prompted the ruling circles of Japan, which lays claim to dominance in the Asia-Pacific region, to make a choice in favor of expansion to the south. As a result of this choice, in April 1941, Japan signed a neutrality treaty with the Soviet Union. Although the leadership of the USSR did not have confidence that this treaty would be respected, it nevertheless partially ensured the security of the Far East.
On December 7, 1941, the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor, the main base of the US Navy in the Pacific, sinking or damaging most of the capital ships. At the same time, the British colonies in Asia were attacked. All the major powers of the world were involved in the war.
DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
“Poland was again invaded by those same two great powers that kept it in slavery for 150 years, but could not suppress the spirit of the Polish people. The heroic defense of Warsaw shows that the soul of Poland is immortal<...>Russia is pursuing a cold policy of self-interest. We would have preferred the Russian armies to stand in their present positions as friends and allies of Poland rather than as invaders. But in order to protect Russia from the Nazi threat, it was clearly necessary that the Russian armies stand on this line.<...>I cannot predict to you what Russia's actions will be. This is such a riddle that is extremely difficult to solve, but there is a key to it. This key is Russia's national interests. Considering security considerations, Russia cannot be interested in Germany settling on the shores of the Black Sea or in occupying the Balkan countries and subjugating the Slavic peoples of South-East Europe. This would be contrary to the historically established vital interests of Russia.
“Article 1. Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in the creation of a new order in Europe. Article 2 Germany and Italy recognize and respect Japan's leadership in creating a new order in the great East Asian space.
Article 3 Germany, Italy and Japan agree to cooperate on the above basis. They undertake to support each other by all political, economic and military means in the event that one of the three Contracting Parties is attacked by any power that is not currently participating in the European war and in the Sino-Japanese conflict.
Article 4. For the implementation of this pact immediately will common technical commissions have been set up, whose members will be appointed by the governments of Germany, Italy and Japan. Article 5. Germany, Italy and Japan declare that this agreement in no way affects the political status currently existing between each of the three parties to the agreement and the Soviet Union.
"The President of the United States of America and Prime Minister Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, have, after joint deliberation, thought it expedient to promulgate certain general principles of the national policy of their countries, the principles on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world:
1) their countries do not seek territorial or other acquisitions;
2) they will not agree to any territorial changes that are not in accordance with the freely expressed desire of the peoples concerned;
3) they respect the right of all peoples to choose for themselves the form of government under which they wish to live; they strive to restore the sovereign rights and self-government of those peoples who were deprived of this by force;
4) in due respect of their existing obligations, they will endeavor to ensure that all countries, great or small, victorious or vanquished, have access on an equal basis to trade and to the world's raw materials necessary for the economic prosperity of these countries;
5) they strive to achieve full cooperation among all countries in the economic field with the aim of ensuring for all a higher standard of living, economic development and social security;
6) after the final destruction of Nazi tyranny, they hope to establish a peace that will enable all countries to live in security on their territory, and also to ensure a situation in which all people in all countries can live their whole lives without fear, no need;
7) such a world should provide everyone with the opportunity to freely, without any obstacles, navigate the seas and oceans;
8) they believe that all states of the world should, for reasons of a realistic and spiritual order, renounce the use of force. Since no future peace can be preserved if states that threaten or may threaten aggression beyond their borders continue to use land, sea and air weapons, they consider that, pending the establishment of a wider and more reliable system of general security, such countries should be disarmed. They will also help and encourage all other practicable measures that will make it easier for peace-loving peoples to get rid of the burden of armaments.
“Now it is important that we do not reveal our goals to the whole world. It's also not necessary at all. The main thing is that we ourselves know what we want<...>
Basically, it comes down to mastering a huge pie, so that we, firstly, master it, secondly, manage it, and thirdly, exploit it.<...>Most basic:
the creation of a military power west of the Urals cannot again be on the agenda, even if we had to fight for a hundred years for this. All followers of the Fuhrer should know: the empire will be safe only if there are no foreign troops to the west of the Urals. Germany takes upon itself the protection of this space from all possible dangers. The iron law should be: "Never be allowed to carry weapons other than the Germans."
“It would be nice if everyone understood what the fact that we, 83 million Germans<...>have to deal with 200 million Russians<...>
We must learn from the British not in theory, but in practice, learn how they treated the Indians. In general, we must learn to ensure that one person of German origin is able to rule without any help over a region with 100,000 people. Of these 100 thousand able-bodied, there will probably be 50 thousand. They will have stones, wood, straw, grain, and cattle at their disposal. Let them build their own paradise out of it, but the German must rule<...>Within 20 years we must Germanize and populate Belorussia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ingermanland and the Crimea.”
From the report to the Reichsführer SS "On the question of the future treatment of the Russian population", April 27, 1942:
“A) First of all, it is necessary to provide for the division of the territory inhabited by Russians into various political regions with their own governing bodies in order to ensure separate national development in each of them.<...>The Russian of the Gorky General Commissariat must be instilled with the feeling that he is somehow different from the Russian of the Tula General Commissariat. There is no doubt that such an administrative fragmentation of Russian territory and the systematic separation of individual regions is one of the means of combating the strengthening of the Russian people.
B) The second means, even more effective than the measures indicated in paragraph "A", is the weakening of the Russian people in racial terms<...>
It is important that the majority of the population on Russian territory consists of people of a primitive semi-European type. It will not cause much concern to the German leadership. This mass of racially inferior, stupid people needs, as the age-old history of these areas testifies, leadership<...>C) The goal of German policy towards the population on Russian territory will be to bring the birth rate of Russians to a lower level than that of the Germans. The same applies, by the way, to the extremely prolific regions of the Caucasus, and in the future, in part, to Ukraine. So far, we are interested in increasing the Ukrainian population as opposed to the Russians. But this should not lead to the fact that Ukrainians will eventually take the place of Russians. In order to avoid an increase in population in the eastern regions, which is undesirable for us, it is urgently necessary<...>consciously pursue a policy of population reduction. By means of propaganda, especially through the press, radio, cinema, leaflets, short brochures, reports, etc., we must constantly instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have many children. It is necessary to show how much money the upbringing of children costs and what could be purchased with these funds. It is necessary to talk about the danger to the health of a woman, which she is exposed to when giving birth to children, and so on. Along with this, the broadest propaganda of contraceptives should be launched. It is necessary to establish a wide production of these funds. The distribution of these drugs and abortion should not be restricted in any way.<...>Voluntary sterilization should also be promoted, the struggle to reduce infant mortality should not be allowed, and the education of mothers in the care of infants and preventive measures against childhood diseases should not be allowed. The training of Russian doctors in these specialties should be reduced to a minimum, and no support should be given to kindergartens and other similar institutions. Apart from these measures in the field of health, there should be no obstacles to divorce. Assistance should not be given to illegitimate children. We should not allow any tax privileges for large families, do not provide them with financial assistance in the form of salary supplements.
QUESTIONS AND TASKS
1. What are the main events that characterize the first stage of the Second World War 1939-1941? Determine the place and role of the USSR in them.
2. What was the tragedy of the situation in 1941? What were the reasons for the failures of the USSR in the first months of its participation in the war?
3. How did the anti-Hitler coalition develop? How did the states of the anti-Hitler coalition and the countries of the Tripartite Pact determine their goals in the war?
4. What future did fascism prepare for the peoples of the USSR? Describe the program of "development" of its territory by Germany.
INTRODUCTION
The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the creation of the world's first socialist state were of world-historical significance. The ideas of communism have ceased to be only a theory. Russia broke away from the capitalist camp, revolutions broke out in Germany and Hungary. The revolutionary movement has intensified in many countries. “The socialist revolution in Russia shook the entire edifice of world capitalism to its foundations; The world has split into two opposite systems.
[* Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. M., 1976, p. 12.]
These events were reflected in the world literary process. In the countries of Western Europe and the USA, in the Slavic countries, in Latin America, in India, and in China, the further development of critical realism is taking place, and literature of a socialist orientation is being affirmed. At the same time, various modernist trends are being formed there, a stream of apologetic, conformist literature is growing, trying to support the shaky foundations of the capitalist system.
The revolutionary events in Russia found a direct response in the hearts of many foreign writers. I. Becher, A. Barbusse, B. Shaw, A. France, D. Reid, E. Sinclair came out in defense of the young Soviet Republic and sharply condemned foreign intervention against it. Some of them in their work turn to depicting the events of the Russian revolution, the civil war in Russia. The impact of the Russian Revolution on foreign literature was also reflected in the fact that they reflected the demarcation of class forces that had taken place after October, the intensification of the class struggle. France openly expressed his admiration for the Russian Revolution, which, in his words, "gave the world, for the first time in many centuries, an example of power created by the people and for the people." Frans associated the activities of V. I. Lenin with the October Revolution and the building of a new society in the USSR: “I bow to Lenin. He works for the sake of all mankind,” he wrote. After the October Revolution, France moved closer to the socialist movement. B. Shaw has been a friend of Soviet Russia since its inception. R. Rolland, T. Dreiser, G. Mann, and others reacted kindly to the new Russia. Pisageli-realists were not limited only to political, public support for the October Revolution, their work includes a new theme, the theme of Soviet Russia, as an integral part.
R. Rolland begins to write "The Enchanted Soul", Dreiser creates "Ernita", J. Hasek "The Adventures of the Good Soldier Schweik". In the works of realist writers, criticism of bourgeois society is intensifying, more attention is paid to the search for a positive ideal.
The First World War had an impact on the vast majority of writers. On its fronts, Barbusse, Hemingway, Remarque fought with weapons in their hands. The war significantly affected their worldview, was one of the leading themes in their work. The First World War and the threat of a new world war contributed to the creation in 1919 of the international group "Clarte", which included Barbusse, France, Rolland, Wells, Hardy and other writers. "Klarte" actively participated in the struggle against imperialism, sharply condemned the intervention in the Soviet Union. Russia, conducted anti-war propaganda. The activities of "Klarte" were highly appreciated by V. I. Lenin.
The Great October Socialist Revolution and the First World War led to the rise of the revolutionary movement in foreign countries. Then in some of them there was a short period of temporary stabilization. But in 1929 the world economic crisis broke out, shaking the entire capitalist system to its foundations. In the turbulent 1930s, the working-class movement intensified even more, "hunger campaigns" of the unemployed were organized, and the class solidarity of the working people grew. In defending its privileges, the bourgeoisie in a number of countries is counting on an open fascist dictatorship, on a policy of aggression and war.
Fascist regimes are established in Italy, Germany, Spain. In 1939, World War II breaks out. The attack of fascist Germany on the Soviet Union in 1941 gives this war a special character, it turns into a war of liberation, a war to save humanity from the threat of annihilation and enslavement by fascist tyranny.
In foreign literatures in 1917-1945, to a greater or lesser extent, the turbulent events of this era were reflected. Taking into account the national specifics of each of the literatures, the national traditions inherent in it, it is possible, nevertheless, to single out several main stages that are common to them. These are the 1920s, when the literary process proceeds under the influence of the recently ended World War I and the revolution in Russia that has stirred up the whole world. A new stage - the 30s, a time of exacerbation, socio-political and literary struggle in connection with the global economic crisis, the approach of the Second World War. And, finally, the third stage is the years of the Second World War, when all progressive mankind united in the struggle against fascism.
The 20s and 30s were a period of new conquests of realism in most foreign literatures.
In France, the activity of such major word artists as R. Rolland and A. France continues, in England B. Shaw, G. Wells, D. Galsworthy, T. Hardy. In Germany - G. Hauptmann, G. Mann, T. Mann, in the USA - T. Dreiser, E. Sinclair, S. Lewis. Realist writers from democratic and humanistic positions depict their contemporary reality, in which exploitation and oppression prevail. At the same time, many of them have other problems brought to life by new historical conditions.
In the work of Rolland, an anti-war theme arises (the play "Lmlyuli", the story "Pierre and Luce", the novel "Clerambault"). G. Mann (the novels The Poor and The Head), D. Galsworthy (The Forsyte Saga), T. Hardy (poetry), G. Wells (Mr. Bletsworthy on Rampole Island ”), B. Shaw (“House where hearts break”).
Along with representatives of the older generation, foreign literature of critical realism in the post-October period was replenished with new names, new interesting works. In France, F. Mauriac, R. M. du Gard, J. Duhamel, J. Giraudoux become famous. These writers began to publish as early as before the war, but in the 1920s their books gained not only national but also European fame. The English realistic literature of the 1920s included the works of R. Aldington, the stories of C. Mansfield and A. Coppard, and S. Maugham and E. M. Forster continued to write. One can speak of the further development of critical realism in American literature in the 1920s. It was at this time that the best novels of S. Lewis, the stories of S. Anderson, the works of E. Hemingway, W. Faulkner, S. Fitzgerald are widely known, the literary activity of D. Dos Passos, T. Wolfe, R. Lardner, T. Wilder, continue to write T. Dreiser, Y. O "Neal, R. Frost, K. Sandberg.
In Germany, the name of G. Fallada becomes famous, B. Kellermann gains popularity, historical novels by L. Feuchtwanger are published, Remarque's novel All Quiet on the Western Front is a huge success. Realism received further impetus in the literature of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Bulgaria, where the works of J. Hasek, K. Chapek, M. Dombrovskaya, Yu. Tuvim, and A. Strashimyarov appeared. In the 10-20s, the literature of Latin American countries developed rapidly.
The First World War, the growing crisis of the capitalist system contributed to the emergence in the West of a special literary phenomenon, called "the literature of the lost generation." The term "lost generation" originated in Paris in the 1920s. It was used by the American writer G. Stein in relation to her compatriots - the Americans who lived there at that time: E. Hemingway, D. Dos Passos, A. McLeish and others. These writers visited the war, saw its horrors and suffering. They lost their former illusions, "got lost" in the war, hating it as a cruel massacre. However, over time, the term "lost generation" has taken on a broader meaning. Representatives of the "lost generation" from a humanistic position condemned the war, lies, falsehood, hypocrisy of bourgeois society. They created vivid, memorable images of young people physically and spiritually crippled by the war (Fiesta, Farewell to Arms! Hemingway, Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front, Faulkner's Soldier's Award, Aldington's Death of a Hero). But the positive program of the "lost" was limited. Love, front-line friendship, oblivion in wine - that's what they opposed to a brutal war. But this withdrawal into private life most often turned out to be illusory, it was decided in a tragic way. Hence the pessimism, the realization of the meaninglessness of life, which pervades many works of the “lost”.
Written with great artistic skill, the books of the writers of the "lost generation" made up a bright page in the history of foreign literature of the 20-30s of the XX century and influenced the development of the world literary process.
In the post-October period, along with the genres of the social novel (T. Dreiser, E. Sinclair, S. Lewis, G. Mann), science fiction (H. Wells, K. Chapek), historical novel and historical drama (L. Feuchtwanger, B. Shaw, T. Wilder), the importance of the socio-psychological novel (E. Hemingway, S. Fitzgerald, R. Aldington, E. M. Remarque, F. Mauriac), the psychological novel (S. Anderson, S. Zweig) is growing. The genre of the epic novel continues to develop (“The Enchanted Soul” by R. Rolland, “The Thibaut Family” by R. M. du Tar, “The Forsyte Saga” by D. Galsworthy). The philosophical novel (T. Mann, T. Wilder), the political novel (E. Sinclair), and the biographical novel (A. Maurois) are gaining considerable popularity. In the field of dramaturgy, sharp psychological dramas by Y. O "Neill and heroic dramas about the revolution by R. Rolland appear.
In the 1920s, the process of mutual influence of national literatures did not weaken. In various countries, the books of representatives of the “lost generation” are becoming more famous. The influence of socialist ideas on foreign artists is growing. Here, Russian Soviet literature provided invaluable assistance to them, and first of all, the activities of M. Gorky and s. V. Mayakovsky. One should not oversimplify the complexity of the worldview of realist writers. On the one hand, they experienced the impact of revolutionary, socialist ideas. The works of some of them are dominated by socialist ideology (E. Sinclair. "Jimmy Higgins", T. Dreiser. "Ernita"). On the other hand, writers were influenced by bourgeois ideas and idealistic philosophy. In the 1920s, R. Roldan was still in the position of "non-resistance". Does not believe in the revolutionary transformation of society., G. Wells. Representatives of the “lost generation” are promoting privacy.
Critical realism remains the leading artistic method of most progressive writers. But this realism is complicated, it includes new elements. So, in the works of T. Dreiserau, E. Sinclair, B. Brecht, the influence of socialist ideas is noticeable, which affected the appearance of the positive hero, the artistic structure of their works. Formalist searches characterize the essentially realistic work of D. Dos Passos in the 1920s and 1930s (the novel Manhattan, 1925). In the works of G. Hauptmann symbolism, neo-romanticism and realism are intertwined. Freudianism influences S. Zweig and L. Feuchtwanger. Such influences almost always led to zigzags, to creative breakdowns. But in rare cases, being processed, combined with realism, they entered the realistic fabric of the work, individualized the artistic style of the writers, if the basis of creativity remained humanistic, realistic.
New time, new conditions of life contributed to the emergence and wide distribution of other, new artistic forms in critical realism. Many artists widely use internal monologue (Hemingway, Aldington, Remarque), combine different time layers in one work (Faulkner, Wilder, R. M. du Gard), use the stream of consciousness (Faulkner, Hemingway). These forms helped to depict the character of a person in a new way, to reveal the special, original in him, diversified the artistic palette of writers.
In poetry, a further renewal of the poetic vocabulary is observed, psychologism deepens, and the process of prose of verse is underway (K. Sandberg, R. Frost, P. Eluard, L. Aragon, P. Neruda). Noting the diversity and richness of narrative genres, it should be said about the extraordinary talent, bright artistic individuality of a number of foreign writers (Hemingway, Faulkner, T. Mann).
Noting the rise of realism in the post-October period, one should also say that various trends continue to exist in foreign literature that advertise capitalist society and defend the bourgeois way of life. This is especially true of American literature, in which apologetic, conformist fiction, often permeated with anti-Sovietism, has become widespread (Floyd Gibbon, "Red Napoleon" -1929). The same tendencies were reflected in English, French (Pierre Nord's "Double Murder on Rue Maginot" - 1936) and other literatures. Such fiction is devoid of serious artistic merit, frankly reactionary. And yet it had a certain effect on readers, instilling in them the illusion of "equal opportunities for all", slandering against socialism, against the USSR and its peace-loving policy. _
The situation is more complicated with the so-called modernist literature.
Literary trends in modernism are futurism, expressionism, imagism, unanimism, etc. Some modernists were influenced by the philosophy of Henri Bergson (1859-1941) with his teachings about intuition as a special way of internal contemplation. Many others were influenced by the teachings of Sigmund Freud (1866-1939), the psychiatrist, who created the theory of psychoanalysis, which began to be used as a tool for solving political, philosophical, ethical and aesthetic problems.
These idealistic teachings transferred the solutions of political and social issues from the sphere of the public to the sphere of the personal, to the sphere of the unconscious. It ignored the human mind. The possibility of reorganizing society on a fair basis was nullified. Currents, groups, individual representatives of modernism turned out to be connected with Bergsonianism and Freudianism.
In 1916, one of the modernist groups arose in Switzerland, called "Dadaism". The group included: Romanian T. Tzara, German R. Gyulzenbek. In France, A. Breton, L. Aragon, P. Eluard joined the group. The Dadaists absolutized "pure art". “We are against all principles,” they declared. Relying on alogism, the Dadaists tried to create their own, not similar to the real, special world with the help of a set of words. They wrote ridiculous poems and plays, were fond of verbal trickery, the reproduction of sounds devoid of any meaning. Having a negative attitude towards bourgeois reality, they simultaneously denied realistic art and rejected the link between art and social life. In 1923-1924, having found themselves in a creative impasse, the group broke up.
Dadaism was replaced by surrealism. It took shape in France in the 1920s, former French Dadaists became surrealists: A. Breton, L. Aragon, P. Eluard. The current was based on the philosophy of Bergson and Freud. Surrealists asserted the primacy of the subconscious over the rational, conscious human activity. Surrealists believed that they liberate the human "I", the human spirit from the surrounding being that entangles them, that is, from life. The instrument of such action is, in their opinion, abstraction in creativity from the outside world, “automatic writing”, beyond the control of the mind, “pure mental automatism, meaning expression either verbally or in writing, or in any other way of the real functioning of thought” *.
[*Cit. according to the book: Andreev L. G. Surrealism. M., 1972, p. 60.10]
In the early 1930s, the process of decomposition and fading of surrealism began. The most talented writers, such as Aragon and Eluard, break with surrealism. Anglo-Irish writer D. Joyce (1882-1941), who won recognition as one of the masters of modernist literature with his novel Ulysses (1922), was a complex controversial figure. The same recognized master of modernism was Franz Kafka (1883-1924), whose fame came after his death, when his novels America, The Trial, The Castle (1925-1926) were published.
The situation is even more complicated with expressionism. Expressionists, like many modernists, emphasized the author's subjectivism, believing that art serves to express the inner "I" of the writer. But at the same time, the left-wing German expressionists Kaiser, Toller, Hasenklever protested against violence, exploitation, were opponents of the war, called for the renewal of the world. Such an interweaving of crisis phenomena with criticism of bourgeois society, with calls for spiritual awakening is characteristic of modernism.
Along with conservative, reactionary tendencies, along with tragic subjectivism, formalistic extremes, we sometimes encounter in modernism a humane attitude towards man, a protest against bourgeois foundations, and unconditional artistic achievements.
It cannot be denied that the most talented modernists created significant works, without which the picture of literary development would be incomplete (M. Proust, In Search of Lost Time, T. S. Eliot, Poems).
Obviously, with such a complexity of modernism, a differentiated approach is needed not only to its representatives, but to their individual books, because the artistic practice of the modernists was a contradictory picture: the same artist created flawed, inhumane works along with humanistic, realistic ones (Proust, Joyce ). Such differentiation will help to correctly assess the place of the writer both in national literature and in the world literary process. The development of modernist trends continued in subsequent years.
A fundamentally important place in foreign literature of the 1920s and 1930s is occupied by revolutionary literature and literature of a socialist orientation. The First World War, the Great October Socialist Revolution, the rise of the revolutionary movement in 1918-1923 contributed to the formation and dissemination of revolutionary proletarian and socialist literature in France, Germany, England, the USA, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and other countries.
In 1930, the International Conference of Revolutionary Writers met in Kharkov, which decided to create an international association of revolutionary writers - MOWP. This organization played a big role in the development of revolutionary literature, but there were also mistakes in its work (dogmatism, schematism). In 1935, the VII World Congress of the Communist International called for the creation of a united front of the working people against the threat of fascism, for the unification of all progressive forces, and the need for the MORP disappeared. Important for a correct understanding of realism was the publication of the letters of F. Engels, as well as an in-depth study of the aesthetic views of V. I. Lenin. The First Congress of Soviet Writers (1934), at which W. Bredel, F. Wolf, L. Aragon, I. Becher, and others spoke, contributed to the development of socialist literature abroad. In books and articles, B. Brecht, R. Fox, D. Lukacs. Revolutionary proletarian and socialist literature has become a bright new page in the world literary process. A. Barbusse, P. Vaillant-Couturier, L. Aragon acted as the most important representatives of the new literature in France. The novel "Fire" by A. Barbusse became one of the first works of socialist realism in French literature.
In Germany, a new type of literature is beginning to be created - B. Brecht, I. Becher, E. Toller, F. Wolf. So, B. Brecht writes the drama "Drums in the Night", the poems "The Legend of the Dead Soldier", "On Children and Bread", in which revolutionary, socialist content prevails.
E. Weinert, L. Renn, and A. Segers played a significant role in the development of socialist literature in Germany.
The origin of socialist literature in the Scandinavian countries is associated primarily with the name of the great Danish writer M. Andersen-Nekse, who both in artistic practice and in theory affirmed the method of socialist realism. He was followed by X. Kirk, N. Grieg and others.
In England in the 1920s, the tragedies of Sh. O "Casey, an Irishman by nationality, appeared: "The Shadow of the Arrow", "The Plow and the Stars", the central idea in them was the idea of the national liberation struggle. In the 30s, historical novels by D. Lindsay ("Rome is for sale", "Caesar is dead"), in which the writer tried to comprehend the historical material from the point of view of the Marxist worldview.
The socialist literature of the USA, previously represented by major writers (D. London, E. Sinclair, K. Sandberg, and others), is replenished with new names.
In 1919, John Reed's brilliant book "Ten Days That Shook the World" was published, highly appreciated by V. I. Lenin. Under the influence of the *Great October Revolution, D. Reid became a communist who gave his life for high and noble revolutionary ideals. The aesthetic principles of American socialist literature, following D. London, are being developed by R. Born (The History of a Literary Radical, 1920).
The journals Liberator and New Massis, which published D. Reid, M. Gold, and other progressive writers, played a significant role in the formation and development of socialist American literature. The revolution in Russia had a direct impact on E. Sinclair, who resolutely came out in defense of the young Soviet Republic in his well-known novel Jimmy Higgins (1919). T. Dreiser in 1927 creates the story "Ernita" - a vivid example of socialist realism in American literature. To a greater or lesser extent, the activities of Sherwood Anderson (the novel "Marching People" - 1917), K. Sandberg (collection of poems "Smoke and Steel" - 1920), S. Lewis ("Main Street »-1920). Thus, there is every reason to talk about the growth of socialist literature in the United States in the first decades of the 20th century, about joining it and about the active participation of major American writers in its ranks.
Revolutionary literature of the most interesting form and content is developing in the Slavic countries. In Czechoslovakia, revolutionary, innovative works were written by V. Nezval, S. Neumann, I. Volker, in Poland - V. Bronevsky, B. Yasensky, in Bulgaria - X. Smirnensky.
An equally impressive picture is the literary development in Latin American countries. In Mexico, the works of Mariano Azuela ("Those who are below" -1915), Martin Luis Guzman ("The Eagle and the Snake" - 1927), José Mansisidor ("Red City" - 1932), reflecting the events of the Mexican Revolution (1910-1917) appear. ) and labor movement. In Cuba, the poet Agustin Acosta wrote the poem Safra (1926) about the struggle of the sugar cane harvesters, and the works of Nicolás Guillén and Juan Marinello appeared.
The development of revolutionary, socialist literature did not always proceed smoothly and was accompanied by certain difficulties. But on the whole, revolutionary, socialist literature began to play an important role in the world literary process. She brought new themes to national literatures, began to develop other layers of life that had not been touched upon before, she introduced a new hero into the pages of literary works, a person who actively participates in life, is ready to remake an unjust society, to fight for a better free social system. The new ideological content of the works was often accompanied by other artistic forms, often innovative, which were used in order to better present the material, more deeply illuminate the chosen topic. Revolutionary writers relied on different traditions, national and foreign (B. Brecht, P. Neruda), which contributed to the diversity and richness of the literary process. In this regard, they were greatly assisted by the experience of Russian and Soviet literature, the works of M. Gorky, V. Mayakovsky, A. Serafimovich, M. Sholokhov, translated into many foreign languages in the 1920s and 1930s. At the same time, one cannot fail to say that many writers were in a difficult relationship with modernist literature, some overcame its ideological influence, but sometimes used the artistic and structural elements that were part of the arsenal of realistic art.
In the 1920s and 1930s revolutionary and socialist literature became an important part of the world literary process.
In the 1930s, in connection with the global economic crisis, the threat from fascism and the approach of the Second World War, differentiation in the literary environment intensified, the famous Gorky question “Who are you with, masters of culture?” In this difficult and complex time, the vast majority of foreign writers are resolutely joining the fight against fascism, in defense of freedom, democracy and humanism. A. Barbusse, P. Vaillant-Couturier, and L. Aragon are actively working in France, creating publicist books and works of art angrily condemning fascism and discussing many acute political and theoretical problems of our time. In the 1900s there was a turning point in the worldview of R. Rolland and he wrote his famous articles “Farewell to the Past”, “In Defense of the New World”, “Through the Revolution to the World.” At the same time, J-R - Blok, R. M. du Gard, A: Malraux and many other artists. Even one of the masters of modernism A. Gide declared in those years about the threat of fascism. A tragic, terrible atmosphere arose in Germany after the seizure of power by Hitler in the early 30s years. The persecution of communists, socialists, democrats, all people of good will began. They were hunted, killed, sent to concentration camps. Almost all major German writers were persecuted and persecuted. Their books were burned at the stake. Severe censorship was introduced. In these unusually difficult conditions, some artists were forced to leave the country (G. and T. Mann, L. Feuchtwanger, E. M. Remarque, L. Frank, A. Zweig), others were thrown into prison (V. Bredel, L. Renn, B. Apitz ), others fell silent, closed in "internal emigration" (B. Kelle rman, G. Fallada, G. Hauptman). "The German writers who found themselves abroad actively joined the anti-fascist struggle, did not stop their work. Anti-fascist writers who gathered in Moscow played a very important role in consolidating the forces of German writers abroad: V. Bredel, E. Weinert, I. Becher. Guilty verdict fascism was brought forward at the anti-fascist congresses in Paris (1935), in Spain (1937).
The 1930s were a time of intensification of the social struggle in England. The anti-fascist, anti-militarist movement includes representatives of the older generation B. Shaw and G. Wells. A group of young writers and critics (D. Lindsay, G. Gibbon, D. Cornford, R. Fox, K. Caudwell) begin the struggle for socialist literature and Marxist aesthetics, and take an active part in anti-fascist activities. A significant role in this movement was played by Ralph Fox, the greatest literary theorist and critic, who considered the development of literature and art from a Marxist position (the book The Novel and the People, 1937). R. Fox, like his comrades C. Caudwell, D. Cornford, took part in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the Republicans and died heroically there.
A special place is occupied by the 30s in the literature of the United States: they were called "thunderous", "red", "stormy". The world economic crisis of 1929-1933 shook the entire edifice of capitalist society to its foundations. It took on huge proportions in the USA. The 1930s were marked by a stormy labor and farming movement, which, of course, could not but be reflected in the work of American writers. T. Dreiser writes "Tragic America" (1931) - one of the best journalistic works. Sherwood Anderson, together with T. Dreiser, create the book Harlan Miners Speak (1932). The strike struggle of textile workers was described by Sherwood Anderson in the novel Beyond Desire (1932). S. Lewis speaks sharply against the threat of fascism in the novel It's Impossible With Us (1935). E. Sinclair writes an anti-fascist work "They will not pass!" (1937). In the 1930s, like R. Rolland and many other foreign writers, there was a sharp shift in Hemingway's worldview. He creates the novel "To have and not to have", "Spanish works". In his speech "The Writer and the War" (1937), he utters the famous words: "fascism is a lie uttered by bandits." The tragedy of the ruined American farming was depicted in The Grapes of Wrath (1939) by D. Steinbeck.
The anti-fascist movement in the country, led by the Communists, had a great influence on the development of American literature. The activities of the progressive magazine Massies (later New Masses and Masses and Mainstream Rim) were of great importance. In it, along with T. Dreiser, E. Sinclair, E. Hemingway, M. Gold, D. G. Lawson, A. Maltz, writers associated with the labor movement and the Communist Party, were published. At the same time, in the 1930s, D-Dos Passos began to slip into conservative positions, one of the largest representatives of American modernism, E. Pound, became an admirer of fascism. the same position in Germany was taken by the former expressionist H. Jost, who in the 1930s wrote a series of plays permeated with fascist ideology. But there were few such writers. Representatives of real, genuine literature did not accept fascism and angrily opposed it.
The largest Spanish and foreign writers fought on the side of the Spanish people against fascism: F. Garcia Lorca, R Alberti, A. Machado, M. Unamuno, E. Weinert, V. Bredel, F. Wolf, E. Hemingway, A. Malraux and others One of the international brigades was commanded by General Lukács, the Hungarian writer Mate Zalka, who died a heroic death on Spanish soil.
In the 1930s, the political orientation of foreign literature intensified: burning political issues attracted the attention of many artists of the word -T. Mann, E. Hemingway, R. Rolland, who, like most other writers, oppose fascism, in defense of the Soviet Union, against the threat of a new world war. The journalistic principle in works of art is being strengthened. Attention is growing to the problem of the masses, to the problem of "the individual and the people", to the historical events of the past, helping to understand the meaning of the present. In accordance with this, the forms of the historical novel (the novels of G. Mann, L. Feuchtwanger), the psychological novel (the works of E. Hemingway, Sherwood Anderson), the utopian novel (the novels of G. Wells, K. Chapek, S. Lewis), the epic novel ( “The Enchanted Soul” by R. Rolland), a political novel (A. Maltz, L. Feuchtwanger), a philosophical one (T. Mann, Saint-Exupery). Corresponding changes are taking place in poetry and dramaturgy (the poetry of Aragon, Eluard, Pablo Neruda, Becher, Weinert, the dramaturgy of Rolland, B. Shaw, Brecht, Chapek, Sean O "Casey). We can also talk about the increased social activity of writers in the 30s , about the expansion of the thematic and genre range of their work.The statement of the problem of a positive hero is of fundamental importance.Novelists, poets, playwrights turn to the theme of struggle in the past and in the present (E. Hemingway, L. Feuchtwanger, D. Lindsay). The hero of their works becomes not only an individual ("Spanish works" by Hemingway, "They will not pass!" Sinclair, "Mother" Chapek, etc.). But also the people - books by Barbusse, Nekse, Becher, Zegers, Aragon, Gibbon, etc.). Thus, the 1930s were the years of an upsurge in the socio-political struggle, when both critical realism and socialist realism, which was in its infancy, not only retained their positions, but also achieved new successes.
During the Second World War, most of the writers of Germany, France, England, Spain, the United States honestly fulfilled their civic duty: they fought in the ranks of the army, participated in the resistance movement, wrote anti-fascist leaflets, articles, essays, novels, short stories, novels, poems, the plays that covered the exploits of the patriots, called for a popular struggle against the fascist invaders and local collaborators, truthfully told about the heroic struggle of the Soviet people and their armed forces on the main front of the war - the Soviet-German. Progressive French writers like L. Aragon, E. Triolet, P. Eluard became active participants; French Resistance. Together with them, writers who were far from the communist, socialist ideology took part in the resistance movement - F. Mauriac, M. Druon, Jean-P. Sartre, A. Camus. In French literature, as in a number of other foreign literatures, a new theme appears - the theme of the heroic armed struggle of the people: workers, peasants, intelligentsia, all people of good will, against a common enemy - fascism. A new hero also appears - a man who has realized his duty, who has understood that his place is in a single anti-fascist system, on the side of the forces of progress and democracy.
German writers, being in exile, create a number of significant works of art in which anti-fascist themes prevail: “The Seventh Cross” by A. Segers, “The Brothers Lautenzack” by L. Feuchtwanger, poems by I. Becher, E. Weinert, novels by V. Bredel “Test "," Relatives and friends. German writers who were in the Soviet Union, E. Weinert, F. Wolf; V. Bredel work among German prisoners of war, speak on the radio at the front, write leaflets, articles.
G. Wells writes the novel "Caution Is Necessary" (1941), in which he satirically ridicules the English philistinism, which patronized fascism, and speaks sympathetically about the labor movement. B. Shaw, in his "Political Reference Book for All", completed in 1944, expressed his firm conviction in the victory of democratic forces over fascism.
G. Bates (“The wind was fair towards France” -1944), E. Pargeter (“The Eighth Knight of Christianity” -1945) write about resistance to fascism, the fight against it. Sharply criticizes the English state apparatus, the English government Evelyn Waugh in the novels "Do not spare the flags" (1942) and "Return to Brideshead" (1945).
The patriotic struggle of the Greek people, British pilots and soldiers was very expressively shown in D. Aldridge's novels A Matter of Honor (1942) and The Sea Eagle (1944).
France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Czechoslovakia and other European countries were captured by Nazi troops. Under conditions of terror and arbitrariness, foreign writers continued to fulfill their civic, patriotic duty. In the fascist dungeon, Y. Fuchik wrote the book “Reporting with a noose around his neck”. Over Germany, flying on an airplane, the Norwegian writer N. Grieg died:
The war did not touch the territory of the United States. American losses in the war were negligible. But the United States fought against fascist countries, against militaristic Japan, and many American writers took part in this war in word and deed. E. Hemingway equipped his yacht to fight German submarines, then, as a war correspondent, he took part in the landing of Anglo-American troops in Normandy. Works about the anti-fascist struggle are written by D. Steinbeck (“The Moon Has Set” -1942, “Bombs Down” -1942). T. Dreiser came out with a resolute condemnation of fascist aggression. Anti-fascist works are created by E. Sinclair, L. Hellman, M. Gold. E. Caldwell during the war years was a correspondent in the USSR and, on the basis of what he saw, created books on the heroic resistance of the Soviet people to the fascist invaders "On the road to Smolensk" (1942), "Moscow under fire" (1942).
The Second World War was a difficult, difficult test for all mankind, but the progressive forces led by the Soviet Union withstood it with honor. Progressive, humanistic foreign literature also worthily showed itself in this harsh time, made its contribution to the struggle of peoples for peace, freedom and national independence. And in our time, “there is a struggle for the minds and hearts of billions of people on the planet. And the future of mankind depends to a large extent on the outcome of this ideological struggle. “No less important,” noted Yu. V. Andropov in his report at the June (1983) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, “to skillfully expose the false subversive imperialist propaganda”**. To teach students from the correct ideological positions to evaluate the works of foreign writers in the conditions of the most difficult ideological struggle - this is the main goal of the course "Foreign Literature of Modern Times".
[* Andropov Yu. V. Selected speeches and articles. M., 1983, p. 285.]
