4. USSR - THE LEADING FORCE OF THE ANTI-HITLER COALITION Formation of the anti-Hitler coalition. With the attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union, a new stage of the Second World War began. The mighty socialist

The past year was a turning point not only in the Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, but also in the entire World War

The changes that have taken place during this year in the military and foreign policy situation have developed in favor of the USSR and the allied countries friendly to it, to the detriment of Germany and its accomplices in robbery in Europe

The results and consequences of the victories of the Red Army went far beyond the boundaries of the Soviet-German front, changed the entire subsequent course of the world war and acquired major international significance. The victory of the Allied countries over the common enemy approached, and relations between the allies, the military commonwealth of their armies, contrary to the expectations of the enemies, not only did not weaken , but, on the contrary, strengthened and strengthened. This is also eloquently evidenced by the historic decisions of the Moscow Conference of the representatives of the Soviet Union, Great Britain and the United States of America, recently published in the press. Now our united countries are determined to deliver joint strikes against the enemy, which will lead to final victory over him.

This year the Red Army's strikes against the fascist German troops were supported by the combat operations of our allies in North Africa, in the Mediterranean basin and in southern Italy. At the same time, the Allies have subjected and continue to subject important industrial centers of Germany to a thorough bombardment and thereby significantly weaken the military power of the enemy. If we add to all this the fact that the Allies regularly supply us with various weapons and raw materials, then we can say without exaggeration that by all this they greatly facilitated the success of our summer campaign. Of course, the present actions of the allied armies in the south of Europe cannot yet be regarded as a second front. But it's still something like a second front. It is clear that the opening of a real second front in Europe, which is just around the corner, will significantly speed up the victory over Nazi Germany and further strengthen the military commonwealth of the Allied States.

Thus, the events of the past year show that the anti-Hitler coalition is a solid union of peoples and is based on a solid foundation.

It is now obvious to everyone that the Hitlerite clique, having unleashed the present war, has led Germany and its henchmen into a hopeless dead end. The defeats of the fascist troops on the Soviet-German front and the blows of our allies against the Italo-German troops shook the entire edifice of the fascist bloc, and it is now falling apart before our very eyes.

Italy has irretrievably fallen out of the Hitlerite coalition. Mussolini cannot change anything, for he is, in fact, a prisoner of the Germans. Next in line are other members of the coalition Finland, Hungary, Romania and other vassals of Hitler, discouraged by the military defeats of Germany, now completely lost faith in the outcome of the war favorable for them and are concerned about how to get out of the quagmire where Hitler dragged them. The accomplices of Nazi Germany in the robbery, who not so long ago were submissive to their master, now, when the time has come to answer for the robbery, look into the bushes, choosing a convenient moment to slip away unnoticed from the band of robbers.

Entering the war, the members of the Nazi bloc counted on a quick victory. They have already distributed in advance who will get what: who will get pies and donuts, who will get bruises and bumps. It is clear that they intended bruises and bumps for their opponents, but for themselves - pies and donuts. But now it is clear that Germany and her lackeys will not get pies and donuts, that they will have to share bruises and bumps among themselves.

Anticipating this unenviable prospect, Hitler's accomplices are now racking their brains over how to get out of the war, while receiving fewer bruises and bumps.

The example of Italy shows Hitler's vassals that the longer they delay the inevitable break with the Germans and allow them to rule in their states, the more devastation awaits their countries, the more suffering their peoples will have to endure. The example of Italy also shows that Hitlerite Germany does not even think of defending her vassal countries, but intends to turn them into an arena of devastating war, if only to delay the hour of her own defeat.

The cause of German fascism has been lost, and the bloody “new order” it has created is heading towards collapse. In the occupied countries of Europe, a nationwide outburst of indignation against the fascist enslavers is growing. The former prestige of Germany in allied and neutral countries has been irretrievably lost, and its economic and political ties with neutral states have been undermined.

The time when the Hitlerite clique roared wildly about the conquest of world domination by the Germans is far behind. Now, as you know, the Germans are not up to world domination - not up to fat, to be alive.

Thus, the course of the war showed that the alliance of fascist states did not and does not have a solid foundation. The Hitlerite coalition was formed on the basis of the aggressive, predatory aspirations of its members. While the Nazis had military successes, the fascist coalition seemed to be a stable association. But the very first defeats of the fascist troops led to the actual disintegration of the bandit bloc.

Hitlerite Germany and its vassals are on the eve of their catastrophe.

The victory of the allied countries over Nazi Germany will put on the order of the day the important questions of organizing and recreating the state, economic and cultural life of the European peoples. The policy of our government in these matters remains unchanged. Together with our allies, we will have to:

1) liberate the peoples of Europe from the fascist invaders and assist them in rebuilding their national states dismembered by the fascist enslavers - the peoples of France, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Greece and other states under the German yoke must again become free and independent ;

2) to give the liberated peoples of Europe the full right and freedom to decide for themselves the question of their state structure;

3) to take measures to ensure that all fascist criminals, the perpetrators of the current war and the suffering of peoples, in whatever country they hide, suffer severe punishment and retribution for all the atrocities they have committed;

4) establish such an order in Europe that would completely exclude the possibility of a new aggression on the part of Germany;

5) to create long-term economic, political and cultural cooperation between the peoples of Europe based on mutual trust and mutual assistance in order to restore the economy and culture destroyed by the Germans.

During the past year the Red Army and the Soviet people have achieved great successes in the struggle against the German invaders. We have achieved a radical turning point in the war in favor of our country, and the war is now moving towards its final denouement. But the Soviet people should not stop there, revel in their successes. Victory can be missed if complacency appears in our ranks. Victory is not given without struggle and tension. She is taken from the fight. Victory is now close, but in order to win it, a new exertion of forces, selfless work of the entire rear, skillful and decisive actions of the Red Army at the front are necessary. It would be a crime against the Motherland, against the Soviet people who temporarily fell under the yoke of the Nazis, before the peoples of Europe, languishing under the German yoke, if we did not use every opportunity to hasten the defeat of the enemy. You can't give the enemy a break. That is why we must exert all our strength to finish off the enemy.

The Soviet people and the Red Army clearly see the difficulties of the coming struggle. But it is now clear that the day of our victory is drawing near. The war has entered the stage when it comes to the complete expulsion of the occupiers from Soviet soil and the liquidation of the fascist "new order in Europe." The time is not far off when we will complete the cleansing of the enemy of Ukraine and Belarus, the Leningrad and Kalinin regions, we will liberate the peoples of Crimea, Lithuania, Estonia, Moldavia and the Karelian-Finnish Republic from the German invaders.

Comrades!

For the victory of the Anglo-Soviet-American military alliance!

For the liberation of the peoples of Europe from the fascist yoke!

For the complete expulsion of German monsters from our land!

Long live our Red Army!

Long live our Navy!

Long live our brave partisans and partisans!

Long live our great Motherland!

Death to the German invaders!

The failure of the Wehrmacht offensive near Kursk and its new crushing defeats on the Soviet-German front in the summer and autumn of 1943, as well as the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Italy, led to a further aggravation of the crisis in the fascist camp and the beginning of its collapse. The ruling circles of European countries allied with Germany began to think about how to leave the coalition and avoid further participation in the war, which was becoming clearly unpromising for them.

The situation for the aggressors was also complicated by the fact that, under the influence of the great victories of the Soviet Army, the liberation movement of the peoples of the world grew and expanded, resistance to the fascist invaders in Europe intensified, and the national liberation movement in the countries of East and Southeast Asia occupied by Japanese troops.

The positions of the neutral states changed significantly. Turkey, for example, although it continued to cooperate with Germany, supplying it with important types of strategic raw materials, at the same time did not refuse contacts with the Western powers. Germany's relations with Sweden and even Franco's Spain worsened.

German government circles took steps to keep their allies in an aggressive bloc. They directed persistent efforts at preventing Italy from falling away from the Berlin-Rome axis and from the war. On April 7-10, 1943, a meeting between Hitler and Mussolini took place in Salzburg. In his memoirs, the latter wrote how persistently he advised the Fuhrer to make peace with Russia at any cost and switch all the efforts of Germany and Italy to the Mediterranean. Hitler understood that the Soviet Union would not make any deal with him. He insisted on concentrating all the main efforts against the USSR and announced his intention to inflict a decisive blow on the eastern front in the very near future. According to the negotiator of the German military attache in Rome, E. Rintelen, Hitler argued: "There can be no peace with Moscow, but a solution should be sought on the battlefield."

Hitler categorically demanded from Mussolini the exertion of all forces and their maximum mobilization for the further conduct of the war. The junior partner in the bloc, in turn, appealed for urgent assistance from Germany to the Italian army. However, these requests were not heeded. The Italians were flatly denied everything. The problems that arose in the Mediterranean theater of operations were pushed into the background by events on the decisive - Soviet-German - front. The author of the book The Cruel Commonwealth, the English historian F. Deakin, wrote: “Among both the political and military members of the German delegation in Klesheim (the castle in Salzburg where the negotiations took place - Ed.), there was an atmosphere of defeatism and doubts about the successful outcome of the war in Russia.

The Salzburg negotiations were fruitless. Moreover, they revealed deep differences between Italy and Germany.

The situation became even more complicated after it became obvious that the offensive of the Nazi troops near Kursk had bogged down and the plans of the fascist bloc connected with Operation Citadel collapsed. Meanwhile, Anglo-American troops landed in Sicily. In search of a way out of this situation, a new meeting of Hitler and Mussolini was organized. It took place in Feltra (Italy) on July 19. Hitler made a lengthy speech at it, in which he mainly criticized the actions of the Italians and again demanded that they mobilize all their forces to continue the struggle. The stiffness of the main forces of the Wehrmacht on the Soviet-German front deprived the Nazi command of the opportunity to provide real assistance to its ally.

The Duce's advisers suggested that he reveal to the Fuhrer the full depth of the crisis experienced by Italian fascism. “It is imperative to have an explanation with Hitler in order to find a way out,” said D. Alfieri, the Italian ambassador to Berlin. “Since the possibility of concluding a separate peace cannot be ignored, it is much better to do this when the state still continues to exist ... Tomorrow it may be too late.” However, Musso-lini did not make any decisive statements. The meeting ended without any real results.

July 25 Mussolini was removed from power and arrested. The post of Prime Minister was taken by Marshal Badoglio. The ruling circles of Italy, seeking by any means to retain power in their hands and prevent the victory of the forces of democracy, began negotiations with the command of the American-British troops on the conditions for cessation of hostilities and Italy's withdrawal from the war. After repeated meetings between Italian and Allied representatives, on September 3, the parties signed "short terms" of surrender. They were announced on September 8th. In response, German troops immediately set about disarming the Italian army and soon occupied Northern and Central Italy.

The Hitlerite government persistently strove to keep Rumania in the fascist bloc. On April 12-13, 1943, negotiations were held between Hitler and I. Antonescu. The Fuhrer stressed the need to intensify the struggle on the eastern front, where, in his opinion, the fate of the entire Second World War was decided. “In the near future,” he declared, “strikes will be taken again to crush the Russian armies. It is necessary to take all measures to fight to the last possible ... Only a complete victory is the solution to the problem. Hitler made an accusatory speech against the Romanian diplomats, including against the Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Antonescu, who, according to his information, had been probing the soil in Madrid, Lisbon, Bern and other places for several months in the hope of reaching an agreement with the Western powers about the conclusion of a separate peace behind the back of Germany.

I. Antonescu assured Hitler that he did not know anything about this, swore allegiance to the German ally and promised to wage the war on the side of Germany to the end. Agreeing with the necessity of concentrating all the efforts of the fascist bloc against the USSR, Antonescu advised Hitler to stop the war with the Western powers, and then bring the struggle that had begun in the East to a decisive end. Hitler, however, considered it necessary to continue the war on all fronts and called on Romania to complete solidarity with the Reich.

As a result of new defeats of the German and Romanian troops on the eastern front, relations between Germany and Romania became even more complicated. In the autumn of 1943, Hitler demanded from I. Antonescu further mobilization of material and human resources for the war against the USSR. In a letter to Antonescu dated October 25, 1943, he pointed out: “The decisive moment has come when we must by all means ensure that our “soldiers fight against the enemy standing at the gates of Romania.” The Romanian rulers, Hitler insisted, were to use all their reserves for armed struggle against the Soviet Union, without making any economic demands and without putting forward any political questions. In the Soviet territories occupied by the Romanians, at the request of Hitler, the commanders of the German troops had to freely and unlimitedly dispose of.

In a letter to Hitler dated November 15, 1943, I. Antonescu rejected his demands, drawing attention to the enormous difficulties of a military and economic nature. In particular, he noted the low fighting qualities of the Romanian troops and wrote that if he agreed to send them to the eastern front, this would not help improve the situation on the front, but would only increase unjustified losses.

At the same time, the secret search for ways to get Romania out of the war did not stop by concluding a separate peace with the Western powers on an anti-Soviet basis. It was for this purpose that in the summer of 1943 the Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Antonescu, made a trip to Rome, where he tried to discuss this problem with representatives of the Italian government. True, it was not possible to agree on any joint steps. Saying goodbye to his Italian colleagues, M. Antonescu anxiously told them that there was no time to waste at a time when Russian troops were standing at the borders, and America and England, as one might assume, were interested "in preventing Bolshevism from being established in half Europe". Indeed, the idea of ​​a separate collusion between fascist Romania and the Anglo-Americans aroused sympathy among certain circles in the United States and England.

The Nazis put a lot of effort into strengthening the alliance with Hungary. On April 16, 1943, negotiations were held between the head of the fascist Reich and Horti. “In the last year,” said Hitler at the beginning of his lengthy speech, “large operations were planned in the East, which were to be carried out with the help of 700,000 Allied soldiers. It was supposed to go through the Caucasus to Mesopotamia and at the same time cut the Volga. All this failed to be carried out, and not at all because the Allied troops were supposedly insufficiently armed and equipped. The Allies' difficulties lay in the fact that they had not matured either psychologically or spiritually to the demands of the struggle against Bolshevism.

Hitler cited the case when the Hungarian soldiers abandoned their positions and exposed certain sections of the front. Taking these reproaches with great resentment, Horthy again complained that the Hungarian troops were not equipped and armed in a timely and proper manner, despite the corresponding obligations on the part of Germany. Hitler demanded that Horthy replace the Kallai government, because, in his opinion, it "lost faith" in the victory of the Axis and "limited Hungary's participation in the war in order to establish contact with the British and Americans and withdraw from the tripartite pact."

In August 1943, Hungarian War Minister L. Chatai visited Hitler's headquarters. Embellishing the situation on the Soviet-German front, the command of the Wehrmacht suggested that Hungary send new troops to the Soviet-German front to defend the rear of the Nazi armies. Despite the positive attitude of Chatai and some other members of the Hungarian government to the request of the German side, a decision on this issue could not be made.

The ruling circles of Hungary continued to look for ways out of the fascist bloc. In this regard, in July, the director of the Hungarian National Bank, L. Baranyai, held talks in Bern with A. Dulles and R. Taylor. Negotiations with the Americans also took place in Lisbon and Stockholm. At the same time, secret Anglo-Hungarian negotiations were underway. The main goal pursued by the Horthy government was the conclusion of a separate peace with the Western powers. As Kallai, an ardent enemy of the Soviet Union, admits in his memoirs, an alliance with the Western powers against the USSR was "the first task of the Hungarian government."

Pro-British and pro-American circles in Bulgaria also hatched the idea of ​​concluding a separate deal with the Western powers. They intended to create a new government whose main task would be to get Bulgaria out of the war. One of the leaders of the bourgeois opposition visited Cairo, where he established direct contact with British military and political representatives. At the same time, he declared the readiness of some of the ruling circles of Sofia to support the Anglo-American troops in the event of their invasion of the Balkans.

In order to strengthen the Bulgarian-German alliance and strengthen the positions of the fascist bloc in the Balkans, Hitler repeatedly conferred with Tsar Boris of Bulgaria. In particular, such meetings took place in early June and in mid-August 1943. Ribbentrop informed the German envoy in Sofia about the negotiations that took place on June 3 as containing nothing new from a political point of view. “It has been confirmed again,” he wrote, “that Tsar Boris will continue to firmly align Bulgarian policy with the policy of the Axis powers.”

The leadership of the Reich took all measures to strengthen military cooperation with Finland. He had grounds for worrying about the development of the German-Finnish alliance. During the summer and early autumn, Finnish diplomats repeatedly tried to enter into negotiations with the Western powers with a view to concluding a separate peace, and they began in Lisbon. However, attempts to negotiate with the West did not and could not lead to any real results, since they were made behind the back of the Soviet Union, the country most interested in a peaceful settlement with Finland.

In autumn Schnurre, a special representative of the German government, arrived in Helsinki. The purpose of his visit was to strengthen German influence in Finland. Almost simultaneously with the Schnurre mission, German-Finnish military negotiations were underway, during which plans were developed for joint operations on the Soviet-German front. As a result, the representatives of the Reich managed to obtain new assurances from the rulers of Finland about their readiness to continue the war. On September 3, 1943, Prime Minister E. Linkomies announced in the Finnish Parliament that, given the current situation and economic dependence on Germany, Finland would continue the war.

While the rulers of fascist Germany carried out all-out mobilization of forces for the further conduct of the war and made efforts to strengthen the fascist bloc, certain circles of the nationalist bourgeoisie and the military, realizing the inevitability of the defeat of the "Third Reich", were looking for ways to remove Hitler from power and find profitable for monopolists out of the war.

Serious difficulties arose in 1943 in relations between Germany and Japan. In the spring, German diplomacy made persistent attempts to persuade Japan to enter the war against the USSR. However, the Japanese government, given the failure of the Nazi German war plans on the Soviet-German front, refrained from making a decision to unleash hostilities against the Soviet Union. In a conversation with German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop, the Japanese ambassador to Berlin, Oshima, announced in early March that Japan could not enter the war against the USSR at this time. On April 18, in a regular conversation with the Japanese ambassador, Ribbentrop again emphasized that the most convenient time for Japan was coming to carry out an attack on the Soviet Union. “Ambassador Oshima said here,” the recording of the conversation notes, “that for 20 years now all the plans of the General Staff have been developed for an attack on Russia and everything is again directed at this offensive. If it is possible to foresee success in this direction, then it will undoubtedly be possible to launch an offensive ... ".

Persistent attempts to draw Japan into the war against the Soviet Union were made in the autumn of 1943. For these purposes, German diplomacy deliberately misinformed its ally. So, for example, in a conversation with the Japanese ambassador in Berlin on October 3, Ribbentrop said that according to a “secret” and “authentic” intelligence report from Vladivostok, the Russians had transferred more than a million soldiers from the Far East to the west. The Asian part of the Soviet Union is supposedly "inundated" with foreign workers from Persia, India and China, so that the defense of the Far Eastern regions relies on a civilian population weakened as a result of deprivation and venal. “With good reason,” notes the West German historian B. Martin, “Oshima questioned these fantastic data, saying that he would ask them to check them through the relevant authorities in Tokyo.” Subsequently, the groundlessness and absurdity of Ribbentrop's assertions were confirmed.

At the end of November, when discussing the results of the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers, Ribbentrop, in a conversation with the Japanese ambassador, again returned to the question of the need for Japan to carry out an armed invasion of Russia.

Refraining from entering the war against the Soviet Union, Japan continued to provide assistance to its ally. In connection with the defeat of Italy and its withdrawal from the war, the governments of Japan and Germany published a declaration on September 27, 1943, which confirmed the loyalty of the two powers to the tripartite pact signed on September 27 1940 On November 15, a conference of representatives of Japan and Germany was held in Tokyo. It made decisions regarding the coordination of strategic plans. Japan systematically supplied Germany with intelligence information about the Soviet Union.

In an effort to prevent the defeat of its ally on the Soviet-German front, Japan decided to carry out a number of diplomatic maneuvers. Japanese diplomacy tried to obtain the consent of the Soviet government for the arrival of a “special mission” from Tokyo to Moscow to “mediate” in peace negotiations between the USSR and Germany. The Soviet government refused to accept this proposal. In its response, it indicated: “Under the existing situation, in the conditions of the present war, the Soviet government considers the possibility of an armistice or peace with Nazi Germany or its satellites in Europe completely excluded.”

An important direction in Japan's foreign policy was the creation of a military-political bloc of formally independent countries, but in fact puppets of Japan in East Asia and the South Seas region in order to mobilize their resources for war and strengthen Japan's dominance in the occupied territories. On May 31, 1943, at a meeting of the imperial headquarters and the government, the document “On the Basic Principles of Political Leadership in Great East Asia” was approved. It stated that in order to continue and end the war, it is necessary “to strengthen the political cohesion of the states and nations of the East Asia around the empire", to pay special attention to the strengthening of their military cooperation with Japan.

In order to strengthen the positions of pro-Japanese elements in the Kuomintang, the Tojo cabinet signed an agreement on March 14 with the puppet government of Wang Ching-wei on the transfer to him of Japanese concessions located in the occupied territory, and on Japan's renunciation of extraterritorial rights in China. On July 30, Japan handed over the international settlement in Shanghai to the government of Wang Ching-wei. At the same time, the Japanese government repeatedly made attempts to achieve a separate peace with China.

The leaders of the Japanese government solemnly announced the "New Deal" in relation to the occupied countries at a session of parliament. They assured Japan of "disinterestedness" in Japan, that its goals were limited to strengthening the East Asian "sphere of co-prosperity", they promised to grant "independence" to Burma and the Philippines, the islands of the South Seas, to revise treaties with Indochina and Thailand in the interests side for the latter and not to send additional contingents of troops to these countries.

On August 1, 1943, Burma's "independence" was solemnly declared. In words, all rights to govern the country were transferred to the Burmese government, headed by Ba Mo. In fact, the Japanese occupiers were still undivided masters. On September 4, they approved the Philippine constitution, which provided for the establishment of a "national assembly". The President of the country was formally granted fairly broad powers. They elected collaborator José Laurel. On October 14, in one of the squares of Manila, under the protection of Japanese troops, he proclaimed "independence". Gestures demonstrating the transfer of "self-government" were made by the Japanese in Malaya, Indonesia and other countries.

According to the plans of the Japanese government, the final act of creating a broad East Asian military-political and economic bloc was to be a "conference of the countries of Great East Asia." It took place on November 5-6, 1943. The conference was attended by the highest dignitaries of Japan, Manchukuo, occupied China, Philippine, Burma, Free India and Thailand. The conference ended with the adoption of the "Joint Declaration of Greater East Asia". This document is thoroughly saturated with demagogy and is very indicative for revealing the essence of Japanese diplomacy during the Second World War. It talked about "mutual close cooperation" and "assistance", about the need for joint action by the countries of East Asia to successfully end the war and build a "new order". The hypocritical phrases about the “brotherhood of nations”, “justice”, “common prosperity and mutual well-being”, “progress of all mankind”, which are full of the declaration, were intended to cover up the aggressive goals of the East Asian bloc created by the Japanese imperialists.

Japan's implementation of the New Deal has produced very limited results. Collaborationist elements, in order to suppress the growing democratic movement and strengthen their positions, responded to the offer of cooperation with the Japanese occupation authorities. However, the Japanese imperialists failed to win over the peoples of Asia to their side. Everywhere the national liberation movement was expanding or the prerequisites for its deployment were ripening. The Tojo government did not achieve the conclusion of a separate peace treaty with China, which could significantly improve the strategic position of Japan.

The outcome of the battles of 1943, which was victorious for the Soviet Armed Forces, had a decisive influence not only on the armed struggle between the opposing coalitions. It was of decisive importance for the development of a complex and tense struggle in the foreign policy arena. The solution of the most important issues of foreign policy was closely intertwined with the course of the armed struggle on the Soviet-German front, and to a large extent depended on the steadfastness and courage of the Soviet soldiers, on delivering new blows to the Nazi military machine.

Soviet diplomacy has achieved outstanding success in creating the most favorable international conditions for achieving victory as soon as possible, in consolidating the anti-fascist front of the peoples, in strengthening the anti-Hitler coalition, and in solving important problems of the post-war democratic order of the world.

The successful foreign policy activity of the Soviet state was vividly reflected in the work and decisions of the Moscow Conference of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, the USA and England.

The growth of the international prestige of the Soviet state and the efforts of its diplomacy largely contributed to the convening at the end of 1943 in Tehran of the first conference of the heads of government during the war, the three great powers - the USSR, the USA and England. The conference played an important role in rallying forces and mobilizing human and material resources for the victory of the anti-Hitler coalition.

Significant changes in 1943 under the influence of the victories of the Soviet Union underwent the foreign policy of the United States and Britain. This made it possible to settle one of the most important military-political problems of the Second World War - to reach an agreement on the opening of a second front in Europe in the spring of 1944.

The foreign policy of the states of the fascist bloc experienced great difficulties and setbacks. The year 1943 was marked by a further aggravation of the military and political crisis in the fascist camp, the beginning of its collapse.

By the summer of 1944, the ruling circles of the satellite countries could not but see the hopelessness of their situation, but they sought to get out of the war in such a way as to prevent the liberation of the states of Eastern Europe by the Soviet armies. To this end, since 1943, immediately after Stalingrad, the anti-people governments of Germany's satellites have been establishing ties with Washington and London.

Horthy in Hungary and Antonescu in Romania, the Bulgarian Tsar Boris and Ryti in Finland - all of them, through secret emissaries, tried to assure the ruling circles of the United States and England that the meaning of the participation of satellite countries in the war on the side of Germany was to create a "barrier" against the USSR in Eastern Europe. Europe. Since 1943, the reactionary press in these countries openly writes that they can become "anti-Soviet sentries." The head of the then Hungarian government, Kallai, for example, later talked about the purpose of Hungary's secret negotiations with the United States and England: “We believed that, although the Anglo-Americans were far from Central Europe, their policy would reach us. We believed that the troops of the United States and England would come to us before the Russians, and these powers would determine the future of Central and South-Eastern Europe.” According to the former Romanian envoy to Turkey, Creteziano, Bucharest was convinced that "the Western allies are more interested in preventing a Soviet invasion of Europe than in destroying the Hitler regime." The rulers of Bulgaria and Finland were guided by similar considerations.

At the end of the summer of 1944, after the successful offensive operations of the Soviet troops, Finland sued for peace. The Soviet government agreed to enter into negotiations on the condition that Finland break off relations with Germany and within two weeks from the date of acceptance of this proposal (in any case not later than September 15) German troops should be withdrawn from the country. On September 4, the Finnish government accepted the terms of the armistice, and on September 19 in Moscow it was signed by representatives of the USSR and England on behalf of all the states of the United Nations that were at war with Finland. Under the terms of the armistice, Finnish troops were withdrawn beyond the border line established by the agreement on March 12, 1940. Finland pledged to return the Pechenga region to the USSR, and provided the USSR with a lease of a base in the Porkkala-Udd region. ( In 1955 the USSR renounced its lease rights and in early 1956 the Soviet troops were withdrawn from Porkkala Udd.) The Soviet government agreed to help Finland in the disarmament of the German troops on its territory, which were transferred to the USSR as prisoners of war. However, since the military situation did not require this, the occupation of the territory of Finland was not envisaged. ( Finland, after leaving the war, had to pay for the “aid” that England and France provided to her in 1940. In December 1945, Finnish President Paasikivi said at a press conference: “We are forced to take upon ourselves the obligation to reimburse England for the costs of that assistance which she gave us during the winter war. At the present time, France is making similar demands, although, generally speaking, we assumed that assistance was provided to us free of charge and from the bottom of our hearts.)

On August 20, 1944, the Soviet strategic offensive began in southeastern Europe. In one week - until August 27 - the main forces of the German army group "Southern Ukraine" were defeated, the Soviet troops began to liberate the territory of Romania and provided fraternal assistance to the Romanian patriots who had risen against the anti-people regime of Antonescu. Already in May 1944 a united workers' front of the communist and social democratic parties had taken shape in Rumania. On August 23, the fascist rulers were arrested in Bucharest, which was the signal for an uprising. Meanwhile, both Antonescu and the bourgeois opposition hatched plans to sign a truce with England and the United States on the condition that Anglo-American troops, primarily airborne troops, arrive in the country immediately. On August 24, Romania declared its withdrawal from the war on the side of Germany, and on August 25 declared war on her. On September 12, in Moscow, representatives of the USSR, England and the USA signed an armistice agreement with Romania. Romania, speaking on the side of the United Nations, conducted active military operations against the enemy. Following the Tudor Vladimirescu division, formed in the USSR from Romanian volunteers, other Romanian units went to the front. In total, up to 29 Romanian divisions fought together with the Soviet troops at the final stage of the war.

A number of conditions that ensured the democratic nature of the armistice agreement with Romania (the prohibition of fascist organizations, the punishment of war criminals, provisions providing for the democratization of public and political life in the country) were introduced at the insistence of the USSR. The US and Britain were forced to agree with them. The background to this is evident from the correspondence between Churchill and Roosevelt. On June 11, Churchill wrote, insisting that the United States accept the decisive role of the USSR in concluding an armistice with Romania: “It would be good to follow the Soviet initiative, especially since neither you nor we have any troops there ... Besides, I believe that their conditions ... are very reasonable and even generous. The brilliant military successes of the Soviet troops ensured coordinated decisions of the three great powers.

The criminal policy of the Bulgarian rulers has long ago formed a gulf between them and the people. Back in 1942, the Fatherland Front arose in Bulgaria, uniting the progressive forces of the people in the struggle against German fascism and Bulgarian reaction. Communists played the leading role in the Fatherland Front. By the middle of 1944, there were up to 30 thousand armed fighters in the partisan detachments, and in total about 200 thousand people took part in the resistance movement. In an effort to maintain their positions, the ruling circles of Bulgaria entered into negotiations with England and the United States, seeking the entry of Anglo-American troops into the country. They wanted to sign a separate peace with England and the USA. In Cairo, where the Bulgarian representatives arrived, the British assured them that the occupation of Bulgaria would begin in the very near future, first by the forces of the Greek-Turkish troops, followed by the Anglo-Americans. At this critical moment, the Soviet Union came to the aid of the Bulgarian people.

On September 5, the USSR declared war on the tsarist government; on September 8, Soviet troops entered the territory of Bulgaria. On the night of September 9, a nationwide uprising broke out in the country. The government of the Fatherland Front was created. The Bulgarian people enthusiastically greeted their liberators, not a single one was killed in the "war" between the USSR and Bulgaria. Bulgaria declared war on Nazi Germany, up to 12 Bulgarian divisions took part in the hostilities. The upsurge of the revolutionary movement in the country, the friendly relations established between the USSR and Bulgaria, aroused furious anger among Anglo-American politicians. During the development of the terms of the armistice with Bulgaria, the Soviet government rebuffed the attempts of England and the United States to impose enslaving demands on the Bulgarian people. The armistice agreement with Bulgaria, signed in Moscow on October 28, 1944, protected the sovereignty of the country from the intrigues of the Anglo-American reaction.

At the beginning of October 1944, the offensive of the Soviet troops began in the direction of the city of Debrecen. With heavy fighting, Soviet soldiers overcame the Main Carpathian Range and entered Transylvania. The ruling clique of Hungary was feverishly looking for a way out. By this time, the Nazis, who did not trust their last satellite, concentrated large forces on the territory of Hungary. On September 22, 1944, the Horthys sent their representative to Naples, who tried to achieve a truce with the United States and England. In mid-October, the crown council met, at which it was decided to apply for a truce to the three great powers. The participants in the meeting considered: "If we conclude a truce now, we can hope that simultaneously with the Russians or immediately after their entry into Budapest, British and American representatives will arrive." On October 15, Hungarian radio broadcast Horthy's request. The Nazis immediately dispersed the Horthy government and put in power the Hungarian fascist Salashi, who was declared the "Führer of the Hungarian nation." The new government pledged to continue the war on the side of Germany.

In December 1944, a provisional National Assembly met in the city of Debrecen on the Hungarian territory liberated by the Soviet troops. It formed a provisional government, which declared a break with Germany and on December 28 declared war on her. On January 26, 1945, in Moscow, representatives of the USSR, the USA and England signed an armistice with Hungary.

The strategic offensive of the Soviet Armed Forces in the autumn of 1944 had not only enormous military, but also political significance: under the blows of Soviet weapons, the bloc of the European powers of the "Axis" finally disintegrated. Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria declared war on Nazi Germany. Thanks to the fraternal assistance of the USSR, the peoples of these countries freed themselves from fascism and were given the opportunity to build their lives on democratic principles. No less important was the fact that the Soviet Armed Forces prevented the Anglo-American occupation. Soviet soldiers expelled the fascist rioters and blocked the way for new pretenders to dominance in the countries of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.

The situation that developed in the middle of 1944 in the fascist bloc was characterized by a deepening military-political crisis caused by the successful course of offensive operations of the Soviet Armed Forces and the opening by the United States of America and Britain of a second front in Europe. By that time, for about a year, Germany and its satellites had been at war without their Italian partner. The Hitlerite leadership considered one of its main foreign policy tasks to intensify actions to undermine the anti-Hitler coalition, “build bridges” for negotiations with the United States and Great Britain in order to conclude a separate peace with them and prevent unconditional surrender.

Germany persistently made attempts to establish contacts with the American and British governments. In the summer of 1944, State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs E. Weizsacker met in the Vatican with the former American ambassador in Berlin, H. Wilson, and with the head of the American intelligence service abroad, W. Donovan. In September, new German emissaries visited the Vatican (1324). The plans of the German ruling circles were based on a sharp increase in contradictions in the anti-Hitler coalition. So, on July 22, Germany offered Great Britain to organize a meeting of representatives of the two countries in Switzerland on the issue of the exchange of prisoners of war (1325). Undoubtedly, this meeting was supposed to be used for negotiations on other issues more important for Germany.

At the end of 1944, I. Ribbentrop, counting on the strengthening of contradictions in the camp of the anti-fascist coalition, attempted to enter into separate negotiations with pro-German circles in the USA and England. Such activity was shown by Hitler's representatives in the Vatican, in neutral countries - Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland. However, they failed to induce the United States and Britain to conclude a separate peace.

The Soviet government has repeatedly stated that only the unconditional surrender of Germany can lead Europe to peace. The peoples of the world demanded the complete defeat of fascist Germany. That is why all the attempts of the aggressor's diplomacy, aimed at undermining the unity of action of the allied powers, ended in failure.

Using the fact of the entry of the Soviet Army into the territory of a number of foreign countries, fascist diplomacy and propaganda widely disseminated fictions about the “export of the revolution”, about the “Soviet threat” to the West, etc. This was done with the expectation of intimidating the layman and obtaining support from the most reactionary circles in the US and UK.

Another important direction of the foreign policy activity of the German leadership in the period under review was to preserve and strengthen the crumbling fascist bloc at any cost, to prevent the satellite countries from leaving it, to force them to fight to the end. However, life overturned the calculations of Hitler's diplomacy.

Romania was the first to withdraw from the fascist bloc in 1944. Its ruling circles, rejecting the humane terms of the armistice presented by the Soviet government on April 12, 1944, entered into negotiations with representatives of the United States and England in Cairo in the summer. Romanian diplomats asked them to send Anglo-American troops to Romania, which would serve as a guarantor of the preservation of the existing political regime in the country (1326).

The Nazis failed to fully ascertain the content of these negotiations, although an extensive network of German agents operated in Romania. Meanwhile, the Romanian government continued to give Berlin reassuring assurances on this score. Therefore, Hitler and his entourage still considered Romania their true ally. So, on July 24, Hitler, in a conversation with the commander of the Southern Ukraine Army Group, General G. Frisner, said: “Marshal Antonescu is sincerely devoted to me. Both the Romanian people and the Romanian army follow him unitedly, as one person” (1327). At a meeting on August 5, Antonescu again assured the Fuhrer of loyalty and desire to continue the fight together, and Hitler promised not to leave his ally to the mercy of fate (1328).

Subsequent events convincingly showed that Antonescu's dictatorship had no support among the working people. Using the victory of the Soviet troops in the Iasi-Kishinev operation, on August 23, 1944, they overthrew the hated fascist regime. On August 24, Romania declared war on Germany.

By the summer of 1944 German-Finnish relations were seriously undermined. Finland, as a result of the offensive of Soviet troops in Karelia, found itself in a critical situation. The Finnish government turned to Germany for help (1329). At the same time, doubts arose in the ruling circles of the country about the advisability of continuing the war. Then, on June 22, Ribbentrop arrived in Helsinki to stabilize German-Finnish relations. Reproaching the hard-pressed Finnish allies for deviating from a common policy, he demanded assurances from Finland that the war would continue on the side of Germany. He accompanied this demand with a threat to stop all assistance.

Meanwhile, the military-political situation in Finland continued to deteriorate. Her troops suffered one defeat after another. The foreign policy isolation of the country grew. On June 30, the United States severed diplomatic relations with her. In Finnish public circles, opposition to the government's course was becoming more and more intensified. Under these conditions, the ruling circles decided to change the leadership of the state.

The new president, K. Mannerheim, in response to Hitler's congratulatory telegram, assured that the Finnish army, together with the Wehrmacht, would continue military operations (1330). However, the course of events on the Soviet-German front and the further deterioration of the internal political situation in the country forced the Finnish government to change this decision and try to withdraw from the war. It made an official proposal to the Soviet government to begin negotiations on a truce, and a few days later announced the end of the war against the USSR. Since September 15, Finland has been at war with Germany.

Following Finland, Bulgaria left the fascist bloc. In the previous period of the war, while remaining an ally of Germany, she at the same time maintained diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. When the course of events on the fronts, as well as the growth of the anti-fascist movement in the country, created a threat to the monarcho-fascist regime, the Bagryanov government, seeking to avoid the “Bolshevization of the country”, entered into negotiations with Anglo-American diplomats. However, in August 1944, in connection with the approach of Soviet troops to the borders of Bulgaria, its fluctuations sharply intensified. On the one hand, the Bulgarian government, not wanting to break with Nazi Germany, did not object to the use of the Bulgarian territory by the Nazi command, and on the other hand, it hypocritically expressed good feelings towards the Soviet Union and declared its desire to “maintain” complete neutrality. Bulgaria's vacillations were also felt in Berlin. The Hitlerite leadership intended to use weapons to protect their interests here in the event of her hostility towards Germany (1331).

Bulgaria's foreign policy changed radically with the coming to power of the government of the Fatherland Front as a result of the victory of the people's armed uprising on September 9 and the successes of the Soviet troops in the Balkans. It severed all relations with fascist Germany, declared war on it and ordered the troops to begin active hostilities against the Wehrmacht together with the Soviet Army.

In the summer of 1944, Hungary still continued to remain in the fascist bloc. This is explained primarily by the fact that since March 1944 it has been in the position of a country occupied by the Nazis. Soviet troops entered Hungarian territory at the end of September, and the struggle for its liberation was of a long and extremely stubborn nature. The resistance movement here did not take on a large scale and did not develop into an armed uprising, as was the case in Romania and Bulgaria.

A sharp aggravation of the internal political situation in Hungary came immediately after the events in Romania. Under the influence of the victories of the Soviet Army, the vacillations and disagreements in the Hungarian ruling circles intensified considerably. On August 29, a new government was formed, headed by General G. Lakatosh. The Nazis did not really trust him, but they hoped that Lakatosh would continue the war with the Soviet Union.

In the second half of September, the security service, together with the command of the Wehrmacht, developed a plan for Operation Panzerfaust. It envisaged the creation of a government more obedient to Germany and the overthrow of Horthy if he followed in the footsteps of the king of Romania.

Meanwhile, the situation in Hungary became more and more aggravated. Taking advantage of Horthy's hesitation, the Nazis pulled up new tank and police units, battalions of parachute troops and SS units to Budapest. On October 15, at the direction of the Fuhrer, Guderian issued an order according to which Hungary was declared the zone of operations of the German troops, and parts of the Hungarian army were transferred under German command (1332). On the evening of the same day in Budapest, the Nilashists occupied all the strongholds, and their leader Salashi spoke on the radio with an appeal to continue the war "to a victorious end."

The next day, the Panzerfaust plan was put into action. The fallen Horthy regime was replaced by the Nilashists, who were open puppets of the Nazis.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Army had liberated a large part of Hungary. On December 24, the Provisional Government formed in Debrecen asked the government of the USSR for a truce, and on December 28 declared war on Germany.

In addition to the Nilashist part of Hungary, the puppet “Republic of Salo” in northern Italy remained a satellite of Nazi Germany. It constituted a smaller part of the country, but at its disposal were almost four-fifths of the Italian industrial potential (1333). Factories and plants, as well as the activities of the administration of Northern Italy, were placed under direct German control. The Nazis used all the resources of this republic in their own interests (1334).

Thus, by the end of 1944, the collapse of the block of fascist states in Europe was completed, where Germany lost all its partners. The puppet governments that remained loyal to her in the western part of Hungary and in northern Italy could not provide significant assistance to the Nazi Reich.

An important direction in the efforts of fascist diplomacy during the period under review was the desire to strengthen Germany's relations with neutral countries in order to prevent them from going over to the side of the anti-Hitler coalition and continue to receive raw materials from them for their military industry. However, even in this the Hitlerite leadership failed to achieve success. With the collapse of the fascist bloc, the process of Germany's international isolation intensified even more: many neutral countries also dissociated themselves from it.

Spain, seeing that things were going to defeat the Nazis, made a number of attempts to get closer to England and the United States. In October, its ambassador in London, Count Alba, on behalf of Franco, told the representatives of the British government that his country had never been associated with an alliance with the Axis powers and that the Francoist regime was not an obstacle to cooperation with the Allies in securing peace. And on November 4, Franco himself hypocritically emphasized this in an interview with a United Press correspondent (1335).

There was a further weakening of German-Swedish trade and economic ties. Under the influence of events on the war fronts, Sweden significantly reduced the supply of various types of raw materials to Germany, stopped the export of ships from July 7, and on September 9 banned all transit traffic for Germany, with the exception of the transit of sick, wounded and medicines. Nevertheless, in 1944 the Reich still accounted for 40 per cent of Swedish exports (1336).

On August 2, 1944, Turkey severed diplomatic relations with Germany. Although this act was of a formal nature, it contributed to the further foreign policy isolation of the Nazi Reich. However, during the farewell audience of the German ambassador F. Papen, President I. Inonyu offered his intermediary services if, under certain circumstances, Hitler would consider them useful (1337).

Nor was its Far Eastern ally in a better position than Germany. The ruling circles of Japan undertook a number of maneuvers to bring the country out of the crisis in which it found itself as a result of the defeats of the Japanese troops and navy in the Pacific Ocean.

With the coming to power of the government of K. Koiso, there were no significant changes in Japan's foreign policy. As before, the slogans of “the unity of the Yamato nation”, “overcoming the national crisis”, etc. were proclaimed in the country. Although the situation that had arisen was assessed by the Japanese government as extremely unfavorable, nevertheless it still made statements about its determination end."

One of the main directions of the foreign policy of the Koiso cabinet continued to be military-political cooperation with the Nazis. On July 23, the head of the cabinet declared: "Japan will continue to strengthen its ties with Germany in order to achieve common military goals" (1338) . Foreign Minister M. Shigemitsu repeatedly spoke in this spirit. He emphasized the "steadiness" of the Japanese-German military alliance. The Japanese ambassador in Berlin, H. Oshima, also assured Hitler of Japan's loyalty to the alliance with Germany (1339).

At the same time, being fully aware of the consequences that the collapse of Germany could have for Japan, the Japanese ruling circles took appropriate measures. In particular, the “Basic Provisions for the Further Leadership of the War” approved on August 19, 1944 by the supreme council for the leadership of the war, allowed for the possibility of Japanese mediation in concluding peace between the USSR and Germany (1340) . On this issue, Foreign Minister Shigemitsu spoke with the German ambassador, Stammer, and the ambassador to Germany, Oshima, with Hitler, who did not give his consent to such mediation. Nevertheless, in September Shigemitsu officially raised the question of his intention to send a special mission to Moscow headed by former Prime Minister K. Hirota before the USSR government. The Soviet Union, true to its allied duty, categorically rejected any mediation between the USSR and Germany (1341).

The maneuvers of Japanese diplomacy were explained by the desire not only to prevent the defeat of Germany, but also to maintain their own positions in the Far East through an “honorable” exit from the war.

A new direction in Japanese foreign policy was the desire to establish contacts with the powers of the anti-Hitler coalition. The ruling circles of Japan increasingly began to look for ways to "improve" relations with the USSR. Germany tried to prevent this. She took various steps to keep Soviet-Japanese relations in a tense state, pushing the Japanese to all sorts of provocative actions. So, in December, the question arose of transferring the personnel of the German air force attache W. Kessler to Tokyo. For this purpose, Berlin decided to undertake a flight of a four-engine Junkers-290 from Norway through Soviet territory with a landing on the Japanese island of Hokkaido. However, Oshima did not agree with this, motivating his refusal by his unwillingness to aggravate tensions in Soviet-Japanese relations (1342) .

Shigemitsu's memorandum entitled "Diplomatic measures to be taken towards the Soviet Union", presented in September 1944 to the supreme council for the leadership of the war, contained a proposal to ask the USSR to mediate in negotiations between Tokyo and Chongqing (1343) . Having received a refusal in Moscow, the Japanese government decided to turn to the United States and England. The Koiso government entered into a confidential relationship with the Swedish Ambassador W. Bagge on the issue of establishing contacts with the British and American governments. Determining the various options for an "honorable peace", the Japanese government pinned considerable hopes on the reactionary circles in the United States. At the same time, it hoped that offensive actions in China and broadcast statements about Japan's "firm" position would facilitate the conclusion of peace with China and the preservation of Taiwan and Korea.

During this period, the Japanese ruling circles sought to establish direct contacts with Chiang Kai-shek in order to negotiate peace with him. On August 19, 1944, the command of the Japanese troops in China made a statement about Japan's desire to maintain "friendly cooperation" not only with the Nanking government of Wang Ching-wei, but also with the government of Chiang Kai-shek (1344) . In the autumn of 1944, Baron T. Miyagawa and an experienced politician K. Ugaki visited Shanghai at different times. However, their missions did not reach their goals.

It became known in Chungking government circles that in October 1944 the Minister of Finance of the Nanking government, Chou Fo-hai, sent a letter to Chiang Kai-shek with a proposal to conclude peace between China and Japan. The letter, in particular, stated that the Japanese government was interested in ending the war. The minister also wrote that if Chiang Kai-shek did not agree to conclude peace, then the Japanese would carry out their decisive battles with the American-British troops on Chinese territory, which would lead to the final collapse of the Chinese economy. In addition, it was noted that the flooding of China by American troops would make it completely dependent on the United States. At the end of the letter, Chou Fo-hai urged Chiang Kai-shek to make peace with Japan and at the same time help her come to a peace agreement with the United States and England (1345).

In Asia, the Japanese still covered their true goals with those proclaimed at the end of 1943. five demagogic “moral principles of great East Asia” (liberation of Asia from colonial dependence; freedom of its peoples on the basis of equality and economic cooperation; protection of them from encroachments and exploitation of foreign powers; implementation of the principle of open doors both in the field of economy and in the field of culture; establishing relations with all states on the basis of equality and mutual respect) (1346) . These principles were widely promoted but not implemented. On September 7, 1944, the Japanese government announced its decision to grant “independence” to the former Netherlands Indies (Indonesia) (1347) . Under the auspices of the Japanese, a provisional government "Free India" (1348) was also created. However, these acts were purely formal. The situation of the territories occupied by the Japanese remained the same.

With their policy in East and Southeast Asia, the Japanese ruling circles also tried to drive a wedge between the United States and England, using differences between these states on the colonial issue (1349) .

So, in the second half of 1944, as a result of the crushing blows of the Soviet Army, the broad liberation struggle of the masses of the people and the intensification of military operations of the allies, the collapse of the bloc of fascist states in Europe was completed. Most of the satellites of Nazi Germany turned their weapons against their former master. By the end of 1944, 44 states were at war with Germany, of which 5 declared war on her in the second half of the year. The attempts of Hitlerite diplomacy to split the anti-fascist coalition and conclude a separate peace with the United States and Britain on an anti-Soviet basis failed.

With the termination of diplomatic relations with Germany by a number of neutral countries, its isolation in the international arena further intensified.

The positions of militaristic Japan were also significantly undermined. Tokyo diplomacy maneuvered, resorted to various means and methods to improve Japan's position and save her European ally. However, all these efforts ended in failure. Japan's attempts to withdraw China from the war on the side of the anti-fascist coalition were also unsuccessful.