What is pacifism? The essence, idea and history of the movement from A to Z

This article was developed under the heading: Psychology.

Section: Movements.

Many would be interested to know in more detail who pacifists are from a psychological point of view, as well as what advantages and disadvantages such an attitude has to the world around them. This will be discussed in the article.

We will also figure out whether opponents of violence pose a danger to others, and in what forms pacifism manifests itself.

Let's look at what pacifism is from all sides

What is pacifism and who are pacifists

I will not give complex definitions using terms that will be incomprehensible to most readers. Let us limit ourselves to a simple and concise explanation.

A pacifist is a person who is able to openly declare publicly that he opposes any military action, violence and resolving conflict situations (including political ones) by force.

In other words, according to this worldview, no arguments can justify violent methods of resolving conflicts.

A group of people or a person who openly states that they are against war and violence

The history of the origins of pacifism

The views espoused by opponents of warfare and violence have their origins in France (20th century). The “pioneer” of such an ideology is considered to be Emile Arno, a public figure and famous writer of those times.

As for the term “pacifism” itself, it was presented at the world congress in Scotland. Its participants were called "pacifists." Over time, this concept has acquired new meanings - today it is customary to call those who openly oppose the militarization of society.

As you can see, the term “pacifism” appeared a little over a hundred years ago, but the ideological roots stretch from a much earlier period. Even in the first century BC, the ideas of philanthropy, as well as aversion to violence in any of its manifestations, became widespread among ordinary people. The same Romans had their own system of concluding an agreement - on a peaceful basis and with a mandatory guarantee of the security of both parties.

Pacifism officially began in 20th century France

Herriot formula

France, having changed its position from offensive to defensive, chose a new direction in interstate relations - open diplomacy. She came up with a number of projects to ensure international security, the developers of which were two prominent French politicians - E. Heriot and A. Briand.

The essence of Herriot's formula was expressed in three concepts: arbitration, security and disarmament. It implied the idea of ​​renouncing military action as a way to resolve interstate problems.

The League members accepted the proposal with enthusiasm and the Geneva Protocol of 1924 was signed. But it could never come into force due to contradictions between the leading powers, which “stumbled” on the definitions of “offensive” and “defensive” war.

The term “era of pacifism”, coined by historians for this period, as you understand, is very conventional. Along with loud slogans about peace, serious passions about the division of territories and influence were seething.

How pacifists actually show that they are against war

Any movements and, as a result, demonstrations leave imprints on society.

1994 was the darkest year in history for the state of Rwanda. The powerful pacifist movement led to the whole world taking the position of observers of the terrible events that took place from April to July of the above year.

The military coup in Rwanda disrupted the peace in the country, it claimed the lives of a huge number of people - according to some estimates, more than 1 million people died. Among them were many defenseless old men, women and children.

As we see, pacifism and the policy of non-interference of other countries in that situation led to tragic consequences. After them, the UN nevertheless decided to reconsider some of its views, in particular, on the policy of non-intervention.

Radical pacifism can have an extremely negative impact on the life of society

British program

England comes forward with its project of maintaining peace in Europe, still based on the principle of the balance of power. It proclaims its openness to negotiations and peaceful diplomacy.

A version of the European system was presented by British Foreign Secretary Austin Chamberlain. He conditionally divided the states into three camps - the winners, the losers and the Soviet Union, arguing that agreements and compromises are possible between the former, while the USSR is a destructive factor.

The uniqueness of Chamberlain's plan was that it simultaneously solved all the main problems: calming France regarding its borders; the introduction of Germany into the Versailles system as a full participant; preventing a rapprochement between Russia and Germany.

The Pacific sign is an international symbol of peace.

There is an icon that serves as an international symbol of peace. The name "pacific" comes from the word "peaceful" in Latin. This symbol is a propaganda for world peace.

The Pacific sign is the work of English designer Gerald Holtom. It was created to order - a request came from a British social movement opposing atomic war and the arms race between countries.

The emblem is based on a circle, it symbolizes the globe. The creative figure planned to place a Christian cross inside the circle, but did not do this because he encountered misunderstanding on the part of the clergy - they said that it was wrong to use a church symbol in protests.

Then Holtom turned to the semaphore alphabet. The artist used the initial letters of two English words - “nuclear” and “disarmament”. As a result, the emblem received various interpretations and became widespread throughout the world - the peace icon did not have a copyright patent.

The peace sign belongs to pacifists, not hippies.

Historical Milestones of the Peace Movement

Then the first Christians took up the anti-war baton. In the 2nd century AD e. they refused military service so as not to participate in wars and not kill people. For this, many suffered martyrdom, but historical documents testify to their incredible stoicism and faith in Christ.

Pacifism wavered when Christians embraced the idea of ​​a “just” war. The Christian religion began to teach that any liberation war and struggle against the enemy is sacred. But they swore never to start a war first, not to go with aggression against the unarmed, and to defend “God’s peace” throughout the world.

In the 16th-17th centuries, religious wars swept across Europe. This was the time of the Reformation, when the united Christian world split into many national churches. This fact had controversial historical consequences: the brutal bloodshed gave rise to many anti-war movements throughout continental Europe. Its prominent representatives were Alexander Mack, George Fox, Grebel, Marpek, Simons, and Erasmus of Rotterdam.

The Napoleonic Wars served as an impetus for the emergence of another wave of pacifism. Anti-war demonstrations, international congresses were held, pacifists demanded a ban on any military action, the complete disarmament of all countries, and the resolution of interstate disputes in court.

In Russia in the 19th century there lived a famous pacifist. This is L.N. Tolstoy. His works for the peaceful transformation of society and the impossibility of any social transformation by violent methods made a huge contribution to the ideology of pacifism.

How pacifists influenced the modern world

The humanity of the concept of pacifism is obvious, but it is also obvious that it is not without paradoxes.

There are few absolute pacifists, but opponents of such ideological views note that pacifists receive all sorts of benefits from the state: high-quality free medicine, protection, an unhindered opportunity to rise to higher ranks, and much more. But at the same time, “absolutes”, if necessary, refuse to defend the state, hiding behind principles and ideology. Opponents of pacifism are convinced that its supporters pursue selfish goals. It is convenient for such a person to show himself as a pacifist.

Pacifist sentiments within serious movements, which cannot be ignored, lead to ambiguous consequences. For example, a state on the threshold of military action is faced with an unpleasant and difficult choice: to enter into armed confrontation or abandon the fight, thereby dooming the population to enslavement, terrible living conditions, or even extermination.

Pacifism leaves its mark on the modern world, with all the ensuing consequences. How good or bad this is, no one can answer correctly, because both positions have supporters with weighty arguments.

Pacifism has taken root in many social groups of the modern world.

Literature

Basic texts

• A. Schweitzer about Mo Tzu and Lao Tzu - from the article “Christianity and World Religions”
• N. N. Gusev “The attitude of the first Christians to war”
• P. Brock
  “Attitude to non-violence in pacifist sects in the Middle Ages and early modern times” // “Non-violence as a worldview and way of life”, M., IVI RAS, 2000.
• Erasmus of Rotterdam "Complaint of the World" (1517)
• B. f. Suttner "Down with weapons!" (1889)
• L. N. Tolstoy “The Kingdom of God is within you...” (1890-93)
• L. N. Tolstoy “The Law of Violence and the Law of Love” (1908)
• M. A. Popovsky “Russian men tell stories. Followers of L.N. Tolstoy in the Soviet Union 1918-1977.” L., 1983
• P. V. Verigin “Declaration of Fraternal Life” (1898)
• P. I. Biryukov “Persecution of Christians in Russia in 1895” — about the Doukhobors
• N. N. Molchanov
  “War to War” (inaccessible link) - fragment from the book “Jean Zhores” (ZhZL), M., 1986
• "Nobel Peace Prize 1947" - about Quakers
• “Why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses participate in wars?” // The Watchtower, July 1, 2008.
• D. Heinz
  “Seventh-day Adventists and refusal to participate in hostilities: a historical perspective” // “Non-violence as a worldview and way of life”, M., IVI RAS, 2000.
• U. Savatsky
  “Protestant pacifists in Soviet Russia during the interwar period” // “The Long Path of Russian Pacifism”, M., Institute of History and Science of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997.
• Archimandrite Spiridon (Kislyakov) “Confession of a priest before the church” (1916)
• M. and L. Zwick
  “Dorothy Day, Prophet of Pacifism in the Catholic Church”
• "Biography" of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan - non-violence and Islam.
• B. Russell “Autobiography” // “Foreign Literature”, 2000, No. 12
• T. I. Telyukova
  “Moscow group “Trust”” - see Group for Establishing Trust between the USSR and the USA

Research

• F. Dyson
  “Weapons and Hope”, M., “Progress”, 1990 - chapters from the book.
• "Pacifism in History". M.: IVI RAS, 1997
• "The Long Path of Russian Pacifism." M.: IVI RAS, 1997.
• D. Sdvizhkov
  “Against “iron and blood”. Pacifism in the German Empire", M., IVI RAS, 1999
• G. Page
  “A society without murder: is it possible?”, St. Petersburg: SPBU Publishing House, 2005 - see Aversion to murder
• "Treats on Eternal Peace." M., Sotsekgiz, 1963
• N. Karapetyan
  “NEW” OUTFIT OF PACIFISM
• I. Gordeeva
  Radical pacifist movement in Russia - 20th century
• K. V. Stvolygin
  “Refusals from military service due to convictions in the Russian Empire.” Minsk, RIVSH, 2010
• A. D. Epstein
  From pacifism to political protest: the Israeli anti-war movement in the period from the founding of the state to the First Lebanon War
• Songs against war

Criticism

• Ignat DANILENKO, Olga GUSEVA. Shall we extinguish the torch of Herostratus? Tolstoy and Dragomirov: the dispute continues
• A. Almog
  “Shalom Akhshav” against the world

Forms of pacifism

We have dealt with the general concept of pacifism, now let's move on to considering its forms. Researchers identify three:

• Absolute.
• Conditional.
• Selective.

Absolute

Adherents of the absolute form of pacifism deny any type of aggression and believe that military action or the use of force cannot be justified under any circumstances. Absolute pacifists do not recognize “holy” and “liberation” wars. Taking the life of another person, even in self-defense, is taboo. In their understanding, nothing justifies violence and militarism.

Conditional

Unlike absolutists, adherents of conditional pacifism are not so radical in their judgments. They accept the use of force or the possibility of military action if circumstances urgently require it. Conditional pacifists usually react normally to liberation wars or when it comes to the fight against genocide of the people. In their pacifist views, they are not very categorical and are ready to choose violence if it is the lesser evil.

Selective

The idea of ​​selective pacifism is largely aimed at combating certain types of military actions and weapons. Supporters of the ideology are convinced that the renunciation of nuclear and chemical weapons would benefit everyone. But selective pacifists allow in their ideology the possibility of military actions conducted in the traditional way. But only if a violent conflict is inevitable.

Briand–Kellogg Pact

Wanting to restore US participation in solving European problems, French Foreign Minister A. Briand appeals to the American people. He proposes to sign a Franco-American treaty banning war as an instrument of foreign policy. His idea was approved. F. Kellogg, Secretary of State of the United States, in response calls for the conclusion of a multilateral treaty, involving the governments of European states. Germany was the first to react, fully supporting the project. The UK made a number of comments, as a result of which the document was finalized and clarified.

On August 27, 1928, as a result of lengthy diplomatic negotiations, a Pact for the Refusal of War was signed between 15 states. Its universality lay in the fact that not only recognized, but also dependent and semi-colonial countries could join it. The figure of 63 countries at the end of the same year explains this well.

Reasons for pacifism

True pacifists usually advocate world peace; they despise violence, aggression and armed conflict. Not to mention deadly weapons of mass destruction.

Initially, the idea of ​​pacifism implied the elimination or at least minimization of wars and armed conflicts. People who adhered to this ideology promoted goodness and tried to make the world a better place. And in theory this is good.

However, even from a psychological point of view, it is impossible to divide the world only into black and white and say that this is good and that is bad. So society, on a voluntary basis, will never be able to accept only one position; there will always be those who hold the opposite opinion.

There are also those who turn white into gray and hide behind idealistic ideas supposedly to create a better world. Although, in fact, they pursue exclusively selfish interests in achieving their goals.

On the other hand, this does not negate the fact that some supporters of this ideology sincerely believe that their efforts bring benefits to modern society.

Pacifism arose due to the large number of wars of the 19th and 20th centuries

Post-war world order

The era of pacifism of the 20th century was a natural consequence of the established interstate relations after the tragic war of 1914-1918, which entailed great losses. On the one hand, social upheavals, weakened financial systems and destroyed economies of states required appropriate conditions for stabilization. On the other hand, the balance of forces and interests of the great powers changed, and the constantly emerging contradictions between them required resolution. All this led to the question of creating a new system of relations that could prevent war or at least reduce risks. And the main role in this process was played by the “Big Three” - France, Great Britain and the USA.

The result of two international conferences of 1919-1922 was the Versailles-Washington system, which provided for the equality of all its participants. Of course, in reality this was not the case.

Is a pacifist good or bad?

Each person has his own life credo and worldview. And, as you know, some people consider themselves true pacifists. Some people consider this stupidity and weakness, while others consider it the opposite. Opinions will always differ - it's like two sides of a coin. And not a single psychologist who is accustomed to assessing situations from different “angles” will answer your question: is pacifism bad or good? Everyone can have an opinion on this topic, but this does not mean that it is the ultimate truth. That is why it makes sense to consider the obvious pros and cons of pacifism, and then, after thinking, draw conclusions and come to your own opinion.

Advantages and disadvantages

In general, speaking out against war, bloodshed and the use of deadly weapons of mass destruction looks like something that has a right to life. We say this with restraint because this formula would work in an ideal world. Alas, our world is not like that.

It is difficult to argue with the fact that a person who does not want to show aggression and harm other people brings good to this world. This is good, because for some reason there is much less good around than many would like.

Any movement by its nature is extreme. Especially if it is absolute pacifism.

Adherents of such views are often unable to create a successful career, simply because the “sharks” around them will not allow them to do so.

A pacifist risks becoming a traitor to his country and even his family. Hiding behind your views and remaining principled when a conqueror or someone who wants to harm you and your loved ones is on the doorstep is probably not a good thing. It is for this reason that absolute pacifists have an ambiguous attitude in society.

Everyone can draw conclusions about whether pacifism is justified in the modern world.

We smoothly approached the next topic for consideration - the attitude of people towards pacifists.

Locarno Conference

At an international conference in 1925, held in the Swiss city of Locarno, the British program became the main topic of discussion. During the meeting, documents regulating relations between the countries were reviewed and adopted. The most important document signed, the Rhine Pact, was approved by Belgium, France, Germany and Great Britain. It served as a guarantee of the inviolability of their borders, with the exception of the latter, who acted as an arbiter in these difficult negotiations. In the fall of 1926, Germany became a member of the League of Nations and received the right to vote in its Council.

The Locarno Accords helped maintain peace during an era of pacifism, but the peace was so controversial that it is better characterized as a temporary truce.

How do people feel about pacifists?

The attitude towards pacifists in society is ambiguous. It has always been so, is and will be. But the reason is not only in the phenomenon of pacifism as such, but also in the attitude of people towards various movements. For some, extremes are simply unacceptable.

Some consider pacifists to be cowards who cover up their helplessness or unwillingness to defend their family and country even in cases of urgent need. On the part of society, one can often see a complete lack of respect for such people. But this applies to a greater extent to adherents of the absolute form of pacifism.

But there are noticeably more representatives of conditional and selective pacifism. They do not promote their views so fiercely, so it is much easier for them to exist in society. Therefore, society treats such people with much more restraint. Sometimes it is even difficult to guess that a person holds pacifist views.

Everyone approaches movement differently. Some are positive, some are completely negative.

kult-shkot.ru

“Periods of the Mesozoic era” - The rest of the territory was warm. Many forms of invertebrates and sea lizards are dying out in the seas. Gigantic forms of cephalopods developed in the seas. New major faults are being formed. Cretaceous period. Only one species has survived to this day - Gingko biloba. The climate of the Triassic period was harsh and dry, but quite warm.

“Life in the Archean Era” - In the Archean era, the first living organisms arose. Archean era. Alive organisms. Sexual process. Musyakaev Ramil Aminov Ruslan. Climate and environment. Animal world. The paths of evolutionary transformations of the first multicellular organisms were different. The first inhabitants of our planet were anaerobic bacteria. Some switched to a sedentary lifestyle and turned into sponge-type organisms.

“Mesozoic era periods” - The number of belemnites increased in the seas. Tyrannosaurus, length 15, height 6 meters, weight from 6 to 12 tons. Sea lizard. Towards the end of the Triassic, the climate became drier. The first frogs appeared, and a little later land and sea turtles and crocodiles. The first mammals also appeared, and the diversity of mollusks increased.

"Cenozoic Era" - Forest swamps served as a refuge for heavy aquatic aminodont rhinoceroses, similar to hippopotamuses. Geologists divide the Cenozoic into two periods: Tertiary and Quaternary. Ancient fish-eating zeiglodont whales. The climate is temperate and humid. Many heat-loving plants of the late Tertiary period became extinct. The marine fauna was close to modern.

“Eras and periods” - The heyday of reptiles: terrestrial, waterfowl, flying. Weakening of climatic zonality, smoothing out temperature differences. Large glaciations in the middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere of the Earth. The flourishing of marine invertebrates, the appearance of organisms with a mineralized skeleton. The appearance of true birds, planetary marsupial mammals.

"Eras of Development" - Conclusions. Era. As a result, all the diversity of living organisms on the planet arose. Alive organisms. Testing. The Cenozoic era is the era of new life. Assignments for independent work. Conditional long periods of time in the history of the planet. Cenozoic era. The climate varied from moderately humid to dry and cold.

Terms:

“era of pacifism”, Anti-Comintern Pact, policy of appeasement”, geopolitical interests, League of Nations, collective security system, fascism, Munich Agreement (“conspiracy”), 1939 - Soviet-German Non-Aggression Treaty (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).

During the classes

I. Organizational moment.

II. Repetition and generalization of the topic: International relations in the 1920s - 1930s.

1. Conversation with students on the topic “System of international relations”

—

What agreements determined the parameters of this system?

(Versailles-Washington treaty system created after the First World War)

-What was the weakness of the Versailles-Washington system?

(It did not satisfy the losers. But at the same time, it did not satisfy some of the victorious countries (for example, Italy and Japan). Soviet Russia found itself, in principle, outside the Versailles system. The League of Nations did not have the ability to really maintain peace, and the borders that were established The Versol-Washington system did not take into account historical and ethnic factors)

— Why do you think the 1920s were called the “era of pacifism”?

(The most serious international conflicts were resolved
peacefully.)
-

What is the biggest international crisis of the 1920s?

(Ruhr 1923, associated with the occupation of the Ruhr region by French and Belgian troops)

—

How did the international community try to alleviate the plight of the defeated countries?

(This was the goal of the Dawes Plan (USA), which involved issuing loans to Germany to facilitate its payment of reparations to its allies.)

—

In 1929, at an international conference in The Hague, the Young Plan was adopted. According to this plan, the size of Germany's annual reparations payments was reduced to 2 billion marks. The overall amount of reparations was significantly reduced. In 1931, Germany's obligation to pay reparations to the Allies was lifted. Why do you think?

(Due to the global economic depression.)

Teacher's comment.

A special sign of the “era of pacifism” is the Kellogg-Briand Pact. In 1928, French Foreign Minister Aristide. Briand approached US Secretary of State Frank Billing and Kellogg with a proposal to conclude a pact that would state the unacceptability of war as a means of resolving conflicts. The United States, along with more than ten countries, joined this declaration.

2. Conversation with students on the topic “The Problem of Soviet Russia”

— What do you think prevented Western countries from recognizing Soviet Russia?

(Soviet Russia was a different socio-political system. Moreover, the Bolsheviks refused to be the legal successors of the tsarist government. Consequently, they did not recognize the debts of tsarist Russia.)

—

Which countries do you think recognized Soviet Russia first?

(Neighbors are the Baltic countries, Finland, Poland, Turkey, Persia, Afghanistan, Mongolia.)

—

Which Western European country do you think was the first to recognize Soviet Russia?
(Germany, as the least confident in its abilities and the most disadvantaged as a result of the implementation of the Versailles-Washington system.)
Teacher's comment.

Indeed, in 1922, during the international Genoa Conference in Rapallo, an agreement was signed between Germany and Soviet Russia on the mutual renunciation of claims against each other. In 1924, the USSR was already recognized by Great Britain, Italy, France, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Mexico, China, and Japan. In 1933, the USSR was recognized by the USA.

3. Conversation with students on the topic “The crisis of the system of international relations”

1. Conversation on issues.

— What do you think accelerated the collapse of the Versailles-Washington system?

(Worldwide depression and the emergence of totalitarian regimes prone to aggressive foreign policy.)

2. The teacher's word.

In 1935, universal conscription was introduced in Germany. In the same year, as a result of a plebiscite, the Saar region was annexed to Germany. In 1936, German troops occupied the Rhineland demilitarized zone. In 1935-1936 Fascist Italy occupied Ethiopia. In 1936, a rebellion broke out in Spain under General Franco, whose views were close to the ideas of fascism. Italy and Germany supported him.

England and France proclaimed a policy of “non-intervention”. As a result, by 1939, the regime of personal power of General Franco was established in Spain.

—

The alliance of which states was formed by 1937?

(Germany, Italy, Japan.)

In October 1936, a protocol on cooperation between Italy and Germany was signed. In November 1936, Germany and Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact (directed against the Comintern). In 1937, Italy joined it.

—

In the same year, aggression began……………………………
(Japan against China.)
In March 1938, the Anschluss (annexation) of Austria to Germany was carried out: German troops entered Austrian territory.

4. Conversation with students on the topic “Foreign policy of the USSR: change of guidelines”

—

What is the essence of the changes in the foreign policy of the USSR in the 30s?

(1. In a departure from the perception of all “imperialist” states as real enemies, ready at any moment to start a war against the USSR. 2. The desire to create a system of collective security. 3. Anti-Hitler policy orientation. 4. The main priority is the desire for an alliance with democratic countries in order to isolate Germany and Japan.)

-What does the concept of “collective security system in Europe” mean?

(An alliance with democratic countries for the purpose of isolating Germany and Japan. It was assumed that its members would provide assistance and protection from aggression to each member state of this system that was attacked.)

-What were the main efforts of the leadership and diplomacy of the USSR directed towards?

(1. In November 1933, diplomatic relations were established with the USA. 2. In 1934, the USSR was admitted to the League of Nations. 3. In May 1935, an agreement on mutual assistance was concluded between the USSR and France in the event of a possible attack by any aggressor, agreement was not accompanied by any military agreements and was therefore ineffective. Following this, a mutual assistance treaty was signed with Czechoslovakia.4. In 1935, the USSR condemned the introduction of universal conscription in Germany and the Italian attack on Ethiopia.5. After the introduction of German troops, the demilitarized The Rhineland USSR proposed to the League of Nations to take collective measures to effectively suppress violations of international obligations, but its voice was not heard.)

-In what year did the USSR join the League of Nations?

-What tactics did the party leadership of our country pursue through the Comintern?

(The main task of the communists was proclaimed to be the creation of a united anti-fascist front to prevent world war. For this purpose, the communists had to organize cooperation with all forces from social democrats to liberals. At the same time, the creation of an anti-fascist front and broad anti-war actions were closely linked with the struggle “for peace and security of the Soviet Union." Congress warned that in the event of an attack on the USSR, the Communists would call on the working people "by all means and at any cost to promote the victory of the Red Army over the armies of the imperialists.")

-When and where was the first attempt made to put the new tactics of the Comintern into practice?

(1936 in Spain)

-What can you tell us about the Far Eastern policy of the USSR?

(1.1929 - conflict on the Chinese Eastern Railway, 1931 - Japan captured Manchuria, this forced the USSR to restore diplomatic relations with China, 1938 August - clashes with Japanese troops on the Soviet-Manchurian border near Lake Khasan, 1939 September - battles on the Khalkhin River - Goal. Japan received a rebuff and realized that it would not be possible to take the Soviet borders at once.)

5. Conversation with students on the topic “Attempts to overcome the crisis.”

1. Conversation on issues.

—

What do you think the events of the 1930s showed on the international stage?

(They testified to the collapse of the previous system of collective security. The League of Nations has proven to be an ineffective tool for resolving international disputes.)

—

Japan and Germany left the League of Nations.
Which country was admitted to the League of Nations in 1934? (USSR)
2.

Teacher's word.

In 1934, negotiations were underway between the USSR and France on the creation of an Eastern Pact, which would ensure collective security for the countries of Eastern Europe. This discussion did not lead to serious results. However, in 1935, a mutual assistance agreement was signed between France and the USSR. A similar agreement was concluded between the USSR and Czechoslovakia, Czechoslovakia and France. However, this did not save Czechoslovakia from Nazi aggression.

Hitler claimed to seize part of Czechoslovakia where the Sudeten Germans lived. England and France did not want to enter into conflict with Germany and believed that Czechoslovakia should have made concessions. On September 29, 1938, the head of the British government, Chamberlain, the French Prime Minister Daladier, Mussolini and Hitler signed the Munich Agreement, according to which the territory occupied by the Sudeten Germans was to go to Germany.

Thus, England and France decided to pursue a policy of “appeasement” of the aggressor. However, it was no longer possible to stop Hitler. On March 15, 1939, Hitler occupied all of Czechoslovakia, he also occupied the Klaipeda region in Lithuania and demanded Gdansk from Poland. At the same time, Italy occupied Albania. In search of a new world order, intensive negotiations took place between the great powers (between England, France and the USSR, between England and Germany, between the USSR and Germany).

—

Why do you think the negotiations between England.
Did France and the USSR end in failure? (The parties did not trust each other; the allies of England and France, Poland and Romania, were more afraid of the USSR than Germany; Hitler could promise Stalin more than the Western democracies.)
As a result, on August 23, 1939, the Soviet-German non-aggression pact was signed, which was accompanied by a secret protocol (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), which distributed the spheres of influence of the powers in Eastern Europe.

Reflection is a conclusion made by students (student) on the topic covered.

The global economic crisis has strained international relations. This undermined the ability of the international community to jointly fight to maintain stability in the world. In 1931, Japan occupied Manchuria (Northeast China) in violation of the decisions of the Washington Conference. In 1935, Italy captured Ethiopia, which was a sovereign state and member of the League of Nations. Hitler, having come to power, stopped fulfilling the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. All this created a threat of breaking the Versailles-Washington system. But Western countries failed to maintain this system and prevent war. The crisis has separated them. Public opinion in England and France was against decisive measures to curb the aggressors. The United States generally tried to withdraw from world affairs. Many politicians underestimated the danger of Hitler's policies, not taking his aggressive plans seriously. A policy of appeasement was pursued towards Germany. Hitler took advantage of this to carry out his territorial conquests. In 1938, Germany annexed Austria. Following this, Hitler demanded that Czechoslovakia hand over the Sudetenland, inhabited by the Germans. When Czechoslovakia decisively rejected these claims, Hitler began to intimidate everyone with a new war. England and France succumbed to this and at the Munich Conference decided to demand that Czechoslovakia transfer the Sudetenland to Germany. As a result of these seizures, Germany became the strongest state in Central Europe. Hitler finally believed in his impunity. All this brought the start of the war closer, although many thought that Munich would bring final peace.

On March 15, 1938, Germany occupied the Czech Republic. An independent state was created on the territory of Slovakia. Czechoslovakia ceased to exist. Hitler thereby violated the Munich agreement. Germany also demanded the transfer of Danzig (Gdansk) to it and captured Memel (Klaipeda) from Lithuania. This meant the collapse of the policy of appeasement. England and France announced that they were taking the states bordering Germany under their protection and began belated military preparations. The threat of a military conflict with Germany made the position of the Soviet Union very important for England and France. The USSR sought recognition as a great power and the transformation of Eastern Europe into its zone of influence. England and France agreed on the first, but could not agree on the second. Hitler, meanwhile, began preparations for an attack on Poland. Its capture meant access to the Soviet border. Since England and France announced that they would defend Poland, the position of the USSR became very important for Hitler. If the USSR pursues a hostile policy, Germany will immediately find itself in a situation of war on two fronts. Hitler decided to win Stalin over to his side. He invited him to sign a non-aggression pact and agree on the division of Eastern Europe. On the night of August 24, this agreement was signed. By signing this treaty, the USSR became an accomplice in starting another war. On September 1, 1939, Germany attacked Poland; on September 3, England and France declared war on Germany. The Second World War has begun.

VI. Summing up the lesson.

In international relations of the interwar twenty years, three periods are distinguished: 1) 1918-1923. - post-war settlement, creation of the Versailles-Washington system; 2) the second half of the 1920s - a period of stabilization, attempts to solve problems of cooperation and security; 3) 1930s - increasing international aggression and the threat of war. It is a well-known statement that foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy. It should be recognized that in these periods this was exactly the case - the nature of international relations was determined by the most significant phenomena and processes in the internal life of different countries. You can explain for yourself what this connection was based on the example of the events of 1918-1923 already known to you. Let's turn to subsequent periods.

"Era of Pacifism"

The settlement of international relations after the First World War was not comprehensive and uncontroversial for its participants. In addition to the contradictions between the victors and the vanquished, there were disagreements in the camp of the victors themselves. The stumbling block was the attitude towards the fate of Germany. Here the positions of Great Britain and France differed especially noticeably. The first, fearing the excessive strengthening of France, was interested in establishing a balance of power in Europe. British politicians, even at the Paris Peace Conference (1919), followed the motto “not too strong France, not too weak Germany.” In subsequent years, they advocated helping Germany quickly restore the economy, and through this, stabilize political life and overcome the consequences of war and revolution. France insisted on strict compliance with all provisions of the Treaty of Versailles in relation to Germany, as well as on the unity of action of European states, against the possible revival of the German economic system in 1923-1925. around issues of collecting reparations from Germany and guarantees of its western borders. Germany, feeling the support of Great Britain, began to delay the payment of reparations. In response, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr region in January 1923.

Germany (it was the center of coal mining, and its rejection dealt a big blow to German industry). The conflict was resolved in the summer of 1924 at an international conference in London, where Great Britain and the USA had the final say. Decisions were made to withdraw French and Belgian troops from the Ruhr, as well as the Dawes Plan. It provided for the mitigation of Germany's reparation obligations and the provision of economic assistance to it in the form of loans, mainly American (with this money, Germany not only paid reparations, but also restored its military-industrial complex).

In December 1925, the so-called Locarno Agreements were signed between France, Belgium and Germany. The main one was the Rhine Guarantee Pact, according to which the three named states pledged to maintain the inviolability of the German-French and German-Belgian borders. Thus, the inviolability of Germany's western borders was guaranteed. True, the question of its borders in the east remained open. But this did not bother the Western powers. Moreover, even then the opinion was expressed that they were interested in directing German expansion eastward, towards the Soviet Union. In the fall of 1926, Germany was admitted to the League of Nations. Peacemaker politicians could rest on their laurels.

The stabilization of international relations in the second half of the 1920s gave rise to contemporaries talking about an “era of pacifism.” The main ideas of the supporters of pacifism were that it was necessary to forget about the war as soon as possible, not to make a distinction between former allies and opponents, to develop cooperation among all peoples, and to achieve general disarmament.

The Soviet state occupied a special place in international relations of that time. The Western powers looked at it expectantly for a long time: when and how will the Bolshevik experiment end? The Soviet government, for its part, sought to overcome international isolation in various ways. The 1920s became a turning point in establishing the international status of the USSR (remember what you know about this from a Russian history textbook).

In the spring of 1926, the USSR concluded a neutrality treaty with Germany. The following year, the Soviet government submitted proposals for general and complete disarmament to the preparatory international commission for disarmament, which, however, were not accepted. In 1928, several states signed the so-called Kellogg-Briand Pact, a treaty prohibiting war as an instrument of national policy. The Soviet Union was invited (though not immediately) to join.

The Soviet state was not only the first to ratify this treaty, but also invited neighboring countries, without waiting for general ratification, to bring it into force between them ahead of schedule.

Let's discuss: 1. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the Versailles-Washington system and the League of Nations? 2. Was the “Russian question” somehow resolved at international conferences?

Soviet diplomacy Chicherin "performed miracles" to bring Russia out of isolation and established strong relations with Weimar Germany. The number of Soviet diplomats grew, and more often than not, “they were old revolutionaries who were able to quickly adapt to their new role and, along with a tuxedo and top hat, adopt the “general code of conduct” to which this world imbued with aristocratic tradition was subject to.”

The terms of the Treaty of Rappal - and by the Soviet government: they provided for the production of metal aircraft and engines, as well as the establishment of a Junkers transit connection and the construction of a chemical plant for the production of toxic substances (Bersol joint stock company). reconstruction of military factories and the supply of artillery shells to the Reichswehr, helped the Soviet side to establish the production of grenades and shells. "Krupp" in 1925, an aviation school was organized in Lipetsk and in Kazan a tank school, an aviation school, the full restoration of diplomatic relations between the RSFSR and Germany. The parties mutually renounced claims for compensation for military expenses and non-military losses

Terms of the Treaty of Genoa Recognition by the government of pre-war and war debts of Russia (18.5 billion gold rubles) (losses of the Soviet state as a result of foreign intervention of gold rubles). restoration of economic and blockade amounted to 39 billion ties with capitalist states, and the preemptive right for former owners to receive in concession or lease property previously owned by them, subject to de jure recognition of the Soviet state, provision of financial assistance to it and cancellation of war debts and interest on them .

The problem of disarmament. Pact A. Briand - F. Kellogg Refusal of war as a means of national policy Later, the USSR and 48 other states joined the pact. By the end of 1938, 63 states had joined the pact, that is, almost all the countries that existed at that time. The pact came into force on July 24, 1929. USSR 1938 July 24, 1929

Strip of diplomatic recognition of the USSR In the years, agreements on mutual recognition and borders were signed with Germany, Finland, the Baltic countries, Turkey, Afghanistan, China

Question of reparations: Until 1923, the scheme was in effect: 132 billion gold marks, repayment period = 48 years (!!!) Germany - products in the USSR - money in the USA and France In 1923 - crisis - refusal of the USSR from services to Germany Charles Dawes plan for provision of Germany a loan of 200 million dollars to stabilize the mark, setting the size of payments to Germany for the first 5 years at 1–1.75 billion marks per year, and then at 2.5 billion marks per year. Payment was to be made both in goods and in cash in foreign currency.

Owen Young's plan to abolish the reparation tax on industry and reduce transport taxes, eliminate foreign control bodies. reduction in the size of annual reparation payments, the abolition of all forms and types of control over Germany, its national economy and finances. One of the most important consequences of the adoption of the Young Plan was the early withdrawal of occupation troops from the Rhineland. The Rhineland actually ceased to operate on July 15, 1931 by a unilateral decision of the government Germany.

About Hitler's rise to power, General Ludendorff was able to understand the fatal significance of this event. In a letter sent to Hindenburg on February 1, 1933, he wrote: “By appointing Hitler as Reich Chancellor, you handed over our German fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time. I solemnly predict to you that this man will push our state into the abyss, plunge our nation into indescribable misfortune. Future generations will curse you for what you did."

Results of the development of international relations in the 1920s. - preservation of the causes and conditions for the struggle for hegemony - new tensions arose in relations between countries - mutual accusations of espionage and propaganda became commonplace - the “Little Entente” contributed to the creation of a “cordon sanitaire” between Europe and the USSR - issues of disarmament and security were not resolved , securing borders, paying reparations House: paragraph 11 question 5 in writing

How to become a pacifist

Some people think about becoming pacifists. Everyone has their own reasons and goals. But how to do this?

To begin with, change some of your views on the world and people around you. Become kinder, stop snapping at others for no reason, come to an agreement with your heightened sense of justice. Think about enjoying every moment of life for yourself and for aggression. It really gives strength to love the world without aggression.

But not everyone succeeds in this, because true pacifism is a state of mind, and not something artificially grown. Moreover, every person is who he is. “Breaking” yourself and doing it quickly is not the best solution. If you want to change, just start working on yourself and your life.

Also find a pacifist society and try to join it, becoming a full part of it. If you are not completely sure of your ideology, then don't do it.

Become a pacifist - renounce all violence in your life

Balance of power

The time came when it seemed that wars in the world were over. Slogans calling for peace and disarmament were heard everywhere.

The defeated countries, mainly Germany, as well as the deprived participants in the Versailles-Washington conferences (Japan and Italy) did not have sufficient strength to directly object and resist the established order. To achieve their goals, they were forced to use peaceful methods. The era of pacifism gave them time to restore and strengthen their economy and military power, so that they could then confidently “cast their vote.”

The Soviet Union, while engaged in socialist transformations in the country, also needed favorable external conditions. In no case did he need conflicts with capitalist powers, so he adhered to the principle of peaceful coexistence.

In short, the era of pacifism was a time of calm before a big storm.

How to stop being a pacifist

It is known that most people who have a pacifist worldview are phlegmatic and melancholic. Being a choleric person, it is extremely difficult to adhere to pacifism.

If you are a pacifist in life, but have a desire to change this, then try to follow the example of people with a sanguine temperament. Their distinctive feature is that they think only about what is relevant to them, and try not to worry about what they cannot influence in any way. An ordinary turner from a factory is not able to influence any armed conflict at the state level. But if he worries about this on a personal level, it certainly won’t make his life any easier.

Sometimes it happens that pacifists eventually turn into victims of the cruel society that surrounds them. They are used to not punishing people for bad deeds, even towards themselves. People quickly begin to feel this. Decide how important your own principles are to you, and how willing you are to at least partially renounce them in order to protect your honor and dignity. Yours and your family. It may be useful for some to stop putting their interests on the back burner. Stop being passive in situations that require intervention.

But you have to work on it; no person is capable of radically changing in one day.

Sometimes a violent reaction is the only right solution

German problem

Despite all efforts, the stabilization that emerged in the 1920s was very unstable. The measures taken could not calm down the deep contradictions that successfully began to hide under the veil of the era of pacifism.

The stumbling block for the leading world powers was their attitude towards the German question. From the very beginning, the USA and England advocated for a “non-weak Germany” as a counterweight to France and Soviet Russia. They pursued an active policy of financing and supporting the German economy and made concessions on some wishes.

France insisted on compliance with the Treaty of Versailles and opposed any concessions to the German revanchists. She understood that the strengthening of Germany in the international arena creates a security threat and the loss of significant positions for France in Europe. But under pressure from the Anglo-Saxon states, it was forced to curb its ardor and strengthen its rear with the allied states, signing cooperation agreements.

Thus, the German question affected the interests of leading states and created a certain tension.

Criticism of pacifism

Judging superficially, the concept of “pacifism” looks humane and generally positive. However, there is a certain balance in the world and nature - there are always those who have a different opinion. And sometimes the arguments of the opposition side turn out to be really sensible. Psychology teaches you to look at things (be it some problem or anything else) from different angles. There are different opinions regarding pacifism.

The arguments of opponents of such an ideology are conventionally divided into three categories:

1. Logics.
2. Biology.
3. Policy.

Let's take a closer look at each of the categories.

Pacifism has often been criticized from various quarters

Logics

A true pacifist is an idealist. And such an individual is convinced that his ideas are most effective in building an ideal world. But, as already mentioned, each side has a wrong side - none of the ideas can be ideal a priori. Practice shows that sometimes conflicts occur that cannot be resolved without military intervention.

Biology

Militancy and, to some extent, aggression are inherent in all living beings on our planet. People are no exception. Aggression is a defense mechanism that allows humans to survive during evolution. Another question is that some are ready to use this “tool” even when the situation does not require it. It is at such moments that we need those who are able to resist aggressors and protect those who become their victims.

Policy

Everything is as simple as possible here. If a state completely denies the relevance of military action (even when the situation requires it), then soon it will simply cease to exist. The territory will be at the mercy of those who consider aggression acceptable and permissible.

The League of nations

During the Versailles-Washington meetings of 1919-1920. The international organization League of Nations was founded. Its main activity was ensuring security and resolving conflicts by peaceful methods. We can say that with the formation of this organization the beginning of the era of pacifism was laid. Its charter was signed by 44 countries; the Soviet Union was not invited.

The significance of the League of that era is difficult to overestimate: it coped well with its tasks, speaking out against aggression and preserving peace in every possible way. She has a large number of resolved international conflicts to her credit. But as history later showed, not all questions were within her power.

The powerlessness of pacifism

Pacifism, as a phenomenon, has reached our time. But history tells us that such an ideology is powerless in some cases.

Of course, now we live in a civilized world, but this was not always the case. Those who allowed themselves to be pacifists ran a serious risk of being trapped by the aggressors. Since ancient times, it has become clear that pacifism is good in theory, but in practice it is often powerless.

The modern world has gone through stages of evolution, but large-scale conflicts still occur. And pacifism here demonstrates impotence.

In practice, pacifism does not find much reflection in the hearts of people

What were the foundations of the era of pacifism

The expression of the ideas of pacifism in the 20s acquired a bright color. Depleted resources and war weariness contributed to the growth of anti-war sentiment, which political leaders could not ignore. Some countries were weakened and disunited in order to enter into conflicts, while others strengthened their conquered positions. At this stage, no one needed the war. All this contributed to relative stabilization in Europe, which later became known as the era of pacifism.

The established world order, despite its positive aspects, had significant gaps. Too many states have been put in a humiliating position before the leading powers. Issues of territorial borders and nationalism could not be resolved due to many contradictions and conflicts.

Thus, the era of pacifism did not last as long as its supporters would have liked. The collapse of the New York Financial Exchange in 1929 marked the beginning of a global economic crisis, political confrontations, general increasing tension and the threat of a new war.

Hippies as bright representatives of pacifism

To understand how hippies (not to be confused with hipsters) have to do with pacifism, you should first look at their subculture.

True hippies prefer loose colored clothing, love to wear all kinds of beads and baubles, and often weave colored threads into their hair. But it’s all a shell, the main thing is what’s inside.

Most hippies have a specific worldview, which they tried in every possible way to convey to the masses. For a real hippie, freedom and the development of spirituality are important. These are the pillars on which their ideology rests. Freedom for them is the highest value. And peace and love are the basis of being. That is why hippies wore a pendant or badge of the “pacific” symbol.

The famous slogan, most popular among hippies, which people shouted and wrote on banners, looked like this: “Make love, not war.” Which in English translates to “Make love, not war.”

Hippies are a wonderful offshoot of this movement.

Books about pacifism

To better understand the state of mind of a true pacifist, read at least two or three books written by them. Let's briefly talk about a few.

“The world as I see it” (A. Einstein)

For many people, Einstein's theories remain a mystery. At the same time, we see what contribution this man made to the development of not only science, but also civilization as a whole.

Not everyone knows about the other side of the scientist’s personality, because he was interested not only in science. Einstein was a pacifist, so someone will probably be interested in knowing what problems worried him, how he felt about various social phenomena?

Imagine that his interlocutors are S. Freud or K. Lorenz. Find out what Albert Einstein thought about peace, love and war.

"Down with weapons!" (B. Zunter)

In this novel you can find a lot of pacifist arguments. But all this is happening against the backdrop of political uncompromisingness and cruelty. Not recommended for reading by persons under 18 years of age.

Excerpts from this book were quoted in the Austrian government and published in newspapers. This work was highly appreciated by Leo Tolstoy.

“Agnosis” (E. Kozlov)

This is a philosophical and ethical work, written with different but sincere feelings. This book is an emotion that, as far as possible, is expressed in words.

Films about pacifism

Many films have been made on the topic of pacifism. I offer you those that deserve your attention and time:

• "Revenge" (2010);
• "Straw Dogs" (1971);
• Apocalypse Now (1979);
• "Weather Underground" (2002).

The phenomenon of pacifism and people with such views are part of modern society. It is a fact. How good this is - everyone has the right to decide for themselves. Finally, a small wish - people, be kinder.

Be sure to watch these films, through them you can understand the true nature of movement