1993 putsch
After the collapse of the USSR, in 1991. a new state appears - Russia, the Russian Federation. It included 89 regions, including 21 autonomous republics.
During this period, the country was in an economic and political crisis, therefore it was necessary to create new governing bodies and form Russian statehood.
By the end of the 80s, the Russian state apparatus consisted of a two-tier system of representative bodies of the Congress people's deputies and bicameral Supreme Council. The head of the executive branch was President B.N., elected by popular vote. Yeltsin. He was also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The highest judicial authority was the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. predominant role in higher structures the authorities were played by former deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. From among them, presidential advisers V. Shumeiko and Yu. Yarov, Chairman of the Constitutional Court V.D. were appointed. Zorkin, many heads of local administrations.
The essence of the conflict
In conditions when the Russian Constitution, according to supporters of Russian President Boris Yeltsin, has become a brake on reforms, and work on new edition was carried out too slowly and ineffectively, the President issued Decree No. 1400 “On gradual constitutional reform in Russian Federation", which ordered the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation and the Congress of People's Deputies (according to the Constitution, the highest body state power RF) to cease its activities.
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, convening for an emergency meeting, came to the conclusion that this decree violates the Russian Constitution in twelve places and, according to the Constitution, is the basis for the removal of President Yeltsin from office. The Supreme Council refused to obey the unconstitutional decree of the president and qualified his actions as a coup d'etat. It was decided to convene the X Extraordinary Congress of People's Deputies. The police units subordinate to Yeltsin and Luzhkov were ordered to blockade the White House.
Random nature photos 
The defense of the White House was led by Vice President Alexander Rutskoy and Chairman of the Supreme Council Ruslan Imranovich Khasbulatov. After numerous attacks by riot police on demonstrators in Smolenskaya Square, near the Kuznetsky Bridge, other streets of Moscow, supporters of the Supreme Council (spontaneously gathered residents of Moscow and the Moscow region, other cities of the Russian Federation, as well as countries post-Soviet space) broke through the OMON blockade, took control of one of the city hall buildings (the former CMEA building, from the windows of which demonstrations were fired upon) and then attempted to enter one of the buildings of the Ostankino television center (possibly with the aim of getting airtime on Central Television). The storming of the city hall building took place without casualties, but near the television center, fighters from formations loyal to the president opened fire on the stormers and demonstrators.
On October 4, as a result of an assault and tank shelling, the White House was taken under control by troops loyal to Yeltsin. During the October events, according to official data, about 150 people died (according to unofficial sources, 2783) people and the system of councils ceased to exist, the system of power in Russia radically changed: instead of a parliamentary one, a presidential republic was established. In 1994, the arrested participants in the October events were amnestied by the State Duma of the Russian Federation. Although none of them was convicted, they all agreed to an amnesty.
Background to the conflict
The introduction of the post of President while maintaining the virtually unlimited powers of the Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation gave rise to the problem of dual power in Russia, which was complicated by the split of society into supporters of the immediate implementation of radical economic reforms ("shock therapy"), who united around President Boris Yeltsin, and conservatives united around the Supreme Council, the chairman of which, after Yeltsin was elected president, was Ruslan Khasbulatov.
One of the reasons for the conflict was the issue of changing the existing Constitution. Yeltsin insisted on changing the form of government in Russia, transferring the powers of the Congress of People's Deputies to the president. Supporters of the Supreme Council insisted on maintaining supreme power for representative bodies, although the Congress from time to time adopted amendments expanding the powers of the president.
The confrontation between the two authorities took very serious forms. In May 1993, during a demonstration, there was a clash with riot police, several people were killed.
On March 20, 1993, Yeltsin made a televised address to the people in which he announced that he had just signed a decree introducing a “special management order.” The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, without yet having a signed presidential decree, recognized his actions related to the televised address as unconstitutional and found that there were grounds for removing the president from office. However, as it turned out a little later, the unconstitutional decree was not actually signed. The convened IX (Extraordinary) Congress of People's Deputies attempted to remove the president from office (at the same time, a vote was held on the issue of dismissing Chairman of the Supreme Council R.I. Khasbulatov), but 72 votes were not enough for impeachment.
On March 29, 1993, after the failure of the impeachment attempt, Congress scheduled a four-question referendum for April 25. The positions of the President and the Supreme Council differed radically on all these issues. The conflicting results of the referendum were interpreted by the president and his entourage in their favor.
On September 1, 1993, B. Yeltsin temporarily, “in connection with the ongoing investigation, as well as due to the lack of instructions,” removed Vice President A.V. from his duties. Rutskoi, who has recently repeatedly harshly criticized the president and the government. The current Constitution and legislation did not contain provisions on the possibility of removing the vice president by the president. The allegations of corruption that were the subject of the investigation were later unsubstantiated.
On September 3, the Supreme Court decided to send a petition to the Constitutional Court with a request to verify the compliance with the Basic Law of the provisions of the decree of the President of the Russian Federation of September 1, in terms of the temporary removal from office of Vice President Alexander Rutsky. According to parliamentarians, by issuing this decree, Boris Yeltsin invaded the sphere of powers of the judicial bodies of state power. Until the case is resolved in the Constitutional Court, the validity of the decree
Progress of the conflict
On September 21, President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin issued decree No. 1400 “On stage-by-stage constitutional reform in the Russian Federation,” which ordered the Congress of People’s Deputies and the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation to cease their activities, and made a televised address to the people. At the same time, communications, electricity, water supply and sewerage were cut off in the House of Soviets, and the forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs began cordoning off the House of Soviets of Russia. The Supreme Council and its supporters announced that Yeltsin had committed " coup d'etat".
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which met on the night of September 21-22, declared Yeltsin’s actions unconstitutional, and Decree No. 1400 as the basis for the president’s removal from office. The Supreme Council, on the proposal of the Constitutional Court, announced the termination of the powers of the president in accordance with Article 121-6 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and the temporary transfer of presidential powers to Vice President A.V. Rutsky. Article 121-6 of the current Constitution of the Russian Federation stated:
Article 121-6. The powers of the President of the Russian Federation cannot be used to change the national state structure of the Russian Federation, dissolve or suspend the activities of any legally elected government bodies, otherwise they are terminated immediately.
Photos of modern Moscow
On September 23, Yeltsin issued a decree promising deputies material benefits and a large one-time reward (many deputies perceived this as an attempt at “bribery”). Yeltsin also signed a decree calling early presidential elections in the Russian Federation for June 12, 1994 (this decree was later cancelled) and transferring the property of the Supreme Council to the presidential administration.
On September 23, unknown persons attempted to attack the joint command building Armed Forces CIS. They managed to partially disarm the guards, but they opened fire and the attackers fled the scene. As a result of the shooting, two people died - a policeman and a civilian who was watching the incident from the window. Many media outlets blamed the deputies of the Supreme Council for the incident. The deputies themselves denied their involvement, considering the incident a provocation in order to create a reason for complete blockade The House of Soviets, and the subsequent massacre.
Bruno's spiral and sprinklers around the White House
On September 24, under the pretext of protecting Muscovites from “armed militants holed up in parliament,” access to the House of Soviets was completely blocked, and newly arriving deputies could no longer get inside. They gathered in the buildings of Moscow district councils. The House of Soviets is surrounded by a continuous ring of watering machines, a barrier made of a Bruno spiral (prohibited by the Geneva Conventions for use on civilian objects, and units of internal troops and riot police, who, in addition to body armor, batons and helmets, were also armed with machine guns, special means "Cheryomukha", armored personnel carriers and water cannons installations.
Citizens began to come to the building of the Supreme Council - the White House: Muscovites, residents of St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod and many other cities and regions of Russia. An indefinite rally spontaneously formed around. Among the rally participants there were many people from various organizations and public associations (including representatives of the revived Cossacks, Chernobyl survivors, miners, public organizations of disabled people, the "Union of Officers", the Union of Social and Legal Protection of Military Personnel, Persons liable for Military Service and members of their families "Shield" and a lot others). IN October events Armed comrades-in-arms of the RNE, led by A.P., took direct part. Barkashov. Subsequently, the Barkashovites called these events a “field of honor.” Most of these organizations were subsequently denied the right to participate in the elections to the Federal Assembly by Yeltsin's decree.
After the failure of negotiations through the mediation of Patriarch Alexy in Novo-Ogaryovo, a blockade of the Supreme Council began by the riot police of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Electricity and water supply were turned on for a while in the Supreme Council building, then they were turned off again.
At 14:00 a rally authorized by the Moscow Council took place in support of the Supreme Council on Oktyabrskaya Square. When several thousand people gathered, information was received that at the last moment holding a rally on Oktyabrskaya Square was prohibited by the Moscow mayor's office. Riot police attempted to block the square. There were calls to move the meeting to another location.
At 15:25, the demonstrators, having broken through the cordon on the Crimean Bridge, unblocked the House of Soviets. During the breakthrough, 2 riot police officers were injured (hit by MIA trucks). The demonstrators were fired upon by riot police who retreated to the city hall building (former CMEA building). According to the Armed Forces, 7 killed, dozens wounded. In addition, 2 employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were killed (one of them was a colonel who tried to prohibit the troops from shooting). Supporters of the president blamed supporters of the Armed Forces for this. According to the Armed Forces, all the dead suffered from bullets from Interior Ministry soldiers.
At 16:00 B.N. Yeltsin signed a decree introducing a state of emergency in Moscow. A rally was held at the White House, at which Rutskoi called on demonstrators to storm the city hall and the television center in Ostankino. At the same rally, Ruslan Khasbulatov called for storming the Kremlin and imprisoning Yeltsin in Sailor Silence.
At 16:45 the city hall building is occupied by protesters. The riot police and internal troops retreated, leaving military trucks with keys in the ignitions, as well as a grenade launcher.
The demonstrators, led by Anpilov and Makashov, moved towards the television center in Ostankino (some were in trucks left by the troops at the mayor's office) and at 17:00 they demanded that they be given a live broadcast. About 20 of them were armed with machine guns, in addition, they had one RPG-7 hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher, left behind by the internal troops. At the same time as the demonstrators, armored personnel carriers of the Dzerzhinsky division arrived. The television center buildings were guarded, among others, by the Vityaz Ministry of Internal Affairs detachment, led by Lieutenant Colonel S.I. Lysyuk. The protesters demanded that they be given a live broadcast. When they were refused, they attempted to enter the building by ramming the glass doors with one of the trucks abandoned by the troops. Immediately after this, one of the protesters was wounded by a shot from the roof of one of the buildings, then an explosion occurred near the gap where the doors were (shrapnel wounded the demonstrators standing nearby), and at the same time, inside the building, an unidentified explosive device exploded among the Vityaz fighters, during which a private was killed special forces Sitnikov N.Yu. According to the version of the president's supporters, voiced by all media, it was a shot from an RPG-7 V-1 grenade launcher from the demonstrators
However, the investigation established with certainty that a shot was not fired from the grenade launcher that the attackers had. It has been proven that there was no grenade warhead at the scene of the death of an ordinary explosion. No traces of the explosive used were found (only fragments). In this regard, experts and investigators suggested that one of the non-marking special means at Vityaz’s disposal was detonated in order to mobilize fighters to open fire on the crowd.
At 19:12 after the explosion, special forces and armored personnel carriers opened heavy fire with automatic weapons on the crowd gathered at the television center, which led to the death of at least 46 people, including many foreign journalists. Television and radio broadcasting in Ostankino was temporarily stopped by someone's order.
At 20:45 E.T. Gaidar addressed supporters of President Yeltsin on television with a request to gather near the Mossovet building, which had been taken under the control of the Ministry of Security. From those gathered, people with combat experience are selected and detachments are formed to capture and protect objects, such as Moscow district councils. Squads of civilians, including women, are also used. Barricades have been erected on Tverskaya Street and in adjacent streets and alleys. A rally is taking place outside the Moscow City Council. Gaidar received from S.K. Shoigu weapons for distribution to demonstrators.
At the direction of the Minister of Defense P.S. Grachev, tanks from the Taman Division arrived in Moscow. In the morning, in the area of the Krasnaya Presnya stadium, due to lack of coordination of actions, armed clashes occurred between the Taman residents and the armored personnel carriers of the Dzerzhin residents, between the Dzerzhin residents and armed men from the Union of Afghanistan Veterans, who also took part in the conflict on Yeltsin’s side. There were dead and wounded, both among soldiers and among bystanders. One of the Dzerzhints’ armored personnel carriers caught fire from a shot from Taman division soldiers, and the commander was killed. Those who took part in these clashes were awarded orders and medals, two were awarded the title “Hero of Russia”.
On the night of October 3–4, a plan was prepared to storm the White House, in which about 1,700 people, 10 tanks and 20 armored personnel carriers took part; the action was extremely unpopular, the contingent had to be recruited from five divisions, about half of the total contingent were officers or junior commanding staff, A tank crews recruited almost entirely from officers.
Commanders of special groups "Alpha" and "Vympel" at negotiations with the leaders of the Supreme Council on peaceful surrender (04.10.1993).
At 9:20 am, tanks located on the Kalininsky (Novoarbatsky) Bridge began shelling the upper floors of the Supreme Council building. In total, six T-80 tanks took part in the shelling, firing 12 shells. At 15:00 squads special purpose"Alpha" and "Vympel" were ordered to storm the White House. The commanders of both special groups, before executing the order, tried to negotiate with the leaders of the Supreme Council on a peaceful surrender. "Alpha", having promised security to the defenders of the House of Soviets, managed to persuade them to surrender by 17:00. The Vympel special unit, whose leadership refused to carry out the assault order, was subsequently transferred from the FSB to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which led to the massive resignation of its fighters. After 5 p.m., by agreement with Yeltsin’s supporters, the mass output defenders from the Supreme Council. According to the assurances of those who stormed, there should have been no shelling. However, those leaving the building had not walked even 100 meters when fire was opened over their heads. A few minutes later, the attackers began shooting those leaving the building almost point-blank. According to eyewitnesses, it was at this moment that the greatest number of deaths occurred. The relatives of the missing people who came the next day could see up to three rows of troupes lined up along the wall in one of the nearby stadiums. Many of them had bullet holes in the center of their foreheads, like a control shot. Before leaving the building of the Supreme Council, Rutskoi demonstrated in front of television cameras a Kalashnikov assault rifle, from which not a single shot was fired. He also demonstrated small sizes a cardboard box containing cassettes with recordings of negotiations, including between Yeltsin and Luzhkov. A recording was shown in which a voice similar to Luzhkov’s was clearly heard, calling on the riot police and the Alpha special forces to “shoot mercilessly.” The video sequence of the film "Secret Russia" also contains footage of one of the halls of the Supreme Council, where more than 30 shots from sniper rifles are visible at heart level. According to Rutsky, this is shooting to kill at those people who were in the Supreme Council at that moment. Rutskoi also indicated that in the corridors of the Supreme Council there were more than 400 corpses of the defenders of the Supreme Council at the end of the assault.
The leaders of the White House defense, some participants, as well as many people who did not participate in the confrontation, were arrested and, according to human rights activists, subjected to beatings and humiliation. At the same time, the Memorial human rights center “recorded a case where there are serious grounds to suspect that the death of a person... occurred as a result of beatings by the police.”
Information war
Supporters of the legislature were called “red-browns,” “communo-fascists,” “putschists,” and “rebels” in government and pro-government media. They called themselves “defenders of the Constitution” and “defenders of Parliament.” They also expressed objections to calling them “opposition”, since they represented the highest (according to the Constitution) state power (Congress), and two of the three existing branches of government - the legislative (RF Supreme Court) and the judicial (RF Constitutional Court).
In the English-language media, the main axis of the conflict is indicated between supporters of parliament or defenders of the Parliament on the one hand and part of Muscovites, who supported Yeltsin, police and elite divisions of Russian military forces (elite units of the Russian armed forces) - on the other.
A major role in the conflict is attributed to “provocateurs” and “Korzhakov’s snipers” (according to another version, Rutskoi’s snipers, veterans of “hot spots”), who fired at policemen in order to provoke them to take decisive action.
In 2004, on the anniversary of the events, about 20 parties and public associations of the left flank signed an appeal to the people, where the shooting of the White House was called “the largest terrorist attack in history”, which “gave rise to many imitators.” The authors of the appeal claim that the “handwriting of Yeltsin’s thugs” can be seen in the bombings of houses, planes and the murders of children in Beslan. It is worth noting that Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev took responsibility for the plane bombings and the terrorist attack in Beslan, and the bombings of residential buildings, as the court found, were carried out by order of Islamic extremists associated with international terrorist organizations.
Coverage of the activities of supporters of the Supreme Council in the media. Censorship
On September 23, the Chernomyrdin government issued a decree transferring to the government authority publications whose founder was the Supreme Council, such as "Rossiyskaya Gazeta", "Legal Gazette of Russia", the magazine "People's Deputy", television and radio programs "RTV-Parliament", as well as Publishing house "Izvestia of the Councils of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation". Edition " Russian newspaper", the former printed organ of the RF Armed Forces, was suspended. Some newspapers were published with blank spots or advertisements in place of censored materials.
Several newspapers, such as Sovetskaya Rossiya, Pravda, Den and Glasnost, spoke out in support of the Supreme Soviet. After the storming of the White House, these newspapers were banned, however, a few months after the adoption new Constitution and Duma elections, were given the opportunity to resume activities.
On central television, the leadership of which was in the hands of B. Yeltsin’s supporters, immediately after the start of the conflict the television program of the Russian Armed Forces “Parliamentary Hour” (RTR), as well as the weekly author’s program of V. Politkovsky “Politburo” and A. Lyubimov’s talk show were closed. Red Square" (State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company "Ostankino"), "Vremechko" and others, in which critical remarks were made against Yeltsin. Only one television program, “600 Seconds,” aired on television in St. Petersburg, covered the activities of supporters of the Supreme Council in a non-negative light. This program was closed immediately after the storming of the White House. According to A. Malkin, a member of the board of directors of the Ostankino television company, the chairman of the company V. Bragin told him that “we don’t need the whole truth now, but when we need it, I’ll tell it.” According to A. Migranyan, a member of the presidential council, Yeltsin did not know about the introduction of censorship, and no censorship initiatives came from him. Yeltsin's former press secretary P. Voshchanov said that he knows many people from the presidential team well, and therefore takes the liberty of asserting: “This regime does not need a free press.”
"Zero option"
Along with the two main parties to the conflict, each of which intended to achieve the removal from power opposite side with the preservation and strengthening of its power, a third force also indirectly participated in the conflict. In particular, it included the majority of regional authorities (represented at that time in Moscow by the Federation Council, which was not yet an official state body and the upper house of parliament), as well as the majority of armed formations, which are often considered “neutral”. Official position the third force was the so-called “zero option”, according to which all regulations and decisions of the opposing parties are rolled back for the period “until the publication of Decree No. 1400”, and to resolve the conflict, extraordinary simultaneous re-elections of the President and the Congress of People's Deputies of Russia are announced under the current Constitution. As the conflict progressed relatively peacefully, this position enjoyed increasing support among the people and law enforcement agencies. However, it did not suit both active parties to the conflict for obvious reasons:
B.N. Yeltsin and his entourage could count on winning the presidential elections, but after that they would have to work with the Congress of People's Deputies, which still had the same unlimited powers, but which could no longer be accused of having been elected a long time ago and therefore no longer represents people of Russia. In such conditions, it was quite possible to adjust the political-economic course and remove liberal politicians from real power;
A.V. Rutskoi, as vice president, had no chance of winning the presidential election against Yeltsin, but as vice president acting as a “usurper,” he could count on increasing his popularity in the elections;
R.I. By the time of the dissolution of the Congress of People's Deputies, Khasbulatov had lost his constituency (Chechen Republic), since Chechnya had actually separated from Russia, ceasing to obey Russian laws, pay taxes to the federal budget, etc. But even if elected in another constituency, which was unlikely, he had no chance to head the new Supreme Council of Russia, since even in the existing Supreme Council his election was the result of a difficult political situation when Yeltsin left this post, and even in September 1993 he was rising the question of his immediate replacement by Baburin;
Many of the ministers appointed by Rutskoi and participants in the conflict close to Rutskoi and Khasbulatov linked their destinies with these opposition leaders, which is why it is likely that they feared the results of simultaneous re-elections;
In the ranks of the opposition, many considered it necessary to remove Yeltsin from power and not allow him to participate in the presidential elections as a criminal who had attempted a coup.
By October 3, 1993, there were signs that if the peace talks or confrontation without decisive action on either side, the “zero option” becomes the main one. Since it did not suit any of the active parties to the conflict, Yeltsin decided to solve the problem by force, and the leaders of the opposition (primarily Khasbulatov and Rutskoi), instead of keeping the people who had broken through to help the Congress from rash actions, directed them to seize the television center in Ostankino and even the Kremlin.
results
The neglect of the conflicts, as well as the inability of the former Soviet leadership to correctly assess the nature, intensity and degree of danger of latent conflicts, to foresee the consequences of “perestroika” and “glasnost” - led to their almost instantaneous escalation into open and uncontrollable conflicts. If we add to this the peculiarities of the political subculture of the Russian intelligentsia (precisely described in “Vekhi”), the absence in society of legal and other legitimate mechanisms for resolving conflicts, then the severity and destructiveness of their manifestations were largely predetermined.
The conflict potential of the country not only did not decrease, but even increased due to the rapid and extremely painful, and for part of society, violent transformation that began at the end of 1991 - beginning of 1992, first into a post-socialist and then into a post-Soviet society. In just a few years, Russians found themselves in a completely different political-geographical and state space after the collapse of the USSR and in a different socio-economic and political system. Profound changes and sharp differentiation in the socio-political stratification and structure of society, a decline in the living standards of the majority of the population, were accompanied and partially caused by a radical redistribution of property and power. Almost all aspects of social and human life have undergone a radical change. Particularly painful for the older and middle generations was the radical denial of the entire past. And if, according to numerous public opinion polls, for some this turned out to be a long-awaited and desired revolution, then for others it was a counter-revolution, humiliation of the country and the meaninglessness of their past and present.
The ideological and political polarization of society is burdened by such features of Russian political culture as its ideological dichotomy (everyone is placed on one side or another of the barricades), the lack of a tradition of political compromise (not ours means enemies, and they should be destroyed if they do not give up). These features of political culture left their mark on the elections of 1993, 1995 and 1996, undermining one of their main functions - achieving consensus in society. In fact, the election campaigns of even the parties and leaders calling themselves democratic in these elections were based primarily on denouncing the “red-browns” and intimidating the voter with the restoration of communism. So voters were essentially deprived of the opportunity to seriously understand the state of society, its economy and culture, and the causes of crises and conflicts. Instead of discussing real ways to resolve the crisis and find agreement, leaders and parties often competed (usually in absentia) in search of incriminating evidence and accusations. Therefore, voters were driven, especially in the 1996 presidential elections, into artificial situation a dichotomous choice between the regime of “totalitarianism”, “national-bolshevism” with its egalitarian poverty and the “anti-people” regime of the “degenerated top of the CPSU” and the “comprador bourgeoisie”, which robbed 80% of Russians and destroyed the country, its economy, culture and army.
For Russia in the last 6-8 years additional difficulties in search of political compromise and agreement creates a combination of aggravation "purely" political conflicts with the politicization of economic, labor, social, ethnic and other conflicts. Of particular danger is the ethnicization of political conflicts and the politicization of ethnic conflicts, leading to their most dangerous - violent forms. These are primarily armed conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, Tajikistan, in Chechnya. There are many reasons for ethnopolitical conflicts, ranging from distortions and mistakes national policy in the Soviet Union, the consequences of its collapse, filling the ideological and value vacuum formed as a result of this collapse ethnic identity, exploitation by regional elites of national feelings in the struggle for power and property in their regions and with Moscow, exacerbation of contradictions between the desire of each people for self-determination, the revival of cultural identity and objective processes of integration, strengthening the historically established spiritual community of the peoples of Russia - and ending with such reasons as economic crisis and socio-economic inequality between individual regions, the presence of mutual territorial and other claims in a number of regions (especially the North Caucasus), the presence of refugees and displaced persons, deterioration environmental situation, the increase in crime with ethnic overtones, gaps and imperfections in regulatory interethnic relations legislation, etc.
An important cause of political conflicts in Russia is the accelerated modernization itself from above, the crises generated by it, real or imaginary injustices, which together undermined in the minds of part of the population the legitimacy of state legal institutions, and indeed political system. This is evidenced, in particular, by low prestige bodies of all three branches of government, the vast majority political leaders and statesmen.
In such a conflict-prone situation in Russia, what are the ways and means of finding political compromises and agreement? Today, their achievement depends to a large extent on the positions of opposing leaders and elites. The fate of the country largely depends on whether they are able to take into account the already existing socio-political pluralism, and not the dichotomy of society, to satisfy its basic needs, to sacrifice some power and property in order to mitigate and eliminate the main threats to society, and to implement the compromise agreements reached. Legitimation of state-political institutions and the policies pursued by them can also be significantly facilitated by truly free, equal and competitive elections in a multi-party system, which presuppose at least the absence of a monopoly on the media, abuse of financial and political power resources, and the conviction of the majority of voters that political parties , candidates for elective positions, election commissions and other participants and election organizers have equal rights and fully comply with election laws and instructions, and these laws and instructions themselves are fair.
In this regard, it should be noted that the results of the 1996 elections and, most importantly, their assessment from the point of view of fairness and equality, are undoubtedly influenced by the disparate difference in the volume and nature of the resources available to the contenders for the post of President of the Russian Federation. Leaving aside the revealed imperfections of the electoral legislation, sharp criticism from some voters was caused by the virtually complete monopoly of one of the candidates on the most influential types of media - television and radio. Some voters were also irritated by the transformation of leading members of the government, starting with its Chairman, into central headquarters, and the heads of administrations of many regions and their subordinates - to the actual regional election headquarters B.N. Yeltsin. In addition to the conspicuous extreme high cost of his own election campaign (the lack of reliable data on its cost is another source of dissatisfaction among some citizens), the multibillion-dollar distribution of debts and subsidies from the state budget by the current President of the Russian Federation, which were carried out essentially within the framework of his election campaign.
Such recipes for resolving political conflicts and achieving stability, which are regularly offered to society as postponing or even canceling elections, dissolving the opposition parliament, banning political parties, establishing a “democratic dictatorship” or a regime of personal power in the name of “order and the fight against crime,” can result in a tragic outcome. This is indisputably evidenced by the data of a study commissioned by the Central Election Commission in May 1996 on a representative all-Russian sample (authors research project: V.G.Andreenkov, E.G.Andryushchenko, Yu.A.Vedeneev, V.S. Komarovsky, V.V. Lapaeva, V.V. Smirnov). Almost 60% of Russians consider elections as the main means of forming government bodies. The fact that elections have become one of the basic political values for most Russian society, is also confirmed by the fact that only 16.4% of respondents approve of the use of refusal to participate in elections as a means of influencing the authorities. While 67.1% do not approve of voter absenteeism.
The civic maturity of the Russian voter is confirmed by other data from this study. Thus, the main motive (44.8% of respondents) for voting for a particular candidate is an assessment of what he can do for Russia. The stability of this position is evidenced by the answers to the question about the motives for participation of respondents in the elections of deputies State Duma in December 1995: 42.6% were guided primarily by the fulfillment of their civic duty, and 23% did not want others to decide for them who should be in power.
At the same time, in the political consciousness of compatriots there are a number of aspects unfavorable for achieving political agreement. First of all, this is a fairly large proportion of citizens who have a negative attitude towards the activities of federal bodies of all three branches of government:
to the Federation Council - 21.6%
to the Constitutional Court - 22.4%
to the State Duma - 38.9%
to the President of the Russian Federation - 42.5%
This means that no less than every fifth (and in the case of the President - almost every second) Russian is a potential supporter of the opposition. The mere presence of those dissatisfied with government and administrative bodies is not dangerous if citizens believe that by participating in elections they can change the situation in the country. However, 25.7% of compatriots do not believe in this to one degree or another.
Another institution of a democratic society, acting as an intermediary between a citizen, on the one hand, and government agencies, civil servants and government leaders who ensure non-violent resolution of conflicts, on the other hand, are political parties. Alas, in our country political parties today are not able to play this mediating and consensual role. Only 20.4% of citizens consider themselves supporters of any political party; a candidate's affiliation with a particular political party ranks only fourth among the circumstances that a voter takes into account when choosing whom to vote for; Only 8.6% of voters are in favor of voting only according to party lists, and in favor of a mixed electoral system, in which some deputies are elected according to party lists, another 13.1% are in favor. Thus, we can state a negatively alienated attitude towards political parties the majority of Russians.
To achieve compromise and harmony in society, along with using the entire known arsenal of resolving political conflicts, their legalization is necessary. It's about primarily about resolving conflicts within the framework of constitutional and legal norms and through predominantly judicial and legal institutions and procedures. This, in turn, involves restoring the constitutional balance between the executive and legislative branches of government. The danger is too great that someday one or another President of the Russian Federation will use the enormous constitutional powers, unprecedented for a democratic society, to establish once again an authoritarian regime for Russia.
The groundlessness of the growing efforts of a number of political forces, with apparently different ideological and value orientations, to prove not only the readiness of the majority of Russians for an authoritarian regime, but even the desirability of such a regime for them, is shown by the data of the same study. Suffice it to say that the three foundations of democracy: freedom in political sphere(freedom of elections), freedom in economic sphere(freedom of enterprise) and freedom in the field of information and human rights (freedom of speech) are in total internalized and supported by 54% of the country's citizens. On the other hand, only 5.3% of Russians rely solely on appointments “from above” as a way to form government bodies, since they do not believe in the ability of ordinary citizens to effectively carry out the function of selecting leaders. The fact that only a small part of the population has preserved the authoritarian-paternalistic political culture characteristic of pre-revolutionary and, in part, Soviet Russia in a radical-conservative form is confirmed by the proportion of supporters of absolute monarchy (1.9%) and constitutional monarchy(3.6%) as the most suitable forms of government (government) for our country.
All this provides a serious basis for abandoning attempts to solve the country’s problems in an authoritarian-violent manner and for searching for democratic consent in society. The fact that both the newly elected President of the Russian Federation and his main rival made statements about their readiness for cooperation and compromise inspires some hope. Not to use this opportunity would be an unforgivable and dangerous mistake for Russia.
In Russia the entire structure was liquidated Soviet power, the “dual power” is over. During the transition period in Russia, a regime of personal power was established by B.N. Yeltsin. The activities of the Constitutional Court were suspended. Yeltsin, by his decrees, abolished the norms of the current Constitution and legislation. In this regard, many famous lawyers, statesmen, political scientists, politicians, journalists, as well as historians noted that a dictatorship had been established in the country. On December 12, 1993, a referendum was held to adopt a new Constitution, according to which a presidential republic with a bicameral system was established in Russia parliament.
Parties and organizations whose members took part in clashes on the side of the Supreme Council were excluded from participation in the elections, as participants in an armed rebellion. The leaders and many participants in the defense of the White House and the storming of the city hall and Ostankino were arrested and given amnesty after the elections of the new parliament.
According to the former head of the investigative team, Leonid Proshkin, the amnesty that buried criminal case No. 18/123669-93 suited everyone because “contrary to the will of the leadership, investigators from the Prosecutor General’s Office investigated the actions of not only supporters of the Supreme Council, but also government forces largely responsible for the current situation and the grave consequences of what happened."
According to official data, the number of deaths during the riots was 150 people, the number of injured was 389.
As a result of the investigation of the Commission of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation for additional study and analysis of the events that took place in the city of Moscow on September 21 - October 5, 1993, the actions of B. Yeltsin were condemned and found to be contrary to the Constitution of the RSFSR, which was in force at that time. Based on the materials of the investigation conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, it was not established that any of the victims were killed with weapons at the disposal of supporters of the Armed Forces.
Conclusion
Each of the parties to the conflict intended to achieve the removal of the opposite side from power while preserving and strengthening its power
Also, one of the reasons for the conflict was the issue of changing the current Constitution, amending the law, since the constitution, adopted at the extraordinary seventh session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of the ninth convocation on October 7, 1977, did not fit the new state system and many clauses of the constitution became invalid for expiration of time.
Time has passed since October 1993, when the conflict between the branches of power led to battles on the streets of Moscow, the shooting of the White House and hundreds of victims. But, as it turned out, few people remember about this. For many of our compatriots, the shooting death of October merges in their memory with August 1991 and the attempted coup carried out by the so-called State Emergency Committee. Therefore, they are increasingly trying to look for those responsible for the October drama in 1991.
The complex political and socio-psychological situation in Russia not only determines to a large extent the content of conflicts and the forms of their manifestation, but also affects their perception by the population, elites, and the effectiveness of the means of regulation used. The constitutional framework and legal norms for resolving conflicts have not been developed.
For this reason and due to the lack of experience in civilized and legitimate conflict management, forceful methods: not negotiations and compromise, but suppression of the enemy. The essentially conflictual methods of reforming Russian society continue to create conditions for continued confrontation. The alienation of the population from power and politics not only leads to a decrease in the legitimacy of the dominant political forces, but also causes instability in the functioning of the political system as a whole.
Back to section 
Week-long tour, one-day hiking and excursions combined with comfort (trekking) in the mountain resort of Khadzhokh (Adygea, Krasnodar region). Tourists live at the camp site and visit numerous natural monuments. Rufabgo waterfalls, Lago-Naki plateau, Meshoko gorge, Big Azish cave, Belaya River Canyon, Guam gorge.
I wrote this a long time ago, for the newspaper...
WHO WON THE SECOND WORLD WAR?
"Who won the Second World War"? - “Who-who, allies.” - “Allies, who”? - “Well, Americans, British, Canadians, French...” - “And the Russians”? - “No...” - “How is it, no”? - “Well, you know, it was a long time ago. When I was in school, there was a Cold War, and nothing was said about the Russians at all.” - “So the French won the war, but the Russians didn’t”? - "Exactly"!
It’s funny how they, the French, turn out: they surrendered their country in three days without a word, they “collaborated” with the Germans throughout the war, and they are the winners. And the Russians!... Okay, my interlocutor is about fifty years old, he really studied at school for a long time, he probably forgot everything... Although...
I go to the nearest lyceum for the truth. On the way I meet a neighbor's urchin. About 12-13 years old. “Who,” I ask, “won the war”? - “Great?” - “No, the Second World War” (in France, the “Great” War is considered the First, 14th year). The minor thinks intensely: “We haven’t passed the Second yet.” - “When do you have it?” - “I don’t know, in the last grade, or the penultimate.” - “What do you think, who won?” - “Americans”?
Well, yes, of course. The Americans liberated Paris. And the Americans landed in Normandy. Second front. Just now (1994) the half-century anniversary was celebrated with incredible pomp. The whole world was called to the celebrations. Even the Germans... Only they forgot the Russians...
I arrive at the lyceum just in time. The bell has just rung, and enlightened youth are pouring in like a wave. The same question: “Who won the Second World War”? Of the twenty-seven lyceum students surveyed, exactly twenty named “Americans”; three (apparently just to distinguish themselves) are “allies”, recognizing the outstanding role of the “English”; the four remaining were probably poor students, and could not say anything intelligible at all. In response to my loud and patriotic indignation about the oblivion of Russian soldiers, an outsider, a twenty-eighth girl, came up and reassured me: “Yes, Russians too made a very big contribution And suffered very heavy losses." And then everyone remembered the “heroism of the French resistance”, and the most important role De Gaulle and his Free France resisting the Germans on the radio from London... Desperate to achieve recognition of the Fatherland from the lips of ungrateful teenagers, she went to school library, to see what their textbooks actually teach these students.
For luck, I take the first book I come across (in France there is no single textbook for the whole country, each teacher is free to choose his own textbook). " Modern History». Graduation class. 1983 edition. "The Second World War". Soviet-German Pact. State of the world in 1939. Poland. "The Attack of Dictatorships on the West." France is occupied and the French sign peace with the Germans. The beginning of battles with England. The Wehrmacht attacks the Soviet Union. The Germans declare war on the United States. Start Battle of Stalingrad... The textbook, to its credit, is made very wisely. A minimum of “author’s” text, a maximum of “documents” (the text of the pact, letters from soldiers from the front, correspondence between Stalin and Churchill, the text of De Gaulle’s call, excerpts from the memoirs of direct participants, historical essays, resolutions, directives, photographs, reproductions of leaflets and propaganda posters... ). After the documents there are “some memory questions”, “key points” and “conclusion”. In conclusion - “victory”! "Victory of the Allies"! What does this victory consist of? November 1942 - a series of victories in Africa and the Allies landing in Africa. February 1943 - American victory on the island of Guadalcanal (Solomon Islands). Soviet victory at Stalingrad. September 1943 - Italian capitulation. June 6, 1944 - Allied landings in Normandy. January 1945 - Americans land in the Philippines. March 1945 - The Allies cross the Rhine. May 2, 1945 - capture of Berlin Soviet troops. May 8, 1945 - German surrender. August 6, 1945 - atomic bomb on Hiroshima. August 15, 1945 - Japanese surrender. End.
If you look closely, the textbook contains information about the “heroic courage of the Soviet partisans,” and about the “Great Patriotic” rise, and about Stalingrad in all its details, and about the “giant efforts of the Soviet military industry,” and about, thanks to these efforts, “the power of the Soviet fire,” and about Kursk, and about unimaginable sacrifices, and about everything, everything, everything (with the exception of criticism of Stalin, but that’s another topic and a separate question). However, for some reason the “great contribution” of the Russian people is not remembered, but what is remembered is the American paratroopers, the French communist partisans and the adamant De Gaulle in the adamant England. The communist newspaper L'Humanité (whose editorial is given here), in its issue of May 8, 1945, of course, puts Stalin's portrait in the reddest corner, and writes in bold letters "Glory to the Red Army and its chief, Marshal Stalin!" (“glory” to all others is typed in a smaller font), but something else still remains in the memory: “Victory of the Allies... Beginning of 1945... The Allies continue to advance on all fronts. The great question: who will take Berlin? For the British and Russians, for psychological reasons, this is the most important question. For Americans, this is a political issue, not a military one. In this situation, the Americans leave the Russians to take Vienna (April 13, 1945), and Prague (May 6-9). May 2, 1945 Marshal Zhukov occupies Berlin. For their part, the Americans, British and French, having crossed the Rhine, quickly advance to the East, but the Americans stop on the Elbe, waiting to meet with Soviet troops."
Like this. If the Americans had not “left it to the Russians” to take Berlin, the Russians probably would not have been among the victors at all. The French, if the Americans had not stayed on the Elbe, would have reached the fastest and would have become the main winners... Just kidding.
No joke, “the entire war” and “the situation of the USSR at the end of the war” French textbook sums it up this way: “Before the Second World War, other countries feared the USSR, but how “ great country" The USSR, however, was not considered. After the war, the USSR is presented as one of the two great world powers. The result for the USSR can be summarized by stating such a takeoff? Asset: prestige, large areas, wide area of influence. Passive: great loss of life, great problems in the industry. (...) Prestige: The contribution made by the USSR to the victory brings it not only great military prestige, but also wide international sympathy. (…) Conclusion: …".
You can only draw your own conclusion... But then, luckily, kind old lady, library keeper: “Don’t be so upset. I remember somewhere I once came across the following statistics: immediately after the war, the majority of the French - I don’t remember the exact number now, but I remember a lot - when asked “who won the war?” They answered - Russians. This comes later, because iron curtain, and in general - everyone forgot. And it was easier to talk about the Americans. C'est la vie."
C'est la vie! Leaving the lyceum, I ran into some guy about 30-35 years old at the door. “Who won the war”? - I asked angrily at parting, - “Americans”! - the uncle assured good-naturedly.
Alena Nevskaya
In fact, it is somewhat strange to ask the question of who won the 2nd World War:
it would seem that the obvious fact is that all people won it good will who took up arms to destroy the infection of German Nazism; for example, even the Americans, who took part in hostilities with the Germans only when the outcome of the war was already decided, won it.
But when one of the sides decides to attribute the Victory in the Great War only to itself, and if this side is the American one, then one must answer here.
The answer is that if we consider who exactly actually earned the Great Victory, who paid for it with their blood and who it really belongs to, then it becomes obvious that it certainly does not belong to the USA or Great Britain, not to mention France.
This Victory belongs Soviet Russia and her people.
The share of the Western and Eastern Fronts in the Second World War
In order to assess the importance of the eastern front in the victory over Nazi Germany, you can compare the number of German divisions that took part in hostilities on different fronts (Table 2), compare the number of defeated divisions (Table 3). In previous years, these figures circulated widely in our historical and socio-political literature. However, the combat composition of even divisions of the same type could differ somewhat. And what is a defeated division? Set aside for reformation? In which condition? (cases of complete destruction of large units are quite rare). How much time and resources did it take to restore it?
It would be more interesting and representative to compare losses personnel and technology on various fronts. In this aspect, the documents of the so-called secret Flensburg archive (a secret archive found in Flensburg during the war) are extremely interesting ( Whitaker's Almanach, 1946, p.300) and quoted in ( B.Ts. Urlanis. History of military losses. M., St. Petersburg: POLYGON AST, 1995, 558 p.) (Table 1). The archive contained information about losses only up to November 30, 1944, only for ground forces, and perhaps the data was not entirely complete. However, the general ratio of losses along the fronts can be determined from them.
Table No. 1.
Distribution of German losses ground forces By separate fronts until November 30, 1944
As can be seen from the data of the Flensburg archive, by November 30, 1944 more than 70% losses Nazi troops fell on the eastern front. And these are only German troops. If we also take into account the losses of Germany’s allies, almost all of whom (except Italy) fought only in Eastern Front, this ratio will reach 75% (it is not entirely clear where in that document the Wehrmacht losses in the Polish company are attributed, but accounting for them changes the overall balance by only a quarter of a percent).
Of course, the bloody battles of the end of the war are still ahead. The Ardennes and the crossing of the Rhine are still ahead. But the Balaton operation, the largest operation to capture Berlin, is also ahead. And at the final stage of the war, the majority of German divisions were still concentrated on the eastern front (Table 2). So over the last six months of the war, the percentage of losses attributable to the eastern front could not change much.
It may also be noted that these data cover losses of ground forces only. According to rough estimates ( Kriegstugebuch des Oberkomandos der Wehrmacht Band IV. Usraefe Werlag für Wehrwessen. Frankfurt ane Main.), the losses of the German Air Force were distributed approximately equally between the Western and Eastern Fronts, and 2/3 of the losses of the German Navy can be attributed to the Western Allies. However, more than 90% of all losses of the German armed forces, according to the same archive, fell on the ground forces. Therefore, we can assume that the above figures give a more or less correct picture of the distribution of total losses along the fronts.
Table No. 2.
Average number of divisions of Germany and its allies that took part in hostilities on different fronts
(summarized data on
B.Ts. Urlanis. History of military losses. M., St. Petersburg: POLYGON AST, 1995, 558 p.
TsAMO. F 13, op.3028, d.10, l.1-15.
Brief recording of interrogations by A. Jodl. 06/17/45 GOU General Staff. Inventory No. 60481.)
Table No. 3. 
The irretrievable losses of the German army (that is, together with prisoners of war) on all fronts amounted to 11,844 thousand people.
Of them 7 181,1
fall on Soviet-German front (Russia and the USSR in the wars of the 20th century: Statistical research. M.: OLMA-PRESS, 2001, 608 p.).
In the West, the Battle of El Alamein was compared in terms of its significance to the Battle of Stalingrad. Let's compare:
Table No. 4.
Losses of Nazi troops and the troops of their allies at Stalingrad and El Alamein
(data from:
History of military art: Textbook for military academies of the Soviet Armed Forces / B.V. Panov, V.N. Kiselev, I.I. Kartavtsev et al. M.: Voenizdat, 1984. 535 p.
History of the Great Patriotic War Soviet Union 1941-1945: In 6 volumes, M.: Military Publishing House, 1960-1965.)
Let us note at the same time that ground army Japan had 3.8 million people. Of these, 2 million were in China and Korea. Those. not in the area of operations of US troops.
In general, as can be seen from the above data, the Soviet-German front accounted for about 70% of the losses of the Nazi troops. Thus, the situation with the distribution of losses and, consequently, with the ratio of the intensity of combat operations on the fronts of the 2nd World War was mirrored to the situation during the 1st World War:
Data used from:
S.A. Fedosov. poVeda or Pobeda ( statistical analysis losses in the Second World War) // XXV Russian school on problems of science and technology, dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the Victory (June 21-23, 2005, Miass). Brief communications: Ekaterinburg, 2005. pp. 365-367..
The main participants and winners, according to foreigners
In September 2013, our colleague studied English at a language school in Malta. During one of the lessons, the teacher decided to give a quiz about the Second World War. He divided the students into two groups and asked each of them to discuss and decide which three countries could be considered the main participants in this war. “I turned out to be the only Russian in my group. Imagine my surprise when my fellow students refused to include the USSR among the main participants, considering that such an answer would be incorrect! In the second group there were two girls from Ukraine, who also could not convince their partners , that the USSR should, at a minimum, stand in this row... As a result, one group answered the teacher’s question like this: Italy, Germany, USA, and the second - Germany, USA, Japan. Both answers were counted as correct, a colleague recalls. “When I expressed my bewilderment about this, the teacher shrugged: “It’s clear that the USSR took part in the war, and Malta also took part... Everyone took part.”
RIA News
The site decided to conduct its own survey to figure out how ideas about this war, sacred for any Russian person, differ from country to country, what is the most important thing in it for a Belarusian, Greek, German, Mexican, Korean, Australian... We asked 5 identical questions, and here are the answers we received:
Anton, 24 years old, history and social studies teacher. Minsk, Belarus
these are the Axis countries (Germany with satellites, Japan, Italy) and the anti-Hitler coalition (USSR, USA, Great Britain, France).
The USSR was victorious, defending its right to exist and, as a result of the war, created an impressive sphere of influence in Europe and Asia. The second main winner is the United States, which has become the main investor in European economies and acquired the status of a nuclear power.
It claimed the lives of 29 million USSR citizens. Here we are the leaders mournful list.
The main results of the war were the defeat of the Axis countries and the creation of a bipolar system international relations. Cold War. Creation of the UN. There is a lot more that can be written here.
Two great-grandfathers in my family fought. One died in border battles in the 41st, the second was called up in the 42nd. In 1945 he was discharged due to injury. Awarded the Order Red Star.
Michael, 41, entrepreneur. Seoul, South Korea
1) Germany, Japan, Italy against everyone else (USA, England, France).
2) "Other".
3) Israel, South Korea, China.
4) Many countries such as Korea, Israel and others gained independence.
No
Georgios, 32 years old, programmer and entrepreneur. Sparta, Greece
1)
Major participants in World War II: countries of the anti-Hitler coalition (France, Great Britain, then New Zealand, and later - the USA and the USSR) against Germany, Austria, Italy (the main opponents). Initially, the USSR and Germany had a non-aggression pact, but it was violated by Germany's invasion of Soviet territory.
Oh yes, I forgot about Japan.
2) Who won World War II? The war was won by the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition and ended with the Yalta Conference.
3) In which country did World War II claim the greatest number of lives? If in absolute numbers, then, I think, in the USSR.
4) What are the main results of World War II? In addition to the collapse of Germany, the division of the world into three zones of influence: the USSR, Great Britain and the USA. The beginning of the Cold War. Creation of the UN.
5) Fortunately, no. And even more fortunately, my relatives did not participate in the civil war in Greece, which followed World War II.
Cobby, 25 years old, export and import manager. Sfax, Tunisia
1) Major participants in World War II: Countries of the Nazi bloc - Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, I don’t remember others. The countries of the anti-Hitler coalition are Great Britain, France, China and the USA.
2) Who won World War II? Countries of the anti-Hitler coalition (Great Britain, France, China and the USA).
3)
In which country did World War II claim the most lives? In the Soviet Union and Germany.
4) What are the main results of World War II? Appearance great power USA.
5)
Did your family members take part in this war? If so, what is their fate? No.
Peter, 38 years old, development director. Wrexham, North Wales, UK
1) The main participants in World War II: Great Britain, USA, Germany, France, USSR, Japan, Australia.
2) Who won World War II? Anti-Hitler coalition.
3) In which country did World War II claim the greatest number of lives? Don't know. Maybe in the USSR?
4) What are the main results of World War II? The Cold War, the split of Germany, prerequisites for the formation of the European Union.
5) Did your family members take part in this war? If so, what is their fate? Yes. Both my grandfathers. And their brothers. Both grandfathers survived the war and lived to old age. My maternal grandfather didn't see his eldest daughter until she was 5 years old.
Matthias, 46 years old, engineer. Monterrey, Mexico
1) The main participants in World War II: USSR, Great Britain, France, USA (anti-Hitler coalition). And Germany, Japan, Italy.
2) Who won World War II? Anti-Hitler coalition.
3) In which country did World War II claim the greatest number of lives? THE USSR.
4) What are the main results of World War II? The world realized that humanity is capable of hatred and destruction, and felt the urgent need to create a system that would ensure mutual understanding and cooperation among nations.
5) Did your family members take part in this war? If so, what is their fate? Yes. My grandfather's family fled Mexico to escape the revolution. Therefore, he himself and his two brothers were born in the USA, and all three became participants in the Second World War. They all returned home after 5 years.
Hossie, 58 years old, teacher. Ghent, Belgium
1) The main participants in World War II: Germany, UK, USA, France and many others European countries. Japan, USSR.
2) Who won World War II? Anti-Hitler coalition.
3) In which country did World War II claim the most lives? Japan and Germany.
4) What are the main results of World War II? Death, despair and rapid development technologies.
5) Did your family members take part in this war? If so, what is their fate? No.
Stoyan, 27 years old, entrepreneur. New Zagora, Bulgaria
1) Major participants in World War II: The main participants in military operations in Europe are Germany and the Soviet Union, and in the Asia-Pacific region are Japan and the United States.
2) Who won World War II? The main winners are the Soviet Union and the USA.
3) In which country did World War II claim the most lives? As far as I know, in relative terms, Lithuania suffered the greatest losses, and in absolute terms, the Soviet Union lost more lives than any other country.
4) What are the main results of World War II? The Jewish state was created, Jerusalem was taken from the Arabs. Influence in the world is divided between two powers. The deadliest weapon in history was developed and used.
5) Did your family members take part in this war? If so, what is their fate? My great-grandfather fought in Hungary. By the way, at the age of 15 he volunteered to fight in Balkan War. He lived to old age and died at the age of 97.
Jeffrey, 31, HR consultant. Marly-le-Roi, France
1) The main participants in World War II: Great Britain, USA, Canada, Soviet Union, Germany, Italy, China, Japan and France.
2) Who won World War II? Great Britain, the USA, the Soviet Union and China won the war, and France was also among the winners.
3) In which country did World War II claim the greatest number of lives? In Soviet Union.
4) What are the main results of World War II? The result was the establishment of peace in Europe and the defeat of the Nazis. In Asia - nuclear strike across Japan and the fall of the empire.
Confrontation of the winners: the two superpowers have never waged war against each other, but their rivalry has caused many civil wars, coups, murders...
The UN was created to restrain and control states, the Security Council of 5 member countries was given the power of veto. New maps were drawn, new rules were created...
Europe went through a period of economic recovery and modernization, Japan and Germany developed their industries.
Empires lost their colonies.
5) Did your family members take part in this war? If so, what is their fate? My grandfather was a broken soldier French army, was captured in 1940 and was released in 1945.
Franco, event manager. Berlin, Germany
1) Major participants in World War II: Germany, Great Britain, Soviet Union, France, Italy, Japan, USA plus a number of other countries.
2) Who won World War II? Anti-Hitler coalition: USA, USSR, France, Great Britain.
3) In which country did World War II claim the most lives? Soviet Union.
4) What are the main results of World War II? The Cold War, the economic rise of Western Europe, new borders of countries such as Poland. Some countries disappeared (for a while), such as the Baltic countries.
5) Did your family members take part in this war? If so, what is their fate? No, my parents were still small in those years.
Jason, 37, English teacher. Perth, Australia
1) Major participants in World War II: anti-Hitler coalition and countries of the Nazi bloc.
2) Who won World War II? It is impossible to answer this question...
Undoubtedly, victory over the common enemy was achieved through cooperation and mutual assistance. But it cannot be said that any one country won the war - it was not a war between 2-3 countries, but a WORLD war.
3) In which country did World War II claim the greatest number of lives?
If we are talking about human casualties, then in the USSR. If we talk about the destruction of buildings, then France, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine and other countries occupied by the Germans suffered the most. Economically, the UK suffered the most. It is impossible to say which country paid the highest price.
4) What are the main results of World War II? This war united countries with a common goal and formed a generation of people who knew nothing but war. The Second World War ensured the technological development of weapons. The world fell into two parts, and the main forces began to fight among themselves for scientific achievements.
5) Did your family members take part in this war? My grandfather (not my own) fought on the side of Italy, but he did not fire a single shot and generally could not come to terms with the fact that he had to fight. He was a pacifist and lived to be 89 years old. He always viewed war as a senseless loss of life, and believed that this should not have happened and should not be allowed to happen again.
My other grandfather was in the Australian navy, but never took part in battles due to health problems.
Yang Yang, 33, marketing specialist. China
1) The main participants in World War II: Attackers: Japan, Italy, Germany. Defending side: China, Great Britain, France, Soviet Union. The United States entered the war after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
2) Who won World War II? The defending side together with the United States.
3) In which country did World War II claim the greatest number of lives? I think in China and Poland.
4) What are the main results of World War II? The political regime has changed in Japan. Germany split into two parts. The USA began to control the entire Western world. Cold War.
5) Did your family members take part in this war? No.
Found a typo? Select the text and press Ctrl + Enter
Comments
Dmitry Vorobievsky 19:32, 4.04.2016
11:33, 10.05.2014
Del-comment 12:25, 05/10/2014
Del-comment redchenkoukrnet 12:36, 05/10/2014
Redchenkoukrnet dvkuzminbkru 12:41, 05/10/2014
Dvkuzminbkru redchenkoukrnet 13:29, 05/10/2014
Redchenkoukrnet dvkuzminbkru 13:34, 05/10/2014
Dvkuzminbkru redchenkoukrnet 13:45, 05/10/2014
Redchenkoukrnet ecjrjkjdfmailru 22:38, 09.26.2014
Redchenkoukrnet AllBir 11:57, 12/27/2014
Redchenkoukrnet romankus77mailru 20:04, 07/16/2016
Redchenkoukrnet dvkuzminbkru 12:43, 05/10/2014
Dvkuzminbkru redchenkoukrnet 13:31, 05/10/2014
Original taken from altai_love c Who won World War II?
Who won the Second World War? From a historically generally accepted point of view, Victory in the most bloody war in the history of mankind, the USSR and its allies in the anti-Hitler coalition won. At least that's what they write in modern textbooks on history. But why? For what kind of merits are our “allies” credited for their contribution to the Victory over the world’s evil, which, of course, was fascism?
It is obvious that any sane person who has a basis of knowledge in history has a wider school course, bewilderment arises from reading the official point of view on the results of the Second World War.And indeed Most Russians believe that the USSR could have won World War II without the help of its allies:
Most Russians believe that the USSR could have won World War II without the help of its allies. These are the results of a survey by the Yuri Levada Analytical Center.
Thus, 60% of Russians are confident that the USSR would have won World War II without the support of the allies, and 32% of respondents adhere to opposite point view, Interfax agency cites survey data.
Source: http://actualcomment.ru/news/26340/
And really, how did the allies help us? Why should we thank them? What should we thank the political elite of these countries for? Because financial circles Anglo-Saxon world contributed to Hitler's rise to power? 1 For sponsoring the NSDAP? 2 Or for the Versailles Peace Treaty, which, with its enslaving conditions in relation to Germany, strengthened reactionism within German society, in the wake of which the fascists subsequently came to power? 3 For what?
“For opening a second front!” - liberals and historians independent of conscience will tell us. But excuse me, if my memory serves me right, none other than the 32nd US President Franklin Roosevelt, during negotiations with the USSR, promised the opening of a second front by 1942 (!), i.e. in the midst of the war. So in what year was the second front actually opened? A rhetorical question.
“For the supply of military cargo under Lend-Lease” - Liberals echo us. I already wrote in one of my posts that our allies let us down not only in timeliness and volume of supplies, but also as the latter "Lend-Lease". Who helped whom? . I won't repeat myself. I'll just say one thing. After the war, Russia was obliged to pay off the Lend-Lease debt(!). Apparently our “allies” lost 27 million human lives Soviet people it seemed a little. All necessary documents on this issue were signed by... Yeltsin.
Well what can I say? History is written by the winners...
In order to evaluate the contribution Soviet people in Victory is enough look at the losses of the warring countries. According to the interdepartmental commission for calculating the losses of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War, 26.6 million Soviet citizens died.
For comparison, the Allies lost during the Second World War (approximate figures):
British - 400 thousand people;
French - 600 thousand people;
Americans - 229 thousand people. 4
Note the British losses. They number 400,000 people. The figure is certainly terrifying. But everything, as they say, is learned by comparison. Let's compare this figure with our losses:
400000/27000000= 1/67
I ask you, dear reader, to keep this figure in your head. This is the price of our Victory. It perfectly characterizes the contribution of the participants in the anti-Hitler coalition to the common cause, as does, for example, the data on the dead Soviet prisoners of war in the German rear. These, by the way, make up 57.8% of all Soviet prisoners of war. For comparison, among the captured Americans and British, about 4% of soldiers and officers died. 5
(In the photo: Execution of Soviet partisans. September 1941)
In order not to tire the reader at all, for even greater persuasiveness I will give the latest figures:
According to modern estimates, on the Eastern Front, the Red Army defeated 674 Nazi divisions (508 Wehrmacht + 166 allied to the Wehrmacht). Meanwhile, the Anglo-American troops in North Africa in 1941-1943 were opposed by 9 to 20 divisions, in Italy in 1943-45 - from 7 to 26 divisions, in Western Europe after the opening of the Second Front - from 56 to 75 divisions.
There is a difference?
Remember this when they talk to you about the contribution of the USSR, USA, England and France to the Victory.
Remember this when you talk about the war to your children and grandchildren.
On my own behalf, I wish each of you vitality and energy to be able to tell my great-grandchildren about it.
Remember, we are a victorious people!
(Pictured: Soviet flag at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin)
________________________________________ __ _____
Bibliography:
1. N. Starikov “Who made Hitler attack Stalin?”,2011;
2. Guido Giacomo Preparata “Hitler Inc.”, 2007;
3. Ibid;
4. Results of the Second World War. Conclusions of the vanquished. M., 1998;
5. Erin M.E. "Austrian historians on the fate of Soviet prisoners of war." 2006 No. 12;