четверг, 28 июля 2022 г.

Google 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 rss

France was a constant target of Bismarck's aggressive policies. Russia, however, remained a powerful power, and the balance of power in Europe largely depended on its position. The allied coalitions created by the chancellor included Russia and thus supported Germany in her opposition to France in the Balkans. Bismarck managed to conclude the so-called "Three Emperors Alliance" between Germany, Russia and Austria. The union collapsed due to friction between the last two states.

As the military and economic power of Germany increased, its interests began to spread to Africa, where it seized a number of colonies. Very soon, her colonial policy came into conflict with the English here, and relations between Germany and England became extremely aggravated. In order to secure a free hand in the event of a collision with one of the Western powers and to protect himself from the rear, Bismarck concluded with Russia in 1887 the so-called "Reinsurance Treaty". Both empires were to maintain mutual benevolent neutrality in the event of an attack by a third power. Bismarck recognized Russia's interests in the Balkans, promising to "support them morally and diplomatically." On the other hand, the treaty ensured the security of the eastern borders of Germany, if France decided to take revenge for the loss of Alsace and Lorraine in 1871.

The chancellor's hesitations in pursuing Russian policy arose both under the influence of the political situation and because of difficult personal relations with Russian statesmen, in particular with Foreign Minister Gorchakov. Although there were influential figures in the ruling circles of Germany who were anti-Russian and from time to time called for war against Russia under the pretext of a threat from the East, Bismarck on the whole was always a supporter of friendly relations with a strong neighbor. “It is unlikely,” he wrote, “that a war between Germany and Russia could ever become necessary, unless liberal stupidities or dynastic blunders change the situation.” Bismarck's views were also shared by Wilhelm I. On this occasion, the English historian Carr noted: "This maxim was neglected by Wilhelm II in 1914 and Adolf Hitler in 1941, which in both cases had disastrous consequences for Germany."

Bismarck retired in 1890. He left Berlin, noisily greeted by the crowd, who had forgotten the cruelty of this man and remembered only his extraordinary services to Germany. In his book Thoughts and Memories, he talks about his life, about the motives that guided him in his difficult career. For all the ambiguity of his activities, Otto von Bismarck is one of the brightest figures in German history.
The First World War (1914-1918) is one of the longest, bloodiest and most significant in terms of consequences in the history of mankind. It went on for over four years. It was attended by 33 countries out of 59 that had state sovereignty at that time. The population of the warring countries was over 1.5 billion people, i.e. about 87% of all inhabitants of the Earth. A total of 73.5 million people were put under arms. Over 10 million were killed and 20 million injured. Casualties among the civilian population affected by epidemics, famine, cold and other wartime disasters also numbered in the tens of millions.

The causes of the World War are manifold. It was an attempt to cut the knot of the most acute contradictions that had accumulated by the beginning of the 20th century. and more than once made themselves felt by territorial disputes, national conflicts, the struggle for military superiority on land and at sea, trade wars, rivalry for the possession of colonies, and finally, outbursts of tension in relations between social classes and political parties in individual countries.

There was no inevitability that these contradictions would escalate into war. Proof of this are about 40 years of peace, which, despite all the dangers, has reigned in Europe since the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. and the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. The main prerequisite for maintaining peace was broad international cooperation in all areas of life: economics, politics, culture. A dense network of railways connected the most remote corners of Europe and for the first time really brought them together. State borders have become more transparent than ever. All this facilitated the circulation of capital, goods, people, information.

Before the big powers and small countries at the beginning of the 20th century. prospects of unprecedented prosperity opened up. This made it meaningless to use military force to resolve conflicts between them. There were also political and legal guarantees against the outbreak of wars. At the domestic level, this was expressed in strengthening parliamentarism, expanding the freedoms and rights of citizens, strengthening their control over the government, and at the level of international relations - in concluding agreements between countries. Of great importance were the conventions signed in The Hague in 1899 and 1907, which determined the legal mechanisms for resolving international conflicts, in particular by referring them to a special court. It seemed to many at that time that the time was not far off when legal norms would finally triumph over brute force as a decisive argument in disputes not only between people, but also between countries.
If the world war nevertheless began, it is not because the mechanisms for reaching compromises turned out to be ineffective. At a critical moment, the powers themselves, on whom the preservation of peace depended in the first place, did not want to use them. It is difficult to see in this a misunderstanding or an accident. That was a deliberate step, dictated by the goals pursued by their governments and which were obviously unattainable by peaceful means, since they conflicted with the international legal order itself and infringed on the legitimate interests of other countries and peoples.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the World War was a continuation of the policy of territorial conquest pursued by the major powers. Such a policy has long been called imperialist, because it led to the formation of multinational and colonial empires. By the beginning of the XX century. the world was largely divided between them. In the vastness of Central and Eastern Europe, inhabited by dozens of multilingual peoples, three monarchies dominated: German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian. The possessions of the latter extended to the eastern tip of the Asian continent. Almost all of Africa, South and Southeast Asia, lands in other parts of the world became the prey of the colonialists of Great Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, Italy and other European countries. But such vast possessions by no means tempered their appetite.

At the beginning of the XX century. they hatched plans for new conquests, often citing the need to protect fellow tribesmen or co-religionists from oppression, gaining “natural borders” or “living space” as justification. Thus, Germany sought to create from the German-speaking and neighboring countries, which she referred to the sphere of her interests, a close economic and political union - Central Europe. Austria-Hungary hoped to extend its influence to the independent states of the Balkan Peninsula, which it saw as a threat to its security. Russia, on the other hand, was strengthening its positions in the Balkans under the pretext of protecting the “Slav brothers”. Based on its strategic interests, it also sought control over the Black Sea straits - the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. France dreamed not only of the return of Alsace and Lorraine, taken by Germany in 1871 as a result of the Franco-Prussian war, but also of the annexation of the entire German left bank of the Rhine River, which was to become its "natural" border in the east. Italy kept an eye on the adjacent French and Austrian lands, considering them to be its ancestral territories.
All these aggressive plans could be explained only by great-power ambitions or national egoism, if economic interests were not visible behind them. At the beginning of the XX century. no one needed to be convinced that the main source of commercial and military power of states is large-scale industry. The governments of that time also understood this. Therefore, in their foreign and domestic policy, they were largely guided by the encouragement of national industry.

The task is more than commendable. But the way to solve it turned out to be unsuitable and turned into disastrous consequences for the world. To make this clear, let us recall the elementary truths of political economy. Large-scale industry is closely within national boundaries. For a full-fledged development, it needs foreign markets for the sale of products, sources of raw materials, semi-finished products, equipment, and labor. The big industry of any country can, in principle, acquire them only in two mutually exclusive ways: either by winning an open and equal competition for them with the industry of other countries, or by securing the preferential right to use them on behalf of the state to which they are controlled. The first way means the regime of free competition of producers. This is also a war, but an economic one; bloodless, in which the winners count their profits, and the losers and victims count their losses. The second way is the regime of state monopoly, when commerce is elevated to the rank of state policy, which sooner or later leads to rivalry between the Powers for spheres of influence, economic and territorial division of the world. This means war in the most direct sense, a war in which losses are calculated not only in rubles, dollars and other monetary units, but also in millions of lost human lives. Alas, the leading powers chose the second way to protect and support their industry.

The efforts of many governments have concentrated on combating foreign competition, which has been declared almost a disaster for national industry. At the end of the XIX century. it has become an obsession with politicians and businessmen who can only recognize short-term gains. Indeed, domestic producers suffered severely from foreign competition. But was there a need to stifle it, if it is known that in the long run it brings invaluable benefits as an incentive to increase labor productivity? However, in the last third of the XIX century. governments of a number of countries began to raise customs duties on imported goods. "Economic nationalism" led to a sharp aggravation of international contradictions. The relations of even such old partners and allies as Russia and Germany have deteriorated. Powers began to limit competition in international markets, began to divide them, thereby pushing the world to a military catastrophe. This was evidenced by those who became more frequent from the end of the 19th century. international crises (Pamir 1895, Fashoda 1898, Panama 1901, two Moroccan - 1905-1906 and 1911 and Bosnian 1908-1909) and local wars - so far on the periphery of Europe (Japanese-Chinese 1894-1895, Spanish-American 1898, Anglo-Boer 1899-1902, Russian-Japanese 1904-1905, Italian-Turkish 1911-1912 and two Balkans - 1912-1913).
In 1910, a new British dominion emerged - the Union of South Africa (SA), which included the British self-governing colonies of Cape and Natal and the Boer republics captured by England. The creation of the SA was a kind of compromise between local English financiers and industrialists, on the one hand, and wealthy Boer farmers, on the other. It was based on the desire to resolve the Anglo-Boer contradictions by intensifying the exploitation of the African and colored population, which constitutes the majority in the country. The first Prime Minister of South Africa was the former commander-in-chief of the Boer troops during the war of 1899-1902. Louis Botha.

After the formation of South Africa, the stratification in Boer society intensified, which began during the years of economic growth in the Transvaal and Orange. There was a significant increase in the number of poor and ruined farmers who went to the mines and cities in search of work. There were also political differences among the Boers. Some of them, led by Botha, advocated a close alliance between the "upper" layers of the Boer and English population of the country. They were opposed by supporters of the restoration of Boer power in South Africa, the restoration of independent Boer republics. They organized anti-British conspiracies, created political and paramilitary organizations. In 1914, the Nationalist Party arose, based on the Boers - "poor whites" and small entrepreneurs, and in 1918 - the Afrikaner Bruderbond Society (Union of Afrikaner Brothers), which became secret in 1921. In 1922, the South African government drowned in blood an uprising of white miners, mostly Boers, in the Witwatersrand, who put forward demands for the introduction of a "color barrier" in the mines - a discriminatory system for hiring and remunerating Africans.

In 1924, the Nationalist Party, supported by Bruderbond, won the elections to South Africa. The government of James Herzog, one of the founders of the Nationalist Party and a former Boer general, who came to power, pursued an undisguised racist policy. After the merger of the Nationalist Party and the South African Party, led by Jan Smuts (also a former Boer general and Prime Minister of South Africa in 1919-1924, a supporter of "dialogue" with England), an extremely reactionary Afrikaner group, led by the famous politician Malan, recreates in 1934 the "purified" Nationalist Party. Since the mid 30s. the fascist movement is spreading in South Africa. Fascist military organizations such as the Gray Shirts and others appear in South West Africa. In 1939, the Duke declared that "the views of the South African Boers on the racial question coincide with the views of National Socialist Germany." In the same year, he, a resolute opponent of the war with Hitler, was replaced as prime minister by Smuts, and South Africa entered the Second World War on the side of the anti-Hitler coalition. However, even during the war years, many Afrikaners did not hide their pro-German sympathies.
After World War II, the Nationalist Party promoted the idea of ​​apartheid. A national liberation movement unfolded in the country; not only black and colored South Africans, but also part of the white population, including large groups of Afrikaners, opposed the racist policy of the Nationalist Party. After the proclamation of the Republic of South Africa in 1961, external and internal opposition to apartheid intensified, and the demarcation deepened in the Afrikaner Oeschina. In 1988, the Nationalist Party split. Peter Botha was removed as its leader. In 1989, he resigned as president of the country, his successor was the political leader of the Afrikaners of the Transvaal, Frederick de Klerk, who proclaimed a course towards the complete elimination of the apartheid system.

The official repeal in South Africa of most of the racist laws in the early 90s. was supported by a significant proportion of white South Africans, including many Afrikaners. The present and future of the Afrikaners is determined primarily by their prominent role in the economic and socio-political life of the country. Among the Afrikaners, despite the ongoing political differences, there is a growing understanding that racial isolation is a brake on the economic and socio-political progress of the entire population of South Africa.
In the first half of the XIX century. Germany remained fragmented into many states. Each of them had its own political power, army, laws and customs. The most significant among them were Austria and Prussia, which claimed to be the unifier of all German lands. In 1848, a revolution took place in Germany, during which the bourgeoisie entered the political arena. She set herself the goal of national unification, but failed to achieve it. In the Prussian parliament - the Landtag - the bourgeoisie never had a serious influence on politics. But the landlords (junkers) did not cease to be a significant force. They did not lose their economic power, because they were able to restructure their economy in relation to the requirements of the market. On the other hand, more and more factories and factories appeared in the country. Gradually, the landowners and the bourgeoisie came to realize their common interests, which found expression in the idea of ​​a united strong Germany. Its incarnation is associated with the activities of a man of extraordinary will and energy - Otto von Bismarck. Even before its appearance, a number of states were united in the German Confederation, which, however, did not have any significant bodies of central power. The place of the usual representative institutions was occupied by the Federal Sejm, which was rather a conference of representatives of the German states.

Otto von Bismarck was born in the small noble estate of Schönhausen near Berlin in the family of a middle class cadet and the daughter of a professor. Following family tradition, he was supposed to become a military man, but his mother dreamed of seeing her son as a diplomat, and Otto entered the law faculty of Goettingen University. The future minister and the first chancellor of the German Empire did not bother with sciences, giving most of his time, according to the customs of students of those years, to hunting, fencing and beer. Subsequently, he repeatedly boasted of the scars acquired in 27 duels in Göttingen. After completing his education at the University of Berlin, he tried to enter the diplomatic service. But without the support of influential people, this was impossible, so Bismarck became an official of the judicial department. However, the service failed. After several clashes with his superiors, he left his position and went to the village to manage two of his father's estates. His talent manifested itself here too - he soon became a prosperous landowner.
Indomitable, sharp, direct, Bismarck received the nickname "wild" in his district. In secular circles, he was called the "mad junker." He was an unusually strong-willed man, physically enduring, with a thunderous voice, despising human weaknesses. His political views by this time were fully formed: Bismarck was an ardent monarchist. Subsequently, one of his associates formulated Bismarck's political creed as follows: "Force prevails over right!"

In the days of the revolution of 1848, he came to Berlin to suppress the rebels with an armed detachment of his peasants. Even such a reactionary as King Friedrich Wilhelm IV said of Bismarck: "This junker smells of blood," and at first avoided relations with him. However, a few years later it was Bismarck who was entrusted with the post of head of government and it was he who became the ideologist of the policy designed to unite Germany.

Before that, Bismarck went through a good diplomatic school, starting his career as a Prussian envoy to the Federal Diet in Frankfurt am Main. There he studied all the intricacies of Austrian politics, understood the desire of Austria at any cost to play a major role in the political arena and weaken the influence of Prussia. Bismarck believed that Austria wanted to humiliate and destroy Prussia and vowed revenge on Austria. He fulfilled this vow.

It was then that the young diplomat chose his own path - to be guided in politics primarily by state interests. For this, military force and an alliance with strong states were necessary.

Bismarck visited St. Petersburg and Paris as an ambassador and realized that Russia and France were the best allies to fight Austria. The mind, will, efficiency and monarchical convictions of the Prussian ambassador made such a strong impression on the Russian tsar that he invited him to go to the Russian service. But Bismarck saw his future only at home. In 1862 he became minister-president, or the first minister of Prussia.

Bismarck found himself in this public post at the time of the most acute conflict between the king and the Landtag over military reform, the increase and rearmament of the army. The Landtag opposed military reform. In the fight against him, the king needed such a strong man as Bismarck. The new minister said that he considers the dictates of parliament unacceptable and that he will fight liberalism to the last breath.
And this great feeling awakened reciprocal love. “For me, marriage to another woman would be madness,” Marty wrote to one of his friends, “but by marrying Carmen, I make my most cherished desire come true, which is often incomprehensible to people, the consent of our spiritual passions.”

At the end of the 70s. They merried. In 1878, a tiny Jose appeared in their family, whom his happy father called nothing more than "a little cloud." However, happiness is an ephemeral concept. Constant wanderings and unsettled life led to the fact that Carmen's romantic love was weakening more and more. Only love for the “little cloud” remained, and finally, taking him with her, in 1884 she left Marty.

Alas, the poet's personal life did not work out, and it could hardly have worked out. His soul was given above all to the beautiful island of Cuba. Marty's famous poem "The Motherland and the Woman" became a kind of confession of him as a poet and patriot, as a man and a revolutionary. When it came to Cuba, he was always adamant: "There is no such grief, humiliation, deprivation, impudence that I would not endure for the Motherland."

Marty is interesting and significant not only in poetry, but also in prose, and in literary criticism, and in the field of historical research. And how many more brilliant works would have been written by him with his amazing capacity for work and creative burning, if not for the doom of the exile, if not for the hardships of everyday life and the need to earn a living either as a correspondent for a number of Latin American newspapers, or as the consul of Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina in the USA; if, finally, in his words, his hand did not throw away the pen indignantly, for it longed for "weapons more effective, tasks more courageous and difficult."

In the early 80s. Jose Marti, together with Antonio Maceo and Maximo Gomez, becomes the head of the national liberation movement. At this time, the top of Cuban society, which possessed considerable capital, fearing a radical social breakdown, did not strive for independence, but only for autonomy, within which it hoped to carry out economic and political reforms. Criticizing the autonomists, Marty states: “A man who calls for battle is immeasurably more precious than a man who only begs; rights are not begged for, but taken, they are not begged for, but pulled out.
Such uncompromising revolutionary spirit leads Marty to a new exile. And again he finds himself in Spain. However, now he stays here for a short time. Soon his long-term wanderings in the countries of Central America and the Caribbean begin. He raises funds and rallies the Cubans living there, develops plans for an armed uprising in Cuba. In the 80s. Marty has been living in the USA for a long time. The intentions of official Washington to subjugate the Latin American states to its influence and seize Cuba do not escape his penetrating gaze. The predatory aspirations of the great northern neighbor raise the question in Marty: “Will the ancient, inextricably linked peoples of America unite in an urgently needed, blessed alliance?” Ideas about solidarity and commonality of language, religion, culture and history become the main arguments in favor of creating this “union”, which José Marti calls “Our America”.

In the early 90s. the preparation of the patriotic forces of Cuba for an armed uprising entered a decisive phase. To this end, Marti founded in 1892 the Cuban Revolutionary Party. Its cells operated not only in Cuba itself, but also in the North American peninsula of Florida, where many Cuban tobacco workers lived. An illustration of this extremely eventful period in Marty's life can be his own words: “How I would like to ride lightning in order to be in time everywhere ...”

Jose Marti became the organizer and main ideologist of the second war for the independence of the Cuban people (1895-1898), launched by the patriots on February 24, 1895 in the province of Oriente. Contemporaries called him the most radical revolutionary of his time, striving primarily to ensure that an independent state in Cuba "would provide its sons with a happy life for many years," as Jose Marti himself said. For this he fought, for this he was ready to die.

For direct participation in the uprising, Jose Marti arrived in Cuba along with Maximo Gomez on April 11, 1895 from the Dominican Republic. A completely new period of his life began in the rebel detachments, when “all the property is in his belt”, when “danger instead of a pillow” is placed under his head, when “to fall defeated in a great battle is already a victory.”

Once, addressing his Muse, Marty wrote:

If there is a higher court, only with you I will stand before this court: Either we will be condemned both, Or we will be saved together.

He died in his very first battle on May 19, 1895.
The word "boer" comes from the Dutch "peasant". So the first settlers from Holland to South Africa called themselves. In the first quarter of the XX century. Another, now official, name for the Boers, the Afrikaners, is being circulated.

In the 80s - early 90s. of our century, Afrikaners made up the majority of the white population

Republic of South Africa (60%) and Namibia (70%). Their settlements also exist in Zimbabwe, Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania, Zaire, Burundi and outside Africa - in Argentina and some other countries. According to estimates, the total number of Afrikaners is about 3 million people, of which over 2.8 million live in South Africa and about 50 thousand in Namibia.

Boer colonization of South Africa began with the creation in 1652 by the Dutch East India Company of a fortified settlement near the Cape of Good Hope. The settlement marked the beginning of the Cape Colony and subsequently grew into the city of Kapstad - modern Cape Town. After the annulment in 1685 of the Edict of Nantes in 1598 on religious tolerance, French Huguenots appeared in the Cape Colony, fearing new religious persecution, followed by Protestants from Germany and other countries. By the end of the XVII century. the number of migrants exceeded 15 thousand people.

The new colony quickly expanded and grew stronger due to the seizure of land from the indigenous population - the tribes of the Hottentots and Bushmen, as well as the conclusion of "exchange" agreements with them, when metal utensils, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco were exchanged for live cattle. On the occupied lands, the Boers created extensive agricultural and pastoral farms based on slave labor. Slaves were imported from Angola, West Africa, India, Madagascar, Ceylon. With the expansion of their possessions and the growing shortage of labor, the Boers began to capture the locals as slaves.

During the life of one generation, the "old-timers" - the Dutch - merged with the new settlers - the French, Germans, etc. Their rallying was facilitated by the common religion. The Boers belonged to the Dutch Reformed Church, which emerged as one of the Reformation trends in Switzerland and became dominant in Holland in the 17th century. Based on Calvin's doctrine of predestination, the Boers saw themselves as a chosen people, destined to govern and rule. The non-Christian locals were simply not human in their minds.
The Boers also had a common language - Afrikaans, which arose as a result of mixing different dialects of the Dutch language with German, English and French. Afrikaans was also influenced by the local African languages, Portuguese, Malay, as well as dialects spoken by sailors, traders and imported slaves who visited South Africa. Afrikaans was originally only a spoken language and functioned concurrently with Dutch, which remained the written language of the Boers. At the end of the XIX century. literary works appeared in Afrikaans, and since 1925, along with English, it has become the official language of the country. In the mid 80s. more than 5 million people spoke Afrikaans in our century.

Moving east, the Boers in the 70s. 18th century invaded the lands of the Xhosa tribes, whom they called kafir (from the Arabic "kafir" - infidel, unbeliever). The so-called Kaffir wars, which dragged on for a whole century, began, which were waged against the Kos at first only by the Boers, and then by the British, who captured at the beginning of the 19th century. Cape colony. As a result, the boundaries of the latter have noticeably expanded.

The passage of the Cape Colony into the hands of England is associated with such a romantic event in Boer history as the Great Trek. The word "track" comes from the Dutch "relocation". This was the name of what began in the 1930s and 1940s. 19th century the movement of large groups of Boers from the Cape Colony to the north and east of the country, across the Orange and Vaal rivers, and also to Natal. The Boers, as they themselves said, left in search of new lands, where “... they would not be bothered by either English missionaries or Anglicized Hottentots, where kaffirs are tame, where you can find good pastures ... to hunt elephants, buffaloes and giraffes and where a person can live freely. One of the immediate causes of the track was the abolition of slavery in the Cape Colony by the British, which threatened to undermine the economic basis of the Boer farms.

The "Great Track" was reminiscent of the development of white settlers in the American "Wild West". Trekkers moved in groups, without maps, following the sun and other signs. Ox-drawn large covered carts, in which there were senior family members, women, children and simple belongings, were accompanied by armed horsemen.
The path to the pinnacle of power, which Disraeli always aspired to, was long and difficult for him. Years of political struggle in parliament and the party have passed. He was greatly hampered by his background and difficult financial situation. However, thanks to his great abilities, willpower and hard work, he finally achieved his goal. Disraeli even subordinated his personal life to her achievement. To strengthen his financial and social position, he married Mary Ann Evans, who was 12 years older than him, but owned a large fortune. True, in the end their marriage turned out to be successful. Subsequently, Mary Ann said: "Dizzy married me for money, but if he had a chance to do it again, he would marry for love."

Disraeli was never particularly picky about the means to achieve his ends. A typical example is the implementation of the parliamentary reform of 1867. Disraeli, like no one else, understood its necessity. However, when in 1865 the Liberal leader, Lord Russell, proposed a proposal for such a reform, Disraeli did his best to make it fail. Having become in 1866 the Minister of Finance in the Conservative government, he began with all his energy to put the idea of ​​reform into practice. He was well aware that its implementation would raise the authority not only of the Tory party, but also of his own. The result of the 1867 reform was to expand the number of people who had the right to vote to two million. In passing the Reform Bill through Parliament, Disraeli showed his political genius to the fullest. During the debate on this issue, he spoke more than 300 times, showed miracles of political flexibility and resourcefulness, sometimes did not disdain to manipulate the facts, but he achieved the passage of the law, despite strong opposition.

The ideas of democratic conservatism preached by Disraeli turned out to be most welcome after a significant increase in the number of voters. But in order to attract their votes, in addition to general concepts, it was necessary to restructure the structure of local party bodies so that they were focused mainly on the conduct of the election campaign, i.e. create a political party in the modern sense of the word. Such a restructuring was carried out when Disraeli became leader of the Conservative Party in 1868.
The first time Disraeli headed a Conservative British government was in 1868. It was a minority government, i.e. in the House of Commons most of the seats were held by Whigs. Therefore, Disraeli could not pursue an independent policy and resigned a few months later.

The pinnacle of Disraeli's political career was 1874-1880, when he headed the British government for the second time. In the field of domestic politics, Disraeli showed that the ideas of democracy for him were not just a phrase. Laws were passed to improve the living conditions of workers, on public health, as well as a series of laws called the Charter of Social and Industrial Freedom of the Working Class. However, Disraeli paid the main attention to foreign policy issues. He felt that only here he could fully satisfy his ambitions. His biggest successes in this area were the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal Company and the Congress of Berlin in 1878.

The construction of the Suez Canal, which connected the Mediterranean and Red Seas, was completed in 1869. It significantly shortened the path of ships traveling from Europe to India and the Pacific Ocean. For Great Britain, the importance of the canal was enormous because most of the cargo that followed it was of English manufacture. Meanwhile, the shares of the company managing the canal were divided approximately equally between France and Egypt. The Khedive of Egypt was a very wasteful man and, bogged down in debt, decided in 1875 to sell his part of the shares. The British learned that the Khedive was negotiating with the French about this. Disraeli understood that by taking over all the shares of the Suez Canal Company, the French would thereby significantly complicate British trade. Then he decided to get ahead of the French and buy half of the shares for his country for 4 million pounds. But it was necessary to act decisively, without wasting time. There was no money in the treasury, and Disraeli turned for help to the largest banker Rothschild, who financed the deal. In this way, Disraeli not only secured British control of the canal, but also prepared for Britain's subsequent occupation of Egypt.
The real triumph of Disraeli's foreign policy was the Congress of Berlin in 1878, convened to revise the terms of the San Stefano peace. The peace treaty between Russia and Turkey, which met the interests of Russia and other Slavic states, did not suit Great Britain and Austria-Hungary. Disraeli, who was striving to strengthen the position of Great Britain around the world, saw in this the strengthening of Russia's influence that was dangerous for his country. By the threat of war, he forced Russia to submit the conclusion of a peace treaty to the judgment of the leading European states. At the Berlin Congress, Russia was forced to make major concessions in fact in the interests of Great Britain. Disraeli's other success in Berlin was that he managed to break the alliance of the emperors of Russia, Austria and Germany and thereby restore the predominant role of Great Britain in Europe.

After the Berlin Congress, Disraeli was at the height of his political power, but he could no longer fully use it. He himself said about this: “Power! She came to me too late. There were times when I woke up feeling that I could move dynasties and governments, but that's all gone." In the elections in 1880, the conservatives were defeated. Disraeli courageously agreed to remain party leader, although he was already seriously ill. Until the end of his days, he took an active part in political and public life, continued to write books. He died April 19, 1881.

Disraeli, like any talented and bright personality, can cause conflicting feelings. In any case, we must recognize him as one of the most prominent political figures in the history of Great Britain. Very few people who did not belong to the noble aristocratic families of England managed to reach the post of prime minister in this country, even in a more democratic 20th century. Disraeli achieved this in the 19th century. His foreign policy in 1874-1880. laid the foundation for the imperialist policy of Great Britain at the beginning of the 20th century. The myth of popular Toryism, in terms of which Disraeli interpreted the past of England, can be easily refuted, but Disraeli worked hard to turn it into reality during his political activity. Disraeli gave the Conservative Party the form that it largely retains to this day. Therefore, the unflagging interest of politicians and historians in the political legacy of Benjamin Disraeli is understandable.
Today, the symbol of peace for me is broken wings.” So said about his time a man who combined the talent of a poet, the wisdom of a philosopher, the courage of a soldier and more than once experienced the pain of “broken wings”.

These words of the great Cuban Jose Marti (1853-1895) contain a capacious image not only of the second half of the 19th century, but also of his long-suffering homeland, and, in a sense, of his entire life. Coming from a poor family of a prison guard, young Jose almost repeated the career of his father, who longed to see his son as his successor in the service. Fortunately for world culture, this did not happen.

For almost four centuries, Cuba was a colony of Spain, "an island of sugar and slaves." The feeling of protest woke up early in the soul of the young man. And how could this multifaceted nature endure the whistling of the overseer's whip on the plantations and the merciless suppression of the freedom-loving aspirations of the Cubans. Many years later, wiser by life experience and struggle, Marty wrote: “No sooner had a man been born, and near his cradle they are already standing, holding at the ready wide and thick bandages of philosophies, religions, hobbies of fathers, political systems. A person is twisted, tied, and for the rest of his life he remains bridled and saddled, like a horse. Therefore, the earth is now full of people whose faces are hidden under masks. He himself has always been alien to the mask of a hypocrite and a hypocrite.

1868-1878 - the years of the Ten Years' War of the Cuban people for freedom and independence. Jose - with those who fight; he writes political poetry and contributes to the newspaper La Patria Libre (Free Motherland). Already at the age of 16, he was arrested for his political beliefs. He spends several months in the San Lazaro hard labor quarries, then ends up on the island of prisoners of Pinos, and in 1871 the Spanish authorities expel him to the Iberian Peninsula.

Here, in the metropolis, José Martí strives to make the most productive use of forced excommunication from his homeland. Already in May 1871, he entered the University of Madrid, and two years later he moved to Zaragoza and in 1874 graduated from two faculties of the University of Zaragoza at once: the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Philosophy and Literature. While still in Madrid, Marty publishes his first non-fiction brochure, Political Prison in Cuba, about the terrible situation of hard labor prisoners. After the proclamation of the Spanish Republic in February 1873, he writes the book "The Spanish Republic and the Cuban Revolution", where he states: "Cuba declares its independence by the same right by which Spain declares itself a republic."
at

Комментариев нет:

Отправить комментарий

Примечание. Отправлять комментарии могут только участники этого блога.

Подписаться на: Комментарии к сообщению (Atom)