It is unfortunate to note again today that World War II did not end, it continues in the form of the war of memory. Politicians and scholars who stand as ideological successors of collaborators are trying to rewrite the history of those tragic days, to downplay the role of the Soviet Union in the victory over fascism. They try to revive certain political myths, which have been debunked long ago, that the Soviet Union and the Nazi Germany bear equal responsibility for the outbreak of World War II, that the Red Army did not liberate Eastern Europe but ‘occupied’ it. In order to combat these attempts it is necessary to examine once again a turbulent history of the inter-war period and, particularly, the reasons why all attempts to form a united antifascist front had failed in the 1930s, but eventually led to the formation of the anti-Hitler coalition.

The paper focuses on a complex set of political considerations, including cooperation and confrontation, mutual suspicions and a fervent desire to find an ally in the face of growing international tensions, which all together determined the dynamics of relations within a strategic triangle of the Soviet Union — the United States — Great Britain in the late 1930s and early 1940s. The paper shows how all attempts to establish a collective security system during the prewar period had shattered faced with the policy of appeasement, which allowed the Nazi Germany to occupy much of Europe. Only the Soviet Union’s entry into the war changed the course of the conflict and made a decisive contribution to the victory over fascist aggressors. The author emphasizes that at such crucial moment of history I.V. Stalin, F.D. Roosevelt and W. Churchill raised to that challenge, demonstrating realism, common sense and willingness to cooperate. Although within the anti-Hitler coalition there was a number of pending issues, which triggered tensions between the Allies, their leaders managed to move beyond old grievances, ideological differences and short-term political interests, to realize that they have a common strategic goal in the struggle against Nazism. According to the author, this is the foundation for success of the anti-Hitler coalition and, at the same time, the key lesson for contemporary politicians. The very emergence of the anti-Hitler coalition represented a watershed in the history of the 20th century, which has determined a way forward for the whole humanity and laid the foundations for the world order for the next fifty years.

The paper examines how military and political leaders of the Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain assessed in the first post-war years and in the face of emerging bipolar world order the lessons of World War II, how the latter influenced their strategic planning and forecasts with the emergence of nuclear weapons. The author outlines the key features of this period (1945–1949), including still fresh memories of the unprecedented destruction and losses of the past war, the US ‘nuclear monopoly’, and the absence of a system for nuclear deterrence. The paper provides a systematic comparison of lessons from the past war, learnt by the Soviet, the US and British establishment, identifies similarities and differences between them. The author concludes that WWII was perceived by the political and military leaders of that time as a model of the eventual ‘great war’ in the future, which almost certainly would be ‘total’ and ‘global’ in scope and would demand both thorough preparations during the peacetime and the militarization of civil life. Indeed, the experience of WWII had greatly influenced the strategic and operational planning in the USSR, the USA and Great Britain in 1945–1949. Moscow prepared to face the potential aggression on its Western borders or in the Far East in order to avoid the mistakes of 1941. In Washington the decisionmakers acknowledged the Soviet superiority in conventional weapons and didn’t exclude the possibility that the Soviet Army could quickly establish control over the Western Europe and that the US military would have to retake it in a ‘new Operation Overlord’. The pessimistic outlook of the ‘defense of the Rhine’ was also shared in London, and the British military planned to evacuate the troops to the British Isles (‘shadow of Dunkirk’) and to focus on strategic bombing of the USSR and its allies. Even the appearance of nuclear weapons, that would dramatically alter the strategic context in the following years, played a relatively minor role in 1945–1949. The author concludes that the shadow of World War II and its lessons had a long-lasting effect on the post-war international relations.

In recent years, the history of World War II has transformed into a battlefield in its own right in the ‘war of memory’. Besides the clear fact that the current attempts to revise the results of this war reflect the contemporary international tensions, yet another factor should be noted. The ‘shadow’ of the Second World War appears to be very long. It manifests itself not only in the contemporary system of international relations, but also in the fact that we still view the world around through the prism of concepts that appeared during the state of war and still bear its mark. Particularly, the concept of national security. This paper examines the emergence and development of this concept in the United States. The author notes that although the concept of national security existed throughout the 20th century, before World War II it was identified primarily with the defense of the state. The paper examines how lessons of the Second World War led to a rethinking of this concept, and how approaches to national security evolved during the war and immediately after it. Special attention is given to discussions that preceded the adoption of the National Security Act of 1947, as well as to its initial results. The author demonstrates that the national security concept was based on a fundamental recognition of the existence of a special state between peace and war. For successful functioning within this state, the government needs to rely on a wide range of tools of both economic and military-political and ideological nature. Based on the lessons from the war, national security was viewed as an ‘overarching structure’, aimed not only at integrating various components of the state’s policy, but also at eliminating any contradictions that may arise between them. On the other hand, the author emphasizes that from the very beginning the national security concept had a pronounced proactive, offensive and expansionist character. Being considered as an antipode to the concept of collective security, this concept reflected the will of the US elites not only to get integrated in the existing system of international relations, but to create a new one, which would be based on the American values and would ensure the stable functioning of the US economy. The author concludes that it is precisely the multidimensionality of the national security concept caused by the multidimensional nature of the challenges of World War II that explains its continued relevance for the study of world politics.

Signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on September 2, 1945 had formally ended the most destructive and bloody war in the history of mankind. Even before that a new balance of power on the international arena began to form, that would persist for almost half a century. At the same time, it was obvious from the outright that the Allies had very different views on how the post-war world order should look like. Traditionally, both Russian and foreign academic literature focused on their disputes regarding the German question. This paper provides a brief overview of the US Department of State planning and recommendation process for the post-war reconstruction of Japan in 1939–1945, which had eventually led to the formation of the socalled San Francisco subsystem of international relations. The first section of the paper outlines the challenges faced by the State Department when it came to planning the post-war architecture of the Far East. In that regard, the author pays particular attention to the staff shortage, which forced the Department of State to strengthen partnership with private research organizations and involve them in long-term planning.

The author emphasizes that if before the United States entered the war the US planners adopted a rather tough stance on Japan, after the attack on Pearl Harbor their approaches paradoxically changed. The second section examines the contradictions and tensions between those politicians and experts who believed that in the establishment of the post-war order in the Far East the US should cooperate with China, and those who promoted rapprochement with Japan. These groups were unofficially referred to as the ‘Chinese team’ and the ‘Japanese crowd’ accordingly. The paper shows that as the end of the war approached, these contradictions gradually faded into the background. The needs to promote the interdepartmental cooperation and to reconcile the positions of the State Department, the Military and Naval Ministries on the future of Japan came to the fore. This work resulted in a series of memoranda, which laid the foundation for the US post-war policy towards Japan. In conclusion the author provides a general assessment of the strategic decision-making process in the United States during wartime and emphasizes its consistency, thoroughness and flexibility. As a result, it enabled the US to achieve what seemed impossible: to turn Japan from an ardent adversary of the United States in the Pacific into one of its most reliable allies, and it remains such today.

The development and implementation of the Marshall Plan has been studied quite thoroughly in both Russian and foreign academic literature. Nevertheless, certain aspects of this problematique require further examination, particularly the reaction of the Western European countries to the initiative of the Secretary of State G. Marshall, as well as the impact of the Plan on the process of the European integration in general. The paper demonstrates that this reaction was far from simple and often contradictory since the key Western states had very different views on the future of mutual relations, as well as on the prospects for post-war recovery and development of Europe. The paper examines the evolution of the French and British leaders’ views on these issues from the first discussions of the projects to provide US aid to Western Europe to the implementation of the Marshall Plan. The negotiations revealed significant points of disagreement among the parties particularly regarding the relations with the USSR, the German question, and conditions for receiving assistance from the United States. The author stresses that the need to defend their interests during the course of negotiations with the US representatives contributed greatly to the rapprochement of Britain and France and, at the same time, catalyzed debates on the integration of Western Europe. In this regard the author emphasizes that the idea of regional economic integration received mixed reaction in the American elites. While some considered this process as an effective means of bringing the Western countries together, particularly, over the German question, others feared that integration of Western Europe could potentially lead to the emergence of a new competitor to the USA. The author concludes that the growing popularity of integration projects in Europe in 1947–1948 stemmed from a range of factors, including both a combination of internal European political processes and short-term and long-term consequences of the Marshall Plan. Whereas in terms of economic development of Western Europe the latter were rather ambiguous and are still the subject of controversy, in terms of world politics the Marshall Plan exacerbated block-to-block confrontation in Europe, characteristic of the Cold War period.

After the defeat of France in the summer of 1940, Great Britain was left face to face with the Nazi Germany. It managed to endure the first act of the ‘Battle of Britain’, but could not wage a full-scale war on the continent. Under these conditions, the defense of the British positions in the Mediterranean and in the Middle East became a top priority for W. Churchill’s cabinet. The author examines three episodes of Great Britain’s struggle for the Middle East in 1941 (Iraq, Syria, Iran), framing them into the general logic of the German-British confrontation during this period.

The author emphasizes that potential assertion of German hegemony in the Middle East could have made the defense of Suez almost impossible, as well as the communication with India, and would have provided the Reich with an access to almost inexhaustible supplies of fuel. Widespread antiBritish sentiments on the part of the local political and military elites could contribute greatly to the realization of such, catastrophic for Britain, scenario. Under these circumstances, the British government decided to capture the initiative. The paper examines the British military operations in Iraq and Syria. Special attention is paid to the complex dynamics of relations of the British cabinet with the Vichy regime and the Free France movement. As the author notes, the sharpest disagreements aroused on the future of Syria and Lebanon, and the prospects of granting them independence. In the Iran’s case, the necessity of harmonizing policies with the Soviet Union came to the fore. The growing German influence in the region, as well as the need to establish a new route for Lend-Lease aid to the USSR, fostered mutual understanding. After the joint Anglo-Soviet military operation in August-September 1941, Iran was divided into occupation zones. Finally, the paper examines the UK position with regard to the neutrality of Turkey. The author concludes that all these military operations led to the creation of a ‘temporary regime’ of the British domination in the Middle East. However, the Anglo-French and Anglo-Soviet rivalries had not disappeared and, compounded by the growing US presence in the region, laid basis for new conflicts in the post-war period.

In the middle of the 20th century a unique subsystem of international relations emerged in the Northern Europe, which has turned it into one of the stablest and most peaceful regions during the Cold War period. Nowadays, rising international tensions bring new relevance to the history lessons of World War II, its origins and aftermaths. The paper examines the evolution of the Nordic countries’ views on the issue of neutrality from mid-1930s to the end of 1940s. The first section considers the approaches of the Scandinavian countries to the establishment of a collective security system in the region in the interwar period. In that regard, the paper focuses on the Swedish project of the Northern defense alliance, which was aimed at deepening military cooperation between the states of the region and strengthening their ability to jointly deter any aggression as the best way to guarantee their neutrality. However, this project had not been implemented, because it faced both cool reactions from the leaders of Norway and Denmark and suspicion from the leading powers. According to the author, the fundamental reason for the failure of that project was that Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland sought support and protection from different, opposing great powers. The latter circumstance had also to a large extent predetermined the fate of the Scandinavian countries during the war years, when almost all of them were in one form or another involved in the conflict. The victory of the anti-Hitler coalition both opened new opportunities and posed new challenges for the states of the region: in the emerging bipolar world they rapidly turned into the subject matter of dispute of the superpowers. In these conditions, Sweden once again put forward the idea that in order to preserve peace in the region, the Nordic countries should be able to defend their neutrality and proposed the establishment of a Scandinavian Defense Union. In the final section, the paper examines the reaction to this project of the Scandinavian countries, the Soviet Union, the United States, and Great Britain. The author shows that although this reaction was more than restrained, and the project was not implemented, Sweden’s initiatives contributed to the creation of a unique security architecture in Northern Europe, where each state of the region had its own role with the neutral Sweden serving as a balancing force.