Suchergebnisse

Despite the fact that the modern science of our country has a considerable number of scientific and monographic works devoted to the highlighting of the Holodomor of 1932-1933, nowadays this issue still remains relevant. Since both Ukrainian and foreign scholars, continuing advanced study of this issue, use more and more new materials which show the «enormous catastrophe» committed by the Soviet power against Ukrainian people. In our case, the notes of foreign diplomatic representatives working in Ukraine at that time are invaluable. Just these documents make it possible to find out the circumstances of that horrific tragedy in the history of mankind and its catastrophic consequences and also to understand why the governments of those countries, knowing from the reports of their diplomats about the situation in Ukraine, remained indifferent and did not assist the dying Ukrainian people. Foreign consuls working in Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Odesa made great efforts to collect information and inform their governments about the political and economic situation in the USSR and the inhumane policies of the Soviet authorities. The information provided was collected while going around the consular districts and during conversations with consulate visitors, as well as through collaboration with the colleagues. None of the foreign consuls in Ukraine at that time suppressed the Soviet government's policy concerning Ukrainian population, but the reports of German, Polish and Italian consuls were the most informative. Especially when we talk about German reports, which could be explained by a well-developed consular network, cooperation with all possible strata of the population and a good knowledge of Russian language. In their reports to the governments of their own countries, foreign consuls described the policy of «rozkurkulennia» and forced collectivization. Much attention was paid to the repressions in the rural areas, especially the inhumane attitude to so-called «kulaks» – elements, unwanted for the Soviet power. In addition, information was given on the various gestures of protests of the rural population against the introduction of a new agricultural policy by the «Soviets». They also told about the policy of hushing up and denial of the Holodomor by the Soviet government. However, although interwar Europe was aware of the mass Holodomor in Ukraine and the death of millions of peasants, this issue was not a subject of international debate, not to mention a formal condemnation of USSR policy. At that time, there was a conviction of the absoluteness of state sovereignty and the inappropriateness of interference by international organizations in the internal affairs of other countries. The reports provided by foreign consuls working in the USSR and diplomats in Moscow (Italy, England, Germany) were ignored. The governments of European countries, as well as the United States, intentionally avoided the publication of any information and statements on the Holodomor in Ukraine, prioritizing the development of bilateral relations with the Soviet Union. ; В статье раскрывается роль представителей иностранных консульствработавших в УССР (Харьков, Киев, Одесса) по освещению Голодомора 1932-1933 гг. Наиболее содержательными, в данном случае, являются отчеты немецких, польских и итальянских консулов. В своих отчетах они сообщали о политическом и экономическом положении в УССР, жесткой политике «раскулачивания» и принудительной коллективизации, репрессиях на селе, нечеловеческих условиях, в которых оказалось население, о различных проявления протеста среди крестьянства против введения «советами» новой сельскохозяйственной политики, каннибализм , результаты политики хлебозаготовок и т.д. ; У статті розкривається роль представників іноземних консульств, які працювали на той час в УСРР (Харків, Київ, Одеса), щодо висвітлення Голодомору 1932-1933рр. Найбільш змістовними, у даному випадку, є звіти німецьких, польських та італійських консулів. У своїх звітах вони повідомляли про політичний та економічний стан в УСРР, жорстку політику «розкуркулення» та примусової колективізації, репресії на селі, нелюдські умови, в яких опинилося населення, про різноманітні прояви протестів серед селянства проти впровадження «совєтами» нової сільськогосподарської політики, канібалізм, результати політики хлібозаготівель тощо.

The modern world community is concerned about the search for humane, non-forceful methods for solving hybrid conflicts that characterize the system of international relations of the 21st century. That is why the concept of preventive diplomacy has become popular and in demand. The conflict in the East of Ukraine has shown that this concept has some flaws in terms of its implementation in practice. Using the historical method, the key means of implementing preventive diplomacy are revealed. The article analyzes examples of the use of preventive diplomacy methods for solving conflicts in Europe by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The authors used the method of comparative analysis to compare examples of implementation of the principles of preventive diplomacy by different international players. Attention is drawn to the fact that excessive caution of the OSCE and unwillingness to call Russia a participant in the conflict and even more, so an aggressor country led to skepticism about the organization itself in Ukraine.