5 (100%) 1 vote
The results of Britain's participation in World War II were mixed. The country retained its independence and made a significant contribution to the victory over fascism, at the same time it lost its role as a world leader and came close to losing its colonial status.
Political games
British military historiography often likes to remind us that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 actually gave the German military machine a free hand. At the same time, the Munich Agreement, signed by England together with France, Italy and Germany a year earlier, is being ignored in Foggy Albion. The result of this conspiracy was the division of Czechoslovakia, which, according to many researchers, was the prelude to World War II.
Historians believe that Britain had high hopes for diplomacy, with the help of which it hoped to rebuild the Versailles system in crisis, although already in 1938 many politicians warned the peacemakers: “concessions to Germany will only embolden the aggressor!”
Returning to London on the plane, Chamberlain said: “I brought peace to our generation.” To which Winston Churchill, then a parliamentarian, prophetically remarked: “England was offered a choice between war and dishonor. She chose dishonor and will get war.”
"Strange War"
On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. On the same day, Chamberlain's government sent a note of protest to Berlin, and on September 3, Great Britain, as the guarantor of Poland's independence, declared war on Germany. Over the next ten days, the entire British Commonwealth will join it.
By mid-October, the British transported four divisions to the continent and took up positions along the Franco-Belgian border. However, the section between the cities of Mold and Bayel, which is a continuation of the Maginot Line, was far from the epicenter of hostilities. Here the Allies created more than 40 airfields, but instead of bombing German positions, British aviation began scattering propaganda leaflets appealing to the morality of the Germans.
In the following months, six more British divisions arrived in France, but neither the British nor the French were in a hurry to take active action. This is how the “strange war” was waged. Chief of the British General Staff Edmund Ironside described the situation as follows: “passive waiting with all the worries and anxieties that follow from this.”
French writer Roland Dorgeles recalled how the Allies calmly watched the movement of German ammunition trains: “obviously the main concern of the high command was not to disturb the enemy.”
We recommend reading 
Historians have no doubt that the “Phantom War” is explained by the wait-and-see attitude of the Allies. Both Great Britain and France had to understand where German aggression would turn after the capture of Poland. It is possible that if the Wehrmacht immediately launched an invasion of the USSR after the Polish campaign, the Allies could support Hitler.
Miracle at Dunkirk
On May 10, 1940, according to Plan Gelb, Germany launched an invasion of Holland, Belgium and France. The political games are over. Churchill, who took office as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, soberly assessed the enemy’s forces. As soon as German troops took control of Boulogne and Calais, he decided to evacuate parts of the British Expeditionary Force that were trapped in the cauldron at Dunkirk, and with them the remnants of the French and Belgian divisions. 693 British and about 250 French ships under the command of English Rear Admiral Bertram Ramsay planned to transport about 350,000 coalition troops across the English Channel.
Military experts had little faith in the success of the operation under the sonorous name “Dynamo”. The advance detachment of Guderian's 19th Panzer Corps was located a few kilometers from Dunkirk and, if desired, could easily defeat the demoralized allies. But a miracle happened: 337,131 soldiers, most of whom were British, reached the opposite bank almost without interference.
Hitler unexpectedly stopped the advance of the German troops. Guderian called this decision purely political. Historians differ in their assessment of the controversial episode of the war. Some believe that the Fuhrer wanted to save his strength, but others are confident in a secret agreement between the British and German governments.
One way or another, after the Dunkirk disaster, Britain remained the only country that avoided complete defeat and was able to resist the seemingly invincible German machine. On June 10, 1940, England's position became threatening when fascist Italy entered the war on the side of Nazi Germany.
Battle of Britain
Germany's plans to force Great Britain to surrender have not been canceled. In July 1940, British coastal convoys and naval bases were subjected to massive bombing by the German Air Force; in August, the Luftwaffe switched to airfields and aircraft factories.
On August 24, German aircraft carried out their first bombing attack on central London. According to some, it is wrong. The retaliatory attack was not long in coming. A day later, 81 RAF bombers flew to Berlin. No more than a dozen reached the target, but this was enough to infuriate Hitler. At a meeting of the German command in Holland, it was decided to unleash the full power of the Luftwaffe on the British Isles.
Within weeks, the skies over British cities turned into a boiling cauldron. Birmingham, Liverpool, Bristol, Cardiff, Coventry, Belfast got it. During the whole of August, at least 1,000 British citizens died. However, from mid-September the intensity of the bombing began to decrease, due to the effective counteraction of British fighter aircraft.
The Battle of Britain is better characterized by numbers. In total, 2,913 British Air Force aircraft and 4,549 Luftwaffe aircraft were involved in air battles. Historians estimate the losses of both sides at 1,547 Royal Air Force fighters and 1,887 German aircraft shot down.
Lady of the Seas
It is known that after the successful bombing of England, Hitler intended to launch Operation Sea Lion to invade the British Isles. However, the desired air superiority was not achieved. In turn, the Reich military command was skeptical about the landing operation. According to German generals, the strength of the German army lay precisely on land, and not at sea.
Military experts were confident that the British ground army was no stronger than the broken armed forces of France, and Germany had every chance of overpowering the United Kingdom's forces in a ground operation. The English military historian Liddell Hart noted that England managed to hold out only due to the water barrier.
In Berlin they realized that the German fleet was noticeably inferior to the English. For example, by the beginning of the war, the British Navy had seven operational aircraft carriers and six more on the slipway, while Germany was never able to equip at least one of its aircraft carriers. In the open seas, the presence of carrier-based aircraft could predetermine the outcome of any battle.
The German submarine fleet was only able to inflict serious damage on British merchant ships. However, having sunk 783 German submarines with US support, the British Navy won the Battle of the Atlantic. Until February 1942, the Fuhrer hoped to conquer England from the sea, until the commander of the Kriegsmarine, Admiral Erich Raeder, finally convinced him to abandon this idea.
Colonial interests
At the beginning of 1939, the British Chiefs of Staff Committee recognized the defense of Egypt with its Suez Canal as one of its strategically most important tasks. Hence the special attention of the Kingdom's armed forces to the Mediterranean theater of operations.
Unfortunately, the British had to fight not at sea, but in the desert. May-June 1942 turned out for England, according to historians, as a “shameful defeat” at Tobruk from Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps. And this despite the British having twice the superiority in strength and technology!
The British were able to turn the tide of the North African campaign only in October 1942 at the Battle of El Alamein. Again having a significant advantage (for example, in aviation 1200:120), the British Expeditionary Force of General Montgomery managed to defeat a group of 4 German and 8 Italian divisions under the command of the already familiar Rommel.
Churchill remarked about this battle: “Before El Alamein we did not win a single victory. We haven't suffered a single defeat since El Alamein." By May 1943, British and American troops forced the 250,000-strong Italian-German group in Tunisia to capitulate, which opened the way for the Allies to Italy. In North Africa, the British lost about 220 thousand soldiers and officers.
And again Europe
On June 6, 1944, with the opening of the Second Front, British troops had the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves for their shameful flight from the continent four years earlier. The overall leadership of the allied ground forces was entrusted to the experienced Montgomery. By the end of August, the total superiority of the Allies had crushed German resistance in France.
Events unfolded in a different vein in December 1944 near the Ardennes, when a German armored group literally pushed through the lines of American troops. In the Ardennes meat grinder, the US Army lost over 19 thousand soldiers, the British no more than two hundred.
This ratio of losses led to disagreements in the Allied camp. American generals Bradley and Patton threatened to resign if Montgomery did not leave leadership of the army. Montgomery's self-confident statement at a press conference on January 7, 1945, that it was British troops who saved the Americans from the prospect of encirclement, jeopardized the further joint operation. Only thanks to the intervention of the commander in chief of the allied forces, Dwight Eisenhower, was the conflict resolved.
By the end of 1944, the Soviet Union had liberated large parts of the Balkan Peninsula, which caused serious concern in Britain. Churchill, who did not want to lose control over the important Mediterranean region, proposed to Stalin a division of the sphere of influence, as a result of which Moscow got Romania, London - Greece.
In fact, with the tacit consent of the USSR and the USA, Great Britain suppressed the resistance of the Greek communist forces and on January 11, 1945, established complete control over Attica. It was then that a new enemy clearly loomed on the horizon of British foreign policy. “In my eyes, the Soviet threat had already replaced the Nazi enemy,” Churchill recalled in his memoirs.
According to the 12-volume History of the Second World War, Britain and its colonies lost 450,000 people in World War II. Britain's expenses for waging the war amounted to more than half of foreign capital investments; the Kingdom's external debt reached 3 billion pounds sterling by the end of the war. Britain paid off all debts only by 2006.
The change in the balance of power in the international arena is also associated with the process of revising the role of the participants in the anti-Hitler coalition in the victory over Nazi Germany. Not only in modern media, but also in a number of historical works, old myths are supported or new myths are created. The old ones include the opinion that the Soviet Union achieved victory only thanks to incalculable losses, many times greater than the losses of the enemy, and the new ones include the decisive role of Western countries, mainly the United States, in victory and the high level of their military skill. We will try, based on the statistical material available to us, to offer a different opinion.
The criterion used is total data, such as, for example, the losses of the parties during the entire war, which, due to their simplicity and clarity, confirm one or another point of view.
In order to select from sometimes contradictory data those that can be relied upon with a significant degree of reliability, it is necessary to use specific values in addition to total values. Such values may include losses per unit of time, for example, daily, losses falling on a certain section of the front length, etc.
A team of authors led by Colonel General G. F. Krivosheev in 1988-1993. a comprehensive statistical study of archival documents and other materials containing information about human losses in the army and navy, border and internal troops of the NKVD was carried out. The results of this major research were published in the work “Russia and the USSR in the Wars of the 20th Century.”
During the Great Patriotic War, 34 million people were drafted into the Red Army, including those drafted in June 1941. This amount is almost equal to the mobilization resource that the country had at that time. The losses of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War amounted to 11,273 thousand people, that is, a third of the number conscripted. These losses are, of course, very large, but everything can be learned in comparison: after all, the losses of Germany and its allies on the Soviet-German front are also great.
Table 1 shows the irretrievable losses of Red Army personnel by year of the Great Patriotic War. Data on the magnitude of annual losses are taken from the work “Russia and the USSR in the Wars of the 20th Century”. This includes killed, missing, captured and those who died in captivity.
Table 1. Losses of the Red Army
The last column of the proposed table shows the average daily losses suffered by the Red Army. In 1941, they were the highest, since our troops had to retreat in very unfavorable conditions, and large formations were surrounded, in the so-called cauldrons. In 1942, losses were significantly less, although the Red Army also had to retreat, but there were no longer large cauldrons. In 1943 there were very stubborn battles, especially on the Kursk Bulge, but from that year until the end of the war, the troops of Nazi Germany had to retreat. In 1944, the Soviet High Command planned and carried out a number of brilliant strategic operations to defeat and encircle entire groups of German armies, so the losses of the Red Army were relatively small. But in 1945, daily losses increased again, because the tenacity of the German army increased, since it was already fighting on its own territory, and German soldiers courageously defended their fatherland.
Let us compare the losses of Germany with the losses of England and the USA on the Second Front. We will try to evaluate them based on the data of the famous Russian demographer B. Ts. Urlanis. In the book “History of Military Losses,” Urlanis, speaking about the losses of England and the United States, provides the following data:
Table 2. Losses of the British armed forces in World War II (thousands of people)
In the war with Japan, England lost “11.4% of the total number of dead soldiers and officers,” therefore, in order to estimate the amount of England’s losses on the Second Front, we need to subtract the losses for 4 years of war from the total amount of losses and multiply by 1 – 0.114 = 0.886:
(1,246 – 667) 0.886 = 500 thousand people.
Total US losses in World War II amounted to 1,070 thousand, of which approximately three quarters were losses in the war with Germany, thus
1,070 * 0.75 = 800 thousand people.
The total total losses of England and the USA are
1,246 + 1,070 = 2,316 thousand people.
Thus, the losses of England and the United States on the Second Front amount to approximately 60% of their total losses in World War II.
As mentioned above, the losses of the USSR amount to 11.273 million people, that is, at first glance, incomparable with the losses amounting to 1.3 million people suffered by England and the USA on the Second Front. On this basis, the conclusion is drawn that the Allied command fought skillfully and took care of people, while the Soviet High Command allegedly filled the enemy trenches with the corpses of its soldiers. Let us allow ourselves to disagree with such ideas. Based on the data on daily losses given in Table 1, it can be obtained that from June 7, 1944 to May 8, 1945, that is, during the existence of the Second Front, the losses of the Red Army amounted to 1.8 million people, which is only slightly higher than the losses of the Allies. As is known, the length of the Second Front was 640 km, and the Soviet-German Front was from 2,000 to 3,000 km, on average 2,500 km, i.e. 4-5 times greater than the length of the Second Front. Therefore, on a front section with a length equal to the length of the Second Front, the Red Army lost approximately 450 thousand people, which is 3 times less than the losses of the allies.
On the fronts of World War II, the armed forces of Nazi Germany itself lost 7,181 thousand, and the armed forces of its allies - 1,468 thousand people, a total of 8,649 thousand.
Thus, the ratio of losses on the Soviet-German front turns out to be 13:10, that is, for every 13 killed, missing, wounded, or captured Soviet soldiers, there are 10 German soldiers.
According to the Chief of the German General Staff F. Halder, in 1941-1942. The fascist army lost about 3,600 soldiers and officers every day, therefore, in the first two years of the war, the losses of the fascist bloc amounted to about two million people. This means that over the subsequent period, the losses of Germany and its allies amounted to about 6,600 thousand people. During the same period, the losses of the Red Army amounted to approximately 5 million people. Thus, in 1943-1945, for every 10 Red Army soldiers killed, there were 13 fascist army soldiers killed. These simple statistics clearly and objectively characterize the quality of troop leadership and the degree of care for soldiers.
General A.I.Denikin
“Be that as it may, no tricks could detract from the significance of the fact that the Red Army has been fighting skillfully for some time now, and the Russian soldier has been selflessly fighting. The successes of the Red Army could not be explained by numerical superiority alone. In our eyes, this phenomenon had a simple and natural explanation.
From time immemorial, Russian people were smart, talented and loved their homeland from the inside. From time immemorial, the Russian soldier was immensely resilient and selflessly brave. These human and military qualities could not drown out twenty-five Soviet years of suppression of thought and conscience, collective farm slavery, Stakhanovite exhaustion and the replacement of national self-awareness with international dogma. And when it became obvious to everyone that there was an invasion and conquest, and not liberation, that only the replacement of one yoke with another was foreseen, the people, postponing accounts with communism until a more opportune time, rose for the Russian land just as their ancestors rose during the invasions Swedish, Polish and Napoleonic...
Under the sign of the international, the inglorious Finnish campaign and the defeat of the Red Army by the Germans on the roads to Moscow took place; under the slogan of defending the Motherland, the German armies were defeated!”
Opinion of General A.I. Denikin is especially important for us because he received a deep and comprehensive education at the Academy of the General Staff, and had his own wealth of combat experience acquired in the Russo-Japanese, World War I and Civil Wars. His opinion is also important because, while remaining an ardent patriot of Russia, he was and until the end of his life remained a consistent enemy of Bolshevism, so one can rely on the impartiality of his assessment.
Let's consider the ratio of losses of the Allied and German armies. The literature provides the total losses of the German army, but data on German losses on the Second Front is not given, probably deliberately. The Great Patriotic War lasted 1418 days, the Second Front existed for 338 days, which is 1/4 of the duration of the Great Patriotic War. Therefore, it is assumed that Germany’s losses on the Second Front are four times less. Thus, if on the Soviet-German front German losses amount to 8.66 million people, then we can assume that German losses on the Second Front are about 2.2 million, and the loss ratio is approximately 10 to 20, which would seem to confirm point of view about the high military art of our allies in World War II.
We cannot agree with this point of view. Some Western researchers also disagree with her. “Against the inexperienced, albeit eager, Americans and the war-weary, wary British, the Germans could field an army that, in the words of Max Hastings, “won a historical reputation for being undaunted and reaching its zenith under Hitler.” Hastings states: “Everywhere during the Second World War, whenever and wherever British and American troops met head-on with the Germans on equal terms, the Germans won.”<…>What struck Hastings and other historians most was the loss ratio, which was two to one or even higher in favor of the Germans.”
American Colonel Trevor Dupuy conducted a detailed statistical study of German actions in the Second World War. Some of his explanations for why Hitler's armies were so much more effective than their opponents seem unfounded. But not a single critic questioned his main conclusion that on almost every battlefield during the war, including Normandy, the German soldier was more effective than his opponents.
Unfortunately, we do not have the data that Hastings used, but if there is no direct data on German losses on the Second Front, we will try to estimate them indirectly. Considering that the intensity of the battles waged by the German army in the West and in the East was the same, and that the losses per kilometer of front were approximately equal, we obtain that German losses on the Eastern Front should not be divided by 4, but, taking into account the difference in the length of the front line, at about 15-16. Then it turns out that Germany lost no more than 600 thousand people on the Second Front. Thus, we find that on the Second Front the ratio of losses is 22 Anglo-American soldiers to 10 German ones, and not vice versa.
A similar ratio was observed in the Ardennes operation, which was carried out by the German command from December 16, 1944 to January 28, 1945. As German General Melentin writes, during this operation the Allied army lost 77 thousand soldiers, and the German army lost 25 thousand, that is, we get a ratio of 31 to 10, even exceeding that obtained above.
Based on the above reasoning, it is possible to refute the myth about the insignificance of German losses on the Soviet-German front. It is said that Germany allegedly lost about 3.4 million people. If we assume that this value corresponds to the truth, then we will have to accept that on the Second Front German losses amounted to only:
3.4 million/16 = 200 thousand people,
which is 6-7 times less than the losses of England and the United States on the Second Front. If Germany fought so brilliantly on all fronts and suffered such insignificant losses, then it is unclear why it did not win the war? Therefore, assumptions that the losses of the Anglo-American army are lower than the German ones, as well as that the German losses are significantly lower than the Soviet ones, must be rejected, since they are based on incredible figures and are not consistent with reality and common sense.
Thus, it can be argued that the power of the German army was decisively undermined by the victorious Red Army on the Soviet-German front. With an overwhelming superiority in people and equipment, the Anglo-American command showed amazing indecisiveness and ineffectiveness, one might say mediocrity, comparable to the confusion and unpreparedness of the Soviet command in the initial period of the war in 1941-1942.
This statement can be supported by a number of pieces of evidence. First, we will give a description of the actions of the special groups, which were led by the famous Otto Skorzeny, during the offensive of the German army in the Ardennes.
“On the first day of the offensive, one of Skorzeny’s groups managed to get through the gap made in the allied lines and advance to Yun, which was located near the banks of the Meuse. There, having changed her German uniform to an American one, she dug in and fortified herself at the intersection of roads and observed the movement of enemy troops. The group commander, who spoke fluent English, went so far as to take a bold walk around the area to “get acquainted with the situation.”
A few hours later, an armored regiment passed near them, and its commander asked them for directions. Without blinking an eye, the commander gave him a completely wrong answer. Namely, he stated that these “German pigs have just cut off several roads. He himself received an order to make a big detour with his column.” Very happy that they were warned in time, the American tankers actually headed along the path that “our man” showed them.
Returning to their unit, this detachment cut several telephone lines and removed signs posted by the American quartermaster service, and also laid mines here and there. Twenty-four hours later, all the men and officers of this group returned to the lines of their troops in perfect health, bringing interesting observations about the confusion that reigned behind the American front line at the beginning of the offensive.
Another of these small detachments also crossed the front line and advanced all the way to the Meuse. According to his observations, the Allies could be said to have done nothing to protect the bridges in the area. On the way back, the detachment was able to block three highways leading to the front line by hanging colored ribbons on the trees, which in the American army means that the roads are mined. Subsequently, Skorzeny's scouts saw that the columns of British and American troops actually avoided these roads, preferring to make a long detour.
The third group discovered an ammunition depot. After waiting until dark; The commandos "removed" the guards and then blew up this warehouse. A little later they discovered a telephone collector cable, which they managed to cut in three places.
But the most significant story happened to another detachment, which on December 16 suddenly found itself directly in front of the American positions. Two GI companies prepared for a long defense, built pillboxes and installed machine guns. Skorzeny's men must have been somewhat confused, especially when an American officer asked them what was happening there on the front lines.
Pulling himself together, the detachment commander, dressed in the fine uniform of an American sergeant, told the Yankee captain a very interesting story. Probably, the Americans attributed the confusion that was visible on the faces of the German soldiers to the last skirmish with the “damned Boches.” The detachment commander, a pseudo-sergeant, stated that the Germans had already bypassed this position, both on the right and on the left, so that it was practically surrounded. The amazed American captain immediately gave the order to retreat."
Let us also use the observations of the German tankman Otto Carius, who fought against Soviet soldiers from 1941 to 1944, and against Anglo-American soldiers from 1944 to 1945. Let us cite an interesting event from his front-line experience in the West. “Almost all of our Kubel passenger cars were disabled. Therefore, one evening we decided to replenish our fleet with an American one. It never occurred to anyone to consider this a heroic act!
The Yankees slept in their houses at night, as “front-line soldiers” were supposed to do. There was at best one sentry outside, but only if the weather was good. Around midnight we set off with four soldiers and returned quite soon with two jeeps. It was convenient that they did not require keys. All you had to do was turn on the switch and the car was ready to go. Only when we returned to our positions did the Yankees open indiscriminate fire into the air, probably to calm their nerves."
Having personal experience of the war on the eastern and western fronts, Carius concludes: “In the end, five Russians posed a greater danger than thirty Americans.” Western researcher Stephen E. Ambrose says that casualties can be minimized “only by ending the war quickly, rather than by exercising caution during offensive operations.”
Based on the evidence given and the relationships obtained above, it can be argued that at the final stage of the war, the Soviet command fought more skillfully than the German and much more effectively than the Anglo-American, because “the art of warfare requires courage and intelligence, and not just superiority in technology and number of troops."
Russia and the USSR in the wars of the twentieth century. M. "OLMA-PRESS". 2001 p. 246.
B. Ts. Urlanis. History of military losses. St. Petersburg 1994 228-232.
O'Bradley. Notes of a soldier. Foreign literature. M 1957 p. 484.
Russia and the USSR in the wars of the twentieth century. M. "OLMA-PRESS". 2001 p. 514.
Colonel General F. Halder. War diary. Volume 3, book 2. Military publishing house of the USSR Ministry of Defense. P. 436
D. Lekhovich. Whites against reds. Moscow “Sunday”. 1992 p. 335.
F. Melentin. Tank battles 1939-1945. Test site AST. 2000
Otto Skorzeny. Smolensk Rusich. 2000 p. 388, 389
Otto Carius. "Tigers in the mud." M. Centropolygraph. 2005 p. 258, 256
Stephen E. Ambrose. D-Day AST. M. 2003. pp. 47, 49.
J. F. S. Fuller World War II 1939-1945 Publishing House of Foreign Literature. Moscow, 1956, p.26.
The Second World War was for England, as for most countries of the world, a great historical test. In the mortal battle with fascism, everything was tested - the positions of classes and parties, the viability of ideologies and political doctrines, economic structures, the social systems themselves.
War 1939-1945
It took place in an immeasurably more complex situation than the First World War. Subjectively, the ruling circles of England sought in this war only to defeat a dangerous competitor and to expand their world positions. But still it was a war against fascist states, against the most monstrous reaction that capitalism has ever generated. The contradiction between the liberation goals and the purely imperialist plans of the ruling circles of England, which was objectively generated by the very fact of the war against fascism, affected the entire duration of the war.
During the first year of hostilities, the reactionary maneuvers of the ruling elite clearly prevailed, and from the summer of 1941, when a military alliance between the USSR, England and the USA began to take shape, the war on the part of England finally acquired an anti-fascist liberation character.
When Hitler's troops invaded Poland (September 1, 1939), Chamberlain was still hesitant to declare war, despite the guarantees given in March and the mutual assistance pact concluded with Poland on August 24, 1939. The masses were so outraged by the government's inaction that even the Labor Party leadership strongly demanded an immediate declaration of war. As a result of pressure outside and inside the House, Chamberlain declared war on September 3. Following this, the dominions - Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa - declared war.
318 Kan Union. Chamberlain managed to “pacify” the opposition in the ranks of his own party by giving the portfolio of Minister of Navy to W. Churchill, and the Minister of Dominion Affairs to A. Eden.
The Munich people, who had a huge majority in the government, still dreamed of an actual alliance with Germany against the USSR even after the declaration of war on Germany. Poland was sacrificed to these plans, to which England did not provide any real assistance. A “strange war” began: England and France undertook almost no operations either on land or in the air; Only at sea there were several battles that did not affect the balance of forces: preparations for future battles with Germany proceeded extremely slowly. Some military measures were nevertheless taken - both for reinsurance and to calm public opinion. Slowly, military leaders mobilized and transferred expeditionary troops to France; arms production increased; arms purchases expanded in the United States, where the “neutrality law” was revised, and the evacuation of women and children from big cities began. But compared to the frantic pace of preparation of the German armies for operations in the West, all these measures were very insignificant.
Retribution soon came. On April 9, 1940, German troops occupied Denmark and began the occupation of Norway. This defeat was the fruit not only of Munich’s policy in the pre-war period, but also of Chamberlain’s policy during the “Phantom War”. But the war has already lost its “strange” character. It was no longer possible to leave power in the hands of people who had absolutely failed both in the days of peace and in the days of war.
The mood in the country also found a response in parliament. On May 7-8, 1940, the long-overdue explosion occurred. Labour, Liberals and even some Conservatives attacked the government, demanding its resignation. L. Emery, addressing Chamberlain, repeated the words that Cromwell had once spoken: “In the name of God, leave!” Lloyd George said that the prime minister's best contribution to victory would be "if he sacrificed the office he now occupies."
On May 10, Chamberley resigned. Labour's tactics, however, meant that power effectively remained in the hands of the Conservatives, although the new cabinet was a coalition one. Winston Churchill became the head of the government. Clement Attlee took over as his deputy. Many Munich residents remained in the new cabinet, including Chamberlain himself and Halifax. But the balance of power between them and the supporters of decisive resistance to the aggressor has now changed towards the latter.
At the same time that Churchill was selecting ministers for his government, Hitler's troops launched a gigantic offensive on the Western Front. Having invaded neutral Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, the German army rushed to the coast and to the borders of France. The Dutch army has already capitulated
$31 May 14. On the same day, the Germans broke through the front at Sedan and in five days, having passed through the entire north of France, they reached the Atlantic Ocean. Thus, they cut off the French troops who were fighting in Belgium from Central and Southern France. The threat of defeat loomed over Belgium and over France itself.
The British command, violating the plan developed by the joint headquarters of the Allies to encircle the German group that had broken through to the sea, suddenly ordered its troops to retreat to the ports for evacuation to England. Not only French patriots, but also some English officers and soldiers, this decision was perceived as a betrayal. Nevertheless, the operation to withdraw English and some French units to the British Isles was accompanied by a long-unprecedented patriotic upsurge in England. The masses did not understand the intricacies of strategy; they knew that on the other side of the English Channel, in the Dunkirk area, hundreds of thousands of “our guys” could die or be captured, and they rushed to the rescue. A wide variety of watercraft were used in the operation - from large merchant fleet vessels to pleasure yachts and fishing schooners. The heroism of ordinary people shown during the days of evacuation (May 26 - June 4, 1940) is beyond doubt, but this does not give grounds to interpret the defeat of the English expeditionary force as a victory, and this is precisely the legend about Dunkirk that many English memoirists create and historians.
The new powerful offensive of the German armies, which began on June 5, ended with the surrender of France. England lost an ally, having acquired another enemy during this time: on June 10, fascist Italy entered the war. During the entire period of the Second World War, England did not experience a more tense and dangerous period than the summer and early autumn of 1940. German naval bases and airfields appeared in the immediate vicinity of the British Isles.
Dunkirk marked the beginning of a new stage in the anti-fascist rise. The English working class understood the need to repel the aggressor both before the war and at its early stage, when Chamberlain's government was still looking for ways to reconcile with Hitler. The slogan put forward by the CPV is “The Munich people must leave!” - was taken up by mass organizations of the working class. Although the hardships of the war fell specifically on the working class (12-hour working day with a 7-day working week, falling real wages, etc.), it did not even think about “peace without victory.” Thanks to the labor enthusiasm of the workers, military production grew rapidly: by July 1940 it had more than doubled compared to September 1939.
In preparation for the invasion, as well as for psychological pressure, Hitler ordered increased bombing of English cities. Massive German air raids began in August 1940 and caused enormous damage to London, Birmingham, Liverpool, and Glasgow. November 15, 500 German bombs
320 bardiers destroyed a large part of the small town of Coveptree. Despite the courageous resistance of British fighter aircraft, air superiority at this stage of the war was clearly on the side of Germany. But the psychological effect of the aerial “Battle of Britain” was exactly the opposite of what was expected in Berlin. Hatred of the Nazis, who killed women and children, only strengthened the will of the English people to resist.
The impending danger of freedom and the very existence of the nation naturally aroused a high intensity of civic feelings, and the drama of historical battles gave rise to a thirst for true art. The leading actors of the English stage - John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, Sybille Thorndike and others - found their way to an audience they had never met before. On their own initiative and on the instructions of the Arts Council of Great Britain, created in early 1940, they traveled with small but artistically valuable troupes to industrial cities and mining villages, where they had never seen real theater. And now, before people whose spiritual needs had recently been tried to be satisfied by low-grade variety revues, Sybil Thorndike appeared in the roles of Medea and Lady Macbeth...
The Unity Theater was especially active, which did not stop working even during the most brutal bombings. In 1941, the theater staged a new play by Sean O'Casey, "The Star Turns Red" - a play, according to the author's definition, "about tomorrow or the day after tomorrow." The theme of the play is the future uprising of the working class, a direct clash between communists and fascists. Consonant with the whole spirit of the theater “Unity,” a work by a first-class playwright, made it possible to create a performance that became an event in the theatrical life of the capital.
In general, however, English drama, like the prose of the war period, did not satisfy the needs of viewers and readers for works saturated with the pathos of the anti-fascist struggle, posing the most pressing social and ethical problems of our time. Moreover, there was great interest in Soviet literature. The works of M. Sholokhov, A. Tolstoy, I. Ereiburg, K. Simonov were widely translated and published in England at the second stage of the war, when the anti-Hitler coalition took shape. "Unity" staged K. Simonov's play "Russian People", and in other theaters productions of plays from the Russian classical repertoire became more frequent.
The reaction was not averse to giving the patriotic upsurge a nationalistic character. Turning to history, bourgeois ideologists highlighted events in which purely military traditions were manifested. Let the people compare the fight against Hitler and the fight against Napoleon - despite all the senselessness of this analogy between the situations of the early 19th century. and the 40s of the XX century. there was some resemblance! The ongoing war was seen as another battle with a contender for the European hege- 11-127
321 monium, and not as a fight against fascist reaction. In essence, this is exactly how the upper bourgeoisie viewed the war.
This was understood by the famous film director and producer A. Korda back in the 30s. Having settled in Hollywood, he decided to make a film about Admiral Nelson, a national hero and winner of the Battle of Trafalgar. However, this was a very unique Nelson - a knight without fear or reproach, very little like the historical Nelson. The image of Emma Hamilton, an international intelligence officer and intriguer, turned by the screenwriter into a loving and virtuous woman, devoted to Nelson, and even more so to her homeland, was even less consistent with historical truth. This is how Korda’s pseudo-historical action movie “Lady Hamilton” arose, which was a huge success. At that time, the viewer was attracted by the shallow resonance with modern events. Of course, the sentimental love line that was brought to the fore also played a role. But the main advantage of this shallow film was determined by the names of the leading actors - Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh.
The leftward movement of the masses, expressed in the growth of anti-fascist demands, in the struggle against the remnants of the Munich policy, in the growing influence of the communists, caused considerable concern in the ruling circles of England. The emergency legislation carried out by the Churchill government was used not only to organize resistance to Germany, but also to attack the working class and limit its rights. Labor minister Ernst Bevin issued Regulation 1305, which effectively nullified the right to strike. The persecution of communists continued in the trade unions.
Despite these measures, the struggle of the English people against internal reaction continued. On the initiative of left-wing trade union and Labor leaders, as well as prominent representatives of the left-wing intelligentsia, including communists, the People's Convention met in London on January 12, 1941. The delegates to the convention represented 1,200 thousand workers. The main slogan was "the creation of a people's government truly representing the working class." The convention demanded the implementation of a consistent democratic policy within the country and in the colonies, as well as the establishment of friendly relations with the Soviet Union. The government responded to these decisions with new repressions. On January 21, 1941, the Daily Worker newspaper was closed by order of Home Secretary Herbert Morrison.
In the most difficult days, immediately after Dunkirk, Churchill declared in Parliament that England would continue to fight “until, in the time appointed by Providence, the New World, with all its strength and might, comes forward for the salvation and liberation of the Old.” Indeed, in September 1940, a special agreement was concluded under which the United States transferred to England 50 old destroyers necessary for convoying military and food cargo. In return, England granted the United States the right to create
322 to build naval and air bases on a number of British-owned islands: the American imperialists, taking advantage of the situation, strengthened their positions at the expense of England. And in March 1941, Roosevelt's supporters managed to pass a law in the US Congress, according to which American supplies were provided to England for rent or loan (Lend-Lease).
Making extensive use of the resources of the dominions and colonies, England achieved the creation of significant armed forces that conducted operations in Africa and other areas. The campaign in Africa (against Italy) went with varying degrees of success, but by the spring of 1941 the British managed not only to drive the Italians out of their colonies, but also to seize a number of Italian colonies and oust the Italians from Ethiopia. Only in North Africa, where Hitler sent the army of General Rommel to help the Italians, did the British troops retreat; the northwestern part of Egypt was occupied by the enemy.
But no matter how significant the colonial problems were from the point of view of the imperialist interests of England and its opponents, the African fronts, like the front in the Middle East, were of secondary importance. In Europe, Germany continued to strengthen. Completing preparations for the attack on the USSR, Hitler subjugated Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Now his plan was to achieve peace in the West and avoid a war on two fronts. For this purpose, Hitler's deputy for leadership of the Nazi Party, R. Hess, was sent to England. In correspondence with prominent Munich residents, he gradually prepared his secret visit to the most reactionary group of British politicians, hoping that they would help convince the government in one form or another to join the anti-Soviet campaign. We must not forget that the very parliament that voted for Munich was in power. But the impudent proposals of Hess, who demanded peace on the basis of freedom of hands for Germany in Europe (in exchange for freedom of hands of England... in the British Empire), were rejected. The English people, after Dunkirk and the “Battle of England,” would not have allowed anyone to make this shameful deal, and the government itself was well aware that in the event of the defeat of the USSR, England would not be able to withstand an even stronger fascist bloc.
The German attack on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 marked the beginning of a new stage of the Second World War. From that day until the final defeat of Germany, the center of world history was on the Soviet-German front; It was there that the outcome of the war was decided and the fate of humanity was determined.
Since the beginning of the Patriotic War, the situation in England has changed dramatically. Hitler's huge war machine was moving to the East, meeting heroic resistance, and the immediate danger of an invasion of the British Isles by German armies no longer hung over England. Air raids also fell sharply. But the main thing is that England was no longer alone in the war against Germany; she had an ally who took the brunt of U*
323 fight against a common enemy. While remaining an implacable enemy of socialism, Churchill considered it advantageous to choose the path of cooperation with the Soviet Union.
Already on June 22, 1941, Churchill made a statement about his readiness to provide “Russia and the Russian people with all the assistance that we are capable of.” In other words, the British government agreed to an alliance with the USSR, which was formalized by an agreement signed in Moscow on July 12, 1941. This was the beginning of the anti-Hitler coalition.
The English working class made great sacrifices to increase military output, especially in cases where Soviet orders were being carried out. The mood of the masses also influenced the trade union leadership. Even the leaders of the Trade Union Congress were forced to establish close ties with Soviet trade unions.
In wide circles of the English people, interest in life in the Soviet Union and the social conditions that fostered mass heroism, perseverance, and selflessness in the Soviet people has increased unusually. At the same time, interest in Russian and Soviet culture and the history of Russia increased. Books by Russian and Soviet writers published in England were sold out in great demand. War and Peace was read by all levels of society - from the worker or clerk snatching a free minute, to Mrs. Churchill.
From the very first days of the existence of the Anglo-Soviet union, the Soviet government raised the question of creating a second front in Europe before Churchill's cabinet. A large English landing in France, Belgium, and Holland would have pulled several dozen divisions from the Soviet-German front. This would be truly effective help to the Red Army in the most difficult period of the war. The ruling circles of England preferred to avoid this operation under any pretext, shifting the entire burden of the war onto the shoulders of the Soviet people.
The question of a second front not only took a central place in the relationship between members of the anti-Hitler coalition, but also became the subject of an acute internal political struggle in ENGLAND. Communists, left-wing Laborites, some liberals and even some conservatives openly demanded the creation of a second front in Europe. However, Churchill's government, true to the long-standing tradition of fighting by proxy, failed to fulfill its most important allied duty for three years.
The pressure of democratic forces on the issue of supplying the Soviet Union with weapons turned out to be more effective. England, and after it the United States, agreed to provide weapons on the basis of Lend-Lease and provide escort for transport ships by the British and American navies. In September - October 1941, a meeting of representatives of the three powers was held in Moscow, at which the scale of supplies of aircraft, tanks and other weapons, as well as strategic raw materials, was determined. At
324 In this case, the British and American representatives agreed to satisfy the Soviet demand only 50%, and for some requests - even 10%. Subsequently, supplies increased, but still the assistance with weapons was significantly lower than the needs of the Red Army and the capabilities of industry in England and, especially, the United States.
The war economy was brought under state control, which led to a sharp leap in the development of state-monopoly capitalism. Ministries created to manage various sectors of the economy - aviation industry, fuel and energy, food, supplies, etc. - became new links between the state and monopolies. Government control of the economy played a positive role in England's war effort, but at the same time it was exploited by monopolists, who either personally headed the new departments or sent their employees to them. By fettering to a certain extent the arbitrariness of individual monopolies, this system ensured the interests of monopoly capital as a whole.
During the war years, British industry produced 130 thousand aircraft, 25 thousand tanks and many other types of weapons and equipment. The Dominions and India produced 10% of all weapons available to the Imperial military. Dominions and colonies played an even greater role in mobilizing human resources. Of the 9.5 million people under the command of British generals and admirals during the war, over 4 million were part of the Indian, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and South African divisions.
From the above data it is clear what enormous capabilities England had during the war and how little of it it used to help its Soviet ally. And yet, the very logic of joint struggle with the enemy, the efforts of Soviet foreign policy, and pressure from the British people led to the strengthening of the anti-Hitler coalition.
A new stage in the development of the Anglo-Soviet alliance and the entire anti-Hitler coalition began at the end of 1941. The victory of the Soviet armed forces in the Battle of Moscow unusually raised the international prestige of the Soviet Union. The positions of England and the United States were also significantly influenced by the attack on them by imperialist Japan (December 7, 1941) and the outbreak of the war in the Pacific Ocean. Now that a new front has emerged, the interest of England and the United States in an alliance with the USSR has increased even more.
Japan's attack on the United States led to the further formation of the Anglo-American bloc. Now that the United States has become a belligerent power, not only with Japan, but also with Germany and Italy, concrete coordination of military-strategic plans has become possible. This issue was considered at the Washington Conference, which lasted about a month - from December 22
323 1941 to January 14, 1942 England and the USA agreed on the creation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of both countries.
Soviet-British negotiations continued, and in May 1942 England made a commitment, which was formulated in a communiqué as follows: “Full agreement has been reached regarding the urgent tasks of creating a second front in Europe in 1942.” There was similar wording in the communiqué on the Soviet-American negotiations. If the statement about the second front did not acquire practical significance, since it was not opened not only in 1942 but also in 1943, then the conclusion of the Anglo-Soviet “Treaty of Alliance in the War against Nazi Germany and its accomplices” was truly outstanding. in Europe and about cooperation and mutual assistance after the war."
However, immediately after the conclusion of the treaty and the solemn commitment to open a second front, Churchill began to prepare to abandon the plan to invade Europe. Instead of landing in France, the Anglo-American headquarters agreed to prepare for an invasion of North Africa. The talk was about conquering Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and in the future, the entire Mediterranean basin. In addition to the fact that this operation could be presented to the public as a “second front,” it suited England because it strengthened its position on the most important imperial communications.
In order to calm British public opinion and create the impression that the Soviet Union did not object to the strategy of the Western powers, Churchill went to Moscow in August 1942. He tried to prove to Soviet leaders that the operation in North Africa would be essential to the defeat of Hitler. At the same time, on behalf of England and the United States, a promise was made to open a second front in 1943. Most of all, Churchill wanted to make sure that the Soviet Union would continue the war under any circumstances. It is not for nothing that in a telegram sent from Moscow to the military cabinet, he considered it necessary to emphasize: “Throughout all the negotiations there was not a single, even the slightest hint that they could end the war.” And if so, then, according to Churchill’s logic, it was possible to continue to build up military power and conduct operations on fronts that were important for British imperialism, but of secondary importance for the overall course of the war.
Since the spring of 1941, when Italo-German troops invaded Egypt, there have been no significant operations in Africa. In May 1942, General Rommel's army went on the offensive and in June ousted the British from Libya. On June 21, 1942, Tobruk fell, the last stronghold in Libya covering the approaches to Egypt. Pursuing the rapidly retreating British, Rommel's army invaded Egypt and rushed to the Suez Canal.
Only on the defensive line south of El Alamein did British troops manage to stop the enemy - only 100 km from Cairo. The Suez Canal was under immediate threat. Rommel failed
326 in these days it was possible to build on the success and completely expel the British from Egypt only because a gigantic battle had already unfolded on the Soviet-German front and Hitler could not send even those relatively insignificant reinforcements to Africa that could solve the matter.
Having received a respite, the British command strengthened its troops in Egypt, fully provided them with weapons and equipment, and also reorganized the administration. All units were consolidated into the 8th Army under the command of General Montgomery. At the same time, preparations for the landing of Anglo-American troops in North-West Africa were completed. Having launched an offensive in the El Alamein area on October 23, the British reoccupied Tobruk on November 13. Over the next months, just at the time when the Red Army, having surrounded Paulus' 300,000-strong army, was waging offensive battles, British troops completely occupied Libya and approached (February 1943) the Tunisian border.
Successful operations in Northeast Africa were accompanied by active operations in Morocco and Algeria. On November 8, six American and one British division landed simultaneously in the ports of Algiers, Oran and Casablanca and launched an offensive to the east. Trying to maintain their positions in Africa, the Germans urgently transferred several divisions from Italy to Tunisia, and already in December 1942 they managed to stop the offensive from the West. The Anglo-American command had a huge superiority of forces, but it preferred to thoroughly prepare the decisive blow; this again made it possible for Hitler to transfer divisions to the Soviet-German front. Only in March - April 1943 did major battles break out in Tunisia. The 8th British Army - from the east, American divisions - from the south and west, broke through the defenses of the Italo-German troops, occupied the cities of Tunis and Bizerta, which were of great strategic importance, in early May, and on May 13 accepted the surrender of the 250,000-strong enemy army.
The great victory at Stalingrad, which marked the beginning of a radical change in the course of the war, created excellent preconditions for delivering decisive blows against the common enemy. The summer and autumn offensives of the Red Army in 1943, and then the access to the state border, finally sealed the turning point in the war and created a completely new situation. The victory in the Battle of Stalingrad gave a powerful impetus to the rise of the Resistance movement in the occupied countries, and this caused considerable concern among British and world reaction. During the Resistance, peoples fought not only against invaders. There was a mature understanding among the masses that after the war there should be no return to the old reactionary regimes, which were responsible for national catastrophes in France, Poland, Yugoslavia and a number of other countries. The authority of the communist parties, which acted during the war as selfless fighters for the national interests of the peoples of their countries, increased enormously.
327 This new situation significantly influenced relations within the anti-Hitler coalition, and in particular the policy of the British government. It became clear to Churchill and his advisers that the Soviet armed forces were powerful enough to achieve complete victory in the war and liberate Europe without any participation from Britain and the United States. In addition, the West was interested in the Soviet Union's help to defeat imperialist Japan.
At numerous meetings of British and American statesmen, diplomats and generals that took place during 1943, the question of a second front continued to occupy a central place. Hypocritically assuring the Soviet side that the opening of a second front would occur in 1943, Churchill and his American colleagues decided to postpone this operation to 1944. Under such conditions, the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers of the USSR, USA and England took place (October 1943), and a month later - Tehran Conference of Heads of Government - J.V. Stalin, F. Roosevelt and W. Churchill. Here, under the influence of the firm position of the USSR, an agreed decision was made on the invasion of Anglo-American troops into France in May 1944.
While preparing for the invasion of France, Anglo-American troops at the same time continued operations in the Mediterranean. The defeats of the Nazis on the Soviet-German front, where the 8th Italian Army was defeated, the growing internal crisis in Italy, and the dominance of the Anglo-American fleet in the Mediterranean Sea made the capture of the island relatively easy. Sicily.
The further Allied offensive in Italy took place with their absolute superiority, especially at sea and in the air. The powerful blows that the Red Army delivered in the winter and spring of 1944 distracted more and more enemy divisions. Hitler had to send a lot of troops against the partisan armies and formations that operated in the occupied countries. Nevertheless, in the spring of 1944, the Anglo-American troops moved forward extremely slowly. Only by the end of May did they manage to oust the enemy from Central Italy. On June 4, the Allies entered Rome, abandoned by the German command, without a fight.
And two days later, on June 6, 1944, the second front finally opened in Europe. The British and American command prepared this complex operation perfectly, and the soldiers of the allied armies, who had long been eager to fight the fascists, showed steadfastness and courage. England and the United States were able to superbly arm and train their armies solely due to the fact that for three years the Soviet Union, at the cost of the greatest effort and unprecedented sacrifices, withstood the full brunt of the war.
The invasion forces included 20 American divisions, 14 British, 3 Canadian, and one each French and Polish. The Allies had absolute superiority in naval
328 sky forces. American General D. Eisenhower was appointed commander-in-chief of the expeditionary forces, and British General B. Montgomery was appointed commander of the ground forces. The fleet and air force were also commanded by the British.
The Allies managed to create a bridgehead between Cherbourg and Le Havre. By the end of June, about a million soldiers and officers were already concentrated on the slowly expanding bridgehead. The German command transferred divisions from other regions of France, Belgium, and Holland to this area, but did not dare to withdraw troops from the Soviet-German front: just at this time the offensive of the Soviet armies began in Karelia and Belarus. The advance of expeditionary forces across French territory was ensured by the actions of combat detachments of the French Resistance, which not only disorganized the fascist rear, but also liberated cities and entire departments with their own forces. By August 24, the rebel Parisians liberated the capital of France with their own forces. By autumn, all of France, Belgium and part of Holland were almost completely liberated from the enemy. Anglo-American troops reached the German border.
In December 1944, Hitler's command launched an offensive in the Ardennes, where he managed to secretly concentrate large forces. On a relatively narrow front, the Germans threw into battle 25 of the 39 divisions they had at their disposal on the Western Front. Having broken through the Allied defenses, by the beginning of January they advanced 90 km, trying to cut off the northern group of the Allied armies. There were English troops here, and the threat of a “second Dunkirk” loomed over them. The reinforcements sent by Eisenhower slowed down the German advance, but they failed to push back the armies that had broken through. On January 6, 1945, Churchill asked the Soviet government to launch “a major Russian offensive on the Vistula front or somewhere else,” as “very heavy fighting is taking place in the West.” The Red Army, which in bloody battles in the fall of 1944 brought liberation to the peoples of Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Hungary, was preparing for a new offensive, but it was planned a little later. However, given the position of the Allies, the Supreme High Command accelerated preparations, and on January 12, the Soviet Armed Forces went on the offensive on a huge front from the Danube to the Baltic Sea. This dramatically improved the position of the Anglo-American troops, who managed to force the Germans to retreat by the end of January. In this situation, a new meeting of heads of government was required to resolve urgent military issues and especially post-war problems that had become urgent.
In Berlin they were already fully aware that the war was lost. The only hope that remained for Hitler was connected with plans for a separate peace in the West.
The Yalta Conference of the Heads of Government of the USSR, USA and England, held on February 4-11, 1945, convincingly promoted democracy.
329 demonstrated the entire groundlessness of Hitler’s calculations. Churchill had long been making plans for the post-war encirclement of the Soviet Union with a new “cordon sanitaire”, planned the restoration of Germany as a potential ally in the fight against the USSR, ordered his troops to suppress democratic forces on the continent, but neither Churchill would have allowed him to enter into an open conspiracy with the Hitler regime , nor to any other statesman, the English working class, the entire English people.Western delegations also could not help but take into account the real balance of forces in Europe, as well as the role that the Soviet Union had to play in the defeat of Japanese imperialism.
The war in the Pacific was approaching its decisive stage. During its first months, Japan, through surprise attacks and the slow deployment of Anglo-American forces, achieved dominance in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. Having destroyed the main forces of the American Pacific squadron in the harbor of Pearl Harbor (Hawaii Islands) with a treacherous strike and sank the English battleship Prince of Wales, the Japanese captured the most important American possessions in the Pacific Ocean, including Philippine, and at the same time attacked British bases and colonies. Soon the most important strongholds of British imperialism in the Far East - Hong Kong and Singapore - fell. Malaya and Burma were almost completely in enemy hands. By entering the borders of India, Japan threatened this “jewel of the British crown.” Therefore, the British command concentrated a large group of troops in the northeastern part of India under the command of Admiral L. Mountbatten. For more than two years it was inactive, and only in the summer of 1944, when the military-political position of Japan was greatly shaken due to the approaching collapse of German fascism and the successes of the American armed forces in the Pacific, Mountbatten invaded Burma and by the spring of 1945 cleared it of Japanese troops .
In addition to the agreed decisions on the final operations in the European war and in the war with Japan, the Yalta Conference adopted an extensive program for the destruction of “German militarism and Nazism”; it was a truly democratic program corresponding to the interests of all peoples of the world, including the German people.
Protecting the independence of the liberated peoples of Europe and their right "to establish democratic institutions of their own choice" was declared one of the goals of the three powers. Only the enormous power and authority of the Soviet Union, only the mighty rise of democratic forces throughout the world could force the imperialist governments of England and the United States to sign documents establishing the just, liberating nature of the war.
At the final stage of the war in Europe, as at all its stages, the Soviet Armed Forces delivered the main blows to the enemy.
330 Strength. Breaking the resistance of Nazi troops, Soviet troops reached the last line before the assault on Berlin. Under these conditions, the offensive of the Anglo-American troops was not associated with great difficulties, especially since Hitler deliberately opened the front in the West, still hoping that a clash between the USSR and the Western powers would occur on German territory. Anglo-American troops, having launched an offensive on February 8, 1945, crossed the Rhine only at the end of March. The offensive was accompanied by massive air raids on German cities.
On May 2, Berlin was captured by Soviet troops, and on May 8, Germany capitulated. This was a great historical victory of peoples over fascism, in which the Soviet Union played a decisive role*
The victory of the Soviet Union undermined the forces of world reaction, destroyed its strike force, and defeated its main headquarters. In the anti-fascist Resistance in the countries of Europe and Asia, the unity of the working class and democratic forces took shape. The communist and workers' parties grew into a powerful force, accumulated vast experience and called the people to radical social and political changes. In the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, liberated by the Soviet Armed Forces, people's democratic revolutions had already begun. The crisis of the world system of capitalism entered the second stage, and through all the variety of processes taking place in various countries, the contours of the future world system of socialism were already visible.
The English people did not experience the horrors of the German occupation during the war, but they also suffered considerable hardships. The class struggle in England did not acquire such severity as in the continental continent. No matter how insidious the plans of the British reaction were, ~ no matter how indignant the unjustified passivity of the English command caused, England nevertheless fought as part of the anti-Hitler coalition and the English bourgeoisie did not compromise itself in the eyes of the people by direct collaboration with fascism, as was the case in the countries of the continent . But a serious shift in the alignment of class and political forces also occurred in England.
Throughout the war, the British working class put pressure on the government, demanding stronger cooperation with the Soviet Union and effective operations against the fascist states. While making a major contribution to the victory over the main centers of reaction on a world scale, the advanced workers of England did not forget about their own internal reaction.
It is not surprising that in this situation the authority of the CPV increased sharply. By the end of 1942, the party consisted of 60 thousand people - more than 3 times more than on the eve of the war. The party's position in trade unions has strengthened. Communists were often elected to the executive committees of trade unions and secretaries of local organizations. At the Trade Union Congress of 1944, a prominent figure in the trade union movement, communist A. Papworth, was elected to the General Council.
The masses of the working class forced the government to cancel the
331 decisions of the CPV body - the Daily Worker newspaper; in August 1942, publication of this popular newspaper resumed.
The struggle of currents within the Labor Party has intensified, and its left wing has strengthened. The anti-communists in the party leadership were defeated. But they took revenge when discussing the old issue of admitting the CPV to the Labor Party. Twice the CPV made a corresponding request, and in 1943 it was supported by such mass organizations as the British Coal Miners Federation, the Builders' Union, etc. But the more influential the CPV became, the more right-wing Labor leaders feared the role it could play in the Labor Party , - the role of ideological leader and center of gravity of all leftist forces. The Executive Committee therefore rejected the Communists' proposal and thereby once again damaged the cause of working class unity.
The most pressing issues in the internal party struggle were issues of a programmatic nature. What social changes should victory in the anti-fascist war bring? What tasks should a party that calls itself socialist set for itself? What plan of change should voters be offered when the war is over? On all these problems, the positions of the right-wing Labor leadership and the left wing of the party diverged throughout the years of the war, but especially during its last stage.
The matter was complicated by the fact that even at the top of the bourgeois political hierarchy they thought a lot about complex issues related to the transition from war to peace. The main idea that Conservative leaders wanted to instill in the masses was that social change was not needed in England, even within the narrow framework of Labor “socialism.” The government itself intends to carry out a “reconstruction” that will supposedly satisfy all segments of society. To study the problems of reconstruction, a committee was created back in 1941, headed by the Labor minister A. Greywood; this appointment was supposed to give reconstruction plans a bipartisan, coalition character. In 1943, Churchill's government adopted the Beveridge Plan, a liberal reformer who proposed a radical overhaul of the entire social security system. This plan did not touch the foundations of the capitalist system, but it could form the basis of truly progressive reform. It is no coincidence that the CPV and other progressive forces spoke out for the implementation of the “Beveridge Plan”. The law on public education adopted in 1944 and some other measures were progressive in nature.
The Labor Party Executive Committee, for its part, also put forward various reconstruction projects. His plans involved maintaining the state control over the economy that had developed during the war. The Labor right did not intend to include the nationalization of industry in its post-war reconstruction program - a policy provision that has appeared in the party charter since 1918. When in December 1944
332 the executive committee presented a detailed resolution to the party conference; the concept of “socialization of the means of production” or “nationalization” was absent from it1. It was only about “control over the economy.” In other words, Labor leaders once again came to the defense of the capitalist system.
In England, which was approaching the end of the war in the camp of the winners, there was no immediate revolutionary situation. But here objective prerequisites have arisen for carrying out such fundamental changes that could undermine the omnipotence of the monopolies. Taking this into account, the Communist Party adopted at its XVII Congress in October 1944 the “Victory, Peace, Security” program, which, along with foreign policy objectives, indicated the paths of social progress: the nationalization of leading sectors of the economy and the participation of the working class in their management. The masses of the working class, the trade unions, in which the influence of the communists was great, achieved the inclusion of the demand for nationalization in the decisions of the trade union congress of 1944. Relying on this mass support, the left-wing Laborites at the party conference fought against the resolution of the executive committee. They managed to pass an amendment to “transfer into public ownership land, large construction companies, heavy industry and all banks, transport and the entire fuel and energy industry.”
The Labor leadership was defeated and, in the atmosphere of the rise of democratic forces in England and throughout the world, did not dare to completely ignore the will of the masses. At a conference in April 1945, when things were already heading towards parliamentary elections, the “Facing the Future” program proposed by the executive committee was adopted. After general declarations about the socialist character of the party, voters were promised the nationalization of those industries that were “ripe for transfer to public ownership.”
After the victory over Germany, on May 18, 1945, Churchill proposed that Labor maintain the coalition at least until the victory over Japan, but mass protests thwarted this plan. Now Churchill preferred to rush through the elections, hoping to use his popularity as a military leader.
During the election campaign, Labor strongly emphasized the “socialist” nature of its program, and this made a considerable impression on the masses who sincerely strived for socialism. The people did not want a return to the past, to the reactionary Conservative government. Churchill’s personal popularity was still very great, but, as his English biographer figuratively writes, the Conservatives had nothing in their arsenal during the election campaign “except Churchill’s photo card.”
The elections took place on July 5 and brought a brutal defeat to the Conservative Party. She lost about half of her parliamentary seats; now she had only 209 mandates, while
333 Labor won an absolute and solid majority; they had 393 seats - 146 more than all other parties combined. 2 seats were received by the communists - W. Gallagher and F. Piretin.
The election results stunned the Labor leaders themselves as much as the Conservatives. Considering that Labour's election campaign was carried out under "socialist" slogans, the voting results could be seen as a decisive verdict on the capitalist system, pronounced by the majority of the English people. Now the right-wing Laborites saw their task as gradually real and imaginary concessions, pseudo-socialist reforms, propaganda of anti-communism, etc. - to change the public mood, save capitalism, and suppress leftist forces.
Party leader Clement Attlee, having become head of government, appointed Herbert Morrison as his deputy, Ernst Bevin as foreign minister, and equally well-known right-wing politicians to other posts. The bourgeois press welcomed the new composition of the government - it served as a reliable guarantee of the preservation of bourgeois rule.
The new cabinet had to take its first steps in the field of foreign policy. From July 17 to August 2, a conference of heads of government of the USSR, USA and England was held in Potsdam. Although the conference began after the elections in England, the counting of votes was not yet completed. The British delegation was headed by Churchill, who prudently invited Attlee with him as a potential prime minister in the event of a Conservative defeat in the elections. For two days - July 26-27 - the conference took a break, since it was on these days that the cabinet was changed in London. Having left for his capital, Churchill never returned to Potsdam; Attlee became the head of the delegation.
Both Churchill and Eden, and Attlee and Bevin, in contact with the American delegation, tried to use the Potsdam Conference to undermine the position of the Soviet Union in Europe, as well as to interfere in the internal affairs of the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe in order to disrupt the process of democratic transformation in these countries .
The British and American delegates in Potsdam were inspired by the first successful test of the atomic bomb, which was carried out in the United States the day before the opening of the conference. Churchill even said that the bomb would help “straighten the balance of power with Russia.” But the very first attempts at disguised blackmail were decisively suppressed by the Soviet delegation. The decisions taken in Potsdam were generally consistent with the objectives of a democratic solution to post-war problems. In the spirit of the Yalta decisions, detailed resolutions were developed on the governance of Germany, on preparations for concluding peace treaties with its former satellites, on the status of Berlin, and on the trial of the main military
334 criminals. The Soviet delegation rejected attempts by England and the United States to interfere in the internal affairs of Bulgaria and Romania. The Soviet Union confirmed its intention to enter the war against Japan. Under these conditions, for the final victory over Japan there was no need at all to use the atomic bomb. Nevertheless, on August 6, by order of US President Henry Truman, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and on August 9, on Nagasaki. The calculation of the American imperialists was simple: to intimidate the people with weapons of unprecedented power, to prepare the ground for “nuclear diplomacy” towards the Soviet Union, to take a step towards achieving US world domination. Although British scientists also participated in the production of the atomic bomb, the emergence of new weapons made England even more dependent on the United States.
However, Japan, despite the death of almost 250 thousand people, was not going to capitulate. Only a powerful blow by the Soviet Army against the Japanese armed forces in Manchuria (against the Kwaptung Army) and their complete defeat forced Japan to capitulate. On September 2, 1945, the Second World War ended. Like other countries, England entered a new period in its history.
Plan
Introduction
1 Political situation on the eve of the war
2 Military preparations of the United Kingdom and the Empire
3 Period of failure
3.1 "Strange War"
3.2 War at sea
3.3 Battle of Scandinavia
3.4 Defeat of France
3.5 Neutralization of the French fleet
3.6 US assistance
3.7 Elimination of the “fifth column”
3.8 Battle of Britain
3.9 In the Middle East
3.10 Battle for the Balkans
4 Military alliance with the USSR and the USA
4.1 British assistance to the USSR
4.2 Controversy with the US
4.3 Occupation of Iran
4.4 In North Africa
4.5 In the Far East
4.6 Anglo-American military alliance
4.7 India and Indian Ocean
5 Turning point in the war
5.1 Turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic
5.2 British air raids on Germany
5.3 Victory in North Africa
5.4 Landing in Italy
5.5 On the Burma Front
6 Victory over Germany
6.1 Liberation of France
6.2 Situation in the Balkans
6.3 Increasing disagreements between Great Britain and the USSR
6.4 Invasion of Germany
6.5 End of the war in Italy
6.6 End of the war in Germany
7 Victory over Japan
7.1 Victory in Burma
7.2 In the Far East
8 Results of the war
9 Losses
Bibliography
Introduction
Great Britain participated in the Second World War from its very beginning on September 1, 1939 (September 3, 1939, Great Britain declared war) until its very end (September 2, 1945), until the day the surrender of Japan was signed.
1. Political situation on the eve of the war
Great Britain was one of the countries that created the international political system after the First World War. At the same time, as the strongest European “great power,” Great Britain has traditionally sought to maintain parity of power on the continent, alternately supporting certain countries. A new full-scale war on the European continent was extremely undesirable for Great Britain both from an economic and political point of view.
In 1933, the Nazis came to power in Germany, one of whose main slogans was revenge for defeat in the First World War. At the same time, accelerated industrialization and militarization of the USSR took place. Considering the “Soviet threat” quite serious, in the second half of the 1930s, the British government of Neville Chamberlain made concessions to Nazi Germany, which led to its strengthening as a “counterweight” to the USSR. The pinnacle of this policy was the Munich Agreement (1938). It was assumed that a strengthened Germany would nevertheless remain under the control of the “great powers” and, first of all, Great Britain.
Germany's violation of the Munich Agreement, the division and seizure of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 (in which France's traditional ally Poland took the side of the Reich) meant the collapse of British foreign policy - Germany left the control of the "great powers" and became the dominant force in Central and Eastern Europe. On March 19, the USSR announced non-recognition of the partition of Czechoslovakia and non-recognition of the annexation of the Czech Republic by Germany. On March 31, 1939, Chamberlain announced in the British Parliament that Poland, which served as a buffer between the USSR and Germany, would be granted immunity guarantees. On April 7, 1939, after the Italian attack on Albania, England also provided guarantees to Greece and Romania. This was supposed to reduce tensions in Eastern Europe, but in reality the provision of guarantees achieved the opposite goals.
In August 1939, a Non-Aggression Treaty was signed between Germany and the Soviet Union, which came as a complete surprise to Great Britain. The secret protocols of the treaty envisaged the division of Eastern Europe between the USSR and Germany, including Poland, to which Great Britain had previously guaranteed security. This meant the collapse of the entire British foreign policy in Europe and put the empire in an extremely difficult situation.
The United States played a decisive role in England declaring war on Germany, putting pressure on England that if England refused to fulfill its obligations towards Poland, the United States would abandon its obligations to support England. The conflict between Great Britain and Germany meant exposing the spheres of British interests in Asia to Japanese aggression, which was hardly possible to cope with without the help of the United States (there were Anglo-American obligations for joint defense against Japan). Joseph P. Kennedy, US ambassador to England from 1938 to 1940, later recalled: “Neither the French nor the British would have ever made Poland the cause of the war if not for the constant instigation from Washington.” Faced with the fact of the conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, being under pressure from the United States, which threatened to deprive it of its support if England refused to fulfill its obligations towards Poland, England decided to declare war on Germany.
2. Military preparations of the United Kingdom and the Empire
Great Britain was predominantly a maritime power with a powerful navy. The basis of its strategy in European wars was to have one, or preferably several, allies on the continent who would bear the brunt of the war on land. In accordance with this, Great Britain did not have powerful ground forces.
In total, the army in the metropolis at the beginning of the war numbered 897 thousand people; together with the colonies, the ground forces amounted to 1,261,200 people. By the beginning of the war, the metropolis had 9 regular and 16 territorial divisions, 8 infantry, 2 cavalry and 9 tank brigades.
Anglo-Indian Army(strategic reserve of the British Empire) consisted of 7 regular divisions and a significant number of separate brigades.
Since 1938, the main attention began to be paid to the development of aviation, which was tasked with defending the country from the air. By the beginning of the war, the metropolis had 78 squadrons (1,456 combat aircraft, of which 536 were bombers), most of the fleet were modern aircraft.
According to the report of the Committee of Chiefs of Staff in February 1939, the defense of Egypt and the Suez Canal and India were recognized as the most strategically important tasks, and it was also recommended to send additional naval forces to the Far East.
In the summer of 1939 it was created command in the Middle East(the theater of operations included the area from North Africa to Iraq), for which 2 infantry and 1 armored divisions were allocated. The command was headed by General A. Wavell.
The core of the battle fleet of the British Royal Navy consisted of modernized quite successful battleships from the First World War of the type Queen Elizabeth(5 pieces) and their simplified version of battleships of the type R(5 items). At the same time, the fleet had more modern battleships built after the war. The following aircraft carriers were also in service: Argus, Coreyes, Glories, Furies, Eagle, Hermes, Ark Royal. There were six Illustrios-class aircraft carriers on the slipway.
On the eve of the war, the general staffs of England and France agreed on some issues of cooperation in the event of war with Germany and Italy. The planning of ground forces operations was entrusted to France, which allocated the main ground forces; England sent 4 divisions to France, which amounted to British Expeditionary Force(BES). The commander of the BES in the event of the outbreak of war was the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General J. Gort.
However, a unified Anglo-French Allied Command was not created before the war.
3. Period of failure
3.1. "Strange War"
On September 1, 1939, Germany attacked Poland (see Polish Campaign). On the same day, N. Chamberlain's government sent a note of protest to Germany, which was followed by an ultimatum on September 3, then a declaration of war on Germany.
However, the entire time that German troops were busy in the East, in actions against Poland, the allied Anglo-French troops did not undertake any active combat operations on land or in the air. And the rapid defeat of Poland made the time period during which Germany could be forced to fight on two fronts very short.
As a result, the British Expeditionary Force, consisting of 10 divisions, transferred to France from September 1939 to February 1940, was inactive. In the American press this period was called the “Strange War”.
The German military leader A. Jodl later stated:
“If we were not defeated back in 1939, it was only because about 110 French and British divisions that stood in the West during our war with Poland against 23 German divisions were absolutely inactive.”
3.2. War at sea
At the same time, military operations at sea began immediately after the declaration of war. Already on September 3, the English passenger steamer Athenia was torpedoed and sank. On September 5 and 6, the ships Bosnia, Royal Setre and Rio Claro were sunk off the coast of Spain. Great Britain had to introduce convoying of ships.
On October 14, 1939, a German submarine under the command of Captain Prien sank the British battleship Royal Oak, which was parked at the Scapa Flow naval base.
Soon the actions of the German navy and air force threatened international trade and the very existence of Great Britain.
3.3. Battle for Scandinavia
Great Britain and France, which established an economic blockade of Germany, were interested in attracting the maximum number of countries to this blockade. However, small European countries, including Scandinavian ones, were in no hurry to get closer to the warring parties. Since the beginning of the war in Europe, the Scandinavian countries have declared neutrality. Attempts at diplomatic pressure did not yield results, and the naval commands of the warring countries began to think about preparing operations in northern Europe. The Anglo-French allies were interested in stopping the supply of Swedish iron ore to Germany. For its part, the command of the German navy began studying the possibility of occupying strongholds in Norway and Northern Denmark.
Great Britain was not occupied by Germany during the Second World War, but this did not save the country from destruction, loss of population and resources. The aviation and navy of the Third Reich regularly attacked the cities of the British Isles, sank ships and submarines, and ground military equipment. The British also died on the fronts of World War II, as the country's government sent its soldiers to the Middle and Far East, Japan, Asia, the Balkan and Apennine Peninsulas, the Atlantic, Scandinavia, India, and North Africa. The British took part in the invasion of Germany in the last months of the war, the capture and occupation of Berlin. Therefore, the consequences, outcomes and results of the Second World War were difficult for Great Britain in economic, social and political terms. The country's government declared war on Hitler and Germany on September 3, 1939, immediately after the capture of Poland, and until September 2, Britain was at war with the Third Reich. Only after the surrender of Japan was the war over for the British state and its population.
Economic and political conditions in the late 1930s.
Before entering the war, Great Britain plunged into a protracted crisis that paralyzed the economy, foreign markets, trade, and the work of enterprises. As a result, workers constantly took to the streets with demonstrations, refused to go to work, enterprises stood still, and British products did not reach the markets. Because of this, capitalists lost huge sums and positions in the global economy every day.
The government was headed by N. Chamberlain, who sought to create a strong country capable of competing with Germany, as well as cooperating with it. This foreign policy course was supported by monopolists who had their enterprises in many English colonies. Plans to get closer to Germany are evidenced by the fact that already at the beginning of 1930, representatives of the political forces of England and major industrialists regularly gathered in the house of the Astor family (British millionaires) to develop a plan for cooperation with Hitler. The secret society was called the Cleveland Circle, the existence of which was known only to a select few. The country's citizens did not support the government's plans, so rapprochement with Germany should have become a fait accompli for them.
In the 1930s England, like its ally France, tried to adhere to the policy of “appeasement,” essentially turning a blind eye to Hitler’s actions in Central Europe. By signing the Munich Agreement in 1938, N. Chamberlain, like E. Daladier, hoped that Germany would continue to seize the East of Europe.
After this, declarations of non-aggression were signed and commitments were made that England would support Germany in the event of war.
Chamberlain, under pressure from British society, was forced to begin anti-German negotiations with the Soviet Union and France. Representatives of the political circles of England, France and the USA gathered separately. Such actions did not end with anything concrete, which is why Hitler launched the invasion of Poland.
Britain at War: The Initial Period
Having declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, Chamberlain tried to keep the country from direct participation in hostilities. Until May 1940, a “strange war” was fought, which ended with the capture of Belgium, Holland and France. After this, Chamberlain's government began to prepare for war. To prevent Hitler from using the French fleet to attack Britain, the British attacked first. The target was the harbor of Mers el-Kebir, located in Algeria. Having destroyed a huge number of ships, England captured many ships that were stationed in British ports. In addition, there was a complete blockade of the French fleet in the port of Alexandria (Egypt).
At this time, Hitler began to concentrate troops on the banks of the English Channel, preparing for the invasion of the British Isles. The first blow was delivered not from the sea, but from the air. In August 1940, German aircraft carried out a series of attacks on military factories, enterprises, and airfields in Great Britain. Large cities were also affected. The raids were carried out mainly at night, which led to the death of a significant number of civilians. The targets of the bombing were streets, residential buildings, cathedrals, churches, stadiums, and factories.
British air power, supported by Canada and the United States, carried out retaliatory strikes. As a result, in September 1940, both Germany and Britain were exhausted by constant raids, many people died, equipment was damaged, which made the planned German invasion of the British Isles impossible. Hitler's carefully planned Operation Sea Lion was shelved because there were not enough aircraft to break the resistance of Britain, which was fighting the Third Reich alone. The United States did not provide military assistance, but only provided combat ships from which British planes took off.
British Army Forces
The basis of Great Britain's power was the fleet, which was one of the strongest in Europe. In 1939, the number of military personnel of various ranks in the army was about 900 thousand people, and another 350-360 thousand soldiers were stationed in the colonies. The main forces of the state were concentrated in the British Isles - regular divisions and brigades - territorial, infantry, cavalry, tank. In reserve there were seven regular divisions and many separate brigades formed on the basis of the British and Indians.
Before the war, the number of aircraft units that were transferred to the army's balance increased sharply. Aviation was reinforced with bombers, and the navy with battleships and aircraft-carrying ships.
Events of 1941-1944
Hitler's attention was diverted from Britain in the summer of 1941 due to the attack on the Soviet Union. Germany's situation became significantly more complicated after the United States entered World War II. Hitler could not conduct military operations on two fronts, so he threw all his efforts into the fight against the USSR and the resistance movements that arose in the occupied territories. While Germany was capturing the USSR and establishing its own rules there, Britain and the USA agreed to cooperate, as a result of which secret German documents and radio communications were intercepted, and supplies of food and raw materials were established to the British Isles.
British troops lost several battles on the Asian front in 1941; only the British colonies in India survived. The British also suffered losses in North Africa, but the strengthening of the army by the Americans made it possible in 1942 to turn the situation in favor of the Allies. Hitler withdrew troops from Africa in 1943. Next, the Italian islands were gradually recaptured, including Sicily, Salerno, and Anzio, which forced Mussolini to capitulate.
In November 1943, it opened with the work of the first anti-Hitler coalition, which was carried out in Tehran. It was attended by Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, who agreed on the liberation of France and the opening of a second front. In June 1944, the allied forces began to gradually liberate Belgium and France, displacing the Germans from the occupied territories. The Third Reich lost battle after battle. The situation was worsened by the offensive of Soviet troops on the war fronts.
Surrender of Germany
In 1945, Anglo-American troops began to advance towards Germany. German cities and enterprises turned into ruins as bombers constantly attacked various objects, many of which were unique monuments of history, culture and architecture. Civilians also became numerous victims of the strikes.
At the end of winter - beginning of March 1945, British troops, as part of the Allied forces, helped push German troops beyond the Rhine. The offensive took place in all directions:
- In April, the German army located in Italy surrendered;
- In early May, fighting intensified on the northern flank of the Allied front, which contributed to the liberation of Denmark, Mecklenburg, and Schleswig-Holstein;
- On May 7, the act of surrender of Germany was signed in Reims, signed by General A. Jodl.
The Soviet side opposed such actions, since the document was drawn up unilaterally at the American headquarters of D. Eisenhower. Therefore, the next day, all the allies - the Soviet Union, Britain, the USA and France - were gathered on the outskirts of Berlin, and the act of surrender was re-signed. At the end of May 1945, the British, under pressure from the USA and the USSR, arrested the German generals who commanded in the British zone of occupation.
In 1945, the British army took an active part in military operations in Southeast Asia, liberating Burma from Japanese troops. The British did not ignore the Far East, where the offensive was carried out by the Pacific Fleet, formed by Britain in the fall of 1944.
Thus, the British Army took an active part in all important operations of the final period of the Second World War, supporting the actions of the Allies and individual states.
Results and consequences of the war for Britain
Historians assess the results of World War II for England ambiguously. Some believe that the country lost, while others believe that it emerged victorious. The main results of the conflict for the British Isles include:
- Loss of superpower status;
- She found herself in the camp of the winners, although at the beginning of the war she was on the verge of occupation by the Third Reich;
- It retained its independence, avoiding occupation, like many European states. The economy was in ruins, the country was in ruins, but the internal situation was strikingly different from Poland, France, Denmark, Holland;
- Almost all trade markets were lost;
- The colonies of the former British Empire began to gain independence, but most of them continued to maintain economic, trade and cultural relations with London. This became the core of the formation of the future Commonwealth of Nations;
- Production fell several times, which was returned to pre-war levels only in the late 1940s. The same applied to the economic situation. The crisis was overcome gradually, only in 1953 was the card system finally abolished in Britain;
- The size of sown areas and agricultural land has been halved, so in the British Isles almost one and a half million hectares of land have not been cultivated for several years;
- The payment deficit of the British state budget has increased several times.
In World War II, England lost, according to various estimates, from 245 thousand to 300 thousand killed, and about 280 thousand maimed and wounded. The size of the merchant fleet was reduced by one third, causing Britain to lose 30% of foreign investment. At the same time, the military industry was actively developing in the country, which was due to the need to ensure mass production of tanks, aircraft, weapons and weapons for the needs of the army, as well as the significant influence of technological progress.
Given the current situation, Britain was forced to continue to use the Lend-Lease program. Equipment, food, and weapons were imported into the country from the United States. For this, the States gained full control of trade markets in the Southeast Asian region and the Middle East.
This internal and external situation in Britain caused concern among the population and government. Therefore, political circles headed for strict regulation of the economy, which included the creation of a mixed economic system. It was built on two components - private property and state entrepreneurship.
Nationalization of enterprises, banks, important industries - gas, metallurgy, coal mining, aviation, etc. – allowed already in 1948 to reach pre-war production levels. The old industries were never able to occupy key positions as they had before the war. Instead, new directions and sectors began to emerge in the economy, industry and production. This made it possible to begin solving the food problem, attract investment to Britain, and create jobs.