Colonial wars of the second half of the 19th century. "colonial wars" in books

1. COLONIAL WARS OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE 19TH CENTURY

The countries of Europe, having carried out modernization, received enormous advantages compared to the rest of the world, which was based on the principles of traditionalism. This advantage also affected the military potential. Therefore, following the era of the Great Geographical Discoveries, associated mainly with reconnaissance expeditions, the colonialist expansion of the most developed countries of Europe began already in the 12th-13th centuries. Traditional civilizations, due to the backwardness of their development, were not able to resist this expansion and turned into easy prey for their stronger opponents.

At the first stage of colonization traditional societies Spain and Portugal were in the lead. They managed to conquer most of South America. IN mid-18th century Spain and Portugal began to lag behind in economic development and were relegated to the background as maritime powers. Leadership in colonial conquests passed to England. Beginning in 1757, the English East India trading company captured almost the entire Hindustan for almost a hundred years. In 1706, active colonization of North America by the British began. At the same time, the development of Australia was underway, to whose territory the British sent criminals sentenced to hard labor. The Dutch East India Company took over Indonesia. France established colonial rule in the West Indies as well as in the New World (Canada).

However, in late XVI II- early 19th century Northern and South America won independence, and the colonial interests of European powers focused on the East and Africa. It was there that colonialism reached its greatest flowering and power, and it was there that the collapse began and ended. colonial system.

In the 40s XIX century The British East India Company, after a bloody war, conquered the principality of Punjab and other still independent parts of India, thereby completing its complete subjugation. Active colonial development of the country began: construction railways, reforms of land tenure, land use and the tax system, which aimed to adapt traditional farming methods and lifestyles to the interests of England.

The subjugation of India opened the way for the British to the north and east, to Afghanistan and Burma. In Afghanistan, the colonial interests of England and Russia collided. After the Anglo-Afghan wars of 1838-1842 and 1878-1881. the British took control of foreign policy this country, but they were never able to achieve its complete subjugation.

As a result of the first (1824-1826) and second (1852-1853) Anglo-Burmese wars, which were waged by the East India Company, its army, consisting mainly of mercenary Indian sepoy soldiers under the command of English officers, occupied a large part of Burma. The so-called Upper Burma, which retained its independence, was cut off from the sea in the 60s. England imposed unequal treaties on her, and in the 80s. completely subjugated the entire country.

In the 19th century British expansion in Southeast Asia intensified. In 1819, a naval base was founded in Singapore, which became England's main stronghold in this part of the world. The long-standing rivalry with Holland in Indonesia ended less successfully for the British, where they managed to establish themselves only in the north of Borneo and small islands.

In the middle of the 19th century. France captured South Vietnam and made it its colony in the 80s. ousted weakening China from North Vietnam and established a protectorate over it. At the end of the 19th century. The French created the so-called Indochina Union, which included Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The French governor-general was placed at the head of the union.

In the 19th century Colonization of Australia ended. On the territory of New South Wales, the colonies of Tasmania, Victoria (named after the Dutch explorer Tasman and the English Queen Victoria) and Queensland were separated, and new independent settlements of Western and South Australia were formed. The influx of free migrants increased. In the middle of the 19th century. they achieved an end to the deportation of convicts to Australia. In the 50s Gold was discovered in New South Wales and Victoria. This attracted not only thousands of new colonists to Australia, but also capital. Moving into the interior of the continent, the settlers subjugated or mercilessly destroyed the local population. As a result, a century later, in the 30s. XX century, out of approximately 7.8 million inhabitants of Australia, 7.2 million were Europeans and only 600 thousand were its indigenous inhabitants.

In the second half of the 19th century. All colonies in Australia achieved self-government at the beginning of the 20th century. they united in Commonwealth of Australia, who received dominion rights. At the same time, the colonization of New Zealand and other nearby islands took place. In 1840, New Zealand became a colony, and in 1907, another white dominion of England.

In the 19th century was subordinated most of Africa. The methods of subjugation were varied - from direct military seizures to economic and financial enslavement and the imposition of unequal treaties. Control over the countries of North Africa and Egypt gave the colonial powers enormous economic benefits, dominance in the Mediterranean Sea, and opened routes to the south of the continent and to the East. From the 16th century North African countries, with the exception of Morocco, and Egypt were part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the 18th century, when the military superiority of the Ottomans over Europe had already been lost, France tried to conquer Egypt and create there strong point to advance to India, but Napoleon's Egyptian expedition of 1798-1801. was defeated. In 1830, France invaded Algeria and by 1848 had completely conquered it. Tunisia was subjugated “peacefully” in the intense competition between England, France and Italy, which in 1869 established a united state over Tunisia financial control. Gradually, the French ousted their competitors from Tunisia and in 1881 proclaimed their protectorate over it.

In the 70s It was the turn of Egypt, which, while remaining part of the Ottoman Empire, sought to pursue an independent policy. The construction of the Suez Canal (1859-1869) brought enormous benefits to Europe (the shortest route from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean opened) and devastated the Egyptian treasury. Egypt found itself in financial bondage to France and England, which established control over it in 1876-1882. so-called dual control. The country was robbed in the most merciless way; more than two-thirds of state revenues were spent on paying off foreign debts. The Egyptians joked bitterly about dual control: “Have you ever seen a dog and a cat taking a mouse for a walk together?” In 1882, Egypt was occupied by British troops, and in 1914 England established its protectorate over it. In 1922, the protectorate was abolished, Egypt was declared an independent and sovereign state, but it was independence on paper, since England completely controlled the economic, foreign policy and military spheres of its life.

By the beginning of the 20th century. over 90% of Africa belonged to the largest colonial powers: England, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Spain

By the middle of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was subjected to strong pressure from the developed countries of Europe. The countries of the Levant (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine), which were officially considered part of the Ottoman Empire during this period, became an area of active penetration by Western powers - France, England, Germany. During the same period, Iran lost not only economic, but also political independence. At the end of the 19th century, its territory was divided into spheres of influence between England and Russia. Thus, in the 19th century, almost all countries of the East fell into one form or another of dependence on the most powerful capitalist countries, turning into colonies or semi-colonies. For Western countries, colonies were a source of raw materials, financial resources, labor force, as well as sales markets. The exploitation of the colonies by the Western metropolises was of a cruel and predatory nature. At the cost of merciless exploitation and robbery, the wealth of the Western metropolises was created and the relatively high standard of living of their population was maintained.

It should be noted that in the first three quarters of the 19th century continental countries they did not particularly bother about acquiring colonies. By the way, in the middle of the last century, as already mentioned, the doctrine of free international trade prevailed, which was indifferent to the issue of colonies, but when, after the Franco-German war of 1870-1871, the continental powers returned to protectionism in trade policy, the desire to acquire colonies. By the way, Germany and Italy wished to possess them, which, being politically fragmented until the sixties and seventies of the 19th century, were deprived of the actual opportunity to establish their own colonies in other parts of the world. The intensification of protectionist aspirations and the emergence of historical scene German Empire and the Kingdom of Italy led to the fact that by the end of the 19th century the policy of the major European powers acquired an imperialist character. Competition began between the great powers to acquire overseas territories. England only continued its previous conquests, but in France, in the ministry of Jules Ferry, the task was first assigned, and the implementation of this task began: the transformation of this state into a large colonial empire. The beginning of colonial policy in Germany, as well as in Italy, dates back to the same time. Even the United States, at the very end of the century, took a position among the colonial powers, taking from Spain many of its islands in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, which was the end of Spain's colonial power.

On the basis of colonial relations, conflicts arose between some European powers, especially England, both with France and with Russia, which in the mid-sixties began to make conquests in Central Asia towards English possessions in India. England never came to the point of military clashes with either France or Russia, and at the beginning of the 20th century. between the latter, on the one hand, and the first two, on the other, special agreements were even concluded on their colonial possessions. In general, the whole colonial policy late XIX centuries has been constantly settled by international agreements. During this era, a real “division of Africa” was even carried out. At the end of 1884 and the beginning of 1885, a conference of representatives of fourteen states met in Berlin, which created the “independent state of Congo” in Africa, which later became the property of Belgium. The Berlin conference was followed by a number of other, now private, agreements between individual states on colonial affairs. At the very end of the 19th century, events occurred (the Sino-Japanese and American-Spanish wars, and the uprising of the Chinese against the Europeans) that made the Far East and the Great Ocean the center of political attention. To the six great powers in Europe, two new ones were added in international politics: Japan and the United States, and international politics literally took on a global character. The weakness of China revealed at this time led to something like its division between the European powers, which in turn caused an uprising in China against the Europeans and the intervention of a united Europe in Chinese affairs, when military contingents of different states made a campaign against the capital of Bogdykhan under the command of a German field marshal (1901). This campaign took place only thirteen years before the outbreak of the World War, one of the main reasons for which, as is known, lay in the sharply imperialistic character that European foreign policy during these years.

For the great European powers of the late 19th century, colonial expansion was an economic necessity. The ever-growing industry demanded overseas raw materials (cotton, rubber); the invention of internal combustion engines created a colossal need for oil and a struggle for its limited resources. natural springs. Finally, victorious capitalism, by its nature incapable of being satisfied with internal markets, begins the pursuit of external ones. Political domination becomes the form, instrument and armor of economic exploitation. The old colonial Empires of England and Holland are waking up from their centuries-long slumber for new feverish work. Late-arriving peoples are hastily building their new Empires overseas: France, Belgium, Italy, Germany. However, sero venientibus ossa. For Germany, there was no longer a “place in the sun” of Africa and Asia that was sufficiently profitable, and it turned the main axis of its expansion to the Middle East. Here it penetrated into the imperialist zone of forces of England and Russia, which was one of the main reasons for the first great war.

The African continent remained unknown to Europeans for a long time. However, with the advent of the 15th century, the Portuguese began searching for a route to the spice-rich country of India. Such trips led to the study of the coast of Africa, because, skirting this continent, researchers sought to get to the east.

Immigrants from Portugal began to create in order to enrich themselves for the further journey. Then the enslaved peoples helped not only organize expeditions, but also conquer new lands.

However, Portuguese colonization was not extensive; they established their dominance mainly in some coastal areas. The Portuguese were more interested in:

slave trade;
trade mediation;
exchange of goods, not always equivalent.

Since the 17th century, Holland has actively expanded its expansion, making it a base for further expeditions. At the same time, other overseas states began to encroach on African lands:

Denmark;
Sweden;
Spain;
France;
England;
Courland;
Brandenburg and others.

Africa became very attractive to invaders, since its lands had an expensive commodity - slaves, most often sent to America, where they had to make goods for Europe. The unique natural conditions and wealth:

gold;
Ivory;
diamonds;
spices.

Therefore, over time, colonization became widespread, and colonial wars became commonplace, without which the process of enslavement could never be done.

Colonial wars in Africa

The Mediterranean countries were the first to establish their power in Africa, and over time, those who were further in Europe followed them, since the sole possession of such vast territories could lead to a change in the distribution of power among European countries.

Wars on African lands occurred not only between invaders and the local population, but also between the colonialists themselves. At first, through trade wars, Europeans sought to establish their superiority in trade and colonies.

During this time (17-18 centuries), attackers plundered new lands, even if they were foreign colonies. At the same time, piracy flourished off the African coast. Trade wars were profitable because invaders could take valuable goods from colonies either through unequal exchanges or simply by force.

Such a struggle between European states was aimed at developing the own industry of each of the colonialists, and at expanding the sphere of its influence.

Although Portugal and Spain were the first to direct their sights and ambitions to Africa, their dominance was overthrown from the beginning of the 17th century. Then the largest colonialists were:

Holland;
England.

The beginning of the 19th century was marked by the capture of the Cape Colony by the British, after which for another half century they carried out various wars to exterminate the indigenous peoples, which made it possible for the said colony to expand its borders.

France carried out colonial wars in Africa in the north, and as a result, all of Algeria submitted to it.

In the west, the United States bought land to establish a settlement there for Africans. This territory was named Liberia, and in 1847 it became an independent republic. Only it retained its independence during the time of mass colonization, which was just beginning then; all other states fell under someone’s authority.

Widespread enslavement began with active geographical studies deep in Africa. If the Portuguese were able to study the coast of the continent in detail, now the Europeans penetrated African states by land, studying their life and natural conditions.

This process took place in the direction from South and North Africa, as well as Senegal and the Gold Coast inland of the continent. Most of the colonists were from Holland, there were also representatives of Germany, England and France.

All this time local residents They fought back the invaders as best they could, as can be seen *in the film “Farewell Africa”*; however, the cruel colonists most often destroyed not only all the rebels, but also entire nations or states. Land, property, and even livestock were taken from enslaved residents.

It was the Dutch, who were called Boers, who were particularly cruel and savage. They thoughtlessly mocked the captured peoples, so even other colonists did not always support them. There was a clear conflict between the Boers and the British. The latter nevertheless won and received Dutch lands in southern Africa, because the Dutch were unable to cope with their power and take a step towards modern methods of governance.

Usually, even new methods of management in the colonies did not affect the aggressiveness of exploitation, because the amount of wealth produced had to constantly increase. Therefore, the local residents were always oppressed, which naturally inclined them to various wars for your liberation.

Throughout the 19th century. The largest powers in Europe continued to seize lands located in different parts of the world by force of arms and enslave the peoples who inhabited them. In these wars, almost unarmed indigenous people stubbornly resisted the well-armed European colonialists and suffered huge losses.
Over the course of the last century, England and France completed the division of the world. At the end of the century, Germany and Italy joined in this colonial plunder.
“Peace reigned in Europe,” wrote Lenin, “but it lasted because the domination of European peoples over hundreds of millions of inhabitants of the colonies was carried out only by constant, continuous, never-ending wars, which we Europeans do not consider wars, because they are too often They looked not like wars, but like the most brutal beating, the extermination of unarmed peoples."
Let's look at losses in colonial wars for individual colonial powers.
France. A few years after the Bourbon restoration, France began its penetration of the African continent. In 1819-1821 French troops fought with black tribes West Africa(in Senegal).
In 1830, France began the conquest of North Africa. The capture of Algeria did not require a large number of casualties, but the Arab tribes did not want to submit to the French and, under the leadership of Abd-El-Qadir, launched an uprising that resulted in a major war with foreign invaders. During 1830-1847 at war with rebel army Algerians, the French lost an average of 146 people killed annually, and in total about 2 thousand French soldiers and officers were killed during this period. To suppress the uprising, the French colonialists needed to transfer a third of their entire army to Algeria.
In their expansion, the French imperialists were not limited to Africa. In the 50s of the XIX century. they made attempts to colonize China. In 1857, together with England, French troops occupied Canton, and in 1860 they captured Beijing. Somewhat later, the French imperialists captured part of Indochina.

Using this advantage in military equipment, they inflicted great damage on the troops of Asian countries, while suffering relatively small losses. For example, an expedition to China in 1860-1861. cost the lives of 841 French soldiers and officers, of whom only 28 died in battle *;
from expeditions to Cochin China in 1861 -1862. 907 French people died (including those who died from disease).
France's attempts to settle on the American continent also cost it victims. These were expeditions to Mexico in 1838 and 1839, to the Marquesas Islands and Tahiti in 1844 and 1846, to Argentina and Uruguay in 1845. A few decades later, Napoleon III made an attempt to strengthen French influence in North America. To this end, in 1861 he undertook an expedition of a 25-3,000-strong army to Mexico. In 1863, French troops entered the capital of Mexico, destroyed the republican system in the country and established a monarchy. However, a few years later, the Mexican people threw off the yoke of the interventionists and expelled them from the country. In this war, French losses amounted to 1,180 people killed and died from wounds.
Total for 1830-1870 the French colonial army lost 411 officers killed; Taking into account the ratio between the losses of officers and soldiers, we find that about 10 thousand soldiers died.
During the period of the Third Republic, France's colonial expansion did not stop; it captured Madagascar, Tonkin, Tunisia and Morocco and expanded its colonial possessions in Senegal and Cochin China. In 1871, an uprising broke out again in Algeria, which resulted in 340 battles between the Algerians and the 86,000-strong French army. In total, according to Bodard's calculations, during the period of the third republic 146 people were killed in colonial expeditions in Africa. French officers, which corresponded to approximately the loss of 3 thousand soldiers. During the war, over 1 thousand soldiers were killed in Tonkin. The remaining captures cost the French few casualties. For example, in 1895, during the capture of Madagascar, only 2 people were killed, in 1890, during the expedition to Dahomey -31, in 1892 - 77 soldiers and officers. Total losses of France in colonial expeditions for the period 1815-1897. amounted to approximately 15 thousand killed.
England. Back in the 18th century. England tried to penetrate the African continent, but its expeditions were not limited to

large areas and were accompanied by minor military operations. Only in the 19th century, when Portugal and Spain were already completely pushed aside, England took active steps to capture a significant part of the African continent. Attempts by the British to settle in 1824-1826. on the western coast of Africa they encountered stubborn resistance from the black Ashanti tribes (who occupied the current territory of the state of Ghana), and the British were forced to recognize their independence. It was only in 1896 that the British finally subjugated this part of Africa. Subsequent military operations of the British were more successful for them, and gradually they captured one part of Africa after another.
Throughout the 19th century. the British had in Africa a large number of armed clashes with the indigenous population, but English losses were insignificant, since the British had great superiority in weapons. We do not have complete data on the number of killed soldiers and officers of the British colonial troops. But based on materials on individual military operations, one can get an approximate idea of the final figures.
It is known, for example, that in one battle with the Ashanti tribes in 1824, 42 English soldiers and officers were killed; in the war against Egypt in 1840, the total number of killed and wounded British soldiers and officers did not exceed 100 people. The expedition to Egypt in 1882 was also not accompanied by significant losses (a total of 93 soldiers and officers died). In 1846-1853. The British waged a war in Africa with the Kaffir tribes (the so-called war over the ax).
In 1868, the British tried to penetrate Abyssinia. In battles with the Abyssinians, from the army of 3909 people, 2 officers and 28 soldiers were wounded. In 1873, during an expedition against the Ashanti tribe, only 10 Englishmen were killed. The British suffered significantly greater losses in the war with the Kaffirs and Zulus tribes. From August 1878 to October 3, 1879, 33 officers and 777 soldiers from the regular British army were killed during military operations.
The British also suffered losses in operations in eastern Sudan. To seize these lands, in 1898 they deployed an army of 25,000, armed with the latest weapons. The insignificance of losses during other British military expeditions in Africa is also indicated by data on the number of troops participating in them. For example, in the last wars with the Ashanti tribe in 1895-1896 and 1900. 1.5-2 thousand soldiers took part
and officers; in the first war with the Boers - 1.5 thousand; on an expedition to Sudan in 1884-1885. - 13 thousand; in operations in East Africa and in Uganda in 1897-1901. - 600-1500 soldiers and officers, etc. The size of English losses will be even smaller if we consider that England has always tried to fight with the wrong hands. There were a significant number of Indians in the British troops. The British first used Indian troops in Africa during the expedition to Sudan in 1884-1885, when the Indian Brigade was formed.
In the wars with the Kaffirs in 1878-1879. The British lost more than 1 thousand people killed. In other wars in Africa, British losses were measured in only tens of thousands of people in each of them. On this basis, we can assume that the total number of British killed in the colonial wars in Africa for the years 1815-1897 probably did not exceed 2 thousand people.
On the Asian continent, English invaders in the 19th century. consolidated and expanded their colonial possessions. The British suffered considerable losses in battles with the Indians, who bravely fought for their national independence.
Throughout almost the entire first half of the 19th century. The British did not stop seizing new lands. The war with Nepal lasted more than two years (1814-1816). Ten years later, the British began a war in Burma, which also lasted two years. In 1843 Sindh was conquered. In 1845-1846 and 1848-1849. There were wars with the Sikhs, as a result of which the British conquered Punjab. By the middle of the last century, the capture of India by the British imperialists was completed, but the resistance of the Indian people was not broken. It found particularly vivid expression in the Indian national uprising of the sepoys, which began in 1857 and embraced the millions of peasants who joined them. This uprising was suppressed by the British in 1859.
Despite the large number of military operations, combat losses The British, due to the sharp superiority of their military equipment, were small. So, for example, in the main battle during the conquest of Sindh, the British lost 275 people, while the Indians lost 6 thousand people].
In the war with the Sikhs, the British suffered significantly greater losses. Thus, in one battle of Chilianwala in 1849, the British lost 2,338 people killed and wounded 2. In the second half of the 19th century. British military operations in India were insignificant, but they brought significant losses to the British. The English military historian Sheppard provides the following data on military operations on the northwestern borders

India. “It cannot be denied,” he writes, “that the cost of holding our northwestern borders in the period 1847-1913. was very high. During this period there were 66 punitive expeditions - an average of one per year - involving from a few soldiers to several thousand. In six cases, military formations equal to a division took part in battles, and in 1897 even army corps... In total, during this period, about 300 thousand people took part in military campaigns, of which 4,500 were killed and wounded.”
Unfortunately, we do not have any data on British losses during other military operations in India. Some idea of them can be obtained from the figures for losses in individual battles and the size of the English army as a whole. For example, in the battle with the Indians on October 23, 1864, the British lost 847 people killed and wounded. In the largest battles, British losses were expressed in hundreds of killed. However, during the entire campaign, the total loss of the British did not exceed several thousand people killed. This is also evidenced by the total strength of the British army in India: in 1821 it amounted to 20 thousand people, in 1854 - 30 thousand, in 1857 - 38 thousand people.
Based on the data presented, it can be assumed that the number of Englishmen killed in India during the period 1815-1897 is unlikely to have exceeded 10 thousand people.
The conquest of Burma, although accompanied by long wars, did not cost the British large losses. During the first war with Burma in 1824-1826. British losses amounted to 2 people wounded. During the Second Burma War
h 1852-1853 Only 500 took part in the battles British soldiers, and even then for three weeks. Finally, during the war of 1885-1886. The British lost 91 people killed in battle. Thus, the capture of Burma cost the British only a few hundred people killed.
Attempts to seize Afghanistan cost England more. The First Afghan War of 1838-1842, which ended with the complete expulsion of the British from Afghanistan, led to the death of a significant number of British soldiers. For example, the retreat of the English garrison in Kabul in 1842 was accompanied by its almost complete destruction. On January 8, 1842, while passing through the Khurd-Kabul Gorge, the rebels met the English column with fierce fire, from which, according to

According to eyewitnesses, about 3 thousand people died. This number also included Indian troops used by England in its colonial expeditions. In the second Anglo-Afghan war of 1878-1880. The British army lost 1,623 people killed, including 528 British. \
The Anglo-Chinese wars (the first opium war of 1839-1842, the second opium war of 1857-1860 together with France, the Yihetuan uprising of 1900) cost the British minor losses, as did the war between England and Persia in 1856-1857.
Even in the absence of wars, English colonial troops suffered losses in constant armed clashes with the indigenous population. So, for example, in 1830-1836. 79 English soldiers and officers died from wounds and injuries.
Based on the data presented, it can be assumed that the number of British killed during the colonial wars in Asia amounted to approximately 15 thousand people during the period under review.
During the same period, England waged long wars with the Maori tribes inhabiting New Zealand. Armed clashes began back in 1845, when 70 British soldiers and officers were killed. In the first Maori war, which began in 1860, 42 British soldiers and officers were killed. During the second war with the Maori, in 1863-1866, over 200 British were killed. The third war with the Maori was in 1868-1870. In total, the British lost 560 people killed in the wars with the Maori. Maori losses, according to official data, amounted to 2 thousand people; in reality they were, of course, much larger. It is known that as a result of these wars, the indigenous population of New Zealand was almost completely exterminated.
Total number the British killed in the colonial wars of this period amounted to approximately 18 thousand people.
Spain. The 19th century was the century of the final decline of the once great Spanish Empire. By the end of the first quarter of the 19th century. after stubborn wars that lasted over 15 years, Spain lost all its possessions on the American continent. The losses of the Spaniards in these wars, according to Gausner, amounted to a thousand people killed and dead.
War of Liberation South American peoples against Spanish colonial exploitation was very stubborn and
/>¦was accompanied by quite significant battles. W. Foster notes that this war “was much bloodier than revolutionary war for the independence of the United States," in which over 4 thousand were killed. American soldiers and officers. Meanwhile, in the war with the South American colonies, in just one, albeit the largest, battle on the Ayacucho Plain in 1824, over 2 thousand Spaniards were killed. This battle is called "Spanish Waterloo". Based on Gausner's figure, on the one hand, and Foster's instructions, on the other, we can assume that in these wars the Spaniards lost about 20 thousand people killed.
After defeat on the American continent, the Spanish colonialists tried to secure their island possessions - Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Retaining Cuba required a lot of military efforts on the part of the mother country. Cubans rebelled in 1823, 1826, 1844, 1849, 1868-1878 and 1895. When suppressing the uprising, the Spaniards lost tens of thousands of soldiers. The Spaniards suffered some losses in the war with Peru, Chile, Ecuador and Bolivia in 1865-1866.
Another major military operation of this period was the expedition to Morocco. During this expedition in 1859-1860. from an army of 33-43 thousand people, 786 soldiers and officers were killed and 366 died from wounds. The total number of Spaniards killed in the colonial wars of the 19th century. can be considered equal. 25 thousand people.
Italy. The Italian colonialists were their target for capture and plunder. for a long time Abyssinia (Ethiopia) was elected. Back in 1885, having occupied Eritrea, Italian troops attempted to penetrate deep into Abyssinia. In 1887, the Italians suffered a serious defeat from the Abyssinians, who heroically defended their independence. 7 years later, Italy resumed attempts to capture Abyssinia and at the end of 1894 began military operations, having a well-armed 20,000-strong army. However, this did not save the Italians, and they were completely defeated in the battle of Adua (11 thousand were killed and seriously wounded, 3.6 thousand were captured and only 2.5 thousand soldiers returned). Since almost half of the killed and seriously wounded were African troops in the Italian army, the number of Italians killed in the Battle of Adua can be determined at 3 thousand people (385 Italian officers were killed). 4-5 thousand Abyssinians were killed. This battle, shameful for the Italian imperialists, ended in the 19th century. their attempts to conquer the brave Abyssinian people, attempts which they renewed 40 years later.

Considering that even before the Battle of Adwa, the second Italian infantry brigade lost a quarter of its strength, and the first infantry brigade - a sixth, and also taking into account the losses during the war with the Bedouins after the capture of Libya, total losses Italians killed during the colonial wars in Africa can be taken as equal to 5 thousand people.
Netherlands. Long wars were also waged by the Dutch colonialists, who penetrated Indonesia at the end of the 16th century. In 1825, a Javanese uprising broke out, which took the Dutch army 5 years to suppress. During the hostilities, about 250 thousand Javanese were exterminated. In addition, the Dutch fought long wars to capture the island of Borneo. But the resistance of the residents of the Sultanate of Atye (the northern part of the island of Sumatra) was especially stubborn. The war with Atye, which began in J873, ended only 30 years later. In this war, the Dutch army suffered quite a few losses. In just 20 days of the first expedition in 1873, which ended in the defeat of the colonialists, the Dutch lost 466 soldiers and officers killed and wounded. In other expeditions that followed, losses also amounted to hundreds of soldiers and officers. In total, over the course of 15 years, the Dutch sent 60 thousand soldiers and officers to the islands. Considering, on the one hand, that there were many Asians in the Dutch troops and, on the other hand, significant mortality from disease, it can be assumed that the number of killed Dutch soldiers and officers in the colonial wars during the period under review did not exceed 10 thousand people.
Russia. Moving on to the analysis of the losses of Tsarist Russia in the wars for the annexation of the Caucasus and Central Asia, it should be noted that, despite the colonialist policy of tsarism, this annexation played a positive role in introducing the peoples of the outskirts to the Russian economy and culture. This was noted by F. Engelsov back in 1851 in a letter to Marx: “Russia really plays a progressive role in relation to the East... The dominance of Russia plays a civilizing role for the Black and Caspian Seas and Central Asia, for the Bashkirs and Tatars... »
The Caucasian wars required quite significant sacrifices. The mountaineers, taking advantage of the mountainous terrain, stubbornly resisted the tsarist troops. The history of the conquest of the Caucasus is a history of continuous skirmishes that caused significant damage to the Russian army. The number of Russian soldiers killed in the main 10 military operations exceeds 4 thousand people. But, in addition to these major battles, the history of the Caucasian wars knows hundreds of small skirmishes, the losses in which were expressed in dozens of people killed.

To characterize the losses of Russian troops in the Caucasian wars, we will use monographs on the history of individual regiments. So, for example, in the Tenginsky regiment for 1820-1845, according to our calculations made on the basis of lists, 429 soldiers were killed." But the Tenginians were not the only ones who participated in military operations. In four military operations about which there is information, one was killed 21 Tenginians with a total number of killed 114 people. If we consider that the Tenginians accounted for approximately a quarter of all losses, this means that in the military operations in which the Tenginsky regiment participated, a total of about 2 thousand people died.
The Nizhny Novgorod Dragoon Regiment also took a significant part in the Caucasian wars. According to our calculations, made according to the regimental combat synod, in the Caucasian wars for 1815-1864. 14 officers of the regiment were killed.
The Kabardian Infantry Regiment took a particularly active part in the Caucasian wars. In the regimental garden in Khasav-yurt (former residence of the regiment in Peaceful time) there is a monument with the following inscription: “The Kabardian regiment in affairs with the highlanders in the Caucasus from 1839 to 1860 of all ranks killed 2131, wounded 3084.” During the same period, 51 officers were killed or died from their wounds, i.e., there was 1 officer for about 40 soldiers. In 1816-1838 6 officers died, which roughly corresponded to the death of 250 soldiers. Taking into account the losses since 1860 beyond the Kuban, in Chechnya and Dagestan - during the suppression of the uprisings of the Caucasian peoples - we can assume that during the Caucasian wars, starting in 1815, the Kabardian regiment lost about 3 thousand people killed. In a number of campaigns, the Kabardian regiment accounted for about 10% of all losses of Russian troops. So, in 1845, 53 officers were killed in battle, including 5 officers of the Kabardian regiment. A total of 1,391 soldiers and officers were killed in the 1845 campaign in the Caucasus, but it was a particularly difficult year. The historian of the Kabardian regiment speaks of it as a year that cost “enormous sacrifices,” which “will be very memorable for the Caucasus.”
The figure for Russian losses in the Caucasian wars was established by Ghisetti. Total for 1801-1864 24,946 soldiers and officers were killed, and excluding losses in 1801-1815. - 23135 soldiers and

officers. Average annual casualties for 1801-1864. were 361 people.
During the conquest of Central Asia, although it lasted for decades, the losses could not have been particularly large, since the number of all expeditionary forces was usually expressed in thousands of people. During the occupation of Tashkent, Russian losses amounted to only 125 people killed and wounded. During the capture of Khojent in 1866, 140 Russian soldiers and officers were killed, wounded and shell-shocked, and during the capture of Ura-Tyube and Jizzakh, 224 people were killed and wounded. In 1868, during the conquest of the Zeravshan district, 350 people were killed and wounded. This figure was considered very significant for Central Asian expeditions, and the authors of the text immediately point out that “this year’s campaign cost our troops dearly.” Of the 350 killed and wounded, no more than 100 were killed. But there were expeditions with a large number of dead. Thus, during one assault during the Ahal-Tekin expedition, the Russians lost 185 soldiers and officers killed. In total, in 1879-1881, according to Terentyev’s calculations, 523 Russian soldiers and officers were killed.
The total number of those killed is, according to the materials provided, 1.5 thousand people. If we also take into account other operations not listed here, we can assume that during the entire period of the Central Asian campaigns, starting in 1815, about a thousand Russian soldiers and officers were killed.
The total number of soldiers and officers of European armies killed in the colonial wars between 1815 and 1897 was 106 thousand people.
The number of those killed in colonial wars will be especially significant if we consider that the above figure of “106 thousand people killed” refers only to one side, that is, to the armies of the colonial powers. The other side's losses were much greater, as the poorly armed indigenous population died in the thousands at the hands of the well-armed armies of the European "civilizers." For example, in 1898, in the Battle of Omdurman in Sudan, the indigenous troops, against whom the British used Maxim machine guns, lost 20 thousand people killed, while the losses of the British themselves were negligible. “A wave of death swept away the advancing enemy before our eyes,” wrote an English correspondent about this battle. During the Afghan wars, in the Battle of Kandahar, the British lost 40 people killed, and the Afghans lost 1 thousand people.

The indigenous population of Africa suffered great losses in the fight against the German imperialists. In 1904, when suppressing the uprising of the black Herero tribe, the German colonialists showed completely unheard-of cruelty and exterminated about 30 thousand people; they themselves lost only 127 people killed.
The French colonialists also exterminated many people in Africa. In 1895, during the capture of the city of Marowey (on the island of Madagascar), the losses of the local Hovas tribe amounted to 600 people, while the French themselves lost only 6 people
The indigenous people of Latin America suffered enormous losses in the war for liberation from the yoke of the Spanish colonialists (1810-1826). During this period, the population of Venezuela decreased by 316 thousand people, New Granada - by 172 thousand, Ecuador - by 108 thousand, Mexico - by almost 200 thousand people.
After the examples given, there can no longer be any doubt that if the European armies lost 106 thousand people killed in the colonial wars of this period, then the number of those killed among the conquered peoples was measured in millions of people.
Died from wounds in the wars of the 19th century. For this period there are data on deaths from wounds for most wars. We have summarized all these materials in the following table (see pp. 127-130).
The percentage of the number of deaths from wounds to the number of killed varied within fairly wide limits depending on the degree of lethality of the wounds. In most wars of the 19th century. the number of those who died from wounds was half and even three-quarters of the number killed. In four cases, the number of deaths from wounds even exceeded the number killed in battle. That's how it was in Crimean War in three armies (French, Turkish, Piedmontese) and in the Italian War of 1859 in the French army.

I lt;i *5 g? -a s?3 «th
kX-CJ^O
/ze*§i
His-08-O °
^s?3 ?
S2 C O -
With v(U „ .
^ ^ C 05 ^ "i^1 "4.JS with "G. *WITH? h-
tc C * ha ^ 3
^ +¦"* l p ^ SP l Q sl ^ D- *lt;3 O-

az I*a
About W:S D
° © I m O- jj ^ ^ and
°ia =§? *t oa,. o w o X o C

? I. ? b-.
hsch.
to her.
To
3 * ’
I I * "he ^D 0)
g h s
O
And
lt;Тgt;

lt; "
uh*
r1°^jy
S3
=E
ABOUT
az

O " ;
21
h
O
WITH

?Х g
f* 1

Continuation

1	2	3	4	6	6	7	8	9	10
8.	Austro-Sardinian								G. Bodart, op. cit., p. 53. S. Chenu, Rapport au conseil de sante
	war	1849	Sardinian. . (French... 1 English...	937 10 240 2 755	39 818 18 283	888 11 750 1 847	95 115 67	29th 10
9.	Crimean War.	1853-1856	-( Piedmontese. I Turkish.... (Russian C French. .	12 10 000 24 731 2 536	167 81 247 19 672	16 10 800 15 971 2 962	133 107 64 117	10 19 15	des armees.., p. 579, 611, 614, 617; G. Morache, op. cit., p. 879; M. Mulhall, Dictionary of Statistics, London, 1903, p. 587; N. Stefanovsky and N. Soloviev, op. cit., p. 47. S. Chenu, Statistique
10. 11.	Italian War Spanish expedition to Ma-	1859	\| Sardinian. . 1 Austrian. .	1 010 5 416	4 922 26 149	523	52	11	medico- chirurgical de la campagne d’ltalie, t. II, p. 851, 853.
		1859-1860	Spanish. . .	786	4 994	366	46	7	“Osterreichische militarische Zeitschrift” (S. Dumas, op.cit., p. 75).
12.	Civil howl		/>(Northerners...	67 058	318 187	43 012	64	13	T. Livermore, op. cit.,
13.	on in the USA. . Expedition to Mek	1861-1865	t Southerners	67 000	194 026	27 000	40	14	p. 3, 9; as well as our calculations.
	siku	1862-1866	French. .	1 180	2 559	549	47	21	G. Morache, op. cit., p. 900.

1	2	3	4		5	6	7	8	9 ..	10
14.	Austro-Prussian-Danish War	1864		Prussian.... Austrian. .	422 227	1 705 812	316	75	18	P. Myrdacz, Sanitats- geschichte der
	Austro-Prussian-Danish War	1864		Danish	1 422	3 987	836	58	21	Feldziige 1864 and 1866, S. 42; G. Bodart, op.
					1 422	3 987	836	58	21	Feldziige 1864 and 1866, S. 42; G. Bodart, op.
		U		Prussian....						cit., p. 56.
				Prussian....	2553	13 731	1 455	57	11	G. Bodart, op. cit.,
				Italian. .		3 926	1,633 g	-	-	p. 59-62; P. Myr
				Austrian		29 310	9 123 g	-	-	dacz, Sanitatsge-
				including:						schichte der Feld-
				Austrian in Italy. .		3 984	261		9	ziige 1864 and 1866, S. 109, 125.
15.	Austro-Prussian War	1866		Armies of German states that fought in alliance with Austria including:		5 430	1 147 g
				Saxon. .	520	1 392	100	20	8
16.	Franco-Prussian 6	1870-1871		Prussian....	17 255	88 543	11 023	64	12	J. Steiner, op.cit.,S. 152.
17.	Russian-Turkish.	1877-1878		Russian	15 567	56 652	6 824	44	12	“Military medical report for the war with Turkey 1877-1878” Danube Army, part 2, St. Petersburg, 1886, p. 513; Caucasian Army, part 1, St. Petersburg, 1884, p. 19.
17.	Russian-Turkish.	1877-1878			15 567	56 652	6 824	44	12

Urlanis

Continuation

in l¦!.
k O n I * U O u n S [_ h CXg n

s
S.J. "Yu
V G "*
a^
d,ClH

?*oo
w Сь* Jr
SffC(N

h^
2 N
\S I
gt;*> GO
I I o 1) o O- h -
C S ~
i _ W x ^
GO - t
3 w if
01 o ^ L x

*11"
Egs and
th gt;, O-O, M O-O
lt;i E*
S2 h
^Г-1 .??

CQ I'm about
O "
U "e CJ _" w g?
s s o
m 1 O..
O-03 cj ta
=r = s?

3S*
-g °3 .
? m ha s o
L- Oh.? s 0.7 "
sch g 3
ha u
S B
S

A.
V
O
h
TO*
X
lt;

In the first war of the 20th century. - Russian-Japanese - this ratio changed significantly: the number of deaths from paradise was 4 times less than the number of those killed. This was the result of the widespread application of the principles developed by Pirogov, Lister and Pasteur.
Speaking about the ratio of the number of deaths from wounds to the number of wounded, it should be noted that when those who died from wounds are included in the number of wounded, the figures given can be considered as the percentage of mortality from wounds. In those cases where this is not the case, the mortality rate can be determined if the number of deaths from rads is taken as a percentage of the sum of the wounded and those who died from wounds. As a result, the mortality rate will decrease slightly.
The ratios of the number of deaths from wounds to the number of wounded given in the table above can be presented in the following form:
The percentage of deaths from wounds to the number of wounded varies considerably. The best indicator was typical for the Russian army in the Russo-Japanese War, when the mortality rate was only 4%, the worst was for the French army in the Crimean War - 29% mortality. However, this high figure is very doubtful, and it is not known on what primary materials it was based on. Morash. Even the fact that the number 29 is so sharply separated from all other numbers in the series (the numbers closest to it give only 21% mortality) already raises doubts about its reality.
The median and mode of the series are 11-12% mortality, the arithmetic mean is 13%. If we exclude one dubious indicator (29%), then the arithmetic mean will drop to 12%, and the mode and median will remain unchanged. On this basis, we can assume that for the wars of the 19th century. the average mortality rate of the wounded was 11-12%. Set level mortality rate was used by us to calculate the number of deaths from wounds in the absence of direct data.

COLONIAL WARS

In almost every country liberated from colonial rule, there are monuments in the main squares " field commanders" - to participants in the fight against the colonialists. However, if the native authorities had a conscience, they would erect three monuments everywhere - to Lenin, Stalin and Grand Admiral Dennitsa. After all, it was thanks to their actions that the system of colonialism collapsed.

Soviet historians, speaking about the colonial empires of England and France in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, argued that they rested solely on the bayonets of the occupying forces. To some extent this is true. Indeed, when an uprising began in a colony, the colonial fleet transferred a large contingent of troops from other parts of the empire and the uprising was suppressed. But, in my opinion, the main thing was the psychological factor. Both the wild tribes of Africa and the Asian peoples, lagging behind in their technical development, with thousands of years of history, saw in the colonizers something like gods. Huge ships, guns, long-range and rapid-fire rifles, and later - radio, telegraph, cars, etc.

Officials and missionaries inspired the natives that France (England, Holland) was the most powerful country world and all nations are afraid of her. Indeed, the last Anglo-French war ended in 1815, and nothing threatened the power of the colonialists from the outside. Let me note that tsarist Russia never interfered in the affairs of the colonies of England and France, although these powers constantly meddled in the smallest border conflicts of Russia and even in its internal affairs in the Caucasus, the Vistula region and Central Asia. Thanks to this, England and France could maintain huge empires, “on which the sun never set,” with the help of small garrisons in which most of the lower ranks were natives.

But here October Revolution proclaimed the liberation of all enslaved peoples. The real assistance of the USSR to nationalists in the colonies before 1941 was negligible, but the October Revolution literally awakened thousands thinking people in Africa and Asia, from aristocrats to peasants and workers.

During the Second World War, German submarines, commanded by Grand Admiral Karl Dennitz, seriously disrupted sea communications between the metropolises and colonies. This led to the “autonomization” of the colonies both economically and politically, as well as militarily. The colonies switched to self-sufficiency in industrial goods, London and Paris had no time to manage overseas territories, and, finally, the percentage of natives in the colonial troops increased greatly.

Moreover, during the war, a significant part French colonies was occupied by foreign troops. The British occupied Syria and Madagascar, the Anglo-Americans - Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, the Japanese - Southeast Asia. And the French could only return all these countries by force.

Thus, from March 1947 to January 1948, there was a fierce war in Madagascar between French troops and the local population. Over 100 thousand Malagasy were killed. State of siege on the island was canceled only in March 1956. And on October 4, 1958, Madagascar accepted the status of a republic - a member of the French Community. On June 26, 1960, the island became the independent Malgash Republic.

At the end of the 1940s, an anti-French movement began in Morocco, as a result of which Morocco became an independent kingdom on August 14, 1957.

The situation in Indochina turned out to be the most difficult for France. The Japanese, who occupied Indochina in 1941, created national administrations there in early 1945. In addition, in December 1944, pro-communist rebels led by Ho Chi Minh appeared in Vietnam.

On March 6, 1946, France officially recognized the independence of Vietnam, whose president Ho Chi Minh had become president 4 days earlier. However, on December 19 of the same year, the French decided to retake Vietnam and began fighting. Within a few weeks, the 100,000-strong expeditionary force managed to capture the southern and central parts of the country.

The French command was counting on an easy victory. France was actively supported by the United States. They handed over 126 combat aircraft to the French and provided ever-increasing support economic assistance. Thus, by 1954, the United States paid 80% of all French military expenses in Indochina. The coast of Vietnam was blocked by the French and American fleets, and in the north, on the border with China, parts of the Kuomintang operated. Thus, the Vietnamese communists found themselves completely isolated from the outside world.

The situation changed dramatically in October 1950, when the People's Liberation Army of China cleared Chiang Kai-shek of southern regions China. As a result of this, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) received direct land connections with China and the USSR.

Needless to say, a stream of small arms, cannons, multiple launch rocket systems and anti-aircraft guns rushed from the north to Vietnam.

Within three years, the Vietnamese managed to clear more than two-thirds of the territory of North Vietnam from the French, and in Central and South Vietnam the guerrillas held vast “liberated areas” in the jungles and mountainous regions.

However, the French government decided not to give in. The size of the expeditionary force was increased to 250 thousand people. It consisted of 250 tanks, 580 armored personnel carriers, 468 armored vehicles, 528 aircraft, 850 artillery pieces and 600 mortars. By the end of 1953, the Vietnamese People's Army (VPA) numbered 125 thousand people. In addition, there were up to 225 thousand people in the territorial troops and partisan detachments.

The decisive battle of the 1954 campaign took place near the city of Dien Bien Phu, which both sides called the “Vietnamese Stalingrad.”

In January 1954, troops People's Army completely closed the ring around Dien Bien Phu. The French garrison consisted of two French parachute battalions, four parachute battalions of the foreign legion, four battalions of North Africans, two Tai battalions, ten separate infantry companies, two battalions of 105 mm and one battery of 155 mm howitzers, three batteries of 120 mm mortars, one tank company and one engineer battalion. These troops were covered by aviation.

By this time, the command of the People's Army had concentrated four infantry divisions, two howitzer divisions, two cannon divisions, one mortar division, one anti-aircraft artillery regiment and one engineering regiment. The Vietnamese had neither aircraft nor tanks. Total number The VNA troops numbered about 30 thousand people. The superiority over the French in manpower and artillery was double.

The first stage of the destruction of the enemy group began on March 13, 1954. After a 40-minute artillery preparation and a powerful fire attack on the front line of the enemy’s defense, the infantry went on the attack. At the same time, 16 aircraft were damaged at the airfield by artillery fire. French aircraft made several attempts to destroy the artillery of the People's Army, but unexpectedly they were met with dense fire from anti-aircraft artillery and heavy machine guns, which shot down 25 French aircraft. Now aviation could only bomb from altitudes no lower than 3 thousand meters, which significantly reduced the accuracy of its bombing strikes. Since the Vietnamese prepared special shelters for the guns on the mountain slopes, the effectiveness of air strikes turned out to be very low.

On March 30, the second stage of the operation began, which was aimed at capturing important strategic objects and enemy strongholds. The tactics of combat operations were changed. Instead of simultaneous attacks by large forces from different directions, the Vietnamese began to use “low-loss tactics.” Its essence was as follows. A hidden communication route was opened from the nearest shelter to the enemy stronghold - the target of the attack. When several tens of meters remained to the target of attack, they began to tear off a trench, which was used as starting position during an assault on a strong point. These communication lines cut off some strong points from the main positions, which often forced the enemy to abandon strong points and retreat without a fight. After capturing the nearest point, the flow of communication was increased further into the depth of the enemy’s defense, to the next strong point. Using such tactics along the entire offensive front, the troops of the People's Army ultimately took the local airfield during April 1954. The French defense was divided into two isolated groups.

Losses were mounting. The number of killed and wounded approached the five thousand mark. The evacuation of the wounded was extremely difficult, and the morale of the French soldiers and officers was noticeably undermined. Supplies of food and ammunition were running low. Cargo dropped from aircraft for the besieged garrison often fell into the location of Vietnamese troops. General Navarre proposed dividing the encircled French troops into three groups and making their way to Laos, the border with which was some 20 km away, but nothing worked out. The Americans began to rescue the French, starting to airlift weapons and food from their bases in Japan and the Philippines. But this did not affect at all general arrangement strength

On the night of May 1, 1954, the third and final stage of hostilities began. French troops suffered one defeat after another. At 5 p.m. on May 7 command post French General de Castries hoisted a red flag Democratic Republic Vietnam. The general, along with the surviving soldiers and officers, surrendered. After 55 days of fighting, the enemy was defeated.

The French Expeditionary Force lost 21 infantry and parachute battalions in the battles of Dien Bien Phu, 10 individual mouth and support units; a total of 16,200 people, of which 3,890 were killed, 12,310 were captured. The Vietnamese destroyed 62 aircraft, 74 vehicles, 20 artillery pieces, that is, a quarter best parts expeditionary force, including all parachute battalions and German units Foreign Legion. A significant part of the territory of North Vietnam was liberated.

The fighting at Dien Bien Phu caused serious concern in Washington. “The French do not have the will to win!” - said then US Vice President Nixon. “If the French leave Indochina,” he frightened, “communist rule will be established there in a month. The government must take a sober look at the current situation and send in its armed forces.”

In those days, the National Security Council was discussing in Washington a memorandum on intervention in Indochina - “in case the French are forced to leave there.” Secret work was in full swing at the Pentagon to develop a plan for the escalation of the war, codenamed “Vulture,” which perfectly reflected the predatory essence of the operation itself. According to the plan, the entire area around the Dien Bien Phu fortress was to be subjected to an incinerating bombardment over the course of one night. Operation Vulture involved 60 B-29 flying fortresses based near Manila. With each flight to the area adjacent to Dien Bien Phu, they were supposed to drop 450 tons of bombs. The aircraft carriers of the 7th Fleet of the US Navy entered the Gulf of Tonkin, from the deck of which 150 attack aircraft were ready to take off at any moment.

But Washington's most "cherished" plans were developed in the top-secret G-3 - the Army Planning Department. His strategists came to the conclusion that “nuclear weapons could ease the position of the French in Dien Bien Phu.” It was supposed to use from one to six atomic bombs with a capacity of 31 kilotons, which were to be dropped by aircraft based on aircraft carriers. Each such bomb was approximately three times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Judging by the just released book “Advice and Support: The First Years” - the first volume of a 17-volume official history US activities in Vietnam - the G-3 documents concluded without unnecessary sentiment: the use of nuclear weapons is “feasible both technically and militarily.”

The use of “flying fortresses” and carrier-based aircraft by the Americans certainly would not have saved Dien Bien Phu. This was shown by the battles in South Vietnam in 1965-1972. The use of six nuclear bombs would also not change the situation. Application nuclear bomb on a huge city, where the vast majority of buildings are wooden, is one thing, but a nuclear strike with a power of 20-30 kilotons on infantry hidden in dugouts and holes is a completely different matter. In this case, a company or two will be destroyed. And the quadratic probable deviation (QPD) of a bomb dropped by a flying fortress from a height of about 10 km is tens, or even hundreds of meters. So, if nuclear weapons were used along the Vietnamese front line, the French could also be hit.

In any case, Dien Bien Phu would still have fallen, but communist propaganda around the world would have had the opportunity to brand the United States as the enemy of all humanity.

Nevertheless, talk about the use of nuclear weapons allowed the beaten French to show their “wit on the stairs” with all their might - if we had a bomb, then near Dien Bien Phu we would have given these “yellow monkeys” a hard time! It was this chatter that decided the issue of nuclear weapons in France.

But let's return to the Vietnam War. In Paris they began to look for “scapegoats”, and on June 9, 1954, the Laniel government received a vote of no confidence and resigned. The new Prime Minister of France, Pierre Mendès-France, issued a statement saying that he would achieve peace in Indochina within a month. On July 21, 1954, the Geneva meeting successfully completed its work. Agreements were signed to end hostilities in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and ways for the further peaceful development of these countries that were part of French Indochina were outlined.

On July 27, fighting in Vietnam ceased. A temporary demarcation line was established south of the 17th parallel along the Benhai River. Over 80% of the territory of Vietnam and more than 18 (out of 23) million people were liberated from the power of the colonialists. The warring parties committed to withdraw their military formations from the demarcation line within 30 days. It was envisaged that general elections would be held in July 1956 to unite the Vietnamese people. The Geneva agreements prohibited the use of the territory of the countries of Indochina for aggressive purposes and did not allow the entry of foreign troops into Vietnam or the import of weapons.

The French and Americans spent about $7 billion on the “dirty war” in Vietnam. During the fighting, the French and their puppets lost total 460 thousand soldiers and officers (the losses of the expeditionary force amounted to more than 172 thousand people, which was twice the military losses of France in World War II).

South Vietnam was transformed from a French colony into a US protectorate. General elections to unite the entire country did not take place in 1956 or later. North Vietnam had to solve problems by other means. 20 years later, after a brutal war, the North Vietnamese, with the support of the USSR and China, squeezed the Yankees out of South Vietnam and united their people into a single state.

The war in Vietnam had not yet ended, and the French government dragged the country into a new crisis, this time in the Middle East, in Egypt.

In May 1882, England attacked Egypt. The official reason for the attack, put forward by “enlightened navigators,” is curious - the Egyptians are supposedly putting in order the ancient coastal fortifications in Alexandria. In August 1882, British ground forces with a total number of 22 thousand people were landed on the Mediterranean coast near Alexandria and on the shores of the Red Sea in Suez. By the end of September, the Egyptian troops were defeated and all of Egypt came under British rule.

The British cabinet hypocritically declared that England had no intention of holding Egypt and that British troops would leave there as soon as the internal state of the country allowed them to abandon their supposedly painful mission. In 1922, the French journalist Juliette Adam was not lazy and calculated that in fifty years the British government had given 66 official messages on the withdrawal of British troops from Egypt.

In 1954, Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser came to power in Egypt. He decides to industrialize the country within 15-20 years and develop whole line desert areas. The core of these plans was the construction of a huge hydroelectric power station in Aswan, on the Nile River.

But to build a dam in Aswan, huge funds were required. And so Nasser turned to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) with a request for a loan of 1.3 billion dollars, a huge amount at that time. The bank was then, as now, controlled by the United States. And so the bankers proposed their conditions to Nasser: the Egyptian government undertakes to direct all the country’s internal resources to this construction during the construction period of the dam, that is, 15 years. Creditors will be given the opportunity to monitor the implementation of this obligation and audit the Egyptian economy. Further, Egypt has no right to take loans from other states during this time. The IBRD, which would guarantee the loan, is competent to monitor and control the Egyptian economy the state budget to have an idea to what extent Egypt is able to pay the money.

The President of Egypt listened carefully to IBRD Director Eugene Black, and then said: “Perhaps another great power will provide us with a loan. And without humiliating reservations.”

Nasser knew what he was saying. On October 19, 1954, he achieved an agreement with England on the withdrawal of all British troops from the Suez Canal zone within 20 years. And on July 26, 1956, Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company. Now the proceeds from the canal should go to the construction of the Aswan Dam.

On August 16, 1956, an international conference on the Suez Canal opened in London. Egypt had already refused to participate in the conference four days earlier. At the conference, the United States proposed to internationalize the channel, transferring it under international jurisdiction. It is clear that the United States had to play a major role in this international governance. Negotiations have reached a dead end.

And while there was talk in London, the former administration of the Suez Canal recalled almost all the pilots from there. The channel stopped because there were no such specialists in Egypt itself. And then the head of the Soviet delegation in London, Foreign Minister D.T. Shepilov called Khrushchev directly. Nikita Sergeevich at that moment was on the beach in Livadia. Nearby, on a wicker table, stood a high-frequency telephone. After listening to Shepilov, Nikita Sergeevich called 1st Secretary Kirichenko in Kyiv. And after a few hours, the most experienced Odessa, Nikolaev and Kherson pilots began to pack their bags. Soon the ships moved through the canal as usual. And then in Paris and London they remembered the cannons - “the last argument of the kings.”

On August 8, 1956, a joint Anglo-French headquarters for planning a war against Egypt was created in London under the leadership of General Stokewell. There they developed a plan to seize the Suez Canal, codenamed “Musketeer”. The plan was very original. Its essence was as follows: on the night of October 29-30, 1956, Israeli troops would invade Egypt in the direction of Suez. England and France will make an appeal to the governments of the warring parties, in which they will demand from them an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of troops. If at least one of the parties rejects this proposal, then after 12 hours the Anglo-French troops will “take appropriate measures” to implement the provisions of the Anglo-Egyptian agreement on ensuring the security of the Suez Canal.

By November 5, nine brigades of Israeli troops occupied the entire Sinai Peninsula. Two Egyptian infantry divisions, a separate infantry brigade, an armored brigade and border guards retreated in disarray, leaving virtually without a fight 400 units of new vehicles, armored vehicles and artillery pieces, including 40 T-34 tanks, 60 armored personnel carriers, several dozen heavy SU-100 anti-tank guns .

On October 30, the governments of Great Britain and France, in the form of an ultimatum, demanded that the Egyptian command withdraw troops from the Suez Canal to 16 kilometers, and then send their troops into the canal zone, supposedly to protect it from destruction. Moreover, the ultimatum did not even contain demands for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Sinai Peninsula. Naturally, the Egyptian government did not respond to the ultimatum.

The next day, Anglo-French aircraft began bombing military and industrial targets in Egypt, using 300 British and 240 French aircraft. The first strikes were carried out on the airfields of Almaza, Abu Suair, Inkhas and Kabrit.

By this time, the Egyptian army, navy and air force were in the stage of rearmament from old equipment - English and French cast-offs from the Second World War, to new, mainly Soviet equipment. By the end of 1955, a huge amount of weapons and military equipment, worth 250 million dollars, namely: 200 tanks, 200 armored personnel carriers, 100 self-propelled artillery guns, about 500 artillery guns, 200 fighters, bombers and transport aircraft.

On June 11, 1956, in the port of Alexandria, Project 30 bis destroyers “Smartly” and “Solidny” were transferred to Egypt. In addition to them, the Egyptians received Project 613 submarines and torpedo boats.

As a result of the first air strikes, Anglo-French aviation managed to destroy more than a hundred Egyptian aircraft. The superiority of the allied professional pilots over the Egyptians was complete.

Troubles among the Allies occurred only when meeting with planes piloted by instructors. So, back on October 30, a MiG-15 fighter shot down British intelligence officer"Canberra". Two days later, ten British Hunter fighters attacked three Il-28 bombers over the outskirts of Cairo. The bow and stern 23-mm Nudelman-Richter cannons began to fire, and the two “hunters” flew into pieces.

By November 1, a group of MiG-17 fighters specially transferred from the USSR entered the battle, and on November 2 and 3 they managed to shoot down several British aircraft.

By November 3, Anglo-French aviation managed to gain air supremacy. Having lost a large number of aircraft, mainly on the ground, the Egyptians decided to disperse the remaining combat vehicles. With the help of Soviet and Czechoslovak pilots, twenty Il-28 bombers were relocated to Saudi Arabia, and the remaining aircraft, including MiGs, to the southern air base of Egypt, in Luxor.

On November 6, Anglo-French forces landed naval and helicopter troops in Port Said. On November 7, the Allies captured Port Said and advanced 35 km along the Suez Canal. Aviation from the airfields of Cyprus, Malta and from aircraft carriers covered the amphibious landing, blocked enemy airfields, and attacked concentrations of manpower and equipment. From November 8 to November 20, second-echelon Allied troops landed in Port Said - up to 25 thousand people, 76 tanks, 100 armored vehicles and more than 50 large-caliber guns. The total number of troops exceeded 40 thousand people.

Finding himself in a hopeless situation, Nasser sent messages to US President Dwight Eisenhower, Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers Nikolai Bulganin, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Indonesian President Mr. Sukarno calling for help. The first two - as leaders of great powers, capable of influencing the aggressor, the other two - as leaders of the non-aligned movement.

The United States, at an urgent meeting of the Security Council that same day, called on all its members, including England and France, to refrain from using force. At the same time, Israel was asked to withdraw troops within national borders.

And then the Yankees, who wanted to take control of the canal under the guise of peacekeepers, fell into a trap. On the morning of November 5, Foreign Minister D. Shepilov sent a telegram to the Chairman of the Security Council, which stated that if hostilities do not cease within 12 hours and the aggressor troops are not withdrawn from Egyptian territory within three days, then all members of the UN, and “ first of all, the USSR and the USA,” will provide Egypt with military support. The Soviet Union, the telegram emphasized, is ready today to provide assistance to the “victim of aggression” by “sending naval and air forces, military units, volunteers, instructors, military equipment,” etc.

In the evening of the same day, on the personal instructions of Khrushchev, special messages were sent to the heads of government of England, France and Israel, which stated that the war with Egypt “could spread to other countries and develop into a Third World War.” world war", in which " rocketry" The USSR did not exclude the possibility of “using force to crush the aggressor and restore peace in the East.” Late at night The ambassadors of the aggressor countries were summoned to the Foreign Ministry, where they were given the “first and last warning” in a rather stern tone.

The Soviet warning caused shock. Later, Sergei Khrushchev wrote: “...in London and Paris the message had the effect of a bomb exploding. Guy Mollet was lifted out of bed. After reading official text, and most importantly - the accompanying commentary with specific calculations of how much nuclear charges needed to destroy France, the Prime Minister rushed to the phone to call London. The same nervous atmosphere reigned in the British capital.

Consultations continued all night, and they were trying to figure out how real the threat of intervention by the Soviet Union and its use of atomic weapons was. After Washington announced its non-intervention, they were left alone.”

Was Khrushchev's threat to use nuclear missiles a bluff? Yes and no. On the one hand, Khrushchev did not want to bring matters to the use of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, in 1956 there were 24 on combat duty missile complex R-5M (8K51) with nuclear warheads capable of hitting any target in France and England from the territory of the GDR. I note that during a training launch on February 2, 1956, the R-5M missile flew 1200 km and hit a target in the area Aral Sea warhead with a yield of 80 kilotons. This was the first launch of a rocket with a nuclear warhead in history.

In addition, the USSR had missiles of the earlier R-5 type, with the same range, but with a warhead radioactive substances(“Generator-5”). Nuclear strike for any object in Western Europe Tu-4 and Tu-16 long-range bombers could also strike, that is, Khrushchev had the means to turn France and England into a radioactive desert.

And the very next day Nikita Sergeevich received messages from England and France, in which Prime Ministers A. Eden and Guy Mollet announced a ceasefire on the night of November 6-7, 1956. And on November 8, a similar message came from Israeli Prime Minister Ben -Gurion.

The Allies tried to leave their troops on Egyptian territory at indefinite term. On this occasion, a TASS statement appeared, which said: if the aggressors do not withdraw their troops from the occupied territories, then the competent authorities of the Soviet Union will not prevent “volunteers” from going to Egypt who want to help a friendly people in the fight against the colonialists.

It is clear that we were talking about regular troops.

As a result, on November 23, the evacuation of Anglo-French troops from Egypt began and a month later was completely completed, and the last Israeli soldier left Sinai on March 7, 1957.

At the first stage of colonization of traditional societies, Spain and Portugal were in the lead. They managed to conquer most of South America. In the mid-18th century, Spain and Portugal began to lag behind in economic development and were relegated to the background as maritime powers. Leadership in colonial conquests passed to England. Beginning in 1757, the English East India trading company captured almost the entire Hindustan for almost a hundred years. In 1706, active colonization of North America by the British began. At the same time, the development of Australia was underway, to whose territory the British sent criminals sentenced to hard labor. The Dutch East India Company took over Indonesia. France established colonial rule in the West Indies as well as in the New World (Canada).

However, at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, North and South America won independence, and the colonial interests of European powers focused on the East and Africa. It was there that colonialism reached its greatest flowering and power, and it was there that the collapse of the colonial system began and ended.

In the 40s XIX century The British East India Company, after a bloody war, conquered the principality of Punjab and other still independent parts of India, thereby completing its complete subjugation. Active colonial development of the country began: the construction of railways, reforms of land ownership, land use and the tax system, which were aimed at adapting traditional methods of farming and way of life to the interests of England.

The subjugation of India opened the way for the British to the north and east, to Afghanistan and Burma. In Afghanistan, the colonial interests of England and Russia collided. After the Anglo-Afghan wars of 1838-1842 and 1878-1881. The British established control over the foreign policy of this country, but were unable to achieve its complete subordination.

In the second half of the 19th century. All colonies in Australia achieved self-government at the beginning of the 20th century. they united to form the Commonwealth of Australia, which received dominion rights. At the same time, the colonization of New Zealand and other nearby islands took place. In 1840, New Zealand became a colony, and in 1907, another white dominion of England.

In the 19th century Most of Africa was subjugated. The methods of subjugation were varied - from direct military seizures to economic and financial enslavement and the imposition of unequal treaties. Control over the countries of North Africa and Egypt gave the colonial powers enormous economic benefits, dominance in the Mediterranean Sea, and opened routes to the south of the continent and to the East. From the 16th century North African countries, with the exception of Morocco, and Egypt were part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the 18th century, when the military superiority of the Ottomans over Europe had already been lost, France tried to conquer Egypt and create a stronghold there for advancing to India, but Napoleon's Egyptian expedition of 1798-1801. was defeated. In 1830, France invaded Algeria and by 1848 had completely conquered it. Tunisia was subjugated “peacefully” in the intense competition between England, France and Italy, which in 1869 established united financial control over Tunisia. Gradually, the French ousted their competitors from Tunisia and in 1881 proclaimed their protectorate over it.

By the beginning of the 20th century. over 90% of Africa belonged to the largest colonial powers: England, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Spain

By the middle of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was subjected to strong pressure from the developed countries of Europe. The countries of the Levant (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine), which were officially considered part of the Ottoman Empire during this period, became an area of active penetration by Western powers - France, England, Germany. During the same period, Iran lost not only economic, but also political independence. At the end of the 19th century, its territory was divided into spheres of influence between England and Russia. Thus, in the 19th century, almost all countries of the East fell into one form or another of dependence on the most powerful capitalist countries, turning into colonies or semi-colonies. For Western countries, colonies were a source of raw materials, financial resources, labor, as well as markets. The exploitation of the colonies by the Western metropolises was of a cruel and predatory nature. At the cost of merciless exploitation and robbery, the wealth of the Western metropolises was created and the relatively high standard of living of their population was maintained.

It should be noted that in the first three quarters of the 19th century, continental countries did not particularly bother about acquiring colonies. By the way, in the middle of the last century, as already mentioned, the doctrine of free international trade prevailed, which was indifferent to the issue of colonies, but when, after the Franco-German war of 1870-1871, the continental powers returned to protectionism in trade policy, the desire to acquire colonies. By the way, Germany and Italy wished to possess them, which, being politically fragmented until the sixties and seventies of the 19th century, were deprived of the actual opportunity to establish their own colonies in other parts of the world. The intensification of protectionist aspirations and the appearance on the historical stage of the German Empire and the Kingdom of Italy led to the fact that by the end of the 19th century the policy of the major European powers acquired an imperialist character. Competition began between the great powers to acquire overseas territories. England only continued its previous conquests, but in France, in the ministry of Jules Ferry, the task was first assigned, and the implementation of this task began: the transformation of this state into a large colonial empire. The beginning of colonial policy in Germany, as well as in Italy, dates back to the same time. Even the United States, at the very end of the century, took a position among the colonial powers, taking from Spain many of its islands in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which was the end of Spain's colonial power.

On the basis of colonial relations, conflicts arose between some European powers, especially England, both with France and with Russia, which in the mid-sixties began to make conquests in Central Asia towards English possessions in India. England never came to the point of military clashes with either France or Russia, and at the beginning of the 20th century. between the latter, on the one hand, and the first two, on the other, special agreements were even concluded regarding their colonial possessions. In general, the entire colonial policy of the late 19th century was constantly settled by international agreements. During this era, a real “division of Africa” was even carried out. At the end of 1884 and the beginning of 1885, a conference of representatives of fourteen states met in Berlin, which created the “independent state of Congo” in Africa, which later became the property of Belgium. The Berlin conference was followed by a number of other, now private, agreements between individual states on colonial affairs. At the very end of the 19th century, events occurred (the Sino-Japanese and American-Spanish wars, and the uprising of the Chinese against the Europeans) that made the Far East and the Great Ocean the center of political attention. To the six great powers in Europe, two new ones were added in international politics: Japan and the United States, and international politics literally took on a global character. The weakness of China revealed at this time led to something like its division between the European powers, which in turn caused an uprising in China against the Europeans and the intervention of a united Europe in Chinese affairs, when military contingents of different states made a campaign against the capital of Bogdykhan under the command of a German field marshal (1901). This campaign took place only thirteen years before the outbreak of the World War, one of the main reasons for which, as we know, lay in the sharply imperialist character that European foreign policy took on in these years.

For the great European powers of the late 19th century, colonial expansion was an economic necessity. The ever-growing industry demanded overseas raw materials (cotton, rubber); the invention of internal combustion engines created a colossal need for oil and a struggle for its limited natural sources. Finally, victorious capitalism, by its nature incapable of being satisfied with internal markets, begins the pursuit of external ones. Political domination becomes the form, instrument and armor of economic exploitation. The old colonial Empires of England and Holland are waking up from their centuries-long slumber for new feverish work. Late-arriving peoples are hastily building their new Empires overseas: France, Belgium, Italy, Germany. However, sero venientibus ossa. For Germany, there was no longer a “place in the sun” of Africa and Asia that was sufficiently profitable, and it turned the main axis of its expansion to the Middle East. Here it penetrated into the imperialist zone of forces of England and Russia, which was one of the main reasons for the first great war.