Society is a group human beings, making joint efforts to conquer the means for food and preservation of individuals. The mere sum of individuals does not make them a society; it only comes into existence when joint actions begin to be carried out. Any human society, because it is a form of cooperation, must be a peaceful group, since cooperation implies peace. Between societies, the struggle for life dominates, which often leads to war, but within the society it is prohibited, and members of the society interact peacefully with each other to fight for survival. To ensure this, there is a need for organization and some form of social control if activities are to be effectively combined and regulated to meet the needs of the group. Such an organization establishes a regulatory or control system. Primitive society, which represents the least developed regulatory system, is characterized by some authors with the concept of “mob”. This term refers to a small group, related by kinship, fighting for existence in a very primitive way and representing the minimum possible social organization for group existence. Letourneau called the undeveloped regulatory system of such communities “primitive anarchy.” Although in some cases the situation in such a community is close to the complete absence of controlled regulation, nevertheless there is always a certain degree of control, be it even the vague authority of the strongest man, since even the most primitive savages cannot live together under what the Germans call " fist law" or "club law". There is always some semblance of order and authority within a group, otherwise it would disappear in the constant competition of similar groups for the right to life. In the worst case, elementary regulation consisted of established customs or prohibitions, taboos, the rudiments of laws introduced by public opinion and the authority of tribal elders.

In the primitive life of such a gang there existed a kind of primitive democracy. Although control was exercised primarily by the elderly, they did not form a hereditary ruling class; everyone reached their rank by acquiring the wisdom of years or earning it through exploits. Even at a later stage of tribal development there is a lack of organization and weak social differentiation. Powerful functions were exercised by the heads of families or villages, while leadership (where it existed) was nominal and of a religious nature. In more advanced forms of patriarchal society, the situation changes, class distinctions based on birthright or wealth appear, and power shifts to the heads of families with property and prestige. Moreover, all such leaders are connected with free members of society - they are blood relatives and cope with the routine of life together.

Despite the initially democratic nature of the early forms of society, some social differentiation inevitably arises there, at least one that is based on personal superiority. The struggle for survival necessitated cooperation and control and brought the most capable men to the forefront. Usually he was the best hunter or fisherman, and in this respect everyone obeyed him. Power and prestige also accrued to those who were respected for age, experience, piety, or wisdom. The latter qualities usually brought great weight to their owner, and the most typical owner of such authority was the healer. He was usually the most astute man in the tribe, and held an extremely important position, since the prosperity of the group was believed to depend on the favor of the gods and spirits with whom he dealt. But seniority was also achieved through military means. When competition for life brought groups into conflict, the pressure on them became more intense and the need for cooperation and control increased. The functions of a warrior then acquired enormous social significance. Consequently, he occupied a dominant position, especially in the face of ongoing hostility between groups. During war, the best warrior naturally became a leader who exercised centralized and intense control. By meeting the needs of the situation, he had the most power ever given to a person in this group. Often the same person combined the functions of a doctor and a military leader, as a result concentrating even more power in his hands. In times of peace, however, power was usually wielded by the elder or head of the tribe, a peaceful leader, like a sashem - the leader of American Indians. At such times, the leaders had few levers of control, and the tribe was loosely organized, power was exercised democratically - except for the advantages that the superiority of an individual gave, and in some cases such a tribe was practically fragmented. This situation was typical for most primitive tribes. Many typical examples from the hundreds that served as the basis for these conclusions are given in Appendix L.

This preliminary overview of the regulatory system of primitive society should serve as a basis for understanding the influence of war on the organization of government and power. The most primitive level of organization can be found among peaceful tribes, such as the Eskimos, Veddas or Todas. In other cases, elementary organization accompanies nomadic life. Primitive political organization is also characteristic of some rather warlike tribes. The explanation for this can be found in the fact that tribal unity is made impossible by civil war and internal strife, or by the fact that wars with external enemies do not lead to conquest. Where the regulative system of a community has been at an elementary level, we find that there are practically no social classes and that social differentiation is mainly expressed in the selection of individual members of the tribe - usually a doctor and a war chief - on the basis of their personal abilities. So how does constant war affect this democratic and weak organized level development of society?

First of all, war unites a group like nothing else. “Only the inevitable need for interaction during the war could force primitive people cooperate". Although this statement by Spencer is not entirely accurate, since it leaves other separate important factors unexamined, it is nevertheless quite correct in that war is the main unifying force. Primitive societies experience tangible changes when war transforms an unorganized force into an army under the command of a leader who controls the life and death of warriors. This transformation was described by travelers who witnessed the preparations made by barbarian tribes before seizing enemy territory or to defend their own borders. “Provisions and property are stored in one place, soldiers swear allegiance to the leader, and private quarrels are drowned in general patriotism. Distant related clans unite against a foreign army, and neighboring tribes, not possessing such a sense of national unity, enter into an alliance, and their leaders agree to carry out the orders of a leader chosen by them all. The tribe must unite to survive; if it cannot organize an alliance, it succumbs to more organized enemies. “There is strength in unity” is such a telling principle that primitive tribes learn this lesson by heart.

The Carib Indians did not know the institution of leadership in peacetime, but “war experience taught them that subordination is as necessary as courage.” Although the Argentine Abipones did not fear or honor their leaders in times of peace, they followed and obeyed them in times of war. Independent and even hostile tribes of the Amazon and North America united against a common enemy. The Iroquois League, one of the outstanding examples of political integration, was created during the Huron War. Perhaps none had a more primitive system of laws and government than the Tasmanians, and none showed less unity in time of peace, but as soon as war broke out they united around an elected chief, to whom they promised unquestioning obedience. Each Maori tribe was divided into independent clans. “As a rule, there was little agreement between them until a common enemy began to threaten their tribe. In this case, they united and met the enemy together, each clan under the leadership of its leader. In all other cases, the clans often fought among themselves.” If there was a major crisis, the entire Maori people would unite, although under normal circumstances each tribe would go about its own business. Fear of enemies forced individual Kuki-Lushai clans to live together in large villages, but once the threat had passed, they returned to the ancient system of villages with consanguineous inhabitants. African bageshu united against a common enemy, although at other times they fought among themselves. The same thing happened among the Bedouins.

The war not only united people, it allowed the development of a coercive regime. On the warpath, discipline and subordination were necessary. “In conditions of complex cooperation, even those who are willing to cooperate need control from above, since success involves a delicate balance of the activities of many individuals, and the word must spread further and have power. That is why warfare, the great original cooperation, is usually the mother of discipline.” War brings into being perhaps the greatest force of integration ever known, and its consequence has always been to increase the power of government. This can still be observed today, and it is no less noticeable among primitive peoples. In wartime, personal interests must give way to the overriding right of life in a united community. Today, “in order to protect life, the state may find it necessary to establish enormous restrictions or even completely deny all the rights of citizens. During war, responsibilities are emphasized rather than rights.”

Interaction and cooperation are dictated by war, but they will only be effective when people obey the first command. “There is no state of affairs in which such various human qualities as courage and ingenuity do not become more conspicuous, and create and perpetuate a more highly celebrated inequality than the hostile relations in which savage tribes have often found themselves in relation to each other. friend." War is a great test. The bravest and most capable leader was chosen through a ruthless competition. He received power rights that did not exist in peacetime. The longer wars last or the more often they are repeated, the more the power of such a leader increases. Although the rule is supposed to end with a military campaign (as it actually did in some undeveloped tribes), there is a tendency for military rule to turn into a dictatorship. A prolonged war leads to the establishment of permanent power of the leader. A successful military leader retains his power during peacetime and becomes a chief or king. “History is replete with examples of great leaders who, thanks to their military abilities, founded states and dynasties.” The functions of priests are often associated with the royal house, and powerful chiefs and kings were often canonized and became saints or worshiped as gods. The constant need to repel an external enemy developed the internal organization of society and strengthened the role of the political leader.

Political integration entails class differentiation and the disintegration of the primitive state of equality. War destroys tribal democracy. The first line of division appears between military and civilians, raising the former high above the latter. A military leader often becomes a king, and the warriors themselves become a noble caste, below which are ordinary people. As subjugation progresses, further class differences develop. Conquered peoples were turned into slaves, hence the most widespread split in society - between freemen and slaves. Slaves were forced to work in order to provide everything necessary for the ruling class, which considered war its main occupation. As Gumplowicz first noted, it is with the successful conquest, subjugation and enslavement of other tribes and peoples that the state begins to develop, not earlier. “In its origin, the state is a product of war,” says Keller, “and it exists primarily to maintain peace between the victors and the vanquished.”

The above statement, although it may seem very categorical to the reader, accurately reflects the view now accepted by scientists. Deeley traces the history of the state in reverse chronology - to the primitive group (primitive band). “The reason for the existence of an armed group (gang) was to protect the group, protect hunting grounds, and later also to protect property.” Enslavement added new functions to the military organization. “The victors, as landowners, or masters, had to keep the dependent population under their control in submission. In other words, they were supposed to maintain peace within the group, suppressing revolts and uprisings and forcing the defeated population to work or pay tribute according to the conditions they set and carry out the orders given by the ruling class... In the light of these two explanations, the state also acts as an armed association of people, bound by the duty of 1) preserving the safety of the group and 2) ensuring peace within society, using threats and force to bring about obedience of recalcitrant subjects.”

Jenks similarly argues that "the military principle was the foundation of the state" and that all political institutions are military in nature. “In this formation of the modern state, the visible reasons for its emergence are closely related to questions migration And conquest. A state was founded when a chief and his "band" (group) occupied a permanent position in a certain area of ​​large area with a large population engaged in agriculture and handicraft production. The main characteristics of a state founded in this way are the primacy of military force and loyalty to the overlord, who exercises authority over a geographical territory rather than over a tribe or organization based on blood kinship. The early state, according to Jencks, was a group of warriors under a military leader. “Over time, the master becomes king, warriors settle as landowners and rulers of their estates, hereditary transfer of title and land becomes common practice, meetings of the first warriors with their leader, during which they planned a campaign or battle, turn into a council of peers discussing the affairs of the state, and so the state begins to take on various forms the form of an institution, a machine that exists forever, not depending on the death of kings and large feudal lords.”

Oppenheimer's interpretation is identical. “At the moment of its appearance, as well as in the early stages of its existence, the state is social institution, founded by the victorious group and a group of people conquered by the first group, with the sole purpose of establishing the power of the victors over the vanquished and protecting themselves both from rebellions within the group and from invasions from without... The state grows out of the subordination of one group of people to another group of people... The basic justification for the existence of the state, its cornerstone, was and is the economic exploitation of these conquered people.”

Wundt unmistakably asserts that the state appears and can begin to develop only during the period of migration (expansion) and conquest. Bird sums up the issue beautifully. “Not a single fact has been so convincingly proven modern researchers history, as the fact of conquest as the basis of the state. This is not a hypothesis, but a conclusion based on the research of countless scientists."

“Even now, the main goal of the state is to be ready for war and able to fight it, no matter what the national security issue or national interest requires it.” To be precise, the state also has many other functions, but the most important of them is caused by the need to protect and defend public interests through war if the threat from hostile states cannot be repelled through diplomacy. The so-called power of policing, which includes armed forces, is simply another name for the definition of sovereignty; it refers to the right of the state to do everything necessary for the security and prosperity of the nation. Any other power simply grows out of related areas. In general, we can say that the right to use force distinguishes the state from all other social institutions.

Although, as a whole, primitive peoples did not develop into the organization of a state, a certain number of them clearly show the beginnings of statehood and give evidence of the significant role of war in this. In Africa, the development of organization and political leadership as a result of war is most clearly visible. The war here gave birth to the monarchy.

In Ethiopia, the need for military preparations promoted the development of organization and leadership, and military leaders became rulers of the people. Here military affairs gave rise to a state of society reminiscent of the feudal system of medieval Europe. Both here and here there are many practically independent feudal lords who rule dependent people and provide for themselves through military force. “They have vassals who form the basis of their armies, into which professional killers will enlist.”

“The chief of the Azande (southern Eastern Sudan) is an important official in both peace and war. His power is absolute almost to the point of despotism, life and death are in his hands, and he does not miss the opportunity to use his prophecies.” Due to the need to unite for war, the Bavenda (Venda) created a complex system of government in which there was taxation and according to which the country was divided into districts or provinces under the control of governors directly accountable to the king. Under the rule of the powerful chief Magato, the Mawenda people achieved political integration, and the country's population grew at the expense of dependent tribes who recognized Magato as their chief. The Baganda's highly developed regulatory system was the result of success in the competition for life. Social classes are clearly differentiated. The king was an absolute monarch who held in his hands the power over the life and death of his subjects. He was the owner of the entire territory and could dispose of it at his own discretion. The country was divided into regions, headed by princes and leaders of lesser rank. Other officials helped the king, who lived in a huge state like a monarch.

The Ba-yaka and their cannibalistic neighbors, the Ba-mbala, provided a contrast that vividly demonstrates the role of war in the evolution of government. The latter were ruled by independent petty chiefs and had an extremely primitive social system that did not allow them to organize resistance. They fought often, but did not wage wars of conquest. They had slaves, but they treated them kindly, and the line between free and slave was actually very vague. The Ba-yaka, on the contrary, waged wars of conquest and turned the defeated tribes into slaves. They treated slaves with cruelty. They had an organized system of government that included feudal princes who were subordinate to one great leader. He regarded people as his slaves; in his presence they fell on their faces and beat their chests. His power was absolute. He governed independently, without the help of advisers, although each village was ruled by a petty chief. The two peoples were in conflict, and needless to say, the Ba-mbala could not resist the encroachments of the Ba-yak. The neighboring Ba-yanzi have a political system of a certain level of development. They are governed by a number of great chiefs, each of whom governs a number of minor chiefs. “The organization appears to exist solely for military purposes.” The Ba-kweze were also ruled by chiefs with absolute power, which they received by being military chiefs.

The individual tribes of South Africa reveal a certain level of political development. The Supreme Leader was a ruler and military despot. His power is practically limitless. Despite the fact that he usually listens to the advice of those close to him, he is above the law. He is the supreme judge and legislator, surrounded by pomp and ceremony, and is believed to be visited by a protective spirit.

Most of the powerful leaders of Africa were also revered as priests and even as gods, and this circumstance significantly increased their power. In these cases, the divinity that surrounds the king is not a mere figure of speech. He is believed to have a great spirit and is a mediator between people and the spirit world. The prosperity of a people in times of peace and its success in times of war are believed to depend on the actions of the king (chief).

The Zulus provide a classic example of how war affects political development. The Zulu kingdom was founded on that well-organized army, which was called "one of the most perfect, most efficient and permanent organizations that the Negroes can create." The creator of this army was a Zulu chief who spent several years in the Cape Colony, where he gained some knowledge of European discipline. He carried this experience into his own country and used it to subdue the neighboring tribes, who, like many savages, knew very little of military discipline and were therefore placed at a disadvantage. The next Zulu chief, Chaka, introduced the uniform, dividing his army into regiments (rather than along tribal lines) and imposing strict discipline. His successors continued to adhere to the general plan, putting military interests above all else. Once their military forces were thus mobilized, the Zulus were able to conquer all their rivals and create a powerful military kingdom. Each conquered clan and tribe was absorbed into the Zulu nation, which enslaved them or forced all adult males to fight. The Zulus seem to have been hopeless supporters of the rights of their own tribe, adopting children and taking women for themselves. This policy was effective both in uniting all conquered peoples into one nation and in concentrating and centralizing power.

Another example of a primitive African state that was the product of war is the military kingdom of Benin. There was also a disciplined standing army with which Benin subdued the surrounding tribes. The king received unlimited power. The government and all property were his exclusive property. The people dependent on him were his slaves, whom he could sell if he wished. They considered him a god, obeyed him and revered him. The peoples of the Gulf of Guinea coast represented the following dependence - the more warlike they were, the higher their political organization. The Yoruba-speaking peoples were relatively peaceful and engaged in trade; they have reached a weak level of organization. The monarchical system of government was dominant, but the king was effectively the nominal head of state and had little real power, which was actually held by the chiefs and elders, without whom the king could do nothing. Sudanese-speaking peoples, especially the Ashanti conquerors, had a more centralized and powerful government. The king was the overlord of all the leaders of the tribe. The chiefs gathered all the able-bodied men of their settlements and dependent villages into so-called "city companies", and during the war each chief personally led his contingent to the battlefield.

The king (king, ruler) is not an absolute monarch, since he is controlled to some extent by the leaders in his actions. “The system of government is aristocratic rather than personal despotism, and the chiefs of the individual districts, although under the suzerainty of the ruler, retain relative independence. The population has no say in tribal governance matters. Order is maintained by the methods of terror, and the power of the ruler is based on his right to take the life of a subject at any moment.” This system of government is most fully manifested among the peoples speaking the Ewe language, and their main nationality, the Dahomeans, is a real state.

The King of Dahomey was an absolute monarch; his will is law, and he was not subject to any external control. All men are his slaves, and he personally owned all property. Attempting suicide was considered a crime because every person was the property of the king. If any of the subjects had any property, it was only because the king tolerated this state of affairs for some time. The king's personality is sacred; under no circumstances should his blood be shed. In short, the king is a despot who has concentrated such power as no other ruler has ever had. Its sovereignty was based on and supported by the existence of an excellent military system. Under his command was a disciplined standing army, whose interests coincided entirely with his own, and the army was completely subordinate to him. He had the right to take the life of any of his subjects at any time, regardless of whether he had reason to do so or not, and thus he was able to terrorize the entire population. Finally, in order to “prevent the emergence of conspiracies against himself, he created a system of espionage that was so effective that not a single person could whisper in his own ear.” to the best friend something that could be considered an insult to the ruler.” Dahomey was a militaristic state that was created by war and the slave trade and was based on a standing army. Under Trudeau (Trudeau), who was the true founder of this state, the Dahomeans defeated their weaker neighbors and gradually absorbed them. This state was, of course, an exception among uncivilized peoples, but the Dahomeans were well acquainted with the system of effective conquest and subjugation of conquered peoples. (Dahomey was conquered in the 1890s by the French. – Ed.)

It should be noted that examples of high political organization resulting from continuous wars are also found among other primitive peoples, although, of course, these examples are not so indicative. For example, in Fiji, war strengthened the power of chiefs, and conquest led to political integration. There is a sharp contrast between the different tribes here. Among the hill tribes of Viti Levu, who rarely expanded their lands by conquest, the chief had little power and was limited in all important matters to a council of elders. In other areas, however, conquest gradually led to the disappearance of tiny independent tribes. “As a result of the conquests, large confederations arose. The leader of the victorious tribe became the head of a complex social organism; members of his tribe became an aristocracy, subsisting on the labor of the plebs, consisting of defeated tribes and individuals who fled from other conquerors. They also had their own tribal gods and leaders, but what could people, who had become practically slaves, oppose to the power of the aristocrats? The life of one generation was enough to erase even the memories of independence from people's memories. After all, both the gods and the leaders had their own overlords, on whose favor their own lives depended.”

In the Hawaiian Islands and other Polynesian islands, the government was a despotic monarchy. All power was concentrated in the hands of the king and was inherited by members of his family. Classes were clearly defined and demarcated, and the population mainly consisted of servants and soldiers of the high leaders. Through wars of conquest, the Maori of New Zealand created a rather complex socio-political system. The entire population was divided into six clearly defined classes, ranging from the leaders, who stood at the very top of the hierarchy, and ending with the slaves. Defeated tribes became either slaves or vassals.

The tribes of the Chin Mountains in India (modern western Myanmar (Burma)) also had some political organization. The attitude of the Chin chief towards his people was very similar to the attitude of a feudal baron towards his vassals. “The chief is the owner of the land, and the members of the tribe own the land by lease and pay him tribute, while they, together with the slaves, must repel the attacks of enemies." Among the Miao (Mon) and Kaupui (Manipur, India) tribes, everything was completely different. "The entire Miao tribe is subordinate to one leader, who receives tribute ... from each family and has the power that any monarch or rajah has... In this respect, the Miao differ from the Kaupui, in whom each village has its own chief, whose power is inherited, but who actually has no real power, for each village is a republic in miniature.And in the same way they differ from the Angami tribe, in whom each village is divided into two or more khelas (kindred clans), each headed by its own elder. Therefore, if unifications are possible among the Miao, this is completely excluded among the Angami, since each Khel is in a state of constant hostility with other clans within one or several villages.”

In the New World we find two illustrative examples high development statehood as a result of constant wars. The first is Mexico, where the Aztecs - the real “Romans of the New World” - created a powerful militaristic state. The ruler of Mexico, chosen from among the relatives of the late monarch and supported by four representatives of the noble families, was an absolute ruler, considered equal to a deity. The rest of the population consisted of peasants and slaves. The main activity of the state was war. Montezuma himself was originally a military leader, and war was actually the profession of the Aztec noble class. The military organization was at a very high level - there was a regular army that mastered tactics comparable to those that existed in the Old World before the invention of gunpowder. Power actually represented military despotism, the existence of which was possible only thanks to successful wars and conquests.

The ancient Peruvians (Inca) also had a highly centralized political organization. Their kingdom was divided into four parts, each headed by a governor. The monarch was not just an absolute ruler, he was a deity considered a direct descendant of the sun, that is, the highest deity. “The High Priest, the embodiment of the sun, he was the protagonist of all major religious celebrations; as a generalissimo, he recruited and commanded an army; an absolute monarch, he imposed taxes, passed laws, appointed and removed officials and judges at will. The support of the monarch were two privileged classes: the Incas, or members royal family, who were descendants of the late monarchs, and the caracas, or rulers of the conquered provinces and their relatives. The latter were allowed to remain at their posts, but from time to time they were obliged to come to the capital, where they sent their children to study. At the lowest rung of the social ladder were ordinary people. The Peruvian system of government was, on the one hand, the result of wars and conquests, and on the other, it was aimed at further wars. Each ruler considered it his duty to wage constant wars against all peoples who did not accept the worship of the sun, and therefore the expansion of their territory. The conquered peoples were treated very leniently, and gradually they were assimilated by the conquerors. The remarkable military organization was based on compulsory military service and a standing army of about 200 thousand people. The army was well equipped and armed - all this was done at the expense of the state. Ordinary people provided the warriors with everything they needed, and the service class provided the military leaders. The main strength of the army consisted of a large number of Incan commanders, whose interests completely coincided with the interests of the ruler. This class was strikingly different from ordinary people, since the Incas were specially trained in the art of war. Military valor was considered honor and dignity and deserved all respect. The military spirit was maintained by allowing different regiments to have their own distinctive shape and wear special banners. The security of the borders and conquered provinces was ensured by garrisons. Strategic objects were guarded by fortresses. The pacification of the conquered population was achieved through complete resettlement; colonies of settlers from conquered areas were founded in safe (peaceful) places, and colonies of the indigenous inhabitants of the empire were founded in conquered provinces (helping to pacify them and consolidate them within the country).

The Greeks of Homer's era created a political system quite complex for its time, rooted in military operations and the provision of such actions. “The king in the era of Homer was first of all a leader and commander; on the battlefields he demonstrated miracles of courage and military art... Military Valor was revered as one of the main virtues, so that a successful and brave warrior had every reason to lay claim to the throne.” But the king was also the leader of the state in peacetime. He was the most influential member of society, presiding over all gatherings of the aristocracy or common people, he was also the high priest during religious holidays. The king was the guardian of public order, discipline and peace within the country. In short, he embodied government. The state of Homer's era was a pyramid of classes: slaves, common people, aristocracy and king. The state existed for the purpose of maintaining peace within the country and waging wars abroad.

The Iranians were at approximately the same stage of development. Society was divided into warriors, clergy, peasants and slaves or conquered enemies. At the top of this pyramid was the monarch, in whose hands both military and civil power were combined. The Semitic tribes also represented a monarchical state in the earliest stages of development. The leader, who was also the leader of the warriors, was practically considered a monarch and was surrounded by appropriate honors. The nomadic and largely disunited Israelite tribes were united into a state under Saul and David as a result of the wars they waged against the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Philistines. The Jews conquered the population of Canaan, which was mainly engaged in agriculture, took possession of these lands and gradually formed a state. In India, development followed approximately the same path. Wars led to the emergence of dominant militarized states. Through wars of conquest, the warlike Rajputs, Marathas and others created the preconditions for the formation of political associations.

The great empires of antiquity - Egypt, Sumer and Akkad, Babylonia, Assyria, Iran, Macedon and China - arose thanks to war. The warrior class gradually developed into the aristocratic class. Conquests were carried out on a huge scale. Captives were turned into slaves, and tribute was collected from conquered peoples. Cities began to obey governors, whose word was law. Such a political organization contributed to the development of military art and its gradual specialization. Numerous rock inscriptions and drawings found, for example, on the territory of Assyria, indicate that great attention was paid to the art of war. “The secret of the success of the Assyrians, like the Romans, on the battlefield lay in the militaristic character of the state itself.” This development reached its peak in Rome, "which created the first empire, that is, the first strictly centralized state ... and thereby gave to the whole world a model of such organized power."

Thus, the state itself owes its existence to war. In primitive societies the state does not yet exist, since there are no prerequisites for its emergence. "In the first stages social development we find neither high population density, nor developed agriculture, nor conquest, nor the institution of slavery, nor private property to the ground". A state usually arises as a result of conquest by powerful nomadic groups of relatively peaceful groups, mainly engaged in agriculture. “Everywhere we find examples of how warlike tribes invade the borders of more peaceful peoples, establish themselves there as an aristocracy and found states.” The success of the invaders rests on their superior military organization and military superiority. However, conquest does not lead to the emergence of a state unless the conquered people are engaged in agriculture. “Not a single stable state was created without developed agriculture at its core; a state cannot exist if it does not have agriculture as its basis, which can supply its needs with wealth drawn from fertile soil.” The development of agriculture lies at the heart of the enslavement of the people and the institution of slavery itself. But although slavery is possible only due to the presence of agriculture, it still arises as a result of wars. It appears along with the conquest of new lands as an alternative to killing the enslaved or incorporating them into the victorious tribes (that is, assimilation) and is itself the “beginning of a class society.” “Together with slaves, the primary division of society into classes appears, which is a characteristic feature of the state.” “Every state in the history of mankind has been and is a class society, where there are higher and lower social groups based on differences either in social status or in relation to property.” Such a class division can only arise as a result of the conquest and enslavement of one ethnic group by another, becoming the dominant group. As a result of the conquest of one group by another, ties of blood or kinship give way to territoriality as the basis of political organization; "conquest is essentially a territorial phenomenon, as no system of irregular raids and plunder coupled with the mass destruction of a population or its incorporation into a dominant group could ever be." The idea of ​​nationality arises from territoriality - by uniting different ethnic groups into one social system. Agriculture, slavery and territoriality are therefore fundamental factors in the formation of a state, but the force that unites them has always been war.

Thus, the development of civilization has always been accompanied by similar political development. The state united a large number of people, and population growth and increasing contacts between people contributed to the development of civilization. Contacts promote cultural exchange; very often conquerors perceived the culture of the conquered people. The state also promotes the division of labor; it lays the foundations for the differentiation of society in the form of slavery and division into classes. This implies a division of labor, resulting in new crafts and inventions becoming possible. “The state is a product of violence and exists thanks to violence,” and the division of labor is also based on violence. The performance of various functions, which is necessary for the development of culture, is achieved through the state, that is, violence. Finally, the state ensures peace and order within the country, which is one of its essential functions in history. Thus, although the state was originally an instrument of exploitation - and in many ways it still is - it plays a large role in the development of civilization.

Military occupation regime

Military occupation is the temporary seizure of the territory (part of the territory) of one state by the armed forces of another state and the establishment of military administration in the captured territory. The military occupation of any territory does not mean its transition to the sovereignty of the occupying state.

In accordance with the provisions of the IV Hague Convention of 1907, IV Geneva Convention of 1949, Additional Protocol I, the occupying state is obliged to take all measures to ensure order in the occupied territory. The population of the occupied territory must obey the orders of the authorities, but they cannot be forced to take an oath of allegiance to the occupying state, participate in military actions directed against their country, or give information about its army. Honor, the lives of civilians, their property, religious beliefs, and family must be respected. The occupying power is obliged to supply the civilian population with necessary clothing, food and sanitary materials.

In relation to civilians it is prohibited:

Commit any acts of violence, intimidation or abuse;

Use coercive measures, physical or moral, in particular for the purpose of obtaining information;

Use torture, corporal punishment, medical experiments, etc.;

Apply collective punishments;

Take hostages;

Deport the civilian population from the occupied territory.

Foreigners who find themselves in occupied territory are guaranteed the right to leave it as soon as possible.

During the development of an armed conflict, one of the warring parties may occupy fully or partially the territory of the other warring party.

In this case, the effective functioning of the authorities of the occupied state is suspended in the occupied territory, and administrative control is transferred to the military command of the state that occupied a certain territory.

However, the occupying state does not receive sovereign rights over the occupied territories and cannot annex them or cede them to another state.

The legal status of such territories is determined during the final peace settlement.

The regime of military occupation is regulated by the rules and customs of war, in particular

The Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907

Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War of 1949 and Additional Protocols I and II thereto of 1977.

Military occupation begins from the moment of establishing actual control over a certain territory and lasts until the loss of this control over it.

An occupation administration is created in this territory, which must carry out its functions in accordance with the norms of international law. The occupation administration is obliged to allow the activities of local judges and officials, but cannot force them to do so. Occupation authorities may use government buildings and structures for their needs, but without acquiring ownership of them.

Fundamental human rights, as well as the rights enshrined in the rules of the law of armed conflict, must be respected in relation to the population of the occupied territory.

Hijacking for any reason, as well as deporting the population of the occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or a third power, is prohibited.

However, to ensure the safety of the population or for particularly compelling military reasons, a complete or partial evacuation of the population of a certain occupied area may be carried out.

The occupying authorities cannot force the population of the occupied territories to serve in their armed forces or auxiliary units, nor force them to give information about the army and defense means of another belligerent state.

Persons over 18 years of age may be sent to forced labor if this is necessary for the needs of the occupying army or is related to the activities of public utilities, providing the population with food, housing, clothing, transportation, or medical care.

Life, honor and dignity, family rights and religious beliefs must be respected by the occupation administration in relation to the population of the occupied territories.

Seizure, destruction or damage to the property of communities, church, charitable, educational, artistic and scientific institutions, regardless of the form of ownership, is not permitted. The occupation authorities are obliged to ensure the protection and respect of cultural values ​​(monuments of architecture, art, history, scientific collections, archival materials etc.) under their control.

Requisition of private property for the needs of the occupation administration is permitted, taking into account local possibilities and subject to payment for the seized property or the issuance of an appropriate receipt. Destruction of private property is prohibited except in cases of absolute military necessity.

There are two types of military occupation.

Firstly, the occupation of enemy territory by a belligerent power during hostilities.

Secondly, there may be a post-war occupation of enemy territory as a way of guaranteeing the fulfillment by the vanquished of the obligations arising from its responsibility for aggression. For example, the post-war occupation of Germany by the troops of the anti-Hitler coalition states.

The rules of the law of armed conflict apply to both types of occupation.

Means and methods of warfare

The means of warfare include weapons and military equipment used by the armed forces to physically destroy the enemy and eliminate the material possibility of resisting them.

Methods of warfare are a system of special techniques for using specified means in order to achieve success in an armed conflict.

In international legal doctrine, this section of the law of armed conflict is called the “law of the Hague”, since the basic principles and norms on the means and methods of conducting military operations are enshrined in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

Subsequently, the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War of 1949 and their Additional Protocols I and II of 1977 developed these principles and norms.

Analysis of customary and conventional norms allows us to conclude that means and methods of conducting military operations can be prohibited, partially prohibited and not prohibited.

Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, based on the provisions of the St. Petersburg Declaration on the Abolition of the Use of Explosive and Incendiary Bullets of 1868 and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, establishes that in the event of any armed conflict the right of the parties to choose the methods and means of warfare is not unlimited;

It is prohibited to use weapons, projectiles, substances and methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary injury or unnecessary suffering: it is prohibited to use methods or means of warfare that are intended to cause, or can be expected to cause, widespread, long-term and serious damage to the natural environment (v. 35).

One of the most dangerous types of weapons of mass destruction is chemical weapons.

It was first used during the First World War, when German troops in 1915 produced gas attack against the French army on the Ypres River, which gave the name to the gas used - mustard gas.

Currently, international law prohibits the use of both chemical and bacteriological weapons in armed conflicts.

The legal prohibition of the use of chemical weapons was first recorded in the Geneva Protocol on the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous and Other Similar Gases and Bacteriological Agents in War of 1925.

In 1993, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction was adopted, which placed chemical weapons under a complete ban. The Convention entered into force in 1997.

The most dangerous type of weapon of mass destruction is bacteriological weapons, which were used by Japan against China during the Second World War.

These acts of Japan were classified as war crimes by the Tokyo and Khabarovsk military tribunals.

In 1972, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction was concluded.

Modern international law does not contain special rules that would prohibit the use of nuclear weapons, but the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice confirmed this.

At the same time, the Conclusion emphasized that the use of nuclear weapons must be compatible with the requirements of international humanitarian law.

The experience of the US Air Force's nuclear bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 proves that the use of this type of weapon is incompatible with the industrial principles of the law of armed conflict, which prohibit the use of inhumane means and methods of warfare with indiscriminate effect.

An urgent problem of modern international law is the prohibition of the development and use of new types of weapons of mass destruction: infrasonic, laser, radiological, etc. Unfortunately, the international community has not yet developed effective prohibitory norms in this area.

As for conventional weapons, the use of some of their types is prohibited by international law.

Thus, the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 prohibited the use of any projectiles weighing less than 400 g that either explode or are filled with a flammable composition.

In 1981, the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Cause Excessive Injury or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, and its three protocols (Protocol on the Prohibition of the Use of Any Weapon that Injures by Non-Detectable Fragments;

Protocol to Prohibit or Restrict the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices;

Protocol on the Prohibition or Restriction of the Use of Incendiary Weapons).

However, the 1981 Convention was not able to resolve all issues related to the use of mines. Therefore, the international community has been actively working to completely ban the production, stockpiling and use of anti-personnel mines, which, according to the UN, kill or maim more than 25 thousand people in the world every year.

In December 1997, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction was opened for signature.

According to the provisions of the Convention, stockpiles of anti-personnel mines must be destroyed within four years from the date of its entry into force. Ukraine, as is known, inherited huge stocks of such mines from the USSR. In addition, Ukraine was their major producer. However, since 1995, the production of anti-personnel mines in Ukraine has been discontinued; and she proceeded to destroy their stocks.

The law of armed conflicts also prohibits certain methods of conducting them. Since ancient times, it has been prohibited to wage war using treacherous methods.In paragraph 1 of Art. 37 of Additional Protocol I of 1977 declares: “It is prohibited to kill, wound or capture an enemy by resorting to treachery.”

Perfidy is considered to be actions aimed at inducing the trust of an enemy and making him believe that he has the right to protection or is obliged to provide such protection under international law with the aim of deceiving such trust.

Examples of treachery include the following:

Feigning an intention to negotiate under a flag of truce or feigning surrender;

Feigning failure due to injury or illness;

Pretending to have civilian or non-combatant status;

Pretending to have a protective status through the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the UN, neutral states or other states not taking part in the conflict.

Military stratagems are not considered treachery: the use of camouflage, traps, false operations, disinformation.

This Protocol also confirmed the usual rule on the prohibition of not giving quarter to the enemy: “It is prohibited to give orders not to leave anyone alive, to threaten the enemy with this, or to conduct military operations on such a basis” (Article 40).

The law of armed conflict prohibits the conduct of hostilities by methods that would threaten civilian objects.

The Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907 established a ban on bombing and attacks by any means on unprotected cities, villages, dwellings and buildings (Article 25).

Additional Protocol I of 1977 also reaffirms the prohibition of attacks or reprisals against civilian objects (Article 52).

The Protocol prohibits the commission of any hostile acts directed against historical monuments, works of art or places of worship that constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples. It is prohibited to use starvation among civilians as a method of warfare. It is unacceptable to attack or destroy, remove or render unusable objects necessary for the survival of the civilian population (food supplies, drinking water supplies and supplies, crops, irrigation structures, etc.).

Additional Protocol I prohibits the use of methods or means of warfare that are intended to cause damage to the natural environment and thereby harm the health and survival of the population.

In 1977, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Impact on the Natural Environment was concluded, which strengthened the regime for protecting the natural environment from harmful effects on it during armed conflicts.

According to Additional Protocol I, installations and structures containing dangerous forces (dams, dams, nuclear power plants) must not be the object of attack, even in cases where such installations and structures are military objectives, if such an attack could cause the release of dangerous forces and subsequent heavy losses among the civilian population (clause 1 of article 56).

It should be noted that for installations and structures containing dangerous forces, an international special sign has been introduced: a group of three bright orange circles of the same size, located on the same axis, and the distance between each circle should be one radius.

The sign must be as large as the circumstances require (Article 16 of Annex I of Additional Protocol I).

In order to facilitate the identification of cultural values, a distinctive sign has also been introduced to designate them: a shield, pointed at the bottom, divided into four parts blue and white.

The shield consists of a blue square, one of the corners of which is inscribed in the pointed part of the shield, and a blue triangle above the square; the square and the triangle are delimited on both sides by white triangles (Article 16 of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1954).

The distinctive sign is used three times to identify immovable cultural property under special protection; transport with cultural values; improvised shelters. A one-time use of a distinctive sign is possible to identify cultural property that is not under special protection; persons entrusted with control functions in accordance with the Executive Regulations; personnel assigned to protect cultural property.

Legal protection of civilians during armed conflict

The first attempt to provide definitions was made in 1949 by the authors of the IV Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. According to Art. 4 protected by this convention are persons who, at any time and in any manner whatsoever, in the event of a conflict or occupation, are in the power of a party to the conflict or of an occupying power of which they are not nationals. The exceptions are: a) citizens of any state. not bound by the provisions of the said convention: b) citizens of any neutral state located on the territory of one of the belligerent states, while the state of which they are citizens has normal diplomatic representation with the state in whose power they are: c) citizens of any co-belligerent state, as long as the state of which they are citizens has normal diplomatic representation with the state in whose power they are: d) persons protected by the three other Geneva Conventions, namely: wounded, sick, shipwrecked members of the armed forces, as well as prisoners of war.

Thus, the scope of the IV Geneva Convention of 1949 is effectively limited only to those civilians who, at any time and in any manner, find themselves in the hands of an enemy State in the event of a conflict or occupation. This restriction was only lifted in 1977 as a result of the adoption of Additional Protocol 1 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

According to Additional Protocol 1, the civilian population and individual civilians enjoy general protection from dangers arising from military operations. It is established that the civilian population consists of all persons who are civilians. A civilian is any person. not belonging to any of the categories of persons. specified in Art. 4 A/. 1/, 2/, 3/ and 6/ of the III Geneva Convention of 1949 and in Art. 43 of Additional Protocol 1. Moreover, in case of doubt as to. whether a person is a civilian, he is considered to be such.

In accordance with and. 3 tbsp. 50 of the Additional Protocol 1 the presence of individuals among the civilian population. not falling within the definition of civilians does not deprive that population of its civilian character. It follows from the meaning of this article that the civilian population is deprived of its status and the right to protection in the event that entire military units and formations are among them. As for civilians, they enjoy the protection provided for by international law, with the exception of cases and for such a period as long as they take a direct part in hostilities" (clause 3 of article 5 1).

Since one of the basic legal norms. intended for the protection of the civilian population, is a norm prohibiting attacks on the civilian population, the authors of Additional Protocol 1 developed a definition of the concept of “attacks”, contained in paragraph 1 of Article 49 of the said document. According to this definition, “attacks” mean “acts of violence in against the enemy, regardless of whether they are committed during the offensive or during the defense." Paragraph 2 of Article 49 establishes that these provisions apply to all attacks, regardless of the territory in which they are committed, including the national territory of the party involved in the conflict , but under the control of the opposing party.

It should be particularly noted that the scope of the provisions of Additional Protocol 1, which regulate the general protection of the civilian population from the consequences of hostilities, includes any military activities on land. in the air or at sea that could cause harm to the civilian population, individual civilians or civilian objects on land. It also covers all attacks by sea or air against objects located on land, without in any way affecting the rules of international law applicable in armed conflicts at sea or in the air.

Specifically, legal protection from the consequences of hostilities corresponding to the status of the civilian population. According to Additional Protocol 1, such categories of persons as ..wounded and sick", ..shipwrecked", "persons out of action", are provided with the condition that they refrain from hostile actions. Medical personnel also enjoy similar protection. , ..religious personnel", personnel participating in relief operations: personnel of civil defense organizations; women and children: finally, journalists on dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict.

The IV Geneva Convention of 1949 significantly expanded the range of responsibilities of the authorities of the occupying power in relation to the civilian population in order to prevent massive and gross violations of human rights in armed conflict. It should be noted that the IV Hague Convention of 1907 generally pays more attention to the protection of the property of civilians, rather than themselves: of the 14 articles that make up Section III of this convention, it is devoted to the regime of military occupation. 8 articles relate to the protection of public and private property, while of the 32 articles of Part III .. Occupied Territories" of Section III of the IV Geneva Convention of 1949, only 2 articles relate to property.

The protection of the fundamental morals of the civilian population and individual civilians from the arbitrariness of the authorities of the occupying power is ensured in the IV Geneva Convention of 1949 by normatively establishing the corresponding obligations of states as subjects of international law.

So. in order to create and maintain normal living conditions for the civilian population, Art. 55 of the IV Geneva Convention of 1949 imposes on the occupying power the obligation to supply the civilian population with food and sanitary materials, using all means at its disposal, in particular in cases where the resources of the occupied territory are insufficient. The occupying power may requisition food and other items and sanitary materials. located in occupied territory, only for the occupying forces and for the administration and only taking into account the needs of the civilian population. The Protecting Powers have the right at any time to freely check the state of food supplies in the occupied territory.

Article 69 of Additional Protocol 1 supplements the provisions of Art. 55, imposing an obligation on the occupying power to use the means available to it to the maximum extent possible and without any adverse distinction. also supply the population with clothing and bedding. means of providing shelter and other supplies essential for the survival of the civilian population of the occupied territory, as well as items necessary for the practice of religious rites. If the civilian population of any territory under the control of a party to the conflict, other than the occupied territory, Art. 70 of the Additional Protocol 1. is insufficiently provided with the reserves referred to in Art. 69. Then operations are carried out to provide assistance. Priority is given to such civilians in the distribution of aid supplies. like children, pregnant women, women in labor, nursing mothers.

The IV Geneva Convention of 1949 defines the status of protected persons and establishes the rules for their treatment. In part 1 section. III contains provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to the occupied territories. Art. 27. In particular, it establishes that protected persons have the right, in all circumstances, to respect for their person, honor, family rights, religious beliefs and practices, habits and customs. Thus, in relation to civilians, in particular, it is prohibited:

Commit any act of violence, intimidation or insult (art. 27):

Rape, force women into prostitution, or in any other way attack their honor and morality (Article 27):

Use physical or moral coercive measures, in particular for the purpose of obtaining information (Article 31):

Taking any action. likely to cause physical suffering or death to protected persons: this prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments that are not caused by the need for medical treatment, but equally to any other gross violence by representatives civil or military authorities (art. 32):

Punishment of a person for an offense that he did not commit (Article 33):

collective punishments (Article 33):

reprisals against protected persons and their property (Article 33):

Taking hostages (Article 34).

However, the parties to the conflict may take such control or security measures against these persons as may be necessary as a result of the armed conflict.

In accordance with Art. 38 Post-industrial wars It is believed that post-industrial wars are primarily diplomatic and espionage confrontations. Urban guerrilla Humanitarian war (Kosovo War) Counter-terrorist operation Interethnic conflict (for example, the Bosnian War, the Karabakh War) The main types of wars of the slave society were: Wars of slave states for the enslavement of tribes that were at a lower stage of social development (for example, the wars of Rome against the Gauls, Germans, etc.); Wars between the slave states themselves with the aim of seizing territories and robbing conquered countries (for example, the Punic Wars of Rome against Carthage in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, etc.); Wars between different groups of slave owners (for example, the war of the Diadochi for the division of the empire of Alexander the Great in 321-276 BC); Wars as slave uprisings (for example, the slave uprising in Rome under the leadership of Spartacus in 73-71 BC, etc.); popular uprisings of peasants and artisans (the “Red Brows” uprising in the 1st century AD in China, etc.). 3.5 American Civil War The main types of wars in feudal society were: Wars between feudal states (for example, the Hundred Years' War between England and France 1337-1453); internecine feudal wars for the expansion of possessions (for example, the War of the Scarlet and White Roses in England in 1455-85); Wars for the creation of centralized feudal states (for example, the war for the unification of Russian lands around Moscow in the 14th-15th centuries); Wars against foreign invasions (for example, the war of the Russian people against the Tatar-Mongols in the 13th-14th centuries). Feudal exploitation gave rise to: peasant wars and uprisings against the feudal lords (for example, the peasant uprising led by I. I. Bolotnikov in 1606-07 in Russia); uprisings of the urban population against feudal exploitation (for example, the Parisian uprising of 1356-58). The wars of the era of pre-monopoly capitalism can be classified into the following main types: Colonial wars of capitalist countries for the enslavement of the peoples of Asia, Africa, America, Oceania; aggressive wars of states and coalitions of states for hegemony (for example, Seven Years' War 1756-63, etc.); revolutionary anti-feudal, national liberation wars (for example, the wars of revolutionary France at the end of the 18th century); Wars of national reunification (for example, the wars of Italian unification in 1859–70); liberation wars of the peoples of colonies and dependent countries (for example, popular uprisings in India in the 18th and 19th centuries against English rule), civil wars and uprisings of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie (for example, the revolutionary war Paris Commune 1871). In the era of imperialism, the struggle between monopolistic associations outgrows national boundaries and turns into a struggle between the main imperialist powers for the violent redivision of an already divided world. The intensification of the struggle of the imperialists is expanding their military clashes to the scale of world wars. The main types of wars of the era of imperialism are: Imperialist wars for the redivision of the world (for example, the Spanish-American War of 1898, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05, World War I of 1914–18); civil liberation wars of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie (Civil War in the USSR 1918–20). The main types of wars of the era of imperialism also include national liberation wars of oppressed peoples (for example, popular uprisings in Cuba in 1906, in China in 1906-11). In modern conditions, the only source of war is imperialism. Main types of wars modern era are: Wars between states with opposing social systems, civil wars, national liberation wars, wars between capitalist states. The 2nd World War of 1939–45, due to its complex and contradictory nature, occupies a special place among the wars of the modern era. Wars between states with opposing social systems are generated by the aggressive aspirations of imperialism to destroy the social gains of the peoples of socialist countries or countries that have embarked on the path of building socialism (for example, the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union of 1941-45 against Nazi Germany and its allies that attacked the USSR). Civil wars accompany the development of socialist and bourgeois-democratic revolutions or are an armed defense of people's gains from bourgeois counter-revolution and fascism. Civil wars often merge with the war against imperialist intervention (the national revolutionary war of the Spanish people against fascist rebels and Italian-German interventionists in 1936–39, etc.). National liberation wars are the struggle of the peoples of dependent and colonial countries against the colonialists, for the establishment of state independence or for its preservation, against attempts to restore the colonial regime (for example, the war of the Algerian people against the French colonialists in 1954-62; the struggle of the peoples of Egypt against the Anglo-French Israeli aggression in 1956; the struggle of the peoples of South Vietnam against the American invaders, which began in 1964, etc.). In modern conditions, the national liberation struggle for winning national independence is closely intertwined with the social struggle for the democratic reorganization of public life. Wars between capitalist states are generated by the aggravation of contradictions between them in the struggle for world domination (World Wars 1 and 2). The 2nd World War was generated by the aggravation of imperialist contradictions between the bloc of fascist states led by fascist Germany and the Anglo-French bloc and began as unjust and aggressive, especially on the part of Germany and its allies. However, Hitler's aggression posed the greatest threat to humanity; the Nazi occupation of many countries doomed their people to extermination. Therefore, the fight against fascism became a national task for all freedom-loving peoples, which led to a change in the political content of the war, which acquired a liberation, anti-fascist character. The attack of Nazi Germany on the USSR completed the process of this transformation. The USSR was the main force of the anti-Hitler coalition (USSR, USA, Great Britain, France) in World War 2, which led to victory over the fascist bloc. The Soviet Armed Forces made a major contribution to saving the peoples of the world from the threat of enslavement by fascist invaders. IN post-war period There is a process of economic integration of capitalist countries, a unification of the forces of reaction against socialism, which, however, does not eliminate acute contradictions and conflicts between capitalist states, which under certain conditions can become a source of war between them. 3.6 Crimean War 3.7 Civil War 3.8 Anti-Hitler Coalition Theories of the origin of wars At all times, people have tried to understand the phenomenon of war, identify its nature, give it a moral assessment, develop methods for its most effective use (the theory of military art) and find ways to limit or even eradicate it. The most controversial question has been and continues to be about the causes of wars: why do they happen if the majority of people do not want them? A wide variety of answers are given to this question. 4.1 Alexander the Great Theological interpretation, which has Old Testament roots, is based on the understanding of war as an arena for the implementation of the will of god (gods). Its adherents see in war either a way of establishing the true religion and rewarding the pious (the conquest of the “Promised Land” by the Jews, the victorious campaigns of the Arabs who converted to Islam), or a means of punishing the wicked (the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians, the defeat of the Roman Empire by the barbarians). The concrete historical approach, dating back to antiquity (Herodotus), connects the origin of wars solely with their local historical context and excludes the search for any universal causes. In this case, the role of political leaders and the rational decisions they made. Often the outbreak of war is perceived as the result of a random combination of circumstances. The psychological school occupies an influential position in the tradition of studying the phenomenon of war. Even in ancient times, the prevailing belief (Thucydides) was that war is a consequence of bad human nature, an innate tendency to “do” chaos and evil. In our time, this idea was used by S. Freud when creating the theory of psychoanalysis: he argued that a person could not exist if his inherent need for self-destruction (death instinct) was not directed towards external objects, including other individuals, other ethnic groups , other religious groups. Followers of S. Freud (L.L. Bernard) viewed war as a manifestation of mass psychosis, which is the result of the suppression of human instincts by society. Row modern psychologists(E.F.M. Darben, J. Bowlby) reworked the Freudian theory of sublimation in a gender sense: the tendency to aggression and violence is a property of male nature; suppressed in peaceful conditions, it finds the necessary outlet on the battlefield. Their hope for ridding humanity of war is associated with the transfer of control levers into the hands of women and with the establishment of feminine values ​​in society. Other psychologists interpret aggressiveness not as an integral feature of the male psyche, but as a result of its violation, citing as an example politicians obsessed with the mania of war (Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini); they believe that for the advent of an era of universal peace it is enough effective system civil control, denying madmen access to power. A special branch of the psychological school, founded by K. Lorenz, is based on evolutionary sociology. Its adherents consider war to be an extended form of animal behavior, primarily an expression of male rivalry and their struggle for possession of a certain territory. They emphasize, however, that although war had a natural origin, technological progress has increased its destructive nature and brought it to a level unthinkable for the animal world, when the very existence of humanity as a species is threatened. The anthropological school (E. Montague and others) resolutely rejects the psychological approach. Social anthropologists prove that the tendency to aggression is not inherited (genetically), but is formed in the process of upbringing, that is, it reflects the cultural experience of a particular social environment, its religious and ideological attitudes. From their point of view, there is no connection between the various historical forms of violence, since each of them was generated by its own specific social context. The political approach is based on the formula of the German military theorist K. Clausewitz (1780–1831), who defined war as “the continuation of politics by other means.” Its many adherents, starting with L. Ranke, derive the origin of wars from international disputes and the diplomatic game. An offshoot of the political science school is the geopolitical direction, whose representatives see the main cause of wars in the lack of “living space” (K. Haushofer, J. Kieffer), in the desire of states to expand their borders to natural boundaries (rivers, mountain ranges, etc.) . Ascending to English economist According to T.R. Malthus (1766–1834), demographic theory considers war as a result of an imbalance between the population and the amount of means of subsistence and as a functional means of restoring it by destroying demographic surpluses. Neo-Malthusians (U. Vogt and others) believe that war is immanent in human society and is the main engine of social progress. At present, the sociological approach remains the most popular when interpreting the phenomenon of war. In contrast to the followers of K. Clausewitz, his supporters (E. Kehr, H.-W. Wehler, etc.) consider war to be a product of internal social conditions and the social structure of the warring countries. Many sociologists are trying to develop a universal typology of wars, formalize them taking into account all the factors influencing them (economic, demographic, etc.), and model fail-safe mechanisms for their prevention. The sociostatistical analysis of wars, proposed back in the 1920s, is actively used. L.F.Richardson; Currently, numerous predictive models of armed conflicts have been created (P. Breke, participants in the “Military Project”, Uppsala research group). Information theory, popular among specialists in international relations (D. Blaney and others), explains the occurrence of wars by a lack of information. According to its adherents, war is the result of a mutual decision - the decision of one side to attack and the decision of the other to resist; the losing side is always the one that inadequately assesses its capabilities and the capabilities of the other side - otherwise it would either refuse aggression or capitulate in order to avoid unnecessary human and material losses. Therefore, knowledge of the enemy's intentions and his ability to wage war (effective intelligence) becomes crucial. Cosmopolitan theory connects the origin of war with the antagonism of national and supranational, universal human interests (N. Angel, S. Strechey, J. Dewey). It is used primarily to explain armed conflicts in the era of globalization. Supporters of the economic interpretation consider war to be a consequence of rivalry between states in the sphere of international economic relations , anarchic in nature. The war is started to obtain new markets, cheap labor, sources of raw materials and energy. This position is shared, as a rule, by left-wing scientists. They argue that the war serves the interests of the propertied strata, and all its hardships fall on the share of the disadvantaged groups of the population. The economic interpretation is an element of the Marxist approach, which treats any war as a derivative of class war. From the point of view of Marxism, wars are fought to strengthen the power of the ruling classes and to split the world proletariat through appeals to religious or nationalist ideals. Marxists argue that wars are the inevitable result of the free market and the system of class inequality and that they will disappear into oblivion after the world revolution. 4.2 Herodotus 4.3 Wars 4.4 The War Chariot Behavioral Theories Psychologists such as E. F. M. Durban and John Bowlby argue that it is the nature of humans to be aggressive. It is fueled by sublimation and projection, where a person turns his grievances into prejudice and hatred towards other races, religions, nations or ideologies. According to this theory, the state creates and maintains a certain order in local societies and at the same time creates the basis for aggression in the form of war. If war is an integral part of human nature, as many psychological theories assume, then it will never be completely eradicated. 4.5 Military operations in winter. Italian psychoanalyst Franco Fornari, a follower of Melanie Klein, suggested that war is a paranoid or projective form of melancholy. Fornari argued that war and violence develop from our “need for love”: our desire to preserve and protect the sacred object to which we are attached, namely the mother and our connection with her. For adults, such a sacred object is the nation. Fornari focuses on sacrifice as the essence of war: the desire of people to die for their country and the desire to give themselves for the good of the nation. Although these theories can explain why wars exist, they do not explain why they occur; at the same time, they do not explain the existence of some cultures that do not know wars as such. If the inner psychology of the human mind is unchanged, then such cultures should not exist. Some militarists, such as Franz Alexander, argue that the state of the world is an illusion. Periods commonly called "peaceful" are actually periods of preparation for a future war or a situation where warlike instincts are suppressed by a stronger state, such as the Pax Britannica. These theories are supposedly based on the will of the overwhelming majority of the population. However, they do not take into account the fact that only a small number of wars in history were truly the result of the will of the people. Much more often, people are forcibly drawn into war by their rulers. One of the theories that puts political and military leaders at the forefront was developed by Maurice Walsh. He argued that the vast majority of the population is neutral towards war, and that wars only happen when leaders with a psychologically abnormal attitude towards human life come to power. Wars are started by rulers who deliberately seek to fight—such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Alexander the Great. Such people become heads of state in times of crisis, when the population is looking for a leader with a strong will, who, they think, can solve their problems. 4.6 Barracks 4.7 Private cuirassier military order regiment. 1775-1777 4.8 Tool Evolutionary Psychology Proponents of evolutionary psychology tend to argue that human warfare is analogous to the behavior of animals who fight for territory or compete for food or a mate. Animals are aggressive by nature, and in the human environment, such aggressiveness results in wars. However, with the development of technology, human aggressiveness reached such a limit that it began to threaten the survival of the entire species. One of the first adherents of this theory was Konrad Lorenz. 4.9 Tools Such theories were criticized by scientists such as John G. Kennedy, who believed that the organized, long-lasting wars of humans were fundamentally different from the fighting over territory of animals—and not just in terms of technology. Ashley Montague points out that social factors and education are important reasons, determining the nature and course of human wars. War is still a human invention that has its own historical and social roots. 4.10 Tanks 4.11 Submarines 4.12 Execution Sociological theories Sociologists for a long time studied the causes of wars. There are many theories on this matter, many of which contradict each other. Proponents of one of the schools of Primat der Innenpolitik (Priority of Domestic Policy) take as a basis the work of Eckart Kehr and Hans-Ulrich Wehler, who believed that war is a product of local conditions, and only the direction of aggression is determined by external factors. Thus, for example, the First World War was not the result of international conflicts, secret conspiracies or imbalances of power, but the result of the economic, social and political situation in each country involved in the conflict. This theory differs from the traditional Primat der Außenpolitik (Priority of Foreign Policy) approach of Carl von Clausewitz and Leopold von Ranke, who argued that war and peace are a consequence of the decisions of statesmen and the geopolitical situation. 4.13 Nuclear explosion 4.14 Cavalry warriors 4.15 Poster against xenophobia Demographic theories Demographic theories can be divided into two classes Malthusian theories and Youth Predominance theories. According to Malthusian theories, the causes of wars lie in population growth and lack of resources. Pope Urban II in 1095, on the eve of the First Crusade, wrote: “The land which you have inherited is surrounded on all sides by sea and mountains, and it is too small for you; it barely provides food for the people. That is why you kill and torture each other, wage wars, that is why so many of you die in civil strife. Quiet your hatred, let the hostility end. Take the road to the Holy Sepulcher; reclaim this land from the wicked race and take it for yourselves.” This is one of the first descriptions of what was later called the Malthusian theory of war. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) wrote that population always increases until its growth is limited by war, disease or famine. Proponents of the Malthusian theory believe that the relative decrease in the number of military conflicts over the past 50 years, especially in developing countries, is a consequence of the fact that new technologies in agriculture can feed much large quantity people; at the same time, the availability of contraceptives has led to a significant decline in the birth rate. 4.16 Armenian Genocide 4.17 Jewish Genocide The theory of youth predominance. Average age by country. The predominance of youth is present in Africa and in slightly lesser proportions in South and Southeast Asia and Central America. The theory of youth dominance differs significantly from Malthusian theories. Its adherents believe that the combination of a large number of young men (as graphically represented in the Age-Sex Pyramid) with a lack of permanent peaceful work leads to a great risk of war. While Malthusian theories focus on the contradiction between a growing population and the availability of natural resources, the youth dominance theory focuses on the discrepancy between the number of poor, non-inheriting young men and the available job positions in the existing social division of labor. Great contributions to the development of this theory were made by the French sociologist Gaston Bouthoul, the American sociologist Jack A. Goldstone, American political scientist Gary Fuller, and the German sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn. Samuel Huntington developed his theory of the Clash of Civilizations, drawing heavily on the theory of youth dominance: I don't think Islam is a more aggressive religion than any other, but I suspect that throughout history, more people have died at the hands of Christians than at the hands of Muslims. The key factor here is demographics. By and large, people who go out to kill other people are men between the ages of 16 and 30. During the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the Muslim world had high birth rates and this led to a huge skew towards youth. But he will inevitably disappear. Birth rates in Islamic countries are falling; in some countries - rapidly. Islam was originally spread by fire and sword, but I don't think there is an inherited aggressiveness in Muslim theology." The theory of youth dominance was created quite recently, but has already gained great influence on foreign policy and military strategy USA. Both Goldstone and Fuller advised the American government. CIA inspector General John L. Helgerson referred to this theory in his 2002 report, "The National Security Implications of Global Demographic Change." According to Heinsohn, who first proposed the youth dominance theory in its most general form, skew occurs when 30 to 40 percent male population country belongs to the “explosive” age group - from 15 to 29 years. Usually this phenomenon is preceded by a birth rate explosion, when there are 4-8 children per woman. In the case where there are 2.1 children per woman, the son takes the place of the father, and the daughter takes the place of the mother. A total fertility rate of 2.1 results in replacement of the previous generation, while a lower rate leads to population extinction. In the case when 4-8 children are born in a family, the father must provide his sons with not one, but two or four social positions (jobs) so that they have at least some prospects in life. Given that the number of respected positions in society cannot increase at the same rate as the supply of food, textbooks and vaccines, many “angry young men” find themselves in situations where their youthful anger spills over into violence. There are too many of them demographically, unemployed or stuck in disrespected, low-paying jobs, often unable to have a sexual life until their earnings allow them to start a family. Religion and ideology in this case are secondary factors and are used only to give violence a semblance of legitimacy, but in themselves they cannot serve as a source of violence unless there is a preponderance of youth in the society. Accordingly, supporters of this theory view both “Christian” European colonialism and imperialism, as well as today’s “Islamic aggression” and terrorism, as a result of demographic imbalance. The Gaza Strip is a typical illustration of this phenomenon: increased aggressiveness of the population caused by an excess of young, unsettled men. By contrast, the situation can be compared with neighboring relatively peaceful Lebanon. Another historical example where youth played a large role in uprisings and revolutions is the French Revolution of 1789. The economic depression in Germany played an important role in the emergence of Nazism. The genocide in Rwanda in 1994 may also have been a consequence of the severe dominance of youth in society. Although the relationship between population growth and political stability has been known since the publication of National Security Study Memorandum 200 in 1974, neither governments nor the World Health Organization have taken population control measures to prevent terrorism. threats. Eminent demographer Stephen D. Mumford attributes this to the influence of Catholic Church. The theory of youth predominance has become the object of statistical analysis by the World Bank Population Action International, and the Berlin Institute of Demography and Development (Berlin-Institut für Bevölkerung und Entwicklung). Detailed demographic data is available for most countries in the US Census Bureau's international database. The theory of youth dominance has been criticized for its statements leading to racial, gender and age "discrimination". 4.18 The theory of the predominance of youth 4.19 Victims of the Genocide of the Russian People 1917-1953 4.20 Manifestation of xenophobia Rationalistic theories Rationalistic theories assume that both sides in the conflict act reasonably and proceed from the desire to obtain the greatest benefit with the least loss on their part. Based on this, if both sides knew in advance how the war would end, then it would be better for them to accept the results of the war without battles and without unnecessary sacrifices. Rationalist theory puts forward three reasons why some countries are unable to agree among themselves and instead go to war: the problem of indivisibility, asymmetric information with deliberate misleading, and the inability to rely on the enemy's promises. An indivisibility problem occurs when two parties cannot reach a mutual agreement through negotiation because the thing they seek to possess is indivisible and can only be owned by one of them. An example is the war over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The problem of information asymmetry arises when two states cannot calculate in advance the likelihood of victory and reach an amicable agreement because each of them has military secrets. They can't open the cards because they don't trust each other. At the same time, each side is trying to exaggerate own strength to negotiate additional benefits. For example, Sweden tried to mislead the Nazis about its military capabilities by playing the "Aryan superiority" card and showing Hermann Göring elite troops dressed as ordinary soldiers. The Americans decided to enter the Vietnam War knowing full well that the Communists would resist, but underestimating the ability of the guerrillas to resist the regular US Army. Finally, negotiations to prevent war may fail due to the failure of states to follow the rules fair play. The two countries could have avoided war if they had stuck to the original agreements. But according to the deal, one party receives such privileges that it becomes more powerful and begins to demand more and more; As a result, the weaker side has no choice but to defend itself. The rationalist approach can be criticized on many points. The assumption of mutual calculation of benefits and costs is questionable - for example, in cases of genocide during the Second World War, when the weaker party was left with no alternative. Rationalists believe that the state acts as a whole, united by one will, and the leaders of the state are reasonable and are able to objectively assess the likelihood of success or failure, which supporters of the behavioral theories mentioned above cannot agree with. Rationalist theories generally apply well to game theory rather than to modeling the economic decisions that underlie any war. 4.21 Nuclear Bomb 4.22 Communication 4.23 Tank Economic Theories Another school of thought holds the theory that war can be seen as an increase in economic competition between countries. Wars begin as an attempt to control markets and natural resources and, as a result, wealth. Representatives of the ultra-right political circles, for example, argue that the strong have a natural right to everything that the weak are unable to keep. Some centrist politicians also rely on economic theory to explain wars. “Is there in this world at least one man, one woman, even a child, who does not know that the causes of war in the modern world lie in industrial and commercial competition?” — Woodrow Wilson, September 11, 1919, St. Louis. “I spent 33 years and four months in the military and for most of that time I worked as a high-class goon working for Big Business, Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I am a racketeer, a gangster of capitalism." - One of the highest-ranking and most decorated Marines (awarded two Medals of Honor) Major General Smedley Butler (the main candidate of the US Republican Party for the Senate) in 1935. A problem with economic theory capitalism is that it is impossible to name a single major military conflict that would have been started at the instigation of the so-called Big Business. 4.24 Photos of nuclear mushrooms 4.25 Airplane 4.26 Victories of the anti-Hitler coalition Marxist theory The theory of Marxism proceeds from the fact that all wars in the modern world occur due to conflicts between classes and between imperialist forces. These wars are part natural development free market and they will disappear only when the World Revolution occurs. 4.27 Poster People's Militia 4.28 Metaphysics of War 4.29 Karl Marx Theory of Wars in Political Science Statistical analysis The war was first taken up by World War I researcher Lewis Fry Richardson. There are several different schools international relations. Proponents of realism in international relations argue that the main motivation of states is their own security. Another theory examines the issue of power in international relations and the Theory of the Transition of Power, which builds the world into a certain hierarchy and explains major wars as a challenge to the incumbent hegemon from a Great Power that is not subject to his control. 4.30 UN General Assembly Building 4.31 Nuclear War 4.32 Submarine Objectivist Position Ayn Rand, creator of Objectivism and advocate of rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, argued that if a person wants to oppose war, he must first oppose the state-controlled economy. She believed that there would be no peace on earth as long as people adhere to herd instincts and sacrifice individuals for the sake of the collective and its mythical “good.” 4.33 Nuclear mushroom 4.34 The red storm rises - the nightmare of the West 4.35 Ammunition Goals of the parties in the war The direct goal of the war is to impose one’s will on the enemy. At the same time, the initiators of war often pursue indirect goals, such as: strengthening their internal political position (“small victorious war"), destabilization of the region as a whole, distraction and tying up enemy forces. In modern times, for the side that directly started the war, the goal is a world better than the pre-war one (Liddell-Hart, “The Strategy of Indirect Action”). 5.1 War 5.2 I agree For the side experiencing aggression from the enemy who started the war, the goal of war automatically becomes: - ensuring its own survival; - confrontation with an enemy who wants to impose his will; - preventing relapses of aggression. In real life, there is often no clear line between the attacking and defending sides, because both sides are on the verge of an open manifestation of aggression, and which of them will start on a large scale first is a matter of chance and adopted tactics. In such cases, the war goals of both sides are the same - imposing their will on the enemy in order to improve their pre-war position. Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that a war can be: Completely won by one of the warring parties - either the will of the aggressor is fulfilled, or, for the defending side, the attacks of the aggressor are successfully suppressed and his activity is suppressed; The goals of neither side have been fully achieved - the will of the aggressor(s) has been fulfilled, but not completely; Thus, World War II was won by the troops of the anti-Hitler coalition, since Hitler failed to achieve his goals, and the authorities and troops of Germany and its allies unconditionally capitulated and surrendered to the authorities of the victorious side. The Iran-Iraq war was not won by anyone - because neither side was able to impose its will on the enemy, and by the end of the war, the position of the warring parties was not qualitatively different from the pre-war one, apart from being exhausted by the fighting of both states. 5.3 Armor 5.4 Katyusha 5.5 Russian army cavalry 1907 - 1914 Consequences of the war The negative consequences of wars, in addition to the loss of life, include the complex that is designated as a humanitarian catastrophe: famine, epidemics, population movements. Modern wars are associated with enormous human and material losses, with unprecedented destruction and disasters. For example, losses in the wars of European countries (killed and those who died from wounds and diseases) were: in the 17th century - 3.3 million people, in the 18th century - 5.4, in the 19th and early 20th centuries (before the First World War) - 5.7, in the First World War - over 9, in the Second World War (including those killed in fascist concentration camps) - over 50 million people. 6.1 Military cemetery 6.2 Consequences of the war 6.3 Prisoners of war K positive consequences wars include the exchange of information (thanks to the Battle of Talas, the Arabs learned the secret of making paper from the Chinese) and “accelerating the course of history” (left-wing Marxists consider war to be a catalyst for social revolution), as well as the removal of contradictions (war as a dialectical moment of negation in Hegel). Some researchers also consider it positive for human society as a whole (not for humans) the following factors: War returns biological selection to human society, when the offspring are left by those most adapted to survival, since under normal conditions of the human community the effect of the laws of biology when choosing a partner is greatly weakened; During hostilities, all prohibitions that are imposed on a person in society in normal times are lifted. As a consequence, war can be considered as a way and method of relieving psychological tension within an entire society. Fear of imposing someone else's will, fear of facing danger provides an exceptional incentive for technological progress. It is no coincidence that many new products are invented and appear first for military needs and only then find their application in peaceful life. Improvement of international relations at the highest level and the appeal of the world community to such values ​​as human life, peace, etc. in the post-war period. Example: the creation of the League of Nations and the UN as a reaction to the First and Second World Wars, respectively. 6.4 M.S. Gorbachev and R. Reagan sign an agreement on the elimination of medium- and short-range missiles. 12/8/1987 6.5 Eternal Flame 6.6 V.V. Vereshchagin. “The Apotheosis of War” (1878) History of the Cold War The Cold War is a global geopolitical, economic and ideological confrontation between the Soviet Union and its allies, on the one hand, and the United States and its allies, on the other, which lasted from the mid-1940s to the early 1990s. x years. The reason for the confrontation was the fear of Western countries (primarily Great Britain and the USA) that part of Europe would fall under the influence of the USSR. One of the main components of the confrontation was ideology. The deep contradiction between the capitalist and socialist models, the impossibility of convergence, in fact, is the main reason for the Cold War. The two superpowers, the winners of World War II, tried to rebuild the world according to their ideological principles. Over time, confrontation became an element of the ideology of the two sides and helped the leaders of military-political blocs consolidate allies around them “in the face of an external enemy.” The new confrontation required the unity of all members of the opposing blocs. The expression “Cold War” was first used on April 16, 1947 by Bernard Baruch, adviser to US President Harry Truman, in a speech before the South Carolina House of Representatives. The internal logic of the confrontation required the parties to participate in conflicts and interfere in the development of events in any part of the world. The efforts of the USA and the USSR were aimed primarily at dominance in the military sphere. From the very beginning of the confrontation, the process of militarization of the two superpowers unfolded. 7.1 World of the Cold War 7.2 Cold War The USA and the USSR created their spheres of influence, securing them with military-political blocs - NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The Cold War was accompanied by a conventional and nuclear arms race that continually threatened to lead to a third world war. The most famous of such cases when the world found itself on the brink of disaster was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. In this regard, in the 1970s, both sides made efforts to “détente” international tensions and limit arms. The growing technological lag of the USSR, along with stagnation Soviet economy and exorbitant military spending in the late 1970s and early 1980s, forced the Soviet leadership to undertake political and economic reforms. The policy of perestroika and glasnost announced by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985 led to the loss of the leading role of the CPSU and also contributed to the economic collapse in the USSR. Ultimately, the USSR, burdened by an economic crisis, as well as social and interethnic problems, collapsed in 1991. Periodization of the Cold War Stage I - 1947-1955 - creation of a two-bloc system Stage II - 1955-1962 - period of peaceful coexistence Stage III - 1962-1979 - period of detente Stage IV - 1979-1991 - arms race Manifestations of the Cold War Bipolar world in 1959 Bipolar the world at the apogee of the Cold War (1980) An acute political and ideological confrontation between the communist and Western liberal systems, which engulfed almost the entire world; creation of a system of military (NATO, Warsaw Pact Organization, SEATO, CENTO, ANZUS, ANZYUK) and economic (EEC, CMEA, ASEAN, etc.) alliances; speeding up the arms race and military preparations; a sharp increase in military spending; periodically emerging international crises (Berlin Crisis, Cuban Missile Crisis, Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghan War); the unspoken division of the world into “spheres of influence” of the Soviet and Western blocs, within which the possibility of intervention was tacitly allowed in order to maintain a regime pleasing to one or another bloc (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Grenada, Vietnam, etc.); the rise of the national liberation movement in colonial and dependent countries and territories (partly inspired from outside), decolonization of these countries, the formation of the “Third World”, Non-Aligned Movement, neo-colonialism; creation of an extensive network of military bases (primarily the United States) on the territory of foreign countries; waging a massive “psychological war”, the purpose of which was to propagate one’s own ideology and way of life, as well as to discredit the official ideology and way of life of the opposite bloc in the eyes of the population of “enemy” countries and the “Third World”. For this purpose, radio stations were created that broadcast to the territory of the countries of the “ideological enemy”, the production of ideologically oriented literature and periodicals in foreign languages ​​was financed, and the intensification of class, racial, and national contradictions was actively used. reduction of economic and humanitarian ties between states with different socio-political systems. boycotts of some Olympic Games. For example, the USA and a number of other countries boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow. In response, the USSR and most socialist countries boycotted the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. In Eastern Europe, communist governments, having lost Soviet support, were removed even earlier, in 1989-1990. The Warsaw Pact officially ended on July 1, 1991, and from that moment the end of the Cold War can be counted. The Cold War was a gigantic mistake that cost the world enormous effort and enormous material and human losses in the period 1945-1991. It is useless to find out who was more or less to blame for this, to blame or whitewash someone - politicians in both Moscow and Washington bear equal responsibility for this. The beginning of Soviet-American cooperation did not foretell anything like this. President Roosevelt after the German attack on the USSR in June 1941. wrote that "this means the liberation of Europe from Nazi domination. At the same time, I do not think that we should worry about any possibility of Russian domination." Roosevelt believed that the great alliance of the victorious powers could continue to operate after the Second World War, subject to mutually acceptable norms of behavior, and he considered preventing mutual distrust between the allies to be one of his main tasks. With the end of the war, the polarity of the world changed dramatically - the old colonial countries of Europe and Japan lay in ruins, but the Soviet Union and the United States moved forward, only slightly involved in the global balance of forces until that moment and now filling a kind of vacuum created after the collapse of the Axis countries. And from that moment on, the interests of the two superpowers came into conflict - both the USSR and the USA sought to expand the limits of their influence as far as possible, a struggle began in all directions - in ideology, to win the minds and hearts of people; in an effort to get ahead in the arms race in order to talk to the other side from a position of strength; in economic indicators - to demonstrate the superiority of their social system; even in sports - as John Kennedy said, "a country's international prestige is measured by two things: nuclear missiles and Olympic gold medals." The West won the Cold War, and the Soviet Union voluntarily lost it. Now, having dissolved the Warsaw Treaty Organization and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, broken the Iron Curtain and united Germany, destroyed a superpower and banned communism, Russia in the 21st century can be convinced that not any ideology, but only geopolitical interests prevail in Western political thinking. Having moved the borders of NATO close to the borders of Russia, placing its military bases in half of the republics former USSR, American politicians are increasingly turning to the rhetoric of the Cold War, demonizing Russia in the eyes of the world community. And yet I want to believe in the best - that the great powers of the East and West will not conflict, but cooperate, adequately solving all problems at the negotiating table, without any pressure and blackmail, which is what the greatest US president of the 20th century dreamed of. It seems that this is quite feasible - in the coming era of globalization, Russia is slowly but surely integrating into the world community, Russian companies are entering foreign markets, and Western corporations are coming to Russia, and only a nuclear war can prevent, for example, Google and Microsoft from developing their high-tech products, and Ford to manufacture its cars in Russia. Well, for millions of ordinary people in the world, the main thing is “that there is no war...” - neither hot nor cold. Classic example socio-political, economic and psychological antagonism is the Cold War. Having affected all spheres of social life, the Cold War is revealing its consequences even now, which determines the debate about the end of this phenomenon. We will not touch upon the question of the date of the end of the Cold War, we will only try to understand the chronological framework of its beginning and outline our view of its essence. Firstly, one cannot help but notice that history textbooks often contain the most opposing positions on certain issues. But among the dates that are contained in the vast majority of manuals, one can name the date of the beginning of the Cold War - March 6, 1946, Churchill’s speech in Fulton. However, in our opinion, the beginning of the Cold War dates back to the revolutionary events in Russia associated with the Bolsheviks coming to power. Then it was just beginning to smolder on the planet, without flaring up into a full-scale conflict. This is confirmed by the statement of People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs G.V. Chicherin in response to V. Wilson’s remark that Soviet Russia would strive to enter the League of Nations, made at the Paris Peace Conference. He said the following: “Yes, she knocks, but not in order to get into the company of robbers who have discovered their predatory nature. It is knocking, the world workers' revolution is knocking. She knocks like an uninvited guest in Maeterlinck's play, whose invisible approach shackles hearts with chilling horror, whose steps are already understood on the stairs, accompanied by the clank of a scythe - she knocks, she is already entering, she is already sitting down at the table of a dumbfounded family, she is an uninvited guest - she is invisible death". The absence of diplomatic relations between Soviet Russia and the United States for 16 years after October 1917 reduced any communication between the two countries to a minimum, contributing to the spread of diametrically opposed attitudes towards each other. In the USSR - at the philistine level - hostility towards the “country of capital and the oppression of workers” grew, and in the USA - again at the human level - interest and sympathy for the state of “workers and peasants” grew almost in direct proportion. However, the political trials carried out in the 30s against “enemies of the people” and constant violations of civil rights and freedoms by the authorities led to the formation and widespread a sharply negative and extremely skeptical attitude not only towards the government of the USSR, but also towards communist ideology in general. It was at this time, we believe, that the Cold War developed in its ideological and political aspect. Domestic policy The Soviet Union led to a complete denial of socialist and communist ideals not only in the United States, but throughout the Western world. The situation was further aggravated by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, concluded between the Soviet government and Nazi Germany in August 1939. However, in general, the pre-war period did not provide economic opportunities - The Great Depression and forced industrialization and collectivization in the USSR - for both states to turn mutual hostility into any kind of hot conflict. And President Roosevelt quite adequately built his foreign policy line in relation to the country of the Soviets, although this was more likely due to national interest. We see that at the beginning of the Cold War there were ideological contradictions. Soviet state actively opposed the ideology of communism and socialism to the Western powers, former allies in the Entente. The thesis about class struggle and the impossibility of peaceful coexistence between states of two formations, put forward by the Bolsheviks, led to the gradual sliding of the world towards bipolar confrontation. On the American side, participation in the intervention against Soviet Russia It was rather caused by a reluctance to see the positions of Great Britain and France strengthened in Europe and Japan in the Far East. Thus, the pursuit of national interests on the one hand, which conflicted with the needs of the other, and the tenets of communist ideology laid the foundation new system relations between countries. The development paths of the allies in World War II after the victory over Nazi Germany diverged; in addition, the leaders of the two countries, Truman and Stalin, did not trust each other at all. It was obvious that both the USA and the USSR would aggressively expand their sphere of influence, although, in view of the emergence of nuclear weapons, by non-military means, since the use of the latter would result in the death of humanity or most of it. The post-war world opened up to the USA and the USSR vast expanses rivalry, which often turned into veiled diplomatic language, or even open hostility. Second half of the 40s - early 60s. Not only did they not resolve the disputes that already existed by that time, but they also added new ones. The mere fact that the main languages ​​have been enriched with a huge number of terms and concepts regarding relations between the Soviet Union and the United States from the very beginning of the Cold War eloquently testifies to the real tension of the international situation: “iron curtain”, “nuclear diplomacy”, “power politics” , “brinksmanship”, “domino principle”, “liberation doctrine”, “captive nations”, “crusade for freedom”, “doctrine of rolling back communism”, “strategy of massive retaliation”, “nuclear umbrella”, “missile shield” ”, “missile gap”, “flexible response strategy”, “escalatory dominance”, “bloc diplomacy” - about forty-five in total. The Cold War system includes everything: economic, political, intelligence war. But the main war, in our opinion, is a psychological war, only victory in it is a real victory. A victory, the fruits of which can really be used when building a new world order. Countries built their internal and foreign policy lines based on, some of them, anti-Soviet and anti-communist attitudes, others based on the postulate of hostility of imperialist circles. The practice of escalating the situation in public opinion was actively used. Governments actively used a variety of means to “throw mud at each other,” including such a powerful lever of pressure as education. The Cold War was (and still is) taught in a very one-sided way, both in one country and in another. However, the rudiment of this phenomenon remains the fact that we still cannot abandon the negative attitude towards Western countries in the education system. We continue to consider many aspects of general history and the history of the Fatherland through the prism of ideological prejudices, bias, from the position of the antinomy “not like ours means bad.” To sum up, we can say that the Cold War is a rather eloquent historical phenomenon. Using her example, you can show a lot, illustrate the various trends of our time. In addition, studying the Cold War brings us closer to a more objective assessment of history, which in turn should provide a more objective assessment of modern events. 7.3 UN General Assembly 7.4 Cold War 7.5 Children are soldiers of the Cold War. Wartime Wartime is a period when a state is at war with another state. In times of war, martial law is introduced in the country or in its individual regions. The beginning of wartime is the declaration of a state of war or the moment of the actual start of hostilities. The end of wartime is the declared day and hour of the cessation of hostilities. Wartime is a period when a state is at war with another country. A state of war arises from the moment it is declared by the highest body of state power or from the moment the actual outbreak of hostilities. Wartime is the special conditions of life of the state and society associated with the occurrence of a force majeure circumstance - war. Each state is obliged to fulfill its functions to protect its citizens from external threats. In turn, to perform these functions, the laws of all countries provide for the expansion of the powers of the state while simultaneously limiting the rights and freedoms of citizens. 8.1 Tank 8.2 A column of German prisoners of war passes through Stalingrad Legal consequences In accordance with the Federal Law “On Defense” in the Russian Federation, a state of war is declared by federal law in the event of an armed attack on the Russian Federation by another state or group of states, as well as in the event of the need to implement international treaties of the Russian Federation. From the moment the state of war is declared or the actual start of hostilities, war time begins, which expires from the moment the cessation of hostilities is declared, but not earlier than their actual cessation. Emergency measures aimed at the defense of the country related to the restriction of civil liberties are taken by all states. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln temporarily abolished fundamental civil rights. Woodrow Wilson did the same after the outbreak of World War I and Franklin Roosevelt did the same during World War II. Economic consequences The economic consequences of wartime are characterized by excessive government budget spending on defense needs. All the country's resources are directed to meet the needs of the army. Gold and foreign exchange reserves are put into circulation, the use of which is highly undesirable for the state. As a rule, these measures lead to hyperinflation. Social consequences The social consequences of wartime are characterized, first of all, by a significant deterioration in the standard of living of the population. The transition of the economy to fulfill military needs requires the maximum concentration of economic potential in the military sector. This entails an outflow of funds from the social sphere. In conditions of extreme necessity, in the absence of the ability to ensure commodity-money turnover, food system can switch to a card basis with strict metered distribution of products per person. 8.3 Hiroshima 8.4 Geogievskaya ribbon 8.5 Crusades Declaration of war The declaration of war is expressed in a special kind of solemn actions, indicating that the peace between these states has been broken and an armed struggle between them is ahead. The declaration of war has already been recognized in ancient times as an act required by national morality. The methods of declaring war are very different. At first they are symbolic in nature. The ancient Athenians, before starting a war, threw a spear at enemy country . The Persians demanded land and water as a sign of submission. The declaration of war was especially solemn in Ancient Rome, where the execution of these rites was entrusted to the so-called fetials. In medieval Germany, the act of declaring war was called "Absagung" (Diffidatio). 9.1 Warhead 9.2 Infantry According to the prevailing views of the French, it was considered necessary that at least 90 days elapse between the declaration of war and the start of it. Later, namely from the 17th century, the declaration of war was expressed in the form of special manifestos, but very often the clash began without prior notification (Seven Years' War). Before the war, Napoleon I issued a proclamation only for his troops. Special acts of declaring war have now fallen out of use. Usually a war is preceded by a break in diplomatic relations between states. Thus, the Russian government did not send a formal declaration of war to the Sultan in 1877 (Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878), but limited itself to informing the Porte, through its charge d'affaires, that diplomatic relations between Russia and Turkey had been interrupted. Sometimes the moment of the outbreak of war is determined in advance in the form of an ultimatum, which declares that failure to comply with this requirement within a certain period will be considered a legal reason for war (the so-called casus belli). The Constitution of the Russian Federation does not grant any government body the right to declare war; the president only has the power to declare martial law in the event of aggression or threat of aggression (defensive war). 9.3 Naval combat 9.4 Soldiers 9.5 Evacuation Martial law Martial law is a special legal regime in a state or part of it, which is established by a decision of the highest body of state power in the event of aggression against the state or an immediate threat of aggression. Martial law usually provides for significant restrictions on certain rights and freedoms of citizens, including such basic ones as freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, the right to trial, the right to inviolability of property, etc. In addition, judicial and executive powers may be transferred to military courts and military command. The procedure for introducing and the regime of Martial Law are determined by law. On the territory of the Russian Federation, the procedure for introducing, enforcing and canceling the martial law regime is defined in the federal constitutional law “On Martial Law”. 10.1 Ammunition 10.2 NATO tanks Transfer of armed forces to martial law Transfer to martial law - First stage strategic deployment of the Armed Forces, the process of their reorganization in accordance with the requirements of war. Includes bringing the armed forces to the highest levels of combat readiness with their mobilization, bringing formations, formations and units to full combat readiness. It can be carried out in stages or one-time, for all armed forces or parts of them, by region and direction. The decision on these actions is made by the highest political leadership state and is implemented through the Ministry of Defense. A state of war entails a number of legal consequences: termination of diplomatic and other relations between warring states, termination of international treaties, etc. In wartime, certain criminal legal acts, or parts of these regulations, come into force, tightening responsibility for certain crimes. At the same time, the fact of committing a crime in wartime is a qualifying feature of certain military crimes. According to Part 1 of Art. 331 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, criminal liability for crimes against military service committed in wartime or in a combat situation is determined by wartime legislation of the Russian Federation. In exceptionally difficult circumstances, changes in criminal proceedings or the complete abolition of individual stages are possible. Thus, in besieged Leningrad during the blockade, a resolution of local authorities was in force, ordering law enforcement agencies to shoot looters, robbers and robbers detained at the scene of a crime. Thus, the entire criminal process was limited to two stages - detention and execution of punishment, bypassing the preliminary investigation, court hearing, appeal and cassation proceedings. Martial Law is a special state-legal regime temporarily introduced by the highest state authority in the country or its individual parts in an emergency; characterized by the introduction of special (emergency) measures in the interests of protecting the state. The most significant features of Martial Law: expansion of the powers of military command and control bodies; imposing on citizens a number of additional responsibilities related to the defense of the country; restriction of the rights and freedoms of citizens and people. In areas declared under Martial Law, all functions of state power in the field of defense, ensuring public safety and public order are transferred to military authorities. They are given the right to impose on citizens and legal entities additional responsibilities(involve in labor conscription, confiscate vehicles for defense needs, etc.), regulate public order in accordance with the requirements of the social situation (limit street traffic, prohibit entry and exit into areas declared under Martial Law, regulate the operating hours of enterprises, institutions, etc. .). For disobedience to these bodies, for crimes directed against the security of the country and damaging its defense, if they are committed in areas declared under Martial Law, the perpetrators are held accountable under martial law. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Martial Law is introduced on the territory of the Russian Federation or in some of its localities in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation or an immediate threat of aggression by the President of the Russian Federation with immediate notification of the Federation Council and the State Duma. Approval of decrees on the introduction of Martial Law falls within the competence of the Federation Council. -Shapinsky V.I. 10.3 Modern war 10.4 War in the Congo 10.5 War and children Military operations Military operations are the organized use of forces and means of the armed forces to carry out combat missions Types of military operations: Combat operations; Battle; The battle; Military blockade; Sabotage; Ambush; Counter-offensive; Counterstrike; Offensive; Defense; Siege; Retreat; Street fight and others. 11.1 Siege 11.2 Combat Combat is a military and universal concept that describes emergency armed confrontation between groups of people specially trained for this (usually parts of the regular armed forces of national states). Military science understands combat operations as the organized use of forces and means to carry out assigned combat missions by units, formations and associations of branches of the Armed Forces (that is, waging war at the operational, operational-tactical and tactical levels of the organization). Waging war at a higher, strategic level of an organization is called warfare. Thus, combat operations are included in military operations as an integral part - for example, when a front conducts military operations in the form of a strategic offensive operation The armies and corps that are part of the front conduct combat operations in the form of offensives, envelopments, raids, and so on. Battle is an armed engagement (clash, battle, battle) between two or more parties who are at war with each other. The name of the battle usually comes from the area where it took place. IN military history The 20th century concept of battle describes the totality of battles of individual battalions as part of an overall major operation, for example the Battle of Kursk. Battles differ from battles in their scale and often their decisive role in the outcome of the war. Their duration could reach several months, and their geographical extent could be tens and hundreds of kilometers. In the Middle Ages, battles tended to be one connected event and lasted a few days at most. The battle took place in a compact area, usually in open areas, which could be fields or, in some cases, frozen lakes. The places of battles were imprinted in the people's memory for a long time; monuments were often erected on them and a special emotional connection was felt with them. Since the middle of the 19th century, the concepts of “battle,” “battle,” and “operation” have often been used as synonyms. For example: Battle of Borodino and Battle of Borodino. Combat is the main active form of action by military units (subunits, units, formations) on a tactical scale, an organized armed conflict limited in area and time. It is a set of strikes, fire and maneuvers of troops coordinated in terms of target, place and time. The battle can be defensive or offensive. A military blockade is a military action aimed at isolating an enemy object by cutting off its external connections. The military blockade is intended to prevent or minimize the transfer of reinforcements, the delivery of military equipment and logistics, and the evacuation of valuables. The objects of a military blockade can be: individual states, cities, fortified areas, points of strategic and operational importance with military garrisons, large groupings of troops in theaters of military operations and the armed forces as a whole, economic regions of the island, strait zones, bays, naval bases, ports. The blockade of a city or fortress with the intention of subsequently capturing this object is called a siege. The goals of the military blockade are: undermining the military-economic power of the state; depleting the forces and means of the blocked group of enemy armed forces; creating favorable conditions for its subsequent defeat; forcing the enemy to surrender; prohibiting the transfer of enemy forces to other directions. The blockade can be complete or partial, carried out on a strategic and operational scale. A blockade carried out on a tactical scale is called a blockade. A strategic military blockade may be accompanied by an economic blockade. Depending on the geographical location of the blockade object and the forces and means involved, the blockade can be land, air, sea or mixed. The ground blockade is carried out by ground forces in cooperation with aviation and air defense forces. Land blockades were already used in wars of the ancient world - for example, in Trojan War . In the 17th-19th centuries it was often used to capture powerful fortresses. An air blockade is usually part of a land and sea blockade, but if air power plays a decisive role, it is called an air blockade. An air blockade is carried out by aviation forces and air defense forces in order to suppress or minimize external communications of the blocked object by air (in order to prevent the receipt of material resources and reinforcements, as well as evacuation by air) by destroying enemy aircraft both in the air and at landing airfields and takeoff. In coastal areas, an air blockade is usually combined with a sea blockade. A naval blockade is carried out by the actions of the Navy - surface ships, submarines, carrier-based and base aircraft - patrolling approaches to the coast, installing minefields in the areas of ports, naval bases, on sea (ocean) communications, launching missile and bomb air and artillery strikes against important ground targets, as well as the destruction of all enemy ships at sea and at bases, and aviation in the air and at airfields. Sabotage (from Latin diversio - deviation, distraction) - actions of sabotage groups (units) or individuals behind enemy lines to disable military, industrial and other facilities, disrupt command and control, destroy communications, nodes and communication lines, destroy manpower and military equipment, impact on the moral and psychological state of the enemy. Ambush is a hunting technique; advance and carefully camouflaged placement of a military unit (hunter or partisans) on the most likely routes of movement of the enemy in order to defeat him with a surprise attack, capture prisoners and destroy military equipment; in the activities of law enforcement agencies - the secret placement of a capture group at the place where a criminal is expected to appear for the purpose of detaining him. A counteroffensive is a type of offensive, one of the main types of military operations (along with defense and oncoming combat). A distinctive feature from a simple offensive is that the side intending to launch a large-scale counterattack first exhausts the enemy as much as possible, knocking out the most combat-ready and mobile units from his ranks, while using all the advantages that a pre-prepared and targeted position provides. During the offensive, troops, unexpectedly for the enemy, seize the initiative and impose their will on the enemy. The greatest consequences for the enemy come from the fact that, unlike defense, where the rear units are pulled away from the front line, the advancing enemy pulls them as close as possible in order to be able to supply his advancing troops. When the enemy’s onslaught is stopped and units of the defenders go on a counter-offensive, the rear units of the attackers find themselves defenseless and most often end up in a “cauldron”. Counterstrike is a strike delivered by troops of an operational formation (front, army, army corps) in a defensive operation to defeat a group of enemy troops that has penetrated into the depths of the defense, restore the lost position and create favorable conditions for launching a counteroffensive. It can be carried out in one or several directions by forces of the second echelons, operational reserves, part of the forces of the first echelon, as well as by troops withdrawn from secondary sectors of the front. It is supported by the main aviation forces and a specially created artillery group. In the direction of the counterattack, airborne assault forces can be landed and raid detachments can be used. As a rule, it is applied to the flanks of a wedged enemy group. It can be carried out directly against the main forces of the advancing enemy in order to dissect them and oust them from the occupied area. In any conditions, the counterattack should, if possible, be based on those sections of the front where the enemy is stopped or detained. If this is not possible, the beginning of a counterattack takes the form of an oncoming battle. Offensive is the main type of military action (along with defense and oncoming combat), based on the attacking actions of the armed forces. It is used to defeat the enemy (destroy manpower, military equipment, infrastructure) and capture important areas, borders and objects on enemy territory. Counteroffensive near Moscow, 1941 In accordance with the military doctrines of most states and military blocs, the offensive, as a type of military action, is given preference over defensive military actions. An offensive consists of striking the enemy with various military means on land, in the air and at sea, destroying the main groupings of his troops and decisively using the success achieved by rapidly advancing one’s troops and enveloping the enemy. The scale of the offensive can be strategic, operational and tactical. The offensive is carried out with full effort, at a high tempo, non-stop day and night, in any weather, with close interaction of all units. During the offensive, the troops seize the initiative and impose their will on the enemy. The goal of the offensive is to achieve a certain success, to consolidate which a transition to defense or an offensive on other sectors of the front is possible. Defense is a type of military action based on protective actions armed forces. It is used to disrupt or stop the enemy’s offensive, to hold important areas, boundaries and objects on one’s territory, to create conditions for going on the offensive, and for other purposes. Consists of defeating the enemy with fire (in nuclear war and nuclear) strikes, repelling his fire and nuclear strikes, offensive actions taken on the ground, in the air and at sea, countering the enemy’s attempts to seize held lines, areas, objects, and defeating his invading force groups. Defense can have strategic, operational and tactical significance. Defense is organized in advance or is carried out as a result of enemy troops going on the offensive. Usually, along with repelling enemy attacks, defense also includes elements of offensive actions (inflicting retaliatory, oncoming and preemptive fire strikes, conducting counterstrikes and counterattacks, defeating the attacking enemy in the areas of his base, deployment and initial lines), the proportion of which characterizes the level her activity. In the ancient world and in the Middle Ages, fortified cities, fortresses, and castles were used for defense. With the equipping of armies (from the 14th-15th centuries) with firearms, the construction of field defensive fortifications began, mainly earthen ones, which were used to fire at the enemy and shelter from his cannonballs and bullets. Appearance in mid-19th The century of rifled weapons, which have a greater rate of fire and firing range, has necessitated the need to improve methods of defense. To increase its stability, the battle formations of troops began to be echeloned in depth. A siege is a prolonged military blockade of a city or fortress with the intention of capturing the object by subsequent assault or forcing the garrison to capitulate as a result of exhaustion of its forces. The siege begins subject to resistance from the city or fortress, if capitulation is rejected by the defenders and the city or fortress cannot be captured quickly. The besiegers usually completely blockade the objective, disrupting the supply of ammunition, food, water and other resources. During a siege, attackers may use siege weapons and artillery to destroy fortifications and make tunnels to penetrate the site. The emergence of siege as a method of warfare is associated with the development of cities. During excavations of ancient cities in the Middle East, signs of defensive structures in the form of walls were discovered. During the Renaissance and early modern period the siege was the main method of warfare in Europe. Leonardo da Vinci's fame as a creator of fortifications is commensurate with his fame as an artist. Medieval military campaigns relied heavily on the success of sieges. IN Napoleonic era the use of more powerful artillery weapons led to a decrease in the importance of fortifications. By the beginning of the 20th century, the fortress walls were replaced with moats, and the fortress castles were replaced with bunkers. In the 20th century, the meaning of the classical siege almost disappeared. With the advent of mobile warfare, the only heavily fortified fortress does not have such of decisive importance , as it was before. The siege method of warfare has exhausted itself with the advent of the possibility of delivering huge volumes of destructive means to a strategic target. Retreat is a forced or deliberate abandonment by troops of occupied lines (areas) and their withdrawal to new lines deep within their territory in order to create a new grouping of forces and assets for subsequent combat operations. The retreat is carried out on an operational and strategic scale. Troops were forced to resort to retreat in many wars of the past. Thus, in the Patriotic War of 1812, Russian troops under the command of M.I. Kutuzov deliberately retreated from Moscow in order to replenish the army and prepare a counteroffensive. In the same war, Napoleon's army was forced to retreat from Moscow to Smolensk and Vilna in order to avoid defeat from attacks by Russian troops. In the first period of the Great Patriotic War, Soviet troops, conducting active defensive actions, were forced to retreat in order to withdraw units and formations from the attacks of superior enemy forces and gain time to create a stable defense with the forces of strategic reserves and retreating troops. The retreat was carried out mainly in an organized manner, on the orders of the senior commander. To ensure the exit of the main forces from the battle against the most threatening enemy groupings, air and artillery strikes were usually carried out, measures were taken to covertly withdraw the main forces to lines advantageous for conducting defensive operations, and counterattacks (counterstrikes) were launched against the enemy groupings that had broken through. The retreat usually ended with the troops moving to the defensive at the specified line. After World War II, the term retreat was not used in the official manuals and regulations of the armies of most states. Retreat actions or only withdrawal from the battle and withdrawal are provided for. Street fighting is a fight in the city, often using improvised means (bottles, stones, bricks), edged weapons. Street fighting is characterized by the transience of the clash and its locality. 11.3 Riot 11.4 Military conflicts 11.5 Naval warfare Prisoners of war A prisoner of war is the name of a person captured by the enemy during a war with weapons in his hands. According to existing military laws, a prisoner of war who surrenders voluntarily to avoid danger does not deserve leniency. According to our military regulations on punishments, the leader of a detachment who lays down his weapon in front of the enemy or concludes capitulation with him, without fulfilling his duty according to duty and in accordance with the requirements of military honor, is expelled from service and deprived of ranks; if the surrender is made without a fight, despite the opportunity to defend itself, then it is subject to death penalty. The commandant of a fortified place who surrenders it without fulfilling his duty in accordance with the duty of the oath and in accordance with the requirements of military honor is subject to the same execution. V.'s fate was different at different times and in different countries. The barbarian peoples of antiquity and the Middle Ages often killed all prisoners without exception; The Greeks and Romans, although they did not do this, turned captives into slavery and released them only for a ransom corresponding to the rank of the captive. With the spread of Christianity and enlightenment, the fate of V. began to become easier. Officers are sometimes released on their word of honor that during the war or a certain time they will not fight against the state in which they were captured. Anyone who breaks his word is considered dishonest and may be executed if captured again. According to Austrian and Prussian laws, officers who escaped from captivity contrary to their word of honor are dismissed from service. Captured lower ranks are sometimes used for government work, which, however, should not be directed against their fatherland. V.'s property, excluding weapons, is considered inviolable. During a war, military units can be exchanged with the consent of the warring parties, and usually an equal number of persons of the same rank are exchanged. At the end of the war, V. are released to their homeland without any ransom for them. 11.6 Prisoners 11.7 Prisoners of the Second World War 11.8 German prisoners of war Armed forces using the example of the Russian Federation The Armed Forces are an armed organization of the state, including regular and irregular military formations of the state. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (AF of Russia) is a military organization of the Russian Federation, intended for the defense of the Russian state, the protection of freedom and independence of Russia, one of the most important weapons of political power. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces is the President of Russia. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation include the ground forces, air force, navy, as well as such individual branches of the military as space and airborne troops and the Strategic Missile Forces. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are one of the most powerful in the world, numbering more than a million personnel, distinguished by the presence of the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons and a well-developed system of means of delivering them to targets. 12.1 Army 12.2 Army Supreme Commander-in-Chief The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are the President of the Russian Federation (Part 1, Article 87 of the Russian Constitution). In the event of aggression against the Russian Federation or an immediate threat of aggression, he introduces martial law on the territory of the Russian Federation or in certain localities in order to create conditions for its reflection or prevention, with immediate notification of this to the Federation Council and the State Duma for approval of the corresponding decree (regime martial law is determined by federal constitutional law of January 30, 2002 No. 1-FKZ “On martial law”). To resolve the issue of the possibility of using the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation outside the territory of the Russian Federation, a corresponding resolution of the Federation Council is necessary. The President of Russia also forms and heads the Security Council of the Russian Federation (clause “g” of Article 83 of the Constitution); approves the military doctrine of the Russian Federation (clause “z” of Article 83); appoints and dismisses the high command of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (clause “l” of Article 83). Direct leadership of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (except for civil defense troops, border and internal troops) is carried out by the Russian Ministry of Defense. History of the Russian Army Army of Ancient Rus' Army of Muscovite Rus' Army of the Russian Empire White Army Armed Forces of the USSR History of the Red Army Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Armed Forces of Belarus Armed Forces of Ukraine The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had common Armed Forces for all republics (including the RSFSR) difference from the departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. After the collapse of the USSR, attempts were made to maintain unified armed forces within the CIS, but the result was a division between the union republics. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation were organized on May 7, 1992 by decree of the President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin as the successor to the Soviet Army and Navy. On December 15, 1993, the Charter of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was adopted. The peacekeeping forces of the Russian Army took part in containing a number of armed conflicts on the territory of the former USSR: the Moldavian-Transnistrian conflict, the Georgian-Abkhazian and the Georgian-South Ossetian. 201st motorized rifle division was left in Tajikistan during the outbreak of the civil war of 1992-1996. During the Ossetian-Ingush conflict from October 31 to November 4, 1992, troops were brought into the region. The question of the neutrality of Russia's role in these conflicts is debatable; in particular, Russia is reproached for actually siding with Armenia in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Proponents of this view predominate in Western countries, which are increasing pressure on Russia to withdraw troops from Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Proponents of the opposite point of view point out that Western countries are thus pursuing their national interests, fighting the growing influence of Russia in Armenia, Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where pro-Russian sentiments have won. The Russian army took part in two Chechen wars - 1994-96 ("restoration of constitutional order") and 1999-actually until 2006 ("counter-terrorism operation") - and in the war in South Ossetia in August 2008 ("Peace Enforcement Operation") . Structure of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Air Force Ground Forces Navy Branches of the Armed Forces Strategic Missile Forces Space Forces Airborne Forces The Armed Forces consist of three types of the Armed Forces, three branches of the armed forces, the Logistics of the Armed Forces, the Cantonment and Accommodation Service of the Ministry of Defense, railway troops and other troops not included in the branches of the Armed Forces. According to press reports, conceptual documents of long-term planning, which are being developed in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, provide for the solution of a number of fundamental tasks in the field of defense and military development: - maintaining the potential of strategic deterrent forces, capable of causing damage in response, the extent of which would call into question the achievement the goals of any possible aggression against Russia. The way to solve the problem is the balanced development and maintenance of a sufficient level of combat strength of the strategic nuclear forces and missile and space defense forces. By 2010, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces will have two missile armies with 10-12 missile divisions (as of 2004 - three armies and 17 divisions), armed with mobile and silo missile systems. At the same time, heavy 15A18 missiles equipped with ten warheads will remain on combat duty until 2016. The Navy should be armed with 13 strategic nuclear missile submarines with 208 ballistic missiles, and the Air Force should be armed with 75 Tu-160 and Tu-95MS strategic bombers; 12.3 Cavalry - increasing the capabilities of the Armed Forces to a level that ensures guaranteed reflection of current and possible future military threats to Russia. To this end, self-sufficient groups of troops and forces will be created in five potentially dangerous strategic directions (Western, South-West, Central Asian, South-East and Far East), designed to neutralize and localize armed conflicts; - improving the structure of military command and control. Starting from 2005, the functions of combat employment of troops and forces will be transferred to the General Staff. The main commands of the branches and branches of the armed forces will be responsible only for the training of their troops, their development and comprehensive support; - ensuring the independence of Russia in terms of the development and production of weapons and military equipment of strategic importance. In 2006, the State Arms Development Program for 2007-2015 was approved. 12.4 Armed forces

More details at