France. A story of enmity, rivalry and love

COLONIAL WARS, wars for the seizure of countries and territories in order to turn them into colonies and maintain dominance in them, as well as for the redistribution of colonies. Colonial wars are the most important element in the formation of the world capitalist system. They arose during the period of the Great Geographical Discoveries, when hitherto unknown lands became the object of armed seizures by European states and the formation of colonial empires began. Colonial wars unfolded, as a rule, in overseas territories, for their conduct, the presence of large navies acquired paramount importance. In the first half of the 16th century, the Spaniards enslaved a significant part of Central and South America, the Portuguese took possession of a vast territory in Asia and Africa; Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires developed. Since the end of the 16th century, the Netherlands, having taken a dominant position in the world market, took possession of most of the Portuguese colonies, but, in turn, lost their colonial hegemony as a result of the Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th-18th centuries. In the 18th century, the main struggle for colonies unfolded between Great Britain and France (see the Seven Years' War of 1756-63). In the 19th century, there was an intensive seizure of the still remaining free countries and territories. Great Britain waged colonial wars in South Asia and other areas. France conquered large parts of Indochina and East Africa. Colonial wars in Africa were launched in the 2nd half of the 19th century by Germany and Italy. The Caucasian War of 1817-64, the Kokand campaigns, the Khiva campaigns and a number of other wars of the Russian Empire had some features of the colonial war.

For the conduct of colonial wars, the armies of the metropolitan states were used, colonial troops were created, which, as a rule, had a decisive superiority in weapons and often waged war on the conquered territories to exterminate entire peoples. Colonial wars were considered "small wars" for the conquerors in terms of the forces and means involved, and the loss of personnel.

By the end of the 19th century, a colonial system had developed, covering 54.9% of the territory and 35.2% of the world's population. Colonial wars became a means of preserving and redistributing colonial territories and spheres of influence of the imperialist powers (see the Spanish-American War of 1898, the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, etc.). In the 20th century, the colonization of individual countries continued [for example, the Italo-Ethiopian war of 1935-36 (see Italo-Ethiopian wars); Spanish-Reef war in Morocco 1921-24, Franco-Spanish-Reef war 1925-1926]. Colonial wars were waged in order to acquire new sources of raw materials and markets, to expand the sphere of investment of capital. In many ways, these reasons were caused by the First World War of 1914-18 and the Second World War of 1939-45.

After World War II, the national liberation struggle of the peoples intensified, and the disintegration of the colonial system began. During this period, the metropolitan states waged colonial wars to preserve their colonies (France - in Algeria, Cameroon, Morocco, Tunisia, Madagascar; Great Britain - in Burma, Malaya and Kenya; Portugal - in Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique; South Africa - in Namibia, etc.) or to restore the colonial regime in young nation-states (France - in the countries of Indochina, the Netherlands - in Indonesia). With the elimination of the colonial system by the end of the 20th century, more than 90 independent nation-states arose. With their active participation, international legal norms condemning and prohibiting colonial wars were developed. Nevertheless, with the collapse of traditional colonialism, the former metropolises and other developed countries, and at the end of the 20th century, within the framework of the policy of neo-colonialism, more than once resorted to armed intervention to establish in the newly-liberated states the political regime they wanted, to ensure their dominance over the still remaining dependent territories (for example, , US aggression against Grenada in 1983).

Lit .: Marx K. English cruelties in China // Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. M., 1958. T. 12; Engels F. The English army in India //Ibid.; Tarle E. V. Essays on the history of the colonial policy of Western European states: (end of the 15th - beginning of the 19th century). M.; L., 1965; Malinovsky GV Modern local wars of imperialism against peoples fighting for national independence. M., 1972; Armed struggle of the peoples of Africa for freedom and independence. M., 1974; Mnatsakanyan M. O. Colonialism and its historical forms. M., 1976; Armed struggle of the peoples of Asia for freedom and independence, 1945-1980. M., 1984; Kirshin Yu. Ya., Popov V. M., Savushkin R. A. The political content of modern wars. M., 1987.

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

Using this advantage in military equipment, they inflicted great damage on the troops of Asian countries, while suffering relatively small losses. So, for example, an expedition to China in 1860-1861. cost the lives of 841 French soldiers and officers, of whom only 28 died in battle *;
from the expedition to Cochinchina in 1861-1862. 907 French died (including those who died of disease).
France's attempts to settle on the American continent also cost her victims. These were expeditions to Mexico in 1838 and 1839, to the Marquesas and Tahiti in 1844 and 1846, to Argentina and Uruguay in 1845. A few decades later, Napoleon III made an attempt to strengthen the influence of France in North America. To this end, in 1861 he undertook an expedition of 25,36,000 troops to Mexico. In 1863, French troops entered the capital of Mexico, destroyed the republican system in the country and established a monarchy. However, a few years later, the Mexican people threw off the yoke of the interventionists and expelled them from the country. In this war, French losses amounted to 1180 people killed and died of wounds.
In total for 1830-1870. the French colonial army lost 411 officers killed; taking into account the ratio between the losses of officers and soldiers, we get that about 10 thousand soldiers died.
During the period of the third republic, the colonial expansion of France did not stop; she captured Madagascar, Tonkin, Tunisia and Morocco and expanded her colonial possessions in Senegal and Cochin. In 1871, an uprising broke out again in Algeria, which resulted in 340 battles between the Algerians and the 86,000 French army. In total, according to Bodar's calculations, during the period of the third republic, 146 French officers were killed in colonial expeditions in Africa, which corresponded to approximately the loss of 3 thousand soldiers. Over 1,000 soldiers were killed in Tonkin during the war. The rest of the captures cost the French little casualties. For example, in 1895, during the capture of Madagascar, only 2 people were killed, in 1890, during an expedition to Dahomey -31, in 1892 - 77 soldiers and officers. General losses of France in colonial expeditions for the period 1815-1897. amounted to approximately 15 thousand killed.
England. Back in the 18th century England tried to penetrate the African continent, but her expeditions were not limited to

large areas and were accompanied by minor military operations. Only in the 19th century, when Portugal and Spain were already finally driven back, did England take active steps to seize a significant part of the African continent. British attempts to settle in 1824-1826 on the west coast of Africa, they encountered stubborn resistance from the Negro Ashanti tribes (occupying the current territory of the state of Ghana), and the British were forced to recognize their independence. Only in 1896 did the British finally subdue this part of Africa. Subsequent British military operations were more successful for them, and gradually they captured one part of Africa after another.
Throughout the 19th century the British had a large number of armed clashes with the indigenous population in Africa, but the British losses were insignificant, since the British had a large superiority in weapons. We do not have complete data on the number of soldiers and officers of the British colonial troops killed. But on the basis of materials on individual military operations, one can get an approximate idea of ​​​​the final figures.
It is known, for example, that in one battle with the Ashanti tribes in 1824, 42 English soldiers and officers were killed; in the war against Egypt in 1840, the total number of killed and wounded English soldiers and officers did not exceed 100 people. The expedition to Egypt in 1882 was also not accompanied by significant losses (a total of 93 soldiers and officers died). In 1846-1853. the British waged war in Africa with the Kaffir tribes (the so-called war over the ax).
In 1868 the British tried to penetrate Abyssinia. In battles with the Abyssinians from the army in 3909 people, 2 officers and 28 soldiers were wounded. In 1873, during an expedition against the Ashanti tribe, only 10 Englishmen were killed. The British suffered much more damage in the war with the Kaffir and Zulu tribes. From August 1878 to October 3, 1879, 33 officers and 777 soldiers from the regular British army were killed during military operations.
The British also suffered losses in operations in eastern Sudan. To seize these lands, in 1898 they put up an army of 25,000, armed with the latest weapons. The insignificance of losses during other British military expeditions in Africa is also evidenced by data on the number of troops participating in them. So, for example, in the last wars with the Ashanti tribe in 1895-1896 and 1900. 1.5-2 thousand soldiers participated
and officers; in the first war with the Boers - 1.5 thousand; on an expedition to the Sudan in 1884-1885. - 13 thousand; in operations in East Africa and in Uganda in 1897-1901. - 600-1500 soldiers and officers, etc. The size of the English losses will be even smaller, given that England has always tried to fight by proxy. There were a significant number of Indians in the British troops. The first time the British used Indian troops in Africa was during an expedition to the Sudan in 1884-1885, when an Indian brigade was formed.
In the wars with kaffirs in 1878-1879. the British lost more than 1 thousand people killed. In the rest of the wars in Africa, British losses were measured by only tens of people in each of them. On this basis, we can assume that the total number of British killed in the colonial wars in Africa for 1815-1897 probably did not exceed 2 thousand people.
On the Asian continent, the British invaders in the XIX century. consolidated and expanded their colonial possessions. The British suffered considerable losses in battles with the Indians, who bravely fought for their national independence.
Throughout most of the first half of the nineteenth century. The British did not stop seizing new lands. The war with Nepal lasted more than two years (1814-1816). Ten years later, the British started a war in Burma, which also lasted two years. In 1843, Sindh was conquered. In 1845-1846 and 1848-1849. there were wars with the Sikhs, as a result of which the British conquered the Punjab. By the middle of the last century, the capture of India by the British imperialists was completed, but the resistance of the Indian people was not broken. It found particularly vivid expression in the Indian national uprising of the sepoys, which began in 1857 and engulfed the millions of peasants who joined them. This uprising was put down by the British in 1859.
Despite the large number of military operations, the combat losses of the British due to the sharp superiority of their military equipment were small. So, for example, in the main battle during the conquest of Sindh, the British lost 275 people, while the Indians lost 6 thousand people].
In the war with the Sikhs, the British suffered much more damage. So, in one battle at Chilianwala in 1849, the British lost 2338 people killed and wounded 2. In the second half of the 19th century. British military operations in India were insignificant, but they brought heavy losses to the British. The English military historian Sheppard gives the following data on military operations on the northwestern borders

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

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

Given that even before the Battle of Adua, the second Italian infantry brigade lost a fourth of its strength, and the first infantry brigade - a sixth, and also given the losses during the war with the Bedouins after the capture of Libya, the total loss of Italians killed during the colonial wars in Africa can be take equal to 5 thousand people.
Netherlands. Prolonged wars were also waged by the Dutch colonialists, who penetrated into Indonesia at the end of the 16th century. In 1825, a Javanese uprising broke out, and it took the Dutch army 5 years to suppress it. During the hostilities, about 250 thousand Javanese were exterminated. In addition, the Dutch waged long wars for the capture of the island of Borneo. But the resistance of the inhabitants of the Sultanate of Atye (the northern part of the island of Sumatra) was especially stubborn. The war with Atye, which began in J873, ended only 30 years later. In this war, the Dutch army suffered no small losses. In just 20 days of the first expedition in 1873, which ended in the defeat of the colonialists, the Dutch lost 466 soldiers and officers killed and wounded. In the other expeditions that followed, losses also resulted in hundreds of soldiers and officers. In total, over the course of 15 years, the Dutch sent 60 thousand soldiers and officers to the islands. Given, on the one hand, that there were many Asians in the Dutch troops and, on the other hand, significant mortality from diseases, it can be assumed that the number of Dutch soldiers and officers killed in the colonial wars during the period under review did not exceed 10 thousand people.
Russia. Turning to the analysis of the losses of tsarist Russia in the wars for the annexation of the Caucasus and Central Asia, it should be noted that, despite the colonial policy of tsarism, this annexation played a positive role in introducing the peoples of the outskirts to the Russian economy and culture. This was noted by F. Engelsov back in 1851 in a letter to Marx: “Russia really plays a progressive role in relation to the East ... The domination of Russia plays a civilizing role for the Black and Caspian Seas and Central Azin, for the Bashkirs and Tatars ... »
The Caucasian wars required quite significant sacrifices. Highlanders, using the advantages of mountainous terrain, stubbornly resisted the tsarist troops. The history of the conquest of the Caucasus is the history of continuous skirmishes that brought significant damage to the Russian army. The number of Russian soldiers killed in the most important 10 military operations exceeds 4 thousand people. But, in addition to these major battles, the history of the Caucasian wars knows hundreds of small skirmishes, the losses in which were expressed in dozens of people killed.

To characterize the losses of Russian troops in the Caucasian wars, we will use monographs on the history of individual regiments. So, for example, in the Tengin regiment for 1820-1845, according to our calculations, made on the basis of lists, 429 soldiers were killed. "But the Tengins were not alone in military operations. In four military operations of which there is information, he was killed 21 Tengins with a total number of those killed in 114. If we assume that about a quarter of all losses fell on the Tengins, then this means that about 2 thousand people died in the military operations in which the Tengin regiment participated.
The Nizhny Novgorod Dragoon Regiment also took a significant part in the Caucasian wars. According to our calculations, made according to the regimental combat synodik, in the Caucasian wars for 1815-1864. 14 officers of the regiment were killed.
The Kabardian infantry regiment took a particularly active part in the Caucasian wars. In the regimental garden in Khasav-Yurt (the former residence of the regiment in peacetime) there is a monument with the following inscription: "The Kabardian regiment in business with the highlanders in the Caucasus from 1839 to 1860 of all ranks killed 2131, wounded 3084." During the same period, 51 officers were killed and died of wounds, that is, there was 1 officer for about 40 soldiers. In 1816-1838. 6 officers were killed, which roughly corresponded to the death of 250 soldiers. Considering the losses since 1860 outside the Kuban, in Chechnya and Dagestan - during the suppression of the uprisings of the Caucasian peoples - we can assume that during the Caucasian wars, starting in 1815, the Kabardian regiment lost about 3 thousand people killed. The Kabardian regiment in a number of campaigns accounted for about 10% of all losses of Russian troops. So, in 1845, 53 officers were killed in battle, including 5 officers of the Kabardian regiment. In total, 1391 soldiers and officers were killed in the campaign of 1845 in the Caucasus, but this was a particularly difficult year. The historian of the Kabardian regiment speaks of it as a year that cost "enormous sacrifices", which "will be very memorable for the Caucasus."
The number of Russian losses in the Caucasian wars was established by Gisetti. In total for 1801-1864. 24946 soldiers and officers were killed, and minus losses in 1801-1815. - 23135 soldiers and

officers. Average annual losses killed for 1801-1864. were 361 people.
During the conquest of Central Asia, although it dragged on for decades, the losses could not be particularly large, since the number of all expeditionary troops was usually expressed in thousands of people. During the occupation of Tashkent, Russian losses amounted to only 125 people killed and wounded. During the capture of Khujand in 1866, 140 Russian soldiers and officers were killed, wounded and shell-shocked, and during the capture of Ura-Tyube and Dzhizak, 224 people were killed and wounded. In 1868, during the conquest of the Zeravshan district, 350 people were killed and wounded. This figure was considered very significant for the Central Asian expeditions, and the authors of the text immediately point out that "this year's campaign cost our troops dearly." Of the 350 killed and wounded, no more than 100 were killed. But there were expeditions with a large number of dead. So, during one assault on the Akhal-Teke expedition, the Russians lost 185 soldiers and officers killed. In total, in 1879-1881, according to Terentyev's estimates, 523 Russian soldiers and officers were killed.
The total number of those killed is, according to the materials presented, 1.5 thousand people. If we also take into account the rest of the operations not listed here, then we can assume that during the entire period of the Central Asian campaigns, starting from 1815, about a thousand Russian soldiers and officers were killed.
The total number of soldiers and officers of the European armies killed in the colonial wars for 1815-1897 amounted to 106 thousand people.
The number of those killed in colonial wars will be especially significant if one considers that the above figure of 106,000 killed pertains to only one side, that is, to the armies of the colonial powers. The losses of the other side are much greater, since the poorly armed indigenous population died by the thousands from the well-armed armies of the European "civilizers". For example, in 1898, in the Battle of Omdurman in Sudan, the troops of the indigenous population, against whom the British used Maxim machine guns, lost 20 thousand people killed, while the losses of the British themselves were negligible. “A wave of death swept away the advancing enemy before our eyes,” wrote an English correspondent about this battle. During the Afghan wars in the battle of Kandahar, the British lost 40 people killed, and the Afghans lost 1 thousand people.

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

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

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

? I. ? b-.
hsch.
her.
to
3 * ’
i i * "he ^d 0)
g h s
about
and
lt;Tgt;

lt; "
uh*
r1°^dj
S3
=E
O
az

about " ;
21
h
about
FROM

?Х g
f*1

Continuation

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

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

Urlanis

Continuation

in l¦!.
to O n I * U O u n C [_ h CXg n

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

?*oo
w CL* Jr
S ffC(N

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

*11"
Egs and
go gt;, oh-oh, mo oh-oh
lt; and E*
S2 h
^G-1 .??

CQ I'm about
about "
Do "uh cj_" w r?
s s o
m 1 O..
O-03 cj ta
=r = s?

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

a.
V
about
h
TO*
X
lt;

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

COLONIAL WARS

Almost in each of the countries liberated from colonial dependence, on the main squares there are monuments to "field commanders" - participants in the struggle against the colonialists. However, if the native authorities had a conscience, they would have erected three monuments each - to Lenin, Stalin and Grand Admiral Dennitsa. After all, it was thanks to their deeds that the system of colonialism collapsed.

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

Officials and missionaries inspired the natives that France (England, Holland) is the most powerful power in the world and all peoples are afraid of it. Indeed, the last Anglo-French war ended in 1815, and nothing threatened the power of the colonialists from outside. I note that tsarist Russia never interfered in the affairs of the colonies of England and France, although these powers constantly climbed into the smallest border conflicts of Russia and even into its internal affairs in the Caucasus, in the Privislensky region and Central Asia. Thanks to this, England and France were able to hold huge empires "on which the sun never set" with the help of small garrisons, in which most of the lower ranks were natives.

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

During the Second World War, German submarines, commanded by Grand Admiral Karl Dennits, seriously disrupted maritime communications between mother countries and colonies. This led to the "autonomization" of the colonies, both economically and politically, as well as militarily. The colonies switched to self-sufficiency in industrial goods, London and Paris were not up to managing overseas territories, and, finally, the percentage of natives in the colonial troops greatly increased.

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

So, from March 1947 to January 1948, a fierce war was going on in Madagascar between French troops and the local population. Over 100 thousand Malagasies were killed. The state of siege on the island was lifted only in March 1956. And on October 4, 1958, Madagascar received the status of a republic - a member of the French Community. On June 26, 1960, the island became an independent Republic of Malgash.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first stage of the destruction of the enemy grouping began on March 13, 1954. After a 40-minute artillery preparation, a powerful fire raid on the front line of the enemy's defense, the infantry went on the attack. At the same time, 16 aircraft were damaged by artillery fire at the airfield. The French aviation made several attempts to destroy the artillery of the People's Army, but unexpectedly was met with dense fire from anti-aircraft artillery and heavy machine guns, which shot down 25 French aircraft. Now aviation could only bomb from heights of at least 3 thousand meters, which significantly reduced the accuracy of its bombing strikes. Since the Vietnamese prepared special shelters for the guns on the slopes of the mountains, the effectiveness of air strikes turned out to be very low.

On March 30, the second stage of the operation began, which was aimed at capturing important strategic objects and strongholds of the enemy. The tactics of hostilities were changed. Instead of simultaneous attacks by large forces from different directions, the Vietnamese began to use "tactics of small losses." Its essence was as follows. From the nearest shelter to the enemy's stronghold - the object of attack - a hidden communication path came off. When a few tens of meters remained before the object of attack, they began to tear off a trench, which was used as a starting position during the assault on a strong point. With these lines of communication, some strong points were cut off from the main positions, which often forced the enemy to leave strong points and withdraw without a fight. After capturing the nearest point, the course of communication was increased further into the depth of the enemy defense, to the next strong point. Using this tactic on the entire front of the offensive, the troops of the People's Army during April 1954 eventually took the local airfield. The defense of the French was divided into two isolated groups.

The losses grew. The number of dead and wounded approached the 5,000 mark. The evacuation of the wounded was extremely difficult, the morale of the French soldiers and officers was noticeably undermined. Stocks of food and ammunition were running low. Cargo dropped from aircraft for the besieged garrison often fell into the location of the Vietnamese troops. General Navarre proposed to divide the surrounded French troops into three groups and break into Laos, to the border with which there were some 20 km, but nothing happened. The Americans began to rescue the French, starting the airlift of weapons and food from their bases in Japan and the Philippines. But this did not affect the overall balance of power.

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

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

The fighting near Dien Bien Phu caused serious concern in Washington. "The French have no will to win!" - said the then US Vice President Nixon. “If the French leave Indochina,” he intimidated, “communist rule will be established there in a month. The government must take a sober look at the situation and send its armed forces.

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

But Washington's most "cherished" plans were developed in the top-secret G-3, the army's planning department. His strategists came to the conclusion that "nuclear weapons can alleviate the situation of the French in Dien Bien Phu." It was supposed to use from one to six atomic bombs with a capacity of 31 kilotons, which were supposed to be dropped by aircraft based on aircraft carriers. Each such bomb was about three times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Judging by the newly published book Advice and Support: The Early Years, the first volume of the 17-volume official history of US activities in Vietnam, the G-3 documents concluded without too much sentimentality: the use of nuclear weapons "is feasible both technically and and militarily."

The use of "flying fortresses" and aircraft carrier aircraft by the Americans, of course, would not have saved Dien Bien Phu. This was shown by the battles in South Vietnam in 1965-1972. The use of six nuclear bombs would not have changed the situation either. The use of a nuclear bomb on a huge city, where the vast majority of buildings are wooden, is one thing, but a 20-30 kiloton nuclear strike on infantry sheltered in dugouts and burrows is a completely different matter. In this case, a company or two will be destroyed. And the quadratic probable deviation (QEP) of a bomb dropped by a flying fortress from a height of about 10 km is tens or even hundreds of meters. So in the case of the use of nuclear weapons on the front line of the Vietnamese, the French could also be hit.

In any case, Dien Bien Phu would have fallen anyway, but communist propaganda around the world would have been able to brand the United States as the enemy of all mankind.

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

But back to the Vietnam War. In Paris, they began to look for "scapegoats", and on June 9, 1954, the Laniel government received a vote of no confidence and resigned. The new French prime minister, Pierre Mendès-France, issued a statement saying that he would bring peace to Indochina within a month. On July 21, 1954, the Geneva Conference successfully completed its work. Agreements were signed on the cessation of hostilities in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, and ways were outlined for the further peaceful development of these countries that were part of French Indochina.

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

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

South Vietnam turned from a colony of France into a protectorate of the United States. General elections for the unification of the whole country were not held either in 1956 or later. North Vietnam had to solve problems by other means. 20 years later, after a brutal war, the North Vietnamese, with the support of the USSR and the PRC, squeezed the Yankees out of South Vietnam and united their people into a single state.

Before the Vietnam War ended, the French government dragged the country into a new crisis, this time in the Middle East, in Egypt.

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

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

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

But the construction of the dam in Aswan required huge funds. And so Nasser turned to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) with a request for a loan of 1.3 billion dollars, at that time a huge sum. The bank was then, as now, controlled by the United States. And so the bankers offered their terms to Nasser: the Egyptian government undertakes to direct all the country's internal resources to this construction during the period of construction of the dam, that is, 15 years. Creditors will be given the opportunity to monitor the implementation of this obligation and audit the Egyptian economy. Further, Egypt does not have the right to take loans from other states during this time. The IBRD, which would guarantee the loan, is competent to monitor Egypt's economy and control its government budget to have an idea of ​​the extent to which Egypt is able to repay the money.

The President of Egypt listened attentively to IBRD Director Eugene Black, and then said: “Maybe another great power will give us a loan. And without humiliating reservations.

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

On August 16, 1956, an international conference on the Suez Canal opened in London. Egypt had withdrawn from the conference four days earlier. At the conference, the United States proposed to internationalize the channel, transferring it under international jurisdiction. It is clear that the main role in this international management was to be played by the United States. The negotiations stalled.

And while there were talks in London, the former administration of the Suez Canal withdrew almost all the pilots from there. The channel stopped because there were no such specialists in Egypt itself. And then the head of the Soviet delegation in London, Foreign Minister D.T. Shepilov called Khrushchev directly. Nikita Sergeevich at that moment was on the beach in Livadia. Nearby, on a wicker table, was a special HF telephone. After listening to Shepilov, Nikita Sergeevich telephoned the First Secretary Kirichenko in Kyiv. And in a few hours the most experienced Odessa, Nikolaev and Kherson pilots began to pack their bags. Soon the ships went along the canal as usual. And then in Paris and London they remembered about the guns - "the last argument of the kings."

On August 8, 1956, a joint Anglo-French headquarters for planning a war against Egypt was created in London under the leadership of General Stockwell. They developed a plan to capture the Suez Canal, codenamed "Musketeer". The plan was very original. Its essence was as follows: on the night of October 29-30, 1956, Israeli troops would invade Egypt in the direction of Suez. Britain and France will issue an appeal to the governments of the belligerents, in which they will demand from them an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of troops. If at least one of the parties rejects this proposal, then in 12 hours the Anglo-French troops will "take appropriate measures" in order to fulfill the provisions of the Anglo-Egyptian agreement to ensure the security of the Suez Canal.

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

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

The next day, Anglo-French aircraft began bombing military and industrial facilities in Egypt, using 300 British and 240 French aircraft for this. The first strikes were made against the airfields of Almaza, Abu Sueyr, Inhas and Kabrit.

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

On June 11, 1956, destroyers of project 30 bis - "Sharp-witted" and "Solid" were transferred to Egypt in the port of Alexandria. In addition to them, the Egyptians received Project 613 submarines and torpedo boats.

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

Troubles with the allies occurred only when meeting with aircraft piloted by instructors. So, on October 30, a MiG-15 fighter shot down a British reconnaissance aircraft "Canberra". Two days later, ten British Hunter fighters attacked three Il-28 bombers over the outskirts of Cairo. The bow and stern 23-mm Nudelman-Richter cannons started working, and the two "hunters" were blown to pieces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All night long consultations continued, and this way and that they figured out how real the threat of the intervention of the Soviet Union, the use of atomic weapons by it. After Washington's announcement of its non-intervention, they were left alone.

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

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

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

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

It is clear that we were talking about regular troops.

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

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

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

However, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, North and South America won independence, and the colonial interests of European powers concentrated in the East and Africa. It was there that colonialism reached its highest flourishing and power, it was there that the disintegration of the colonial system began and ended.

In the 40s. 19th century The British East India Company, after a bloody war, conquered the principality of Punjab and other still independent parts of India, thereby completing its complete subjugation. An active colonial development of the country began: the construction of railways, reforms of land tenure, land use and the tax system, which were aimed at adapting traditional ways of doing business and a way of life to the interests of England.

The subjugation of India opened the way for the British to the north and east, to Afghanistan and Burma. In Afghanistan, the colonial interests of England and Russia clashed. After the Anglo-Afghan wars of 1838-1842 and 1878-1881. the British established control over the foreign policy of this country, but they could not achieve its complete subordination.

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

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

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

In the 19th century completed the colonization of Australia. On the territory of New South Wales, the colonies of Tasmania, Victoria (named after the Dutch traveler Tasman and the English Queen Victoria) and Queensland stood out, new independent settlements of Western and South Australia were formed. The influx of free settlers increased. In the middle of the XIX century. they achieved an end to the deportation of convicts to Australia. In the 50s. gold was discovered in New South Wales and Victoria. This attracted to Australia not only new thousands of colonists, but also capital. Moving into the interior of the continent, the settlers subjugated or ruthlessly destroyed the local population. As a result, a century later, in the 30s. In the 20th century, out of approximately 7.8 million inhabitants of Australia, 7.2 million were Europeans and only 600 thousand were its indigenous inhabitants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the basis of colonial relations, conflicts arose between some European powers, especially with England, both with France and with Russia, which in the mid-sixties began to make conquests in Central Asia towards the British possessions in India. England did not come to military clashes either with France or with Russia, and at the beginning of the 20th century. between the latter, on the one hand, and the first two, on the other, special agreements were even concluded on their colonial possessions. In general, the entire colonial policy of the late 19th century was constantly settled by international agreements. In this era, a real "partition of Africa" ​​was even carried out. At the end of 1884 and at the beginning of 1885, a conference of representatives of fourteen states met in Berlin, which created the "independent state of the Congo" in Africa, which later became the property of Belgium. The Berlin conference was followed by a number of other, already private agreements between individual states on colonial affairs. At the very end of the 19th century, events took place (the Sino-Japanese and American-Spanish wars, and the uprising of the Chinese against the Europeans), which made the Far East and the Great Ocean the center of political attention. To the six great powers in Europe in international politics, two new ones were added outside of it: Japan and the United States, and international politics took on a literally world character. The weakness of China, which was revealed at that time, entailed something like its division between the European powers, which, in turn, caused an uprising in China against the Europeans and the intervention of a united Europe in Chinese affairs, when the military contingent of different states made a trip to the capital of Bogdykhan under the command of the German field marshal (1901). This campaign was only thirteen years before the outbreak of the World War, one of the main reasons for which, as is well known, lay in the sharply imperialist character that European foreign policy assumed in those years.

For the great European powers of the late 19th century, colonial expansion was an economic necessity. The ever growing industry demanded overseas raw materials (cotton, rubber), the invention of internal combustion engines caused an enormous demand for oil and a struggle for its limited natural sources. Finally, victorious capitalism, by its nature incapable of being satisfied with domestic markets, starts chasing after external ones. Political domination becomes the form, instrument and armor of economic exploitation. The old colonial Empires of England and Holland are waking up from their age-old slumber for new feverish work. The peoples who arrived late are hastily building their new empires across the sea: France, Belgium, Italy, Germany. However, sero venientibus ossa. For Germany, there was no longer a “place under the sun” of Africa and Asia that was sufficiently profitable, and she turned the main axis of her expansion to the Middle East. Here she penetrated into the imperialist zone of forces of England and Russia, which was one of the main causes of the first great war.



The African continent remained unknown to Europeans for a long time. However, with the advent of the 15th century, the Portuguese began to search for a way to the spice-rich country of India. Such campaigns led to the study of the coast of Africa, because, going around this mainland, the researchers sought to get to the east.

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

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

• slave trade;
• mediation in trade;
• exchange of goods not always equivalent.

From the 17th century, Holland actively launched its expansion, which made a base for further expeditions. At the same time, other overseas states began to encroach on African lands:

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

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

• gold;
• Ivory;
• diamonds;
• spices.

Therefore, over time, colonization became widespread, and colonial wars became a common thing, without which the process of enslavement never did.

Colonial wars in Africa

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

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

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

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

Although Portugal and Spain were the first to set their sights and ambitions on Africa, their supremacy was thrown off by the early 17th century. Then the largest colonialists were:

• Holland;
• England.

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

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

In the west, the United States bought land in order to establish a settlement for Africans there. This territory was called Liberia, and in 1847 became an independent republic. Only they retained their independence during the time of mass colonization, which was just beginning then, all other states fell under someone's power.

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

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

All this time, the locals fought back the invaders as best they could, which can be seen * in the movie "Farewell Africa" ​​* however, cruel colonists most often destroyed not only all the rebels, but also entire nations or states. The enslaved inhabitants were deprived of land, property and even livestock.

It was the Dutch, who were called Boers, who were distinguished by special cruelty and savagery. They thoughtlessly mocked the captured peoples, so even other colonists did not always support them. There was a clear conflict between the Boers and the British. The latter nevertheless won and received the Dutch lands in southern Africa, because the Dutch could not cope with their power and take a step towards modern methods of government.

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