The main local wars and armed conflicts of the second half of the twentieth century. Russia in the wars of the 20th century International conflicts of the 20th century table

The small victorious war, which was supposed to calm down revolutionary sentiments in society, is still regarded by many as aggression on the part of Russia, but few people look into history textbooks and know that it was Japan that unexpectedly began military action.

The results of the war were very, very sad - the loss of the Pacific fleet, the lives of 100 thousand soldiers and the phenomenon of complete mediocrity, both of the tsarist generals and the royal dynasty itself in Russia.

2. First World War (1914-1918)

A long-brewing conflict between the leading world powers, the first large-scale war, which revealed all the shortcomings and backwardness of Tsarist Russia, which entered the war without even completing rearmament. The Entente allies were frankly weak, and only heroic efforts and talented commanders at the end of the war made it possible to begin to tip the scales towards Russia.

However, society did not need the “Brusilovsky breakthrough”; it needed change and bread. Not without the help of German intelligence, the revolution was accomplished and peace was achieved, under very difficult conditions for Russia.

3. Civil War (1918-1922)

The troubled times of the twentieth century for Russia continued. The Russians defended themselves against the occupying countries, brother went against brother, and in general these four years were one of the most difficult, on par with the Second World War. It makes no sense to describe these events in such material, and military operations took place only on the territory of the former Russian Empire.

4. The fight against Basmachism (1922-1931)

Not everyone accepted the new government and collectivization. The remnants of the White Guard found refuge in Fergana, Samarkand and Khorezm, easily incited the dissatisfied Basmachi to resist the young Soviet army and could not calm them down until 1931.

In principle, this conflict, again, cannot be regarded as external, because it was an echo of the Civil War, “White Sun of the Desert” will help you.

Under Tsarist Russia, the CER was an important strategic object of the Far East, simplified the development of wild areas and was jointly managed by China and Russia. In 1929, the Chinese decided that it was time to take away the railway and adjacent territories from the weakened USSR.

However, the Chinese group, which was 5 times larger in number, was defeated near Harbin and in Manchuria.

6. Providing international military assistance to Spain (1936-1939)

500 Russian volunteers went to fight the nascent fascist and General Franco. The USSR also supplied about a thousand units of ground and air combat equipment and about 2 thousand guns to Spain.

Reflecting Japanese aggression near Lake Khasan (1938) and fighting near the Khalkin-Gol River (1939)

The defeat of the Japanese by small forces of Soviet border guards and subsequent major military operations were again aimed at protecting the state border of the USSR. By the way, after the Second World War, 13 military commanders were executed in Japan for starting the conflict at Lake Khasan.

7. Campaign in Western Ukraine and Western Belarus (1939)

The campaign was aimed at protecting the borders and preventing military action from Germany, which had already openly attacked Poland. The Soviet Army, oddly enough, during the fighting, repeatedly encountered resistance from both Polish and German forces.

Unconditional aggression on the part of the USSR, which hoped to expand the northern territories and cover Leningrad, cost the Soviet army very heavy losses. Having spent 1.5 years instead of three weeks on combat operations, and received 65 thousand killed and 250 thousand wounded, the USSR moved the border and provided Germany with a new ally in the coming war.

9. Great Patriotic War (1941-1945)

The current rewrites of history textbooks shout about the insignificant role of the USSR in the victory over fascism and the atrocities of Soviet troops in the liberated territories. However, reasonable people still consider this great feat to be a war of liberation, and advise at least looking at the monument to the Soviet soldier-liberator, erected by the people of Germany.

10. Fighting in Hungary: 1956

The entry of Soviet troops to maintain the communist regime in Hungary was undoubtedly a show of force in the Cold War. The USSR showed the whole world that it would use extremely cruel measures to protect its geopolitical interests.

11. Events on Damansky Island: March 1969

The Chinese again took up the old ways, but 58 border guards and the Grad UZO defeated three companies of Chinese infantry and discouraged the Chinese from contesting the border territories.

12. Fighting in Algeria: 1962-1964.

Assistance with volunteers and weapons to the Algerians who fought for independence from France again confirmed the growing sphere of interests of the USSR.

This will be followed by a list of combat operations involving Soviet military instructors, pilots, volunteers, and other reconnaissance groups. Undoubtedly, all these facts are interference in the affairs of another state, but in essence they are a response to exactly the same interference from the United States, England, France, Great Britain, Japan, etc. Here is a list of the largest arenas of confrontation in the Cold War.

13. Fighting in the Yemen Arab Republic: from October 1962 to March 1963; from November 1967 to December 1969
14. Combat in Vietnam: from January 1961 to December 1974
15. Fighting in Syria: June 1967: March - July 1970; September - November 1972; March - July 1970; September - November 1972; October 1973
16. Fighting in Angola: from November 1975 to November 1979
17. Fighting in Mozambique: 1967-1969; from November 1975 to November 1979
18. Fighting in Ethiopia: from December 1977 to November 1979
19. War in Afghanistan: from December 1979 to February 1989
20. Fighting in Cambodia: from April to December 1970
22. Fighting in Bangladesh: 1972-1973. (for personnel of ships and auxiliary vessels of the USSR Navy).
23. Fighting in Laos: from January 1960 to December 1963; from August 1964 to November 1968; from November 1969 to December 1970
24. Fighting in Syria and Lebanon: July 1982

25. Deployment of troops into Czechoslovakia 1968

The “Prague Spring” was the last direct military intervention in the affairs of another state in the history of the USSR, which received loud condemnation, including in Russia. The “swan song” of the powerful totalitarian government and the Soviet Army turned out to be cruel and short-sighted and only accelerated the collapse of the Department of Internal Affairs and the USSR.

26. Chechen wars (1994-1996, 1999-2009)

A brutal and bloody civil war in the North Caucasus happened again at a time when the new government was weak and was just gaining strength and rebuilding the army. Despite the coverage of these wars in the Western media as aggression on the part of Russia, most historians view these events as the Russian Federation’s struggle for the integrity of its territory.

The twentieth century is “rich” in events such as bloody wars, destructive man-made disasters, and severe natural disasters. These events are terrible both in the number of casualties and the extent of damage.

The most terrible wars of the 20th century

Blood, pain, mountains of corpses, suffering - this is what the wars of the 20th century brought. In the last century, wars took place, many of which can be called the most terrible and bloodiest in the entire history of mankind. Large-scale military conflicts continued throughout the twentieth century. Some of them were internal, and some involved several states at the same time.

World War I

The beginning of the First World War practically coincided with the beginning of the century. Its causes, as is known, were laid at the end of the nineteenth century. The interests of the opposing allied blocs collided, which led to the start of this long and bloody war.

Thirty-eight of the fifty-nine states that existed in the world at that time were participants in the First World War. We can say that almost the whole world was involved in it. Having begun in 1914, it ended only in 1918.

Russian Civil War

After the revolution took place in Russia, the Civil War began in 1917. It continued until 1923. In Central Asia, pockets of resistance were extinguished only in the early forties.

In this fratricidal war, where the Reds and the Whites fought among themselves, according to conservative estimates, about five and a half million people died. It turns out that the Civil War in Russia claimed more lives than all the Napoleonic wars.

The Second World War

The war that began in 1939 and ended in September 1945 was called World War II. It is considered the worst and most destructive war of the twentieth century. Even according to conservative estimates, at least forty million people died in it. It is estimated that the number of victims could reach seventy-two million.

Of the seventy-three states that existed in the world at that time, sixty-two states took part in it, that is, about eighty percent of the planet’s population. We can say that this world war is the most global, so to speak. The Second World War was fought on three continents and four oceans.

Korean War

The Korean War began at the end of June 1950 and continued until the end of July 1953. It was a confrontation between South and North Korea. In essence, this conflict was a proxy war between two forces: the PRC and the USSR on the one hand, and the USA and their allies on the other.

The Korean War was the first military conflict where two superpowers clashed in a limited area without using nuclear weapons. The war ended after the signing of a truce. There are still no official statements about the end of this war.

The worst man-made disasters of the 20th century

Man-made disasters occur from time to time in different parts of the planet, claiming human lives, destroying everything around, and often causing irreparable harm to the surrounding nature. There are known disasters that resulted in the complete destruction of entire cities. Similar disasters occurred in the oil, chemical, nuclear and other industries.

Chernobyl accident

The explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is considered one of the worst man-made disasters of the last century. As a result of that terrible tragedy that happened in April 1986, a huge amount of radioactive substance was released into the atmosphere, and the fourth power unit of the nuclear plant was completely destroyed.

In the history of nuclear energy, this disaster is regarded as the largest of its kind both in terms of economic damage and the number of injured and killed.

Bhopal disaster

In early December 1984, a disaster occurred at a chemical plant in the city of Bhopal (India), which was later called the Hiroshima of the chemical industry. The plant produced products that destroyed insect pests.

Four thousand people died on the day of the accident, another eight thousand within two weeks. Almost five hundred thousand people were poisoned an hour after the explosion. The causes of this terrible disaster have never been established.

Piper Alpha oil rig disaster

In early July 1988, a powerful explosion occurred on the Piper Alpha oil platform, causing it to completely burn down. This disaster is considered the largest in the oil industry. After a gas leak and subsequent explosion, out of two hundred and twenty-six people, only fifty-nine survived.

The worst natural disasters of the century

Natural disasters can cause no less harm to humanity than major man-made disasters. Nature is stronger than man, and periodically it reminds us of this.

We know from history about major natural disasters that occurred before the beginning of the twentieth century. Today's generation has witnessed many natural disasters that occurred already in the twentieth century.

Cyclone Bola

In November 1970, the deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded struck. It covered the territory of Indian West Bengal and eastern Pakistan (today it is the territory of Bangladesh).

The exact number of victims of the cyclone is unclear. This figure ranges from three to five million people. The destructive power of the storm was not in power. The reason for the huge death toll is that the wave swamped low-lying islands in the Ganges delta, wiping out villages.

Earthquake in Chile

The largest earthquake in history is recognized as occurring in 1960 in Chile. Its strength on the Richter scale is nine and a half points. The epicenter was in the Pacific Ocean just a hundred miles from Chile. This in turn caused a tsunami.

Several thousand people died. The cost of the destruction that occurred is estimated at more than half a billion dollars. Severe landslides occurred. Many of them changed the direction of the rivers.

Tsunami on the coast of Alaska

The strongest tsunami of the mid-twentieth century occurred off the coast of Alaska at Lituya Bay. Hundreds of millions of cubic meters of earth and ice fell from the mountain into the bay, causing a response surge on the opposite shore of the bay.

The resulting half-kilometer wave, soaring into the air, plunged back into the sea. This tsunami is the highest in the world. Only two people became its victims only due to the fact that there were no human settlements in the Lituya area.

The most terrible event of the 20th century

The most terrible event of the last century can be called the bombing of Japanese cities - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This tragedy occurred on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively. After the explosions of atomic bombs, these cities were almost completely turned into ruins.

The use of nuclear weapons showed the whole world how colossal their consequences could be. The bombing of Japanese cities was the first use of nuclear weapons against humans.

The most terrible explosion in the history of mankind, according to the site, was also the work of Americans. "The Big One" was blown up during the Cold War.
Subscribe to our channel in Yandex.Zen

Table of the Russian war of the first half of the 18th century

Allies	Opponents		Main battles	Russian commanders	Peaceful agreement
Northern War 1700-1721 (+)
Denmark, Saxony, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth		Access to the Baltic Sea, increased foreign policy status	11/19/1700 - defeat near Narva	S. De Croix	Nystadt Peace
			1701 - 1704 - Dorpat, Narva, Ivangorod, Nyenschanz, Koporye were taken 05/16/1703 - St. Petersburg was founded	Peter I, B.P. Sheremetev
			09/28/1708 - victory at the village of Lesnoy
			06/27/1709 - defeat of the Swedes at Poltava	Peter I, A.D. Menshikov and others.
			07/27/1714 - victory of the Russian fleet at Cape Gangug	F.M. Apraksin
			07/27/1720 - victory of the Russian fleet near the island of Grengam	MM. Golitsyn
Prut campaign 1710-1711
	Ottoman Empire	Repel the onslaught of the Turkish Sultan, incited to war by France, unfriendly to Russia.	07/09/1711 - the Russian army is surrounded at Stanilesti		Prut World
Russian-Persian War 1722-1732 (+)
		Strengthening positions in the Middle East. Maybe infiltrating India.	08/23/1722 - capture of Derbent. In 1732, Anna Ioannovna interrupted the war, not considering its goals important for Russia and returning all her conquests.		Treaty of Rasht
War of the Polish Succession 1733 - 1735 (+)
Augustus III of Saxony Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Austria)	Stanislav Leshchinsky (protégé of France)	Control of Poland	23.02 - 8.07.1734 - siege of Danzig	B.K. Minich
Russian-Turkish War 1735-1739 (+/-)
	Ottoman Empire	Revision of the Prut Treaty and access to the Black Sea	08/17/1739 - victory near the village of Stavuchany 19.08 - Khotyn fortress taken	B.K. Minich	Belgrade Peace
Russian-Swedish War 1741 - 1743 (+)
		Repel the attack of the Swedish revanchists, who secretly supported France and demanded a revision of the Nystadt decisions	08/26/1741 - victory at the Vilmanstrand fortress	P.P. Lassi	Abo peace

Table of the Russian war of the second half of the 18th century

Allies	Opponents		Main battles	Russian commanders	Peaceful agreement
Seven Years' War 1756-1762 (+)
Austria, France, Spain, Sweden, Saxony	Prussia, Great Britain, Portugal, Hanover	Prevent the further strengthening of the aggressive Prussian King Frederick II	08/19/1756 - success in the battle of the village of Gross-Jägersdorf.	S.F.Apraksin, P.A.Rumyantsev	The war was interrupted by the absurd decision of Peter 3 to make a truce with Prussia, return the conquered territories to it, and even provide military assistance
			08/14/1758 - equality of forces in the fierce battle of the village of Zorndorf.	V.V.Fermor
			07/12/1759 - victory at the city of Palzig. 19.07 - Frankfurt am Main is busy. 1.08 - victory at the village of Kunersdorf.	P.A. Saltykov
			09/28/1760 - demonstrative robbery of Berlin	3. G. Chernyshev
First Polish War 1768-1772
	Bar Confederation	Defeat the anti-Russian gentry opposition in Poland	1768 - 69 - Confederates are defeated in Podolia and flee across the Dniester.	N.V.Repnin	Petersburg Convention
			05/10/1771 - victory at Landskrona 13.09 - Hetman Oginsky defeated at Stolovichi 25.01 - 12.04 - successful siege of Krakow	A.V. Suvorov
Russian-Turkish War 1768 - 1774 (+)
	Ottoman Empire, Crimean Khanate	Repel Turkish aggression provoked by France in order to force Russia to fight on two fronts	07/07/1770 - victory on the Larga River 07/21 - defeat of the 150,000-strong army of Khalil Pasha on the Cahul River	P.A.Rumyantsev	Kuchuk-Kainardzhi world
			November 1770 - Bucharest and Iasi taken	P.I.Panin
			06.24-26.1770 - victory of the Russian fleet in the Chios Strait and the Battle of Chesme	A.G. Orlov, G.A. Spiridov, S.K. Greig
			06/09/1774 - enchanting victory near the town of Kozludzha	A.V. Suvorov
Russian - Turkish War 1787-1791 (+)
	Ottoman Empire	Repel Turkish aggression, defend the annexation of Crimea to Russia and protectorate over Georgia	10/1/1787 - during an attempt to land on the Kinburn Spit, a Turkish landing force was defeated	A.V. Suvorov	Iasi world
			07/3/1788 - defeat of the Turkish squadron by ships of the Black Sea Fleet	M.I.Voinovich, F.F.Ushakov
			12/6/1788 - Ochakov fortress was taken	G.A.Potemkin
			07/21/1789 - victory near the village of Focsani. 11.09 - victory on the Rymnik River. 12/11/1790 - the impregnable fortress of Izmail was taken	A.V. Suvorov
			07/31/1791 - the Turkish squadron was defeated at Cape Kaliakria	F.F. Ushakov
Russian-Swedish war 1788-1790 (+)
		Repel King Gustav III's revanchist attempt to reclaim Sweden's former Baltic possessions	Already on July 26, 1788, the Swedish ground forces began to retreat. 07/06/1788 - victory in the Gogland naval battle	S.K. Greig	Verel Peace
Second Polish War 1794-1795 (+)
	Polish patriots under the leadership of T. Kosciuszko	Prevent Poland from strengthening its political regime and preparing the third partition of Poland	09/28/1795 - the rebels suffered a crushing defeat at Majcestowice, Kosciuszko was captured	I.E. Fersen	Petersburg Convention
			12.10 - victory at Kobylka. 24.10 - rebel camp in Prague captured 25.10 - Warsaw fell	A.V. Suvorov
Russian-French War 1798-1799 (+/-)
England, Austria		Conducted by Russia as part of the 11th anti-French coalition	17-18.04.1798 - Milan was captured. 15.05 - Turin. All of Northern Italy is cleared of French forces. 7 - 8.06 - General MacDonald's army arrived in time and was defeated on the Trebbia River. 4.08 - in the Battle of Novi, the same fate awaited the reinforcements of General Joubert.	A.V. Suvorov	War interrupted due to the unreliability of the allies and due to a foreign policy thaw in relations with France
			02/18-20/1799 assault and capture of the island fortress of Corfu	F.F. Ushakov
			September - October - an unforgettable transition of Russian troops through the Alps to Switzerland	A.V. Suvorov

Korean War (1950 - 1953)

The patriotic liberation war of the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) against the South Korean military and American interventionists, one of the largest local wars after World War II.

Unleashed by the South Korean military and the ruling circles of the United States with the goal of eliminating the DPRK and turning Korea into a springboard for an attack on China and the USSR.

The aggression against the DPRK lasted more than 3 years and cost the United States $20 billion. More than 1 million people, up to 1 thousand tanks, St. 1600 aircraft, more than 200 ships. Aviation played an important role in the aggressive actions of the Americans. During the war, the US Air Force flew 104,078 sorties and dropped about 700 thousand tons of bombs and napalm. The Americans widely used bacteriological and chemical weapons, from which the civilian population suffered the most.

The war ended with the military and political defeat of the aggressors and showed that in modern conditions there are powerful social and political forces that have sufficient means to give a crushing rebuff to the aggressor.

Vietnamese People's War of Resistance (1960-1975)

This is a war against US aggression and the Saigon puppet regime. Victory over the French colonialists in the war of 1946-1954. created favorable conditions for the peaceful unification of the Vietnamese people. But this was not part of the US plans. A government was formed in South Vietnam, which, with the help of American advisers, began hastily creating an army. In 1958, it consisted of 150 thousand people. In addition, the country had 200,000-strong paramilitary forces, which were widely used in punitive expeditions against patriots who did not stop fighting for freedom and the national independence of Vietnam.

Up to 2.6 million American soldiers and officers took part in the Vietnam War. The interventionists were armed with over 5 thousand combat aircraft and helicopters, 2,500 artillery pieces, and hundreds of tanks.

Vietnam was hit with 14 million tons of bombs and shells, equivalent to the power of more than 700 atomic bombs like the one that destroyed Hiroshima.

US spending on the war reached $146 billion.

The war, which lasted 15 years, was brought to a victorious end by the Vietnamese people. During this time, more than 2 million people were killed in its fire, and at the same time the United States and its allies lost up to 1 million killed and wounded, about 9 thousand aircraft and helicopters, as well as a large amount of other military equipment. American losses in the war amounted to 360 thousand people, of which more than 55 thousand were killed.

Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973

The third war unleashed by Israel in June 1967 was a continuation of its expansionist policy, which relied on extensive assistance from the imperialist powers, primarily the United States, and Zionist circles abroad. The war plan provided for the overthrow of the ruling regimes in Egypt and Syria and the creation of “great Israel from the Euphrates to the Nile” at the expense of Arab lands. By the beginning of the war, the Israeli army was completely re-equipped with the latest American and British weapons and military equipment.

During the war, Israel inflicted a serious defeat on Egypt, Syria and Jordan, occupying 68.5 thousand square meters. km of their territory. The total losses of the armed forces of the Arab countries amounted to over 40 thousand people, 900 tanks and 360 combat aircraft. Israeli troops lost 800 people, 200 tanks and 100 aircraft.

The reason for the Arab-Israeli war of 1973 was the desire of Egypt and Syria to return the territories seized by Israel and take revenge for the defeat in the 1967 war. The ruling circles of Tel Aviv, preparing for war, sought to consolidate the occupation of Arab lands, and, if possible, expand their possessions .

The main means of achieving this goal was the continuous increase in the military power of the state, which occurred with the help of the United States and other Western powers.

The 1973 war was one of the largest local wars in the Middle East. It was carried out by armed forces equipped with all types of modern military equipment and weapons. According to American data, Israel was even preparing to use nuclear weapons.

In total, 1.5 million people, 6,300 tanks, 13,200 guns and mortars and over 1,500 combat aircraft took part in the war. The losses of the Arab countries amounted to over 19 thousand people, up to 2000 tanks and about 350 aircraft. Israel lost over 15 thousand people, 700 tanks and up to 250 planes and helicopters in the war.

Results. The conflict had far-reaching consequences for many nations. The Arab world, humiliated by its crushing defeat in the Six-Day War, despite the new defeat, still felt some of its pride restored by a series of victories early in the conflict.

Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)

The main reasons for the war were the mutual territorial claims of Iran and Iraq, acute religious differences between the Muslims inhabiting these countries, as well as the struggle for leadership in the Arab world between S. Hussein and A. Khomeini. Iran has long been putting forward demands on Iraq to revise the border on an 82-kilometer section of the Shatt al-Arab River. Iraq, in turn, demanded that Iran cede territory along the land border in the regions of Khorramshahr, Foucault, Mehran (two sections), Neftshah and Qasre-Shirin with a total area of about 370 km 2.

Religious strife had a negative impact on Iran-Iraq relations. Iran has long been considered a stronghold of Shiism - one of the main movements of Islam. Representatives of Sunni Islam occupy a privileged position in the leadership of Iraq, although more than half of the country's population are Shiite Muslims. In addition, the main Shiite shrines - the cities of Najav and Karbala - are also located on Iraqi territory. With the coming to power in Iran in 1979 of the Shiite clergy led by A. Khomeini, religious differences between Shiites and Sunnis sharply worsened.

Finally, among the reasons for the war, one cannot fail to note some personal ambitions of the leaders of the two countries, who sought to become the head of “the entire Arab world.” Deciding on war, S. Hussein hoped that the defeat of Iran would lead to the fall of A. Khomeini and the weakening of the Shiite clergy. A. Khomeini also had a personal dislike for Saddam Hussein due to the fact that in the late 70s the Iraqi authorities expelled him from the country, where he lived for 15 years, leading the Shah's opposition.

The start of the war was preceded by a period of aggravated relations between Iran and Iraq. Beginning in February 1979, Iran periodically carried out aerial reconnaissance and bombing of Iraqi territory, as well as artillery shelling of border settlements and outposts. Under these conditions, the military-political leadership of Iraq decided to launch a preemptive strike against the enemy with ground forces and aviation, quickly defeat the troops stationed near the border, occupy the oil-rich southwestern part of the country and create a puppet buffer state in this territory. Iraq managed to secretly deploy strike forces on the border with Iran and achieve a sudden outbreak of hostilities.

By the summer of 1988, both sides participating in the war had finally reached a political, economic and military dead end. Continuation of hostilities in any form on land, in the air and at sea has become futile. The ruling circles of Iran and Iraq were forced to sit down at the negotiating table. On August 20, 1988, the war, which lasted almost 8 years and claimed more than a million lives, finally came to an end. The USSR and other countries made a great contribution to the settlement of the conflict.

War in Afghanistan (1979-1989)

In April 1978, in one of the most backward countries in Asia - Afghanistan, a military coup was carried out to overthrow the royal monarchy. The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), led by M. Taraki, came to power in the country and began the socio-economic transformation of Afghan society.

After the April Revolution, the PDPA set a course not to demolish the old army (in the ranks of which the revolutionary movement was born), but to improve it.

The progressive collapse of the army was a sign of the increasingly obvious death of the republic in the conditions of the beginning of the general offensive of the armed forces of the counter-revolution.

There was a looming danger not only of the Afghan people losing all the revolutionary gains of April 1978, but also of the creation of a pro-imperialist state hostile to it on the borders of the Soviet Union.

In these extraordinary circumstances, in order to protect the young republic from the advance of counter-revolutionary forces, in December 1979 the Soviet Union sent its regular troops into Afghanistan.

The war lasted 10 years.

On February 15, 1989, the last soldiers of the 40th Army, led by its commander, Lieutenant General B. Gromov, crossed the Soviet-Afghan border.

Gulf War (1990-1991)

After Kuwait’s refusal to fulfill the economic and territorial claims put forward by Baghdad in 1990, the Iraqi army occupied the territory of this country and on 08/02/90 Iraq announced the annexation of Kuwait. Washington was presented with a convenient opportunity to strengthen its influence in the region and, relying on the support of the international community, the United States stationed its military bases in the countries of the region.

At the same time, the UN Security Council (SC) sought to politically and economically influence Baghdad with the aim of withdrawing Iraqi troops from Kuwaiti territory. However, Iraq did not submit to the demands of the UN Security Council and as a result of Operation Desert Storm (17.01.91-27.02.91) carried out by the forces of the anti-Iraqi coalition (which included 34 countries) Kuwait was liberated.

Features of military art in local wars

In most local wars, the goals of the operation and battle were achieved by the joint efforts of all branches of the ground forces.

The most important means of suppressing the enemy, both offensively and defensively, was artillery. At the same time, it is believed that large-caliber artillery in the jungle and the guerrilla nature of the war does not give the desired results.

In these conditions, as a rule, mortars and medium-caliber howitzers were used. In the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, according to foreign experts, self-propelled artillery and anti-tank guided missiles showed high efficiency. In the Korean War, American artillery was well provided with aerial reconnaissance assets (two spotters per division); which facilitated the task of reconnaissance of targets, exchange of fire and shooting to kill in conditions of limited observation capabilities. In the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, tactical missiles with warheads in conventional equipment were used for the first time.

Armored forces have found widespread use in many local wars. They played a very important role in the outcome of the battle. The specifics of the use of tanks were determined by the conditions of a particular theater of military operations and the forces of the warring parties. In a number of cases, they were used as part of formations to break through defenses and subsequently develop an offensive along the same lines (Arab-Israeli War). However, in most local wars, tank units were used as tanks for direct support of infantry, when breaking through the most engineered and anti-tank defense sectors in Korea, Vietnam, etc. At the same time, the interventionists used tanks to reinforce artillery fire from indirect firing positions (especially in the Korean War). In addition, tanks were used as part of forward detachments and reconnaissance units (Israeli aggression of 1967). In South Vietnam, self-propelled artillery units were used in conjunction with tanks, often in conjunction with tanks. Amphibious tanks were increasingly used in combat.

In local wars, aggressors made extensive use of air forces. Aviation fought for air supremacy, supported ground forces, isolated the combat area, undermined the military-economic potential of the country, conducted aerial reconnaissance, transported manpower and military equipment in specific theaters of military operations (mountains, forests, jungles) and a huge the scope of guerrilla warfare; airplanes and helicopters were, in essence, the only highly maneuverable means in the hands of the interventionists, which is clearly confirmed by the war in Vietnam. During the Korean War, the American command attracted up to 35% of the regular air force.

Aviation actions often reached the scale of an independent air war. Military transport aviation was also used on a larger scale. All this led to the fact that in a number of cases the Air Force was reduced to operational formations - air armies (Korea).

What was new compared to World War II was the use of large numbers of jet aircraft. For the purpose of closer interaction with infantry units (subunits), the so-called light aviation of the ground forces was created. Using even a small number of aircraft, the interventionists were able to keep enemy targets under continuous influence for a long time. In local wars, helicopters were first used and widely developed. They were the main means for deploying tactical landings (for the first time in Korea), observing the battlefield, evacuating the wounded, adjusting artillery fire, and delivering cargo and personnel to areas inaccessible to other types of transport. Combat helicopters armed with anti-tank guided missiles have become an effective means of fire support for ground troops.

Various tasks were performed by naval forces. The navy found particularly widespread use in the Korean War. In terms of numbers and activity, it was superior to the naval forces participating in other local wars. The fleet freely transported military equipment and ammunition and constantly blocked the coast, which made it difficult to organize supplies to the DPRK by sea. What was new was the organization of amphibious landings. Unlike the operations of the Second World War, helicopter aircraft located on aircraft carriers were used for landing.

Local wars are rich in examples of airborne landings. The problems they solved were very diverse. Airborne assault forces were used to capture important objects, road junctions, and airfields behind enemy lines, and were used as forward detachments to capture and hold lines and objects until the main forces arrived (Israeli aggression of 1967). They also solved the problems of organizing ambushes along the routes of movement of units of the people's liberation armies and partisans, strengthening units of ground forces conducting combat operations in certain areas, conducting punitive operations against civilians (aggression of American troops in South Vietnam), seizing bridgeheads and important areas in in order to ensure the subsequent landing of amphibious assault forces. In this case, both parachute and landing landings were used. Depending on the importance of the tasks, the forces and composition of the airborne forces varied: from small groups of paratroopers to separate airborne brigades. To prevent the destruction of the landing forces in the air or at the moment of landing, various loads were first dropped by parachute. The defenders opened fire on them and thereby revealed themselves. The exposed firing points were suppressed by aviation, and then the paratroopers were dropped.

Infantry units landing by helicopter were widely used as landing forces. Landing or parachute landings were carried out at different depths. If the drop area was under the control of the aggressor troops, then it reached 100 km or more. In general, the depth of the drop was determined in such a way that the landing party could connect on the first or second day of the operation with the troops advancing from the front. In all cases, during an airborne landing, aviation support was organized, which included reconnaissance of the landing area and the upcoming landing operations, the suppression of enemy strongholds in the area and direct aviation training.

The US armed forces widely used flamethrowers and incendiaries, including napalm. American aviation used 70 thousand tons of napalm mixture during the Korean War. Napalm was also widely used in the Israeli aggression against the Arab states in 1967. The interventionists repeatedly used chemical mines, bombs and shells.

Disregarding international norms, the United States widely used certain types of weapons of mass destruction: in Vietnam, toxic substances, and in Korea, bacteriological weapons. According to incomplete data, from January 1952 to June 1953, about 3 thousand cases of the spread of infected bacteria in the territory of the DPRK were recorded.

During military operations against the interventionists, the military art of the people's liberation armies was improved. The strength of these armies lay in the widespread support of their people and in the combination of their fighting with a nationwide guerrilla struggle.

Despite their poor technical equipment, they gained experience in conducting combat operations against a strong enemy and, as a rule, moved from guerrilla warfare to regular operations.

The strategic actions of the patriotic forces were planned and carried out depending on the developing situation and, above all, on the balance of forces of the parties. Thus, the strategy of the liberation struggle of the South Vietnamese patriots was based on the idea of “wedges”. The territory they controlled was a wedge-shaped region that divided South Vietnam into isolated parts. In this situation, the enemy was forced to fragment his forces and conduct combat operations in unfavorable conditions for himself.

The experience of the Korean People's Army in concentrating efforts to repel aggression is noteworthy. The main command of the Korean People's Army, having information about the preparations for the invasion, developed a plan that called for bleeding the enemy in defensive battles, and then launching a counteroffensive, defeating the aggressors and liberating South Korea. It pulled up its troops to the 38th parallel and concentrated its main forces in the Seoul direction, where the main enemy attack was expected. The created group of troops ensured not only the successful repulsion of the treacherous attack, but also the delivery of a decisive retaliatory strike. The direction of the main attack was chosen correctly and the time for the transition to a counteroffensive was determined. His general plan, which was to defeat the main enemy forces in the Seoul area with the simultaneous development of an offensive in other directions, followed from the current situation, since in the event of the defeat of these enemy forces, all of his defenses south of the 38th parallel would collapse. The counteroffensive was carried out at a time when the aggressor troops had not yet overcome the tactical defense zone.

However, in planning and conducting combat operations by the people's liberation armies, the actual situation was not always fully and comprehensively taken into account. Thus, the lack of strategic reserves (the Korean War) did not allow the completion of the defeat of the enemy in the Pusan bridgehead area during the first period of the war, and in the second period of the war it led to heavy losses and the abandonment of a significant part of the territory.

In the Arab-Israeli wars, the peculiarity of preparation and conduct of defense was determined by the mountainous desert terrain. When building a defense, the main efforts were concentrated on holding important areas, the loss of which would lead enemy strike groups along the shortest routes to the rear of the defending troops in other directions. Great importance was attached to the creation of a strong anti-tank defense. Considerable attention was paid to organizing strong air defense (the Vietnam War, the Arab-Israeli Wars). According to the testimony of American pilots, the North Vietnamese air defense, thanks to the help of Soviet specialists and equipment, turned out to be the most advanced of all with which they dealt.

During local wars, the methods of conducting offensive and defensive battles by the people's liberation armies were improved. The offensive was carried out mainly at night, often without artillery preparation. The experience of local wars once again confirmed the great effectiveness of night battles, especially against a technically superior enemy and with the dominance of its aviation. The organization and conduct of combat in each war was largely determined by the nature of the terrain and other features inherent in a particular theater of military operations.

Formations of the KPA and Chinese People's Volunteers in mountainous and wooded areas often received offensive lines that included only one road, along which their battle formation deployed. As a result, the divisions did not have adjacent flanks; the gaps between the flanks reached 15-20 km. The battle formation of the formations was built in one or two echelons. The width of the divisions' breakthrough area was up to 3 km or more. During the offensive, the formations fought along the roads with part of their forces, while the main forces tried to reach the flanks and rear of the defending enemy group. The lack of a sufficient number of vehicles and mechanical traction in the troops significantly limited their ability to encircle and destroy the enemy.

In defense, the armies showed high activity and maneuverability, where the focal nature of the defense most corresponded to the mountainous conditions of the theater of military operations. In defense, based on the experience of the war in Korea and Vietnam, tunnels were widely used, in which closed firing positions and shelters were equipped. The tactics of tunnel warfare in mountainous terrain, enemy air supremacy, and the widespread use of incendiary agents such as napalm, according to Western experts, have fully justified themselves.

A characteristic feature of the defensive actions of the patriotic forces was the constant harassing fire on the enemy and frequent counterattacks by small groups in order to exhaust and destroy him.

Combat practice confirmed the need to organize a strong anti-tank defense. In Korea, due to the mountainous terrain, tank operations outside the roads were limited. Therefore, anti-tank weapons were concentrated along roads and hard-to-reach valleys in such a way that enemy tanks were destroyed from short distances by flanking guns. Anti-tank defense was even more advanced in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 (Syria, Egypt). It was built to cover the entire depth of tactical defense and included an anti-tank guided missile system (ATGM), direct fire guns, artillery located in tank-hazardous directions, anti-tank reserves, mobile obstacle detachments (POZ) and mine-explosive barriers. According to Western experts, ATGMs were superior in combat effectiveness to any other anti-tank weapons, penetrating the armor of all types of tanks that participated in the war.

During local wars, the organization of tactical anti-landing defense was improved. Thus, during the maneuver period of the Korean War, troops were usually located at a considerable distance from the sea coast and fought against enemy troops that had landed on the shore. In contrast, during the positional period of hostilities, the front edge of the defense was brought to the water's edge, the troops were located not far from the front edge, which made it possible to successfully repel enemy landings even when approaching the shore. This confirmed the special need for a clear organization of all types of reconnaissance.

In the local wars of the 50s, the experience of command and control gained in the Second World War was widely used. During the war in Korea, the work of commanders and staffs was characterized by a desire to organize combat operations on the ground and to personal communication when setting combat missions. Considerable attention was paid to the engineering equipment of control points.

A number of new aspects in troop control can be traced in the local wars of subsequent years. Space reconnaissance is being organized, in particular by Israeli troops in October 1973. Airborne command posts are being created on helicopters, for example, in the US war in Vietnam. At the same time, for the centralized control of ground forces, aviation and naval forces, joint control centers were equipped at operational headquarters.

The content, tasks and methods of electronic warfare (EW) have expanded significantly. The main method of electronic suppression is the concentrated and massive use of electronic warfare forces and means in a chosen direction. During the war in the Middle East, automatic command and control systems were tested, as well as a unified communication system, including with the help of artificial earth satellites.

In general, studying the experience of local wars helps to improve the methods of combat use of forces and means in battle (operations), influencing the art of war in wars of the present and future.

So, our topic is “Russia and the wars of the 20th century.” The twentieth century, unfortunately, was very tense and filled with a large number of different wars and military conflicts. Suffice it to say that at the very beginning of the twentieth century the Russo-Japanese War took place, then two world wars: the first and the second. In the twentieth century there were only 450 major local wars and armed conflicts. After each war, agreements and treaties were concluded, peoples and governments hoped for long-term peace. There was no shortage of statements and invocations against war and for the creation of a sustainable world. But, unfortunately, wars arose again and again.

In the end, we need to think about why these wars happened and whether it is possible to make sure that there are at least fewer of them. There is such a famous historian, academician Chernyak, who wrote in one of his books that all these wars were unnecessary costs for the development of human society. That all these wars and conflicts did not contribute to the resolution of the contradictions that gave rise to them and gave practically nothing. You can probably say this about many wars and conflicts, but there were also wars, say, the Great Patriotic War, in which the fate of not only our country, but all of humanity was decided. Will humanity be enslaved by fascism, Nazism, or will there be a progressive development of the human community. Therefore, for example, the Great Patriotic War had worldwide historical significance, because its fruits relate to the destinies of all peoples. By the way, both the German people and the Japanese people, who after the defeat of fascism had the opportunity to develop in a completely different way. And, I must say, they succeeded in many ways.

Each war had its own reasons. There were, of course, general reasons, which boiled down to territorial claims. But generally speaking, many wars, even if you look earlier in history, for example, the crusades in the Middle East, were covered up by ideological and religious reasons. But, as a rule, wars had deep economic roots. The First World War began between two coalitions, at first eight countries took part in it, and at the end of the war - already 35. In total, 10 million people died in the First World War, and countries participated in the war with peoples who numbered almost one and a half billion people . The war went on for four years. And you know that it ended with the victory of the Entente countries; the United States of America, France, and Great Britain enriched themselves most in this war. And the situation was most difficult in the defeated countries, primarily in Germany. A large indemnity was imposed on Germany, and the inner circles of Germany played heavily on this. For example, in the twenties, whether they sold beer, wine, or bread in stores, they wrote everywhere: the price is, say, 10 marks, the indemnity costs 5 or 6 marks.

And so the population was forced to feel and realize that they were living poorly only because such heavy indemnities were imposed on the country by the Treaty of Versailles. There was huge unemployment. The economy was in a dire situation, and nationalist forces played on this. This ultimately contributed to the rise of Nazism to power. And Hitler, back in the twenties, wrote in his book “Mein Kampf” that the original dream and original plan of Germany was a march to the east. Could World War II have been prevented? Probably, if the Western countries, together with the Soviet Union, had more consistently followed the path of curbing the aggressor, and acted as a united front against the impending aggression, perhaps something could have been done. But in general, the situation from today’s heights shows that the aspirations and expansion to the east of fascism, of Hitler, were so deeply embedded in German politics that it was almost impossible to prevent this expansion. This was also facilitated by the fact that after the October Revolution, and even thanks to calls for world revolution and the overthrow of capitalism in all countries, the West became very hostile and wary of the Soviet Republic and did everything to push Hitler to the East, while they themselves remained aside. The mood of that time is very clearly shown by Truman's statement. At the beginning of the war, he was the vice president of the United States of America and said back in 1941, when Hitler attacked us, that if Germany wins, we must help the Soviet Union, if the Soviet Union wins, we must help Germany, let them kill each other as many friends as possible, so that America will later find itself, together with other Western countries, arbiters of world destiny.

The motives and goals, of course, were far from the same. Because Germany set as its goal the conquest of the territory of the Soviet Union and other eastern regions, the establishment of world domination and the establishment of fascist ideology throughout the world. But the goals of the Soviet Union were completely different: to protect their country and other countries from fascism. Underestimating the threat of fascism in the early stages led to the fact that Western countries pushed Hitler east in every possible way, and this, of course, made it possible for the Second World War to break out in full. They also talk about the guilt of the Soviet Union; in the West and in our country there are a lot of books that talk about this. An objective assessment shows that our country, no matter what it was called, was not interested in starting the Second World War. And the leadership of our country did everything to delay the start of the war and, at least, to protect our country so that it would not be drawn into this war. Of course, our country has had its mistakes. Insufficient flexibility, especially in relations with England, France, relations with the old democratic parties in Germany - many different mistakes were made. But still, objectively, our country was not interested in this war, and the same Stalin, not wanting to provoke a war, agreed to conclude a non-aggression treaty with Germany in August 1939. And even on June 21, when it became obvious that Hitler would attack, he, still thinking that the war could be delayed, did not allow the troops to be put on combat readiness. In 1941, units of the Red Army were in a peacetime situation. On the morning of the 22nd, the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command issued a directive to repel aggression, but under no circumstances to cross the border. There are many fabrications that the Soviet Union itself was preparing the attack, that Hitler forestalled it. How can a ruler who wants to attack, on the first day of war, give the order to repel aggression and not cross the state border?!

How does the logic of guilt and non-guilt for the outbreak of war, expectation and non-expectation of war relate to your thesis that the First World War at least had economic grounds or causes.

Not just the First World War. I repeat once again that almost all wars ultimately had economic interests and were hidden behind ideological and religious motives. If we talk about the First World War, the war was mainly about the redistribution of colonies, regions of capital investment and the seizure of other territories. The First World War is also interesting in that until now not a single historian can explain why Russia fought there. They say: Bosphorus, Dardanelles, straits. Russia lost four million people in the First World War - what, for the sake of these straits? Before this, Russia had the opportunity to take possession of these straits more than once, but England and other countries were not interested in Russia doing this, so they resisted this in every possible way.

Thank you for bringing me to one of the main issues that I want to report to you. The fact is that the Second World War, unlike many wars, including the First World War, had significant features. Take the Russo-Japanese War. They say that we lost this war, but by the way, the war was not lost by the Russians to the Japanese at all. We lost a number of battles, and only conditionally. Because as soon as Japanese troops entered the flank of the army, the Russian army retreated. Not even defeated yet. There was such a defective tactic and strategy. But Russia had every opportunity to fight against Japan. Why did Russia stop the war? It was pushed to do this by a number of countries, the same France and England pushed Russia to get involved in the war in the east and weaken its position in the west. Germany especially tried in this regard.

The First World War was fought by France and England over Alsace, Lorraine, Russia - they said that for the straits, i.e. in this war, one side or another could lose or gain some pieces of its territory. In contrast to this, the Second World War, especially what relates to our side and the Great Patriotic War, had the peculiarity that in this war it was not about individual territories and some unfortunate interests. It wasn't even about the life and death of statehood alone. After all, if you take the Ost plan, developed by Rosenberg, Goering and others, approved by Hitler, then it directly says, and this is a secret report, and not some propaganda document: “to destroy 30-40 million Jews, Slavic and other peoples” . 30-40 million is the plan! It says that in conquered territories no one should have more than four classes of education. Today, some narrow-minded people write in the newspapers that it would be better if Hitler won, we would drink beer and live better than we live now. If the one who dreams so much were to remain alive, he would, at best, be a swineherd for the Germans. And the vast majority of people would have died altogether. Therefore, we were not talking about some territories, but we were talking, I repeat once again, about the life and death of our state and all our peoples. Therefore, the war was fought in such a way as to defeat the enemy at any cost - there was no other way out.

When the danger of fascism was already realized, this led to the creation of an anti-Hitler coalition between England, France and the United States of America. This was of exceptionally great importance and largely prevented the superiority of forces and victory in the Second World War. Military actions on the part of Western countries were limited at first; you know that the war began in 1939, Hitler attacked us in 1941, and the Normandy operation and the second front in Europe were opened only in June 1944. But we must pay tribute that especially the United States of America helped us a lot with Lend-Lease. They gave us about 22 thousand aircraft. This accounted for 18% of our aircraft production, because during the war we produced more than 120 thousand aircraft. Approximately 14% of the tanks we had were given to us by Lend-Lease; in total, it gave us approximately 4% of our gross product for the entire war. It was a big help. I will say that cars were especially useful to us; we received 427 thousand good cars such as Studebakers, Jeeps, and jeeps. Very passable vehicles, after receiving them the mobility of our troops increased sharply. And the offensive operations of 43, 44, 45 were largely mobile and successful due to the fact that we acquired so many vehicles.

Can the wars of the 20th century be viewed as one war in terms of the goals of rivals and allies?

They said that the Soviet Union after the Second World War was a threat. That's what they said - there is a Soviet military threat. Fearing this threat, NATO was created. The biggest concern was the communist ideology. The desire for a world revolution, although the leadership of our country practically abandoned the idea of a world revolution already in the 30s.

Already in the 30s, Stalin’s entire policy boiled down to creating a strong national state. As a support for workers and peasants around the world. Now they say that with the beginning of the war, Stalin remembered Alexander Nevsky, Kutuzov, Suvorov, and began to attract the church, but this is not true. We lived in those years, and I know, and you can find out from books: films about Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Alexander Nevsky were created in the 30s. Therefore, there was no longer any talk about this world revolution. It is no coincidence that the Cominterns were dissolved during the war. Now remember the years of perestroika, the Cold War formally ended. We are told that we were defeated in the Cold War. Let's think about it, what kind of defeat? The Warsaw Pact is dissolved, troops are withdrawn from Germany and other regions, and we are liquidating our bases. Has anyone given us ultimatums? Has anyone demanded that we do this? Our leaders were deeply mistaken. In their hearts, some of them, perhaps, thought that if we took such steps, the West would also take reciprocal steps. NATO, for example, is being transformed into a political, rather than military, organization. Someone believed that if we liquidated our bases in Cuba, then the American base at Guantanamo would also be liquidated. There were some hopes for this. We abandoned the communist ideology, well, in general, everything that they in the West never dreamed of, we have done. And in 1994, when the fiftieth anniversary of the Normandy operation was celebrated, all countries were invited, including Australia, Poland, Luxembourg, but from Russia, already democratic, new Russia, not a single person was officially invited.

I answer your question: in the West, apart from everything else, hostility towards Russia has been so deep-rooted from time immemorial that they can make the right statements, but this tendency gradually makes itself felt. In this regard, Alexander Nevsky was a very wise man when he went to the Golden Horde to conclude an agreement, and directed all his strength to fight against the Prussian knights. Why? There, in the east, they only demanded tribute. No one touched the Church, the language, culture, spiritual life of the Russian people and other peoples, no one encroached on it. And the knights Germanized everything following the example of the Baltic republics: religion and spiritual life were imposed. Therefore, Alexander believed that the main danger came from where. I don't think it's necessary to exaggerate this. Maybe even I’m not right about everything here, but there are too many similar facts of hostile attitude towards Russia, not from everyone, of course, in the West, but from certain circles, that one has to think about this matter today.

Allow me to return to the Second World War and say that the war was even more difficult in its consequences. 10 million people were mobilized, 55 million people died all over the world, of which 26.5 million were Soviet people, citizens of our country. And the Soviet Union, our country, bore the brunt of the war. Due to political miscalculations, the beginning of the war was not successful for us. Since the topic of my lecture talks about the experience and lessons of wars, one of the lessons is as follows. From the Crimean War to the present day, 150 years in total, politicians have put the country and its armed forces in an intolerable position. You will remember how in the Crimean War the defeat of Russia and its armed forces was politically, externally politically, determined. There is nothing to say about the Russo-Japanese War. In the First World War, essentially, we fought for alien interests, becoming dependent on France, England and other countries.

Now, look how the war began for us in 1941. In an effort to delay the war through political methods, Stalin ignored military-strategic considerations. Even today, some people really like to flaunt politics. Yes, indeed, war is a continuation of politics by violent means. Politics is of paramount importance, but the inverse influence of military strategy on politics can never be denied. Politics in its pure form does not exist at all. Politics is viable when it takes into account economic, ideological, and military-strategic considerations. And we lost 3.5 million people at the beginning of the war alone and found ourselves in a difficult situation essentially due to the fact that, politically, the armed forces were placed in a completely unbearable position. I think that no army in the world could bear this.

Take Afghanistan, some big people still say: “We didn’t plan to capture anything in Afghanistan, we wanted to become garrisons and stand there.” Sorry, this is stupid. If you go to a country where there is a civil war and you take a certain side, say, the government, who will leave you alone? And from the very first days I had to intervene in the situation. There was an uprising in Herat, the entire local government was overthrown, it must be defended! By the way, Marshal Sokolov held a meeting there and said: “I’m warning you, our army did not come here to fight, don’t get involved in any hostilities.” On the second day, the vice president comes to him: “There is an uprising in Herat, our artillery was captured, the local rulers were arrested, what should we do?” Sokolov says: “Okay, we’ll allocate a battalion,” and so it went. But couldn’t it have been foreseen in advance, is your desire not to be drawn into the battle enough? You will be drawn into this battle.

In Chechnya, there was every opportunity to avoid starting this war in 1994. Many problems could have been solved politically - no, they were drawn into war with great ease. Moreover, what’s interesting is that we have been standing there for almost 10 years, because not only has a state of war not been declared, there is no state of emergency, there is no martial law. After all, soldiers and officers must fight, they must carry out tasks, defend themselves when they are attacked, and many of their actions, especially the use of weapons, become difficult. Because there is neither martial law nor a state of emergency. Politically, very often our armed forces were placed in a very difficult position. Let politics rule, but we need to think about the responsibility of politics so that it takes into account all life circumstances.

I just want to tell you that often in classrooms where young people are present, they ask: “Some say this, others say that, and all the academics, who to believe?” Believe, first of all, yourself. Study the facts, study history, compare these events and facts, and draw your own conclusions, then no one will lead you astray. Take Afghanistan, when in those years someone else tried to justify sending our troops there by saying that if we had not come there, the Americans would have come there. This was all ridiculed in the most sarcastic way: “What are the Americans supposed to do there?” And then, indeed, it was a little funny. But take life as it is now: the Americans came to Afghanistan. Therefore, such questions cannot be dismissed so easily.

Looking ahead, I will say that on the whole I consider the introduction of troops into Afghanistan to be our mistake. A political mistake. It was possible to find other ways, in Angola and other places, to step on the Americans’ toes and refuse to interfere in Afghan affairs. By the way, when the Politburo discussed the question of whether to send troops to Afghanistan, the only person who resolutely opposed such a decision was the Chief of the General Staff, Marshal Agarkov. Andropov immediately interrupted him: “Your job is to solve military problems, but we have someone to deal with politics.” And such political arrogance, do you know how it ended? We did not need to send troops there; we could provide assistance and disguise some actions, as the Chinese acted in Korea, as the actions of volunteers. Different shapes could be found. But direct input was a mistake. I'll tell you why. In politics, any military intervention is very important. Whether you send a platoon or an army into a foreign country, the political resonance is the same. You sent troops into foreign territory. The rest doesn't matter. That's why we told Marshal Agarkov: if we go, then in 30-40 divisions. Come, immediately close the border with Iran, close the border with Pakistan so that no help comes from there, and we could withdraw troops from there in 2-3 years.

The worst decisions in politics are inconsistent, half-hearted decisions. If you have already made a mistake and are taking some kind of political step, then it must be decisive, consistent, carried out using the most powerful means, then there are fewer victims and mistakes pay off faster.

You probably think, like I do, that the Second World War ended in our victory. Although people like Yakovlev, Afanasyev at the Russian State University for the Humanities, and many others write that it was a shameful war, that we were defeated in it, and so on. Let's still think about why? We are often told that this is a defeat because our losses are large. Solzhenitsyn says 60 million, there are “writers” who say 20, 30 million - hence the defeat. This is all presented under the guise of humanity. But how has history always determined: defeat or victory? This was always determined by what goals one side or another pursued. Hitler's goal was to destroy our country, seize territory, conquer our peoples, and so on. How did it end? What was our goal? We set a goal to protect our country, protect our people, and provide assistance to other peoples who were enslaved by fascism. How did it end? All of Hitler's plans collapsed. It was not Hitler’s troops that came to Moscow and Leningrad, but ours that came to Berlin, the allies came to Rome and Tokyo. What kind of defeat is this? The losses are big, unfortunately. We lost 26.5 million people.

But our military losses were less, I can report this to you authoritatively, I was the chairman of the state commission to determine and clarify losses. We have been working in this area for four years. The work was completed back in 1985. We went to the Central Committee of the CPSU and the government of our country several times and proposed to publish accurate data so that no one would speculate on them. When I left for Afghanistan in 1989, this report still made it to the Central Committee. Look at the magazine “Istochnik”, it is published there who imposed what resolutions. Gorbachev wrote: “study, report proposals.” What does the same Yakovlev write? “Wait, we still need to involve civilian demographers,” and there were already 45 people on the commission - the largest civilian and military demographers worked. What are the real losses? Our military losses amount to 8.6 million people. The remaining 18 million are civilians exterminated in the occupied territories as a result of fascist atrocities. Six million Jews were exterminated. What are these, troops or what? These are civilians.

The Germans, along with their allies, lost 7.2 million people. The difference in our losses is approximately one to one and a half million people. What caused this difference? The Germans themselves write and it has been proven that there were about five million of our people in captivity. They gave us back about two million. We have the right to ask today, where are the 3 million of our people who were captured in Germany? Fascist atrocities led to the death of these 3 million people in captivity. We had about 2.5 million Germans in captivity. We returned about 2 million people after the war. And if we speak in soldierly terms, when we came to Germany in 1945 and the entire German army capitulated to us, if we competed to see who would destroy the most, it would not have been difficult to kill both civilians and military personnel, killing as many as we needed. But after 3-4 days the German troops began to release them from captivity, except for the SS men, frankly speaking, just so as not to feed them. Our people and our army could never just destroy people after we had already come with victory. Now they even want to turn the humanity of our people against us - this is simply blasphemous. This is simply a great sin against those people who fought. Which you often condone by spreading such false rumors and all sorts of spells.

In general, I must tell you, friends, that the history of the Great Patriotic War is being falsified now. Now all the results of the Second World War have been trampled underfoot. They spread all sorts of lies. The same Izvestia published on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Kursk that the Germans lost 5 tanks in the Battle of Kursk. We lost, as it says, 334 tanks. As I told you, compare the facts and decide for yourself who is right. Could it be that the Germans lost only 5 tanks and began to flee along the Dnieper, instead of going to Moscow? But ours, having lost 300 tanks, for some reason are moving forward and not retreating. Is it really possible? They say that we fought mediocrely, our generals and commanders were useless, unlike the old, educated and competent Russian noble officers. Georgy Vladimov wrote a book about Vlasov, “The General and His Army.” We don’t yet have a single novel about Zhukov or Rokossovsky, but several books have already been written about Vlasov, glorifying him. But we must judge by deeds. After all, after the Patriotic War of 1812, 150-200 years - every war, then defeat. The Great Patriotic War is the first greatest war, where the greatest victory was won. By the way, the white generals even ruined the civil war. Now, for example, they want to glorify Kolchak and Wrangel. Pay tribute, they say they also fought for Russia. But you must always remember one difference: Frunze and Chapaev fought not only against the White Guards, but also against the interventionists. Wrangel, Kolchak and others were kept by the interventionists; they fought against Russia on the side of foreigners. There is probably a difference for those people who respect their country.

There are people who tell us every day that there are no threats to Russia now. There are no threats, no one threatens us, we only threaten ourselves.

What determines whether there is a threat or not? It depends on what policy you are pursuing. If you pursue an independent and independent policy, this policy can always encounter contradictions with the policies of other countries. Then there may be aggravations, there may be threats, there may be an attack. If you give up everything and don’t defend your national interests, that’s right, there are no threats. Once you give everything up, what are the threats that could happen, other than you losing everything? Unfortunately, today's threats are very serious; if you concentrate, there are three of them.

First. The situation today is such that a large-scale nuclear war, for which we were preparing several decades ago, is becoming unlikely. And in general, a large-scale war becomes unlikely, which is why other ways to achieve political goals have been invented: economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, information war. One can conquer one country after another through subversive actions from within. And there is no need to take risks, because a major war could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. They found other ways, not the least of which was money, as was the case in Iraq, where almost everyone was bought. Therefore, now the primary task of the armed forces is to be prepared for local wars and conflicts and, probably, some kind of preparedness for a big war if small conflicts grow.

Second. There are nuclear powers, and the nuclear weapons of all these countries are aimed at our country. France, England, America. China has nuclear weapons, where else can they be used? Chinese nuclear weapons still do not reach America, which means they are aimed against our country. This is a serious threat, it has become less than 10-15 years ago, but it exists, you can’t escape it.

Third. At all our borders there are large groups of armed forces of foreign states. They are slightly reduced quantitatively, but are greatly transformed qualitatively. High-precision weapons appear and much more that you have heard about.

There are such threats. What kind of army is needed in this regard? We are told: mobile, strong, well-equipped, but the first problem is weapons. Our weapons are aging, the military industry is in decline, and we cannot now produce in sufficient quantities and equip our army and navy with the latest weapons. This is putting it mildly.

The second is our military art and methods of conducting combat operations. In addition to reliable scientific information, there is a lot of misinformation out there. When we are told that in modern conditions, when the enemy has such types of weapons, the war will be one-sided and it will be useless to resist, it is better to give up and capitulate. By the way, recently one American general spoke in Hamburg, at the German Military Academy, and said, “now the school of Clausewitz, Moltke, Zhukov, Foch has died, there is one school - the American one, which everyone must comprehend, then you will win.” They say that the Soviet, Russian school was buried in Iraq. They can say whatever they want, but just think about it, what school of ours has anyone used in Iraq? Remember how Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad were defended: barricades, barriers, trenches, people fought for every house. Was this somewhere in Iraq? And the whole secret is that in order to apply our Soviet, Russian school, we need great moral strength. Adequate morale is needed. Some people here think that all this happens on its own. But moral strength, this human capital, must be accumulated all the time, and when people are told that defense is not needed, that not everyone has to serve in the army, then not only do we not accumulate this moral potential, we lose it.

Remember the Brest Fortress. After all, it so happened that there were no plans to leave military units to defend the fortress at all - they went to their own lines. But there were still people there who had returned from vacation, the sick, and the families of military personnel. They immediately gathered and began to defend the fortress. Nobody gave them such a task to defend the fortress, the Germans are already near Minsk, and they have been fighting for a whole month. Today we must not forget in what way and under what circumstances such education of our army and people was achieved. Now look, they say here that it is difficult to serve, so the conscription should be abolished and everything reduced to contract service. But our guys, from our country, where it is so difficult to serve, go to Israel and spend three years there, where the service is even more severe than here, and serve with pleasure. It all depends on how a person treats his country. We shouldn’t forget about this either.

And the last question in connection with recruiting the army. We have now taken the line to create a predominantly contract army. But it is no better, because in Israel it is no coincidence that people do not take this path. The same Vietnam showed the Americans: contract soldiers serve well in peacetime. But someone who is threatened with death does not need either money or benefits when entering a university. That is why the Germans do not refuse conscription. Still, a connection between the people and the army is needed: so that the serviceman does not break away from his people, from his relatives, from his land. It is very important that a conscription system, especially in wartime, exists.

Why do they want to switch to contract service? It’s just that in 2007-2008 we will have such a demographic situation that there will be no one to conscript. If we don’t start training and recruiting contract soldiers now, we will be left without an army altogether. Therefore, it is necessary to combine this contract system and conscription service, while reducing the conscription period to at least one year. The army is created not only by officers and generals, it is created by the entire people, and you know this from our entire history.

References:

To prepare this work, materials from the site http://www.bestreferat.ru were used