Sixty years ago, on May 9, 1945, the last salvos of the war in Europe died down. Through the united efforts of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, German fascism was defeated. However, the main role in the victory over the aggressive forces of imperialism, over fascism was played by Soviet people and his Armed Forces. In this feat, the like of which history has never known, the high skill of military commanders, the greatest courage of soldiers, partisans, members of the underground, and the dedication of home front workers merged together.
Assessing the world-historical significance of the Victory of the Russian people in the Great Patriotic War of 1941 - 1945, M.S. Gorbachev noted: “The Soviet people, their valiant Armed Forces inflicted a crushing defeat on Nazi Germany, defended the freedom and independence of the Motherland, and brought liberation to the peoples of Europe. The defeat of fascism and the victorious end of the war became events of turning point, world-historical significance, opening up new paths of social progress and the prospect of a just and lasting peace on the planet for the saved humanity. Our Victory is not a thing of the past. This is a living Victory, directed towards the present and the future.”
Academician V.G. Afanasyev discussed the lessons of the war: “This war showed the possibility and necessity of peaceful coexistence of states with opposite social systems. And not only coexistence, but also cooperation and alliance in the name of saving human civilization when its very existence is in danger. During World War II, dozens of countries united to save humanity from the brown plague.”
The victory of the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany is an outstanding event in world history that determined the fate of generations. In the great battle of peoples, the Soviet people defended the honor, freedom and independence of not only the socialist Motherland. They fulfilled their international duty and played a decisive role in saving the peoples of the world from the threat of enslavement by fascism.
Great Patriotic War at the same time the most tragic and the most heroic event in the long-suffering history of all the peoples that were then part of the USSR. The memory of the past war is timeless. It is carefully stored and passed on from generation to generation.
In this war, when the peoples of the USSR defended their Motherland, there was a surge of patriotic feelings, an unusual spiritual upsurge, and the determination to defend the independence of the Fatherland increased. Each person felt like a citizen in the full sense of the word, felt that the fate of the country was in his own hands. It was a time when the present and future depended on each person.
Despite enormous difficulties, the people of Russia and other republics of the USSR bore on their shoulders the hardships and hardships that befell them. Victory in the war was achieved thanks to the high patriotic enthusiasm and mass heroism of the country's soldiers and workers.
The contribution of the Soviet Union to the defeat of the aggressor is enormous. “We,” US President Henry Truman wrote to the Soviet government, “highly appreciate the magnificent contribution made by the mighty Soviet Union for the cause of civilization and freedom." “Future generations,” says the message of British Prime Minister W. Churchill I.V. Stalin, - will consider themselves indebted to the Red Army as unconditionally as we, who happened to witness this triumph.”
The Great Patriotic War was one of the most tragic periods in the history of the peoples of Russia and other republics that were part of the USSR. They suffered perhaps the most difficult and terrible trials. At the cost of enormous efforts, the Soviet people defended their freedom and independence and saved humanity from fascism. More than half of the human losses in Europe occurred in the USSR. The war claimed the lives of millions Soviet people, tens of millions were wounded, shell-shocked, frostbitten, and exhausted. Our people died in battles, in their homes from mines, bombs and shells. They were shot, hanged, poisoned with dogs, burned in death camps.
But the enemy failed to break the spirit of the people, their will to fight fascism. From the first days, the war revealed the enormous power of patriotism of the overwhelming majority of people in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and all the republics that were part of the USSR. The hordes of the aggressor, having marched victoriously through many European countries, met stubborn resistance in our country.
The very beginning of the war showed that the Soviet people were ready to fight without sparing their lives for the independence of their Fatherland. The people rallied in the face of a common misfortune, forgetting or pushing aside their own hardships and grievances. Everyone rose up to defend the Fatherland - old and young, men and women, all the peoples of the country.
But despite everything, the Soviet people were able to overcome all the difficulties, hardships and adversities and win the Great Patriotic War.
On Victory Day, we sing the glory of the unparalleled feat of our people. We sing a hymn to the unparalleled heroism, courage, fearlessness, dedication of the Soviet people, who gave everything for victory: labor, blood, and twenty million of them - life.
Victory Day is also a day of mourning, a day of remembrance of these twenty million who died at the front, in concentration camps, in territory temporarily occupied by the Nazis.
Victory Day is a stern lesson and a stern warning to those dark forces that are harboring the idea of a new war that threatens the destruction of humanity.
Victory Day is the triumph of reason over madness, it is a day of peace, a day of hope that humanity will never experience the horrors of war, that eternal peace will triumph on our wonderful planet, whose name is Earth.
The events of the Second World War are becoming increasingly distant in time. However, millions of people never stop thinking about its origins, results and lessons.
The victory over the fascist coalition was achieved through the joint efforts of the states of the anti-Hitler coalition and all free peoples. However, the objective course and results of the war irrefutably indicate that its hardships did not fall on the participants of the anti-Hitler coalition to the same extent. The contribution and price of this contribution to the fight against fascism is determined by both objective circumstances - the nature of the state and social system, the economic system, mobilization capabilities, geographical location, the level of development of military affairs, and subjective - government policies, activities political parties, the degree of participation and activity of the masses in the war.
war great patriotic army
Military activity is one of the main manifestations of human activity and forms part of human culture in the broad sense of the word, due to which it influences worldview. Wars are caused by a number of diverse reasons that exist mostly in the human mind, which are, in particular: the thirst for glory, the desire for power, wealth, ideas about honor and valor.
Being included in the picture of the world, in cultural attitudes, wars have had and are having a serious impact on the history of societies and states.
War accompanied man at all levels of civilization, starting from his very first steps. The ideal of a life without war, when generally accepted norms of justice would be observed in international relations, dates back to ancient times. Already in ancient philosophers one can see ideas of peace, however, this issue was considered only as a problem of relations between Greek states.
Ancient philosophers sought only to eliminate internecine wars. Thus, in the plan of the ideal state proposed by Plato, there are no internal military clashes, but honors are given to those who distinguished themselves in the “second greatest form of war” - in the war with external enemies.
Aristotle’s point of view on this topic is similar: the ancient Greeks saw foreigners as enemies and considered them and everything that belonged to them good prey if it could be captured. The reasons for this are believed to lie in the level of economic development of society, its “productive forces,” if we adhere to Marx’s terminology. From here there is a direct transition to the problem of slavery. Heraclitus, for example, argued that “war is the father and mother of everything; it determined some to be gods, others people; some it made slaves, others free.” Aristotle wrote: "...if the weavers' shuttles themselves wove, and the plectrums themselves played the cithara (implying the absurdity of such an assumption), then architects would not need workers, and masters would not need slaves."
Young bourgeois humanism spoke a new word about war. His era was the time of the formation of capitalist relations. The process of initial accumulation of capital in blood fit into the history of not only Europe, but the entire planet. The focus of the progressive thinkers of this era was on man, his liberation from the shackles of feudal dependence, from the oppression of the church and social injustice. The problem of understanding the conditions for the harmonious development of personality naturally led humanists to raise the question of eliminating the greatest evil from people’s lives - war. A remarkable feature of the humanistic teachings of the Enlightenment was the condemnation of war as the greatest disaster for nations.
The birth of the idea of eternal peace was undoubtedly facilitated by the transformation of war into a great threat to the peoples of Europe. The improvement of weapons, the creation of massive armies and military coalitions, many years of wars that continued to tear apart European countries on an even wider scale than before, forced thinkers, almost for the first time, to think about the problem of relations between states and to look for ways to normalize them, which is the first distinctive feature approach to the problem of peace at that time.
The second thing that first appeared then was the establishment of a connection between politics and wars. The ideologists of the Enlightenment raised the question of such a structure of society, the cornerstone of which would be political freedom and civil equality, and opposed the entire feudal system with its system of class privileges.
Outstanding representatives of the Enlightenment defended the possibility of establishing eternal peace, but they expected it not so much from the creation of a special political combination of states, but from the ever-increasing spiritual unity of the entire civilized world and the solidarity of economic interests.
The French enlightenment philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau in his treatise “Judgment on Perpetual Peace” writes that wars, conquests and the strengthening of despotism are mutually related and contribute to each other, that in a society divided into rich and poor, into the dominant and the oppressed, private interests, then there are interests of those in power that contradict the general interests, the interests of the people. He associated the idea of universal peace with the armed overthrow of the rulers, because they are not interested in maintaining peace. The views of another French educator, Denis Diderot, are similar.
The representative of German classical philosophy I. Herder believes that an agreement concluded in conditions of hostile relations between states cannot serve as a reliable guarantee of peace. To achieve eternal peace, moral re-education of people is necessary. Herder puts forward a number of principles with the help of which people can be educated in the spirit of justice and humanity; among them aversion to war, less reverence military glory: “The conviction must be spread more and more widely that the heroic spirit manifested in wars of conquest is a vampire on the body of humanity and in no way deserves the glory and respect that is given to it according to the tradition coming from the Greeks, Romans and barbarians.” In addition, Herder includes correctly interpreted purified patriotism and a sense of justice towards other peoples as such principles. At the same time, Herder does not appeal to governments, but appeals to the people, to the broad masses who suffer most from the war. If the voice of the people sounds impressive enough, the rulers will be forced to listen to it and obey.
Hegel's theory sounds like a sharp dissonance here. According to Hegel, war is the engine of historical progress, “war preserves the healthy morality of peoples in their indifference in relation to certainties, to their familiarity and rooting, just as the movement of the wind protects lakes from rotting, which threatens them during a long lull, just as to the peoples - long-lasting, or even more so, eternal peace."
In the further course of history, the problems of the world continued to occupy the minds of mankind; Many prominent representatives of philosophy, scientists and cultural figures are known to us for their views on these issues.
Thus, Leo Tolstoy defended in his works the idea of “non-resistance to evil through violence.” A. N. Radishchev rejected those provisions of the theory of natural law that recognized war as inevitable and justified the right of war. In his opinion, the structure of society is based on democratic republic will forever deliver from the greatest evil - war. A. I. Herzen wrote: “We are not happy about war, we are disgusted by all kinds of killings - wholesale and in breakdown... War is execution in droves, it is radical destruction.”
The twentieth century, which brought humanity two world wars unprecedented in scale, further aggravated the importance of the problem of war and peace. During this period, the pacifist movement developed, which originated in the USA and Great Britain after the Napoleonic wars. It rejects all violence and all wars, including defensive ones. Some modern representatives of pacifism believe that wars will disappear when the population on earth becomes stable; others are developing activities to which a person’s “militant instinct” could be switched. Such a “moral equivalent,” in their opinion, can be the development of sports, especially competitions associated with the risk of life.
The famous researcher J. Galtung tried to go beyond the narrow framework of pacifism; his concept is expressed in “minimizing violence and injustice in the world”, then only the highest vital human values can be achieved. Very interesting is the position of one of the most influential theorists of the Club of Rome, A. Peccei, who claims that the scientific and technological complex created by man “deprived him of guidelines and balance, plunging the entire human system into chaos.” He sees the main reason undermining the foundations of the world in the flaws in the psychology and morality of the individual - greed, selfishness, inclination to evil, violence, etc. The universal, global comparison of the problems of war and peace gives particular relevance to the cooperation of Marxists and pacifists, believers and atheists, social democrats and conservatives, and other parties, movements and movements. Pluralism of philosophical interpretation of the world, ideological pluralism are inextricably linked with political pluralism. The various components of the peace movement are in complex relationships with each other - from ideological confrontation to fruitful dialogue and joint action. This movement reproduces a global task - the need to find optimal forms of cooperation between various social and political forces in order to achieve a common goal for the human community.
Americans consider the War of Independence to be almost the main event in world history: for the first time an independent democratic state appeared on the world map, shaking the foundations of British colonialism. But few people know that in the struggle of the young country for freedom, she played a big role Russian empire.
The big pie is crumbling from the edges
In the 1770s, the situation in the 13 North American colonies was tense. Since the mid-17th century, colonists enjoyed various privileges from the English crown and were exempt from taxes and customs duties. Everything changed after the 7-year war: Great Britain emerged as a clear winner, but with a severely depleted treasury.
The government of George III planned to solve this problem simply: to impose taxes on the North American colonies, with taxes set on the most important goods, such as sugar and tea. The decision in the colonies was considered unfair: it not only gave advantages to the monopolist (East India Company), but was also made without the consent of the colonists in Parliament, in which not a single representative from the continent sat.
In America they started talking about an uprising, the overthrow of British rule. Most of the colonies' two million people were literate, so there was lively discussion in the newspapers about the right to self-determination. The freedom fighters took their first decisive step in 1773, when in the port of Boston, breaking into English ships, they overturned boxes of tea into the water of the bay. There were only 2 years left before the first shots were fired at Lexington and Bunker Hill.
View from Russia
European powers reacted differently to the news of the uprising in North America: Britain and its German allies began to prepare for war, Spain and France, although they took a wait-and-see attitude, saw in what was happening an opportunity to get even with the British for recent defeats.
When news of the outbreak of war reached Russia, Empress Catherine declared that “the colonies said goodbye to England forever.” Although the Russian Empire had friendly relations with Albion at that time, the enlightened empress sympathized with the American freedom fighters.
In personal correspondence, she even accused King George III of a “senseless quarrel” and called on the warring parties to sit down at the negotiating table. The policy of Great Britain in the 13 colonies harmed Russian trade: already from the middle of the 18th century, brisk trade flowed through St. Petersburg and Arkhangelsk, but now it became impossible to supply iron, canvas and hemp from Russia.
“I don’t trade the blood of my subjects!”
Although the colonists' militia was defeated at the Battle of Bunker Hill, it was clear that the rebellion had escalated into a full-fledged war. The Americans took seriously the preparation of the army, which was now called the Continental. The formation and equipment of the units was entrusted to the experienced military planter from Virginia, George Washington. Having learned about this, the metropolitan authorities began to prepare an expeditionary force to inflict a crushing defeat on the rebels.
Since the English land army was traditionally small (the country relied on a powerful fleet and allies), mercenaries began to be recruited throughout Europe to expand it. The German state of Hesse fielded especially many soldiers under British banners: it was not the first time for European monarchs to use their subjects as tools for foreign sovereigns. Remembering the recent Seven Years' War and the exploits of the Russian Cossacks, English king George III sent a message to Catherine II in which he asked to send them to war with the colonists. The empress’s answer was unequivocal: “I don’t trade in the blood of my subjects!”
Armed neutrality
Although she sympathized with the Americans, Catherine did not dare to openly oppose Great Britain. Instead, Russia took steps to resume maritime trade with the rebellious colonies. The Americans needed this trade like air: it made it possible to supply the rebels with financial resources and vital goods.
However, trade in the Atlantic was under threat, because the British fleet reigned supreme there. British naval vessels stopped and inspected all ships, looking for American goods and traders. Often, “trophy courts” organized by the British appropriated the property of neutral countries to the crown. To stop this, in 1780 Catherine sent a declaration “On Armed Neutrality” to European courts.
In it, she confirmed the country's intention to maintain neutrality, but also its readiness to defend the right of free navigation and maritime trade by force of arms. Now Russia announced its right to open fire in case of stopping or attempts to seize Russian goods. Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Prussia, Austria, Portugal and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies also joined the declaration.
King George was quite concerned about such a demarche, which threatened England’s maritime dominion, and even offered Catherine a “special regime” that exempted ships flying the Russian flag from British inspections. However, the empress remained adamant: now neutral countries have the right to trade without interference.
This maritime shipping regime, which lasted until the end of the Revolutionary War, greatly contributed to the survival of the young American state. Neutral ships carried much-needed gunpowder, canvas, and iron to U.S. ports, and brought American goods back to European markets. Thus, Russia, albeit indirectly, helped the United States achieve independence.
Grateful Americans sent Ambassador Francis Dane to St. Petersburg in 1781. Catherine refused to accept his credentials until 1783, not wanting to enter into open conflict with Great Britain. However, she allowed the ambassador to remain in the capital, where he, as a private individual, could seek the support of Russian society.
Latvian rifle units were formed during the First World War. After the revolution, they sided with the Bolsheviks and joined the Red Army. Iron discipline and loyalty to the Soviets became the reason for trust in foreigners in the service of the Red Army.
The emergence of the Latvian riflemen
In 1914, on the eve of the First World War, general mobilization began in the Baltic states. Latvians were sent to guard the Ust-Dvina fortress near Riga, to the Galician Front and to East Prussia.
However, already in April 1915, German troops were advancing on Courland, which threatened the defense of Livonia and Riga. On August 1, 1915, General Alekseev, who commanded the Northwestern Front, ordered the organization of Latvian rifle battalions from riflemen of the Ust-Dvina fortress and volunteers.
Soon three battalions were formed that were supposed to defend Riga. The riflemen were sent to the front and they pushed the German troops back. While the Latvian riflemen were fighting the Germans on the front line, six more rifle battalions were created by mobilizing the rear: thus, the courage and quick reaction of the Latvians made a blitzkrieg against Riga impossible. If the Riga defense had fallen, the Germans would have rushed to Petrograd.
"Island of Death" and "Christmas Fight"
In 1916, already 12 thousand riflemen fought under the Latvian banners. However, among them there were not only Latvians, but also Estonians, Russians, Lithuanians, Poles and even Germans. Due to heavy losses, the area on the left bank of the Western Dvina, defended by the Latvian riflemen, was called the Island of Death.
This place has more than once lived up to its name: it was there that the first large-scale gas attack in Latvia was carried out by German troops. The riflemen defended the island for 8 days, and 120 people were poisoned with gas.
Another heroic battle took place at the end of December 1916 near the city of Mitava and went down in history as the “Christmas Battle”. Latvian troops advanced, pushing the Germans into the swampy area. The shooters broke through the barbed wire right under German bullets - A.N. later wrote about this heroic battle. Tolstoy in the novel “Walking through Torment”:
“The last time Russia tried to break the iron ring that was squeezing it, the last time Russian men, dressed in white shrouds, driven by a polar blizzard, fought for an empire that covered a sixth of the world, for the autocracy that once built the earth and threatened the world.”
However, the course of the “Christmas Battles” and the subsequent “January Battles” can be considered unsuccessful for the Russian army: despite heroism and fortitude, the Russian Empire lost 26,000 soldiers in these battles, of which 9,000 were Latvian riflemen.
Due to such colossal losses, unnecessary rumors spread among the Latvian battalions, and in February 1917, General Alekseev asked to send a special commission to investigate the past battles. However, this never happened - the February Revolution thundered.
Latvian riflemen in the revolutionary movement
After the February events of 1917, Bolshevik agitation was successful among the Latvian military. The United Council of Deputies of the Latvian Rifle Regiments, Iskolastrel, was created, and the position of the Bolsheviks was finally strengthened among the Latvian riflemen.
They became part of the Bolshevik army, opposed the Latvian Mensheviks, and in October 1917, at the direction of the Central Committee, helped the October Uprising by blocking railway, which the Provisional Government used to transport troops.
At the request of Petrograd, the Latvian riflemen left the German front and went to the capital to protect the Bolsheviks. They were entrusted with guarding the Council of People's Commissars and ensuring the safety of the movement of senior leaders, including Sverdlov and even Lenin himself.
In April 1918, the Red Latvian Riflemen, who went over to Russia after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, were reorganized and supplemented with officers loyal to the Bolsheviks and artillery.
The Latvian Rifle Soviet Division became the first regular formation of the Red Army, and the riflemen began serving in the Kremlin, engaged in security and punitive operations, and participated in raids on speculators. Also, Latvian rifle units were located in Saratov, Penza, Arkhangelsk, Vitebsk and other cities where Latvian workers were evacuated.
On July 6, 1918, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries planned an uprising against the Bolsheviks. Despite the fact that they proposed using their military to guard the V All-Russian Congress of Soviets, Lenin and Sverdlov chose Latvian riflemen for this mission.
Knowing about the upcoming uprising, the Red leadership gathered as many riflemen as possible in Moscow - they were freed from all other tasks, including the suppression of the White Guard rebellion in Yaroslavl.
When the Socialist Revolutionaries captured the Cheka building on July 6 and started an uprising, the Latvian riflemen began storming the captured buildings and strangled the rebellion in the bud, regardless of heavy losses. Similar revolts in other cities - Petrograd, Kaluga, Vologda, were also suppressed by the forces of the Latvian riflemen.
Defense of Kazan
In the summer of 1918, Latvian riflemen organized the defense of Kazan, which was attacked by the Czechoslovak Corps and the People's Army. The battle was lost by the Reds on August 7, and Kazan was taken by Russian-Czech troops. The entire defense was entrusted to the small Latvian riflemen, consisting of 500 fighters. The Latvian regiment surrendered to the enemy. However, Kazan was soon recaptured and the Latvians, who heroically defended the city in a hopeless battle, received the Red Banner of Honor.
Failure of Denikin's campaign against Moscow
In 1919, the Latvian riflemen, the best regiments of the Red Army, fight the advancing army of General Denikin. They ruin plans Armed Forces The south of Russia, led by Denikin, marches on Moscow and captures Kharkov. Opponents of the Latvians describe the shooters as noble and merciful fighters: “When we attacked again, I saw them lying the way we left them. The Latvians did not mock them and did not finish them off.” For this victory, the Latvian riflemen were awarded the second Honorary Red Banner. This is what the commander of the Southern Front, A. Egorov, said about them: “The Latvian riflemen, with their heroic onslaught... marked the beginning of the defeat of the forces of the entire southern counter-revolution.”
