4.7. India and the Indian Ocean

After the capture of Singapore, some Japanese troops were sent to Burma. On March 8, 1942, they captured the Burmese capital Rangoon, posing an immediate threat to India; at the end of April they disrupted the land connection between British possessions and China.
In March-April 1942, the Japanese navy and air force attacked Ceylon and inflicted a new defeat on the British Eastern Fleet. The remaining ships were withdrawn to East Africa.
The action of the Japanese submarine fleet paralyzed shipping in the Indian Ocean.

England's defeats led to a decline in its prestige in India. On March 22, 1942, the special representative of the British government, R. S. Cripps, arrived in Delhi with a proposal:

"The British Government has solemnly undertaken to grant India complete independence in the event that the Constituent Assembly so demands after the war."

However, the Indian National Congress rejected these proposals, since they did not provide for the creation of a national government during the war. M. Gandhi wrote in his newspaper on May 10:

“The presence of the British in India incites Japan to invade India. Their departure will destroy the bait. But even assuming that this is not so, then a free India will be better able to fight against invasion ... "

In August 1942, the All India National Congress Committee passed a resolution to launch a campaign of civil disobedience. In response, the British administration arrested the Congress leadership. According to Indian sources, a famine in Bengal organized by the British authorities in response to disobedience of the British administration claimed the lives of 3.5 million people.

Meanwhile, British troops landed on Madagascar on May 5-7 and took control of the island by November 1942 (see Madagascar operation).
Japan by that time had directed the vector of its aggression to the west, to the Coral Sea and to Midway Island. Thus, its pressure in the Indian Ocean basin decreased.

5. Turning point in the war

5.1. Turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic

Ensuring the stability of maritime communications, primarily in the North Atlantic, remained of utmost importance for Great Britain. Until now, the losses of the British merchant fleet, despite all efforts, exceeded the tonnage of ships put into service. In May-October 1942, the actions of German submarines were the most effective. Only in the fall were they forced out of the coastal zone of the western Atlantic Ocean; the losses of German submarines also increased sharply (22 boats in the first half of 1942 and 66 boats in the second). At the end of 1942, the losses of the British merchant fleet became less than the tonnage of newly built ships.
However, in February-March 1943, the activity of the German submarine fleet intensified again. Merchant fleet losses increased again.
Only starting in April 1943, there was a qualitative and quantitative increase in the Allied anti-submarine forces, a reduction in their losses in tonnage and an increase in losses of German submarines, while the increase in Allied tonnage began to exceed losses.

5.2. British air raids on Germany

In March 1942, British aircraft began bombing German cities. At the end of April, the transfer of American aviation to England began, which in June 1942 was consolidated into the 8th Air Army. The first raid on Germany was made in August 1942.
At the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943, British aviation concentrated its main efforts on bombing German shipyards, naval facilities and naval bases. From the spring of 1943, the emphasis was shifted to the bombing of industrial targets, especially the Ruhr region. The actions of British strategic aviation began to acquire an increasingly active and purposeful character.
Due to increased resistance to German air defense in the summer of 1943, it was decided to concentrate efforts on the destruction of fighter aircraft and factories producing fighter aircraft.
Later, strategic bombing was subordinated to the purposes of preparation for the upcoming landing of Allied forces in France.

5.3. Victory in North Africa

After the defeat in May-June 1942, General H. Alexander was appointed the new commander-in-chief in North Africa. General B. Montgomery became the new commander of the British 8th Army in Egypt. The offensive they launched at El Alamein on October 23 ended in the defeat of the German-Italian troops. On November 13, British troops recaptured Tobruk.

Meanwhile, on November 8-10, 1942, American and British troops (6 American and 1 British divisions) landed in North Africa (in Algeria, Oran and Casablanca). The French commander-in-chief of the Vichy armed forces, Admiral F. Darlan, gave the order to end the resistance. By the end of November, the Anglo-American allies occupied Algeria and Morocco and entered Tunisia, but were stopped by German and Italian troops deployed to the area.

In January 1943, the advance of the British 8th Army in Libya continued. On January 23, she occupied Tripoli and on February 4 crossed the borders of Tunisia. On January 31, the American General D. Eisenhower united all the allied forces in North Africa under his command, the British General H. Alexander became his deputy. In March 1943, the Allied forces resumed their advance, and on May 13, 1943, German-Italian forces in Tunisia capitulated.

5.4. Landing in Italy

On July 10, 1943, the Anglo-American allies landed in Sicily and by mid-August completely occupied the island; on September 3, they landed in the south of the Apennine Peninsula, which led to the fall of the government of B. Mussolini and Italy’s withdrawal from the war.
In response, German troops disarmed almost the entire Italian army and occupied most of the country. By early November they had withdrawn to prepared defensive positions on the Garigliano River and the Sangro River. Attempts by Anglo-American troops to break through the defenses were unsuccessful.

In December 1943, the areas of responsibility of the United States and Great Britain in Europe were divided: American General D. Eisenhower became the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in northwestern Europe, and British General G. M. Wilson became the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Mediterranean.

5.5. On the Burma Front

After the retreat of the remnants of the Anglo-Indian troops from Burma to India, the English commander-in-chief, General A. Wavell, undertook a reorganization of the Indian army. Taking advantage of the lack of active hostilities, he began urgently forming and preparing new formations, and the Indian Air Force was created.
However, the offensive launched in Burma at the end of 1942 ended in failure. Two offensive operations at the beginning of 1943 on the Arakan coast and in Central Burma did not lead to success.
Thus, no decisive success was achieved in the fighting in Burma. The main battles in 1942-43 took place between Japan and the United States in the Pacific Ocean.

6. Victory over Germany

Since June 22, 1941, the main forces of the Wehrmacht fought on the Eastern Front against the USSR. The Soviet Union insisted on opening a second front against Germany in Europe. However, W. Churchill did his best to delay the landing in France. As a result, it did not take place either in 1942 or 1943.

6.1. Liberation of France

On June 6, 1944, the landing of Anglo-American troops in France began. The success of the landing operation was facilitated by the complete dominance of the Anglo-American fleet and aviation.
On July 25, the Allied offensive began in northwestern France. By this time, the forces of the 1st American, 2nd British and 1st Canadian armies were concentrated; Soon the 3rd American Army entered the battle. The general leadership of the ground forces was carried out by the English General B. Montgomery, the Supreme Command of the Allied Forces remained with the American General D. Eisenhower.
By the end of August, German troops in northern France suffered a heavy defeat.

The landing of Allied (American and French) troops in the south of France on August 15 forced German troops to leave the south of the country.
By September 10, 1944, the Allied forces advancing from the north and south of France joined forces.

6.2. Situation in the Balkans

As a result of the defeat of Romania (in August 1944), the occupation of Bulgaria (in September), and the advance of Soviet troops into Yugoslavia and Hungary (in September-October), the influence of the USSR in the Balkans increased. This could not but worry the British government.
W. Churchill recalled how at the Anglo-Soviet conference in Moscow in October 1944 he addressed Stalin:

“Let's settle our affairs in the Balkans... Do you agree to occupy a predominant position of 90% in Romania, and for us to also occupy a predominant position of 90% in Greece and half in Yugoslavia? While this was being translated, I took half a sheet of paper and wrote:
Romania
Russia - 90%
Others - 10%
Greece
UK (in agreement with US) - 90%
Russia - 10%
Yugoslavia 50: 50 %
Hungary 50: 50 %
Bulgaria
Russia - 75%
Others - 25%..."

Stalin agreed with Churchill's proposals.

Fearing the strengthening of communist influence in Greece, W. Churchill insisted on the landing of British troops in Greece, which began on October 4, 1944.
However, the Greek communist movement launched an uprising that spread throughout the capital. It came to a direct clash between British and Greek communist troops. In December, Field Marshal H. Alexander arrived in Greece from Italy, who soon replaced Wilson as Supreme Commander in the Mediterranean. By mid-January 1945, British troops took control of all of Attica. On January 11, a truce was signed, according to which the pro-communist armed forces were disbanded.
These events received an unfavorable response for Great Britain in the world, including in the United States. However, J.V. Stalin refrained from interfering.

6.3. Growing disagreements between Great Britain and the USSR

While the issue of influence in the Balkans was resolved fairly quickly, at least on paper, the first major stumbling block in relations between the Western allies, primarily Great Britain, and the USSR, was the issue of Poland. The main disagreements were caused by the principle of forming the Polish government. The Soviet side insisted on creating an essentially puppet pro-Soviet government, whose loyalty should be a guarantee against the continuation of the policies pursued before the war.
The Yalta Allied Conference in February 1945 did not finally resolve this issue.

W. Churchill wrote in his memoirs:

As the war waged by the coalition comes to an end, political issues become increasingly important... The destruction of German military power entailed a fundamental change in the relationship between communist Russia and the Western democracies. The decisive practical questions of strategy and policy... boiled down to the following:

first, Soviet Russia became a mortal threat to the free world;

secondly, it is necessary to immediately create a new front against its rapid advance;

thirdly, this front in Europe should go as far as possible to the East;

fourthly, the main and true goal of the Anglo-American armies is Berlin;

fifthly, the liberation of Czechoslovakia and the entry of American troops into Prague is of utmost importance;

sixth, Vienna, and essentially all of Austria, should be governed by the Western powers, at least on an equal footing with the Russian Soviets;

seventh, it is necessary to curb the aggressive claims of Marshal Tito towards Italy;

finally - and this is the most important thing - a settlement between West and East on all major questions concerning Europe must be achieved before the armies of democracy leave or the Western allies cede any part of the German territory which they have conquered...

However, Churchill did not find support from the American allies, who played an increasingly decisive role in the Anglo-American alliance.

6.4. Invasion of Germany

On December 16, 1944, German troops launched a general offensive in the Ardennes.
On December 22, the American 3rd Army, under the command of General J. Patton, launched a counteroffensive against the German salient from the south, and attacked it from the southern flank, putting the Germans in danger of encirclement. The weather in the Ardennes improved and Allied aircraft began bombing German positions and supply lines. On December 24, American and British troops stopped the enemy advance on the approaches to the Meuse River. By December 24, as a result of the resistance of the Anglo-American troops, the German offensive finally fizzled out and German troops began to retreat to their original positions. The German offensive in the Ardennes as a strategic operation ended in complete failure. The strategic initiative irrevocably passed to the allies and they began to attack Germany.

At the beginning of 1945, British aircraft resumed air raids on German cities in order to terrorize the population and sow panic among civilians and refugees. In mid-February, a devastating raid on Dresden took place, which practically wiped out the city center (see Bombing of Dresden).

In February-March 1945, allied British, American and French troops pushed German troops back across the Rhine. W. Churchill insisted on the fastest advance to Berlin. However, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, General D. Eisenhower, was going to continue the offensive along the Erfurt-Leipzig-Dresden axis and towards Regensburg-Linz. He had no intention of joining the Soviet army in the race for Berlin.
On May 2, after the assault, the German capital Berlin was captured by Soviet troops.

6.5. End of the war in Italy

The difficult and bloody campaign in Italy lasted from September 1943 until the very end of the war. On June 4, 1944, the Allied forces entered Rome and by August 15 reached the fortified line southeast of Rimini, Florence, the Arno River.
However, the offensive undertaken in the fall of 1944 was unsuccessful.
Only on April 9, 1945, a new offensive by the Allied forces led to a breakthrough of the German front.
On May 2, 1945, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Mediterranean, Field Marshal H. Alexander, accepted the surrender of the German Army Group C.

6.6. End of the war in Germany

British troops were advancing into Germany on the northern flank of the Allied front.
On May 4, 1945, German troops in the northwest capitulated to Field Marshal B. Montgomery's 21st Army Group, which occupied Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein and part of Mecklenburg.
On the night of May 7, at D. Eisenhower's headquarters in Reims, General A. Jodl, on behalf of the German command, signed the act of unconditional surrender of Germany. The Soviet side expressed a categorical protest against such unilateral actions, and on May 8, in the Berlin suburb of Karlhorst, in the presence of representatives of the USSR, USA, Great Britain and France, an act of unconditional surrender of the German armed forces was signed.

However, in the zone of British occupation, German troops continued to be commanded by German generals: G. Lindemann in Denmark, G. Blumentritt in northwestern Germany and J. Blaskowitz in Holland and west of the Weser River. In Norway, German troops surrendered their weapons, but were not recognized as prisoners of war and retained their structure. As Churchill wrote in his memoirs,

"In my eyes, the Soviet threat has already replaced the Nazi enemy."

Only on May 23, at the request of the USSR and the USA, the British authorities arrested the German government led by Grand Admiral K. Dönitz.

7. Victory over Japan

7.1. Victory in Burma

In August 1943, the Joint Allied Command in Southeast Asia was created, headed by the British Admiral Lord Mountbatten. In December 1943, the 14th Anglo-Indian Army was led by General W. Slim.
In March-July 1944, the British managed to repel the Japanese offensive in the Imphal area, then, as a result of the counter-offensive, the Anglo-Indian army occupied Northern Burma, crossed the wide-water Irrawaddy River in February 1945, and in March near Meiktila inflicted a new defeat on the Japanese, after which it occupied the capital of Burma Rangoon.

See also Battle of Kohima.

7.2. In the Far East

Britain wanted to participate in an increasing number of campaigns in the final period of the war. In November 1944, the British Pacific Fleet was formed. In March 1945, he launched operations in the Pacific under the overall command of an American admiral.
However, Japan capitulated much earlier than British troops arrived in the Far East. Thus, only the English fleet and the combined forces of Australia and New Zealand took part in the final stage of the war.

8. Results of the war

The main result of the war from the point of view of Great Britain was the preservation of the country's independence. At the same time, Great Britain spent more than half of its foreign investments on the war; by the end of the war, the external debt reached 3 billion pounds sterling. She desperately needed outside help for her recovery. Many international markets were lost by it. Thus, Great Britain lost its role as a world leader, and the USA and the USSR entered the first rank of superpowers.

The results of World War II include the collapse of the British Empire. The decline in prestige of the British Empire during a period of failure cost it dearly. In the post-war period, most of the British colonies gained independence, although certain ties with the former metropolis remain within the Commonwealth.
Losses and expenses during the war led to huge balance of payments deficits. Foreign investment fell by a quarter. The merchant fleet shrank by more than a quarter, and its income in the post-war years never reached pre-war levels in real terms. The balance of payments deficit became chronic for many years.
They had to save money, and already at the beginning of 1948, wage increases were prohibited, despite rising prices and taxes. In 1949, free school breakfasts and free travel for schoolchildren on buses were abolished.
After the war, production in Great Britain began to grow, mainly due to knowledge-intensive industries: electronics and, in particular, computer production, aircraft construction, jet engine production, and chemistry. In the first post-war years, Great Britain produced up to 2/3 of all cars Western Europe. All this was in great demand on the world market.
In 1948, the overall index of industrial output reached pre-war levels. The UK has regained its share of world exports.
The post-war Labor government repealed the anti-trade union law of 1927, introduced a new health system, social insurance and limited the powers of the House of Lords, which could henceforth delay the passage of legislation for no more than a year.
Women's wages in the post-war period were 52-55% of men's wages.
Food rationing after the war was not only not abolished, but was also extended to bread (June 1946) and potatoes (November 1947), which did not exist even during the war. The norms for food supply on cards have been reduced. Food cards remained until 1953.

9. Losses

According to W. Churchill, the British armed forces lost 303,240 people killed and missing in action during the Second World War, and together with the dominions, India and the colonies - 412,240 people.
Civilian losses amounted to 60,500 people, fishing and merchant fleet losses amounted to 30,000 people.

According to the twelve-volume History of the Second World War, British casualties in World War II amounted to 370,000.

Bibliography:

In particular, he emphasized that without American commitment to joint defense against Japan, Britain would be torn between the eastern and western spheres. A conflict with Germany would mean exposing the Asian part of the British Empire to Japanese aggression.

According to the records of the permanent Deputy Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain in 1938-1946 A. Cadogan

The Forrestal Diaries, New York, 1951, p 121−122; cit. from: History of the Second World War. 1939-1945. T. 02. M., 1974. P. 345

History of the Second World War 1939-1945, M.: Voenizdat, 1974, vol. 2, pp. 402-405.

V. Shevchenko. The beginning of World War II.

Liddell Hart B.G. The Second World War. - M.: AST, St. Petersburg: Terra Fantastica, 1999. - p. 111.

F. Halder. War diary. vol. 2. - M.: Military Publishing House. - With. 80.

W. Churchill. The Second World War, book 2 (volume 3), M.: Voenizdat, 1991 - p.49.

W. Churchill. The Second World War. Book 2 (volume 3). - M.: Military Publishing House, 1991. - pp. 171-172.

W. Churchill. The Second World War. Book 2 (volume 4). M.: Military Publishing House, 1991. - pp. 401-402.

Boris Borisov: AMERICAN HOLDOMORT

History of the Second World War 1939-1945. v.6. - p.244-246.

W. Churchill. The Second World War. Book 3 (volume 6). - M: Military Publishing House, 1991. - p. 449.

W. Churchill. The Second World War. Book 3 (volume 6). - M.: Military Publishing House, 1991. - pp. 574-575.

W. Churchill. The Second World War. Book 3 (volume 6). - M.: Military Publishing House, 1991. - p.631.

The change in the balance of power in the international arena is also associated with the process of revising the role of the participants in the anti-Hitler coalition in the victory over Nazi Germany. Not only in modern media, but also in a number of historical works old myths are supported or new myths are created. The old ones include the opinion that the Soviet Union achieved victory only thanks to incalculable losses, many times greater than the losses of the enemy, and the new ones include the decisive role of Western countries, mainly the United States, in victory and the high level of their military skill. We will try, based on the statistical material available to us, to offer a different opinion.

The criterion used is total data, such as, for example, the losses of the parties during the entire war, which, due to their simplicity and clarity, confirm one or another point of view.

In order to select from sometimes contradictory data those that can be relied upon with a significant degree of reliability, it is necessary to use specific values ​​in addition to total values. Such values ​​may include losses per unit of time, for example, daily, losses falling on a certain section of the front length, etc.

A team of authors led by Colonel General G. F. Krivosheev in 1988-1993. a comprehensive statistical study of archival documents and other materials containing information about human losses in the army and navy, border and internal troops of the NKVD was carried out. The results of this major research were published in the work “Russia and the USSR in the Wars of the 20th Century.”

During the Great Patriotic War 34 million people were drafted into the Red Army, including those drafted in June 1941. This amount is almost equal to the mobilization resource that the country had at that time. The losses of the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War amounted to 11,273 thousand people, that is, a third of the number conscripted. These losses are, of course, very large, but everything can be learned in comparison: after all, the losses of Germany and its allies on the Soviet-German front are also great.

Table 1 shows the irretrievable losses of Red Army personnel by year of the Great Patriotic War. Data on the magnitude of annual losses are taken from the work “Russia and the USSR in the Wars of the 20th Century”. This includes killed, missing, captured and those who died in captivity.

Table 1. Losses of the Red Army

The last column of the proposed table shows the average daily losses suffered by the Red Army. In 1941, they were the highest, since our troops had to retreat in very unfavorable conditions, and large formations were surrounded, in the so-called cauldrons. In 1942, losses were significantly less, although the Red Army also had to retreat, but there were no longer large cauldrons. In 1943 there were very stubborn battles, especially on the Kursk Bulge, but from that year until the end of the war, the troops of Nazi Germany had to retreat. In 1944, the Soviet High Command planned and carried out a number of brilliant strategic operations to defeat and encircle entire groups of German armies, so the losses of the Red Army were relatively small. But in 1945, daily losses increased again, because the tenacity of the German army increased, since it was already fighting on its own territory, and German soldiers courageously defended their fatherland.

Let us compare the losses of Germany with the losses of England and the USA on the Second Front. We will try to evaluate them based on the data of the famous Russian demographer B. Ts. Urlanis. In the book “History of Military Losses,” Urlanis, speaking about the losses of England and the United States, provides the following data:

Table 2. Losses of the British armed forces in World War II (thousands of people)

In the war with Japan, England lost “11.4% of the total number of dead soldiers and officers,” therefore, in order to estimate the amount of England’s losses on the Second Front, we need to subtract the losses for 4 years of war from the total amount of losses and multiply by 1 – 0.114 = 0.886:

(1,246 – 667) 0.886 = 500 thousand people.

Total US losses in World War II amounted to 1,070 thousand, of which approximately three quarters were losses in the war with Germany, thus

1,070 * 0.75 = 800 thousand people.

The total total losses of England and the USA are

1,246 + 1,070 = 2,316 thousand people.

Thus, the losses of England and the United States on the Second Front amount to approximately 60% of their total losses in World War II.

As mentioned above, the losses of the USSR amount to 11.273 million people, that is, at first glance, incomparable with the losses amounting to 1.3 million people suffered by England and the USA on the Second Front. On this basis, the conclusion is drawn that the Allied command fought skillfully and took care of people, while the Soviet High Command allegedly filled the enemy trenches with the corpses of its soldiers. Let us allow ourselves to disagree with such ideas. Based on the data on daily losses given in Table 1, it can be obtained that from June 7, 1944 to May 8, 1945, that is, during the existence of the Second Front, the losses of the Red Army amounted to 1.8 million people, which is only slightly higher than the losses of the Allies. As is known, the length of the Second Front was 640 km, and the Soviet-German Front was from 2,000 to 3,000 km, on average 2,500 km, i.e. 4-5 times greater than the length of the Second Front. Therefore, on a front section with a length equal to the length of the Second Front, the Red Army lost approximately 450 thousand people, which is 3 times less than the losses of the allies.

On the fronts of World War II, the armed forces of Nazi Germany itself lost 7,181 thousand, and the armed forces of its allies - 1,468 thousand people, a total of 8,649 thousand.

Thus, the ratio of losses on the Soviet-German front turns out to be 13:10, that is, for every 13 killed, missing, wounded, or captured Soviet soldiers, there are 10 German soldiers.

According to the Chief of the German General Staff F. Halder, in 1941-1942. The fascist army lost about 3,600 soldiers and officers every day, therefore, in the first two years of the war, the losses of the fascist bloc amounted to about two million people. This means that over the subsequent period, the losses of Germany and its allies amounted to about 6,600 thousand people. During the same period, the losses of the Red Army amounted to approximately 5 million people. Thus, in 1943-1945, for every 10 Red Army soldiers killed, there were 13 dead soldiers fascist army. These simple statistics clearly and objectively characterize the quality of troop leadership and the degree careful attitude to the soldiers.

General A.I. Denikin

“Be that as it may, no tricks could detract from the significance of the fact that the Red Army has been fighting skillfully for some time now, and the Russian soldier has been selflessly fighting. The successes of the Red Army could not be explained by numerical superiority alone. In our eyes, this phenomenon had a simple and natural explanation.

From time immemorial, Russian people were smart, talented and loved their homeland from the inside. From time immemorial, the Russian soldier was immensely resilient and selflessly brave. These human and military qualities could not drown out twenty-five Soviet years of suppression of thought and conscience, collective farm slavery, Stakhanovite exhaustion and the replacement of national self-awareness with international dogma. And when it became obvious to everyone that there was an invasion and conquest, and not liberation, that only the replacement of one yoke with another was foreseen, the people, postponing accounts with communism until a more opportune time, rose for the Russian land just as their ancestors rose during the invasions Swedish, Polish and Napoleonic...

Under the sign of the international, the inglorious Finnish campaign and the defeat of the Red Army by the Germans on the roads to Moscow took place; under the slogan of defending the Motherland, the German armies were defeated!”

Opinion of General A.I. Denikin is especially important for us because he received a deep and comprehensive education at the Academy of the General Staff, had his own rich experience in combat operations, acquired in the Russo-Japanese, World War I and Civil Wars. His opinion is also important because, while remaining an ardent patriot of Russia, he was and until the end of his life remained a consistent enemy of Bolshevism, so one can rely on the impartiality of his assessment.

Let's consider the ratio of losses of the Allied and German armies. The literature provides the total losses of the German army, but data on German losses on the Second Front is not given, probably deliberately. The Great Patriotic War lasted 1418 days, the Second Front existed for 338 days, which is 1/4 of the duration of the Great Patriotic War. Therefore, it is assumed that Germany’s losses on the Second Front are four times less. Thus, if on the Soviet-German front German losses amount to 8.66 million people, then we can assume that German losses on the Second Front are about 2.2 million, and the loss ratio is approximately 10 to 20, which would seem to confirm point of view about high martial art our allies in World War II.

We cannot agree with this point of view. Some Western researchers also disagree with her. “Against the inexperienced, albeit eager, Americans and the war-weary, cautious British, the Germans could field an army that, in the words of Max Hastings, “won a historical reputation for being undaunted and reaching its zenith under Hitler.” Hastings states: “Everywhere during the Second World War, whenever and wherever British and American troops met head-on with the Germans, the Germans won.”<…>What struck Hastings and other historians most was the loss ratio, which was two to one or even higher in favor of the Germans.”

American Colonel Trevor Dupuy conducted a detailed statistical study of German actions in the Second World War. Some of his explanations for why Hitler's armies were so much more effective than their opponents seem unfounded. But not a single critic questioned his main conclusion that on almost every battlefield during the war, including Normandy, the German soldier was more effective than his opponents.

Unfortunately, we do not have the data that Hastings used, but if there is no direct data on German losses on the Second Front, we will try to estimate them indirectly. Considering that the intensity of the battles waged by the German army in the West and in the East was the same, and that losses per kilometer of front were approximately equal, we obtain that German losses per Eastern Front should be divided not by 4, but, taking into account the difference in the length of the front line, by approximately 15-16. Then it turns out that Germany lost no more than 600 thousand people on the Second Front. Thus, we find that on the Second Front the ratio of losses is 22 Anglo-American soldiers to 10 German ones, and not vice versa.

A similar ratio was observed in the Ardennes operation, which was carried out by the German command from December 16, 1944 to January 28, 1945. As the German general Melentin writes, during this operation the allied army lost 77 thousand soldiers, and the German army lost 25 thousand, that is, we get a ratio of 31 to 10, even exceeding that obtained above.

Based on the above reasoning, it is possible to refute the myth about the insignificance of German losses on the Soviet-German front. It is said that Germany allegedly lost about 3.4 million people. If we assume that this value corresponds to the truth, then we will have to accept that on the Second Front German losses amounted to only:

3.4 million/16 = 200 thousand people,

which is 6-7 times less than the losses of England and the United States on the Second Front. If Germany fought so brilliantly on all fronts and suffered such insignificant losses, then it is unclear why it did not win the war? Therefore, assumptions that the losses of the Anglo-American army are lower than the German ones, as well as that the German losses are significantly lower than the Soviet ones, must be rejected, since they are based on incredible figures and are not consistent with reality and common sense.

Thus, it can be argued that the power of the German army was decisively undermined by the victorious Red Army on the Soviet-German front. With an overwhelming superiority in people and equipment, the Anglo-American command showed amazing indecisiveness and ineffectiveness, one might say mediocrity, comparable to the confusion and unpreparedness of the Soviet command in the initial period of the war in 1941-1942.

This statement can be supported by a number of pieces of evidence. First, we will give a description of the actions of the special groups, which were led by the famous Otto Skorzeny, during the offensive of the German army in the Ardennes.

“On the first day of the offensive, one of Skorzeny’s groups managed to get through the gap made in the allied lines and advance to Yun, which was located near the banks of the Meuse. There, having changed her German uniform to an American one, she dug in and fortified herself at the intersection of roads and observed the movement of enemy troops. The group commander, who spoke fluent English, went so far as to take a bold walk around the area to “get acquainted with the situation.”

A few hours later, an armored regiment passed near them, and its commander asked them for directions. Without blinking an eye, the commander gave him a completely wrong answer. Namely, he stated that these “German pigs have just cut off several roads. He himself received an order to make a big detour with his column.” Very happy that they were warned in time, the American tankers actually headed along the path that “our man” showed them.

Returning to the location of their unit, this detachment cut off several telephone lines and removed the signs posted by the American Quartermaster Service, and also laid mines here and there. Twenty-four hours later, all the men and officers of this group returned to the lines of their troops in perfect health, bringing interesting observations about the confusion that reigned behind the American front line at the beginning of the offensive.

Another of these small detachments also crossed the front line and advanced all the way to the Meuse. According to his observations, the Allies could be said to have done nothing to protect the bridges in the area. On the way back, the detachment was able to block three highways leading to the front line by hanging colored ribbons on the trees, which in the American army means that the roads are mined. Subsequently, Skorzeny's scouts saw that the columns of British and American troops actually avoided these roads, preferring to make a long detour.

The third group discovered an ammunition depot. After waiting until dark; The commandos "removed" the guards and then blew up this warehouse. A little later they discovered a telephone collector cable, which they managed to cut in three places.

But the most significant story happened to another detachment, which on December 16 suddenly found itself directly in front of the American positions. Two GI companies prepared for a long defense, built pillboxes and installed machine guns. Skorzeny's men must have been somewhat confused, especially when an American officer asked them what was happening there on the front lines.

Pulling himself together, the detachment commander, dressed in the fine uniform of an American sergeant, told the Yankee captain a very interesting story. Probably, the Americans attributed the confusion that was visible on the faces of the German soldiers to the last skirmish with the “damned Boches.” The detachment commander, a pseudo-sergeant, stated that the Germans had already bypassed this position, both on the right and on the left, so that it was practically surrounded. The amazed American captain immediately gave the order to retreat."

Let us also use the observations of the German tankman Otto Carius, who fought against Soviet soldiers from 1941 to 1944, and against Anglo-American soldiers from 1944 to 1945. Let us cite an interesting event from his front-line experience in the West. "Almost all of our cars"Kubel" were disabled. Therefore, one evening we decided to replenish our fleet with an American one. It never occurred to anyone to consider this a heroic act!

The Yankees slept in their houses at night, as “front-line soldiers” were supposed to do. At best, there was one sentry outside, but only if there was good weather. Around midnight we set off with four soldiers and returned quite soon with two jeeps. It was convenient that they did not require keys. All you had to do was turn on the switch and the car was ready to go. Only when we returned to our positions did the Yankees open indiscriminate fire into the air, probably to calm their nerves."

Having personal experience wars on the eastern and western fronts, Carius concludes: “In the end, five Russians posed a greater danger than thirty Americans.” Western researcher Stephen E. Ambrose says that casualties can be minimized “only by ending the war quickly, rather than by exercising caution during offensive operations.”

Based on the evidence given and the relationships obtained above, it can be argued that at the final stage of the war, the Soviet command fought more skillfully than the German and much more effectively than the Anglo-American, because “the art of warfare requires courage and intelligence, and not just superiority in technology and number of troops."

Russia and the USSR in the wars of the twentieth century. M. "OLMA-PRESS". 2001 p. 246.
B. Ts. Urlanis. History of military losses. St. Petersburg 1994 228-232.
O'Bradley. Notes of a soldier. Foreign literature. M 1957 p. 484.
Russia and the USSR in the wars of the twentieth century. M. "OLMA-PRESS". 2001 p. 514.
Colonel General F. Halder. War diary. Volume 3, book 2. Military publishing house of the USSR Ministry of Defense. P. 436
D. Lekhovich. Whites against reds. Moscow “Sunday”. 1992 p. 335.

F. Melentin. Tank battles 1939-1945. Test site AST. 2000
Otto Skorzeny. Smolensk Rusich. 2000 p. 388, 389
Otto Carius. "Tigers in the mud." M. Centropolygraph. 2005 p. 258, 256
Stephen E. Ambrose. D-Day AST. M. 2003. pp. 47, 49.
J. F. S. Fuller World War II 1939-1945 Publishing House of Foreign Literature. Moscow, 1956, p.26.

All experts in the history of the Second World War know the story of the English cruiser Edinburgh, which transported approximately 5.5 tons of gold in 1942. Nowadays it is often written that this was payment for Len-Lease supplies for which the USSR supposedly paid in gold.

Any unbiased specialist dealing with this issue knows that gold was paid only for pre-Lend-Lease deliveries of 1941, and for other years deliveries were not subject to payment.

The USSR paid in gold for supplies before the conclusion of the Lend-Lease agreement, as well as for goods and materials purchased from allies other than Lend-Lease.

On Edinburgh there were 465 gold bars with a total weight of 5536 kilograms, loaded in Murmansk in April 1942 and they were payment by the Soviet Union to England for weapons supplied in excess of the list stipulated in the Lend-Lease agreement.

But this gold did not reach England either. The cruiser Edinburgh was damaged and scuttled. And, the Soviet Union, even during the war years, received insurance in the amount of 32.32% of the value of gold, paid by the British War Risk Insurance Bureau. By the way, all the gold transported, the notorious 5.5 tons, at prices of that time cost just over 100 million dollars. For comparison, the total cost of goods delivered to the USSR under Lend-Lease is $11.3 billion.

However, this was not the end of Edinburgh's gold story. In 1981, the English treasure hunting company Jesson Marine Recovery entered into an agreement with the authorities of the USSR and Great Britain on the search and recovery of gold. "Edinburgh" lay at a depth of 250 meters. In the most difficult conditions, the divers managed to lift 5129 kg. According to the agreement, 2/3 of the gold was received by the USSR. Thus, not only was the gold transported by Edinburgh not a payment for Lend-Lease and that this gold never reached the allies, but a third of its value was reimbursed to the USSR during the war years , so, another forty years later, when this gold was raised, most of it was returned to the USSR.

Let us repeat once again, the USSR did not pay in gold for deliveries under Lend-Lease in 1942, since the Lend-Lease agreement stipulated that material and technical assistance would be supplied to the Soviet side with a deferred payment or even free of charge.

The USSR was subject to the US Lend-Lease law based on the following principles:
- all payments for supplied materials are made after the end of the war
- materials that will be destroyed are not subject to any payment
- materials that will remain suitable for civilian needs,
paid no earlier than 5 years after the end of the war, in order
providing long-term loans
- the US share in Lend-Lease was 96.4%.

Supplies from the USA to the USSR can be divided into the following stages:
Pre-Lend-Lease - from June 22, 1941 to September 30, 1941 (paid in gold)
First Protocol - from October 1, 1941 to June 30, 1942 (signed October 1, 1941)
Second Protocol - from July 1, 1942 to June 30, 1943 (signed October 6, 1942)
Third Protocol - from July 1, 1943 to June 30, 1944 (signed October 19, 1943)
The fourth protocol - from July 1, 1944, (signed on April 17, 1944), formally
ended on May 12, 1945, but deliveries were extended until the end of the war
with Japan, which the USSR pledged to join 90 days after the end
war in Europe (that is, August 8, 1945).

Many people know the story of Edinburgh, but few know the story of another British cruiser, the Emerald. But this cruiser had to carry gold in volumes incomparably larger than the Edinburgh. Only on its first voyage to Canada in 1939, the Emerald transported a cargo of 650 million dollars in gold and securities, and it had several such voyages.

The beginning of the Second World War was extremely unsuccessful for England, and after the evacuation of troops from the Continent, the fate of the island depended on the fleet and aviation, since only they could prevent a possible landing of the Germans. At the same time, in the event of the fall of England, Churchill's government planned to move to Canada and from here continue the fight against Germany. For this purpose, the English gold reserves were transported to Canada, a total of about 1,500 tons of gold and about 300 billion dollars in securities and currencies at modern prices.

Among this gold was part of the gold of the former Russian Empire. How this gold got to England, and then to Canada, few people know.

Before the First World War, Russia's gold reserves were the largest in the world and amounted to 1 billion 695 million rubles (1311 tons of gold). At the beginning of the First World War, significant amounts of gold were sent to England as a guarantee for war loans. In 1914, 75 million rubles in gold (8 million pounds) were sent through Arkhangelsk to London. On the way, the ships of the convoy (the cruiser Drake and the transport Mantois) were damaged by mines and this route was considered dangerous. In 1915-1916, 375 million rubles in gold (40 million pounds) were sent by railway to Vladivostok, and then transported on Japanese warships to Canada and placed in the vaults of the Bank of England in Ottawa. In February 1917, another 187 million rubles in gold (20 million pounds) were sent the same way through Vladivostok. These amounts of gold became a guarantee of British loans to Russia for the purchase of military equipment in the amount of 300 and 150 million pounds sterling, respectively. It is known that from the beginning of the war until October 1917, Russia transferred a total of 498 tons of gold to the Bank of England; 58 tons were soon sold, and the remaining 440 tons were kept in the Bank of England vaults as collateral for loans.

In addition, part of the gold paid by the Bolsheviks to the Germans after the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty in 1918 also ended up in England. Representatives of Soviet Russia pledged to send 250 tons of gold to Germany as indemnity and managed to send two trains with 98 tons of gold. After the surrender of Germany, all this gold went to the victorious countries of France, England and the USA as an indemnity.

With the outbreak of the Second World War, already in September 1939, the British government decided that deposit holders holding securities in British banks must declare them to the Royal Treasury. In addition, all deposits of individuals and legal entities from countries adversaries of Great Britain and countries occupied by Germany and its allies were frozen.

Even before the operation of transporting the Bank of England's valuables to Canada, millions of pounds in gold and securities were transferred to purchase weapons from the Americans.

One of the first ships to transport these valuables was the cruiser Emerald under the command of Augustus Willington Shelton Agar. On 3 October 1939, HMS Emerald anchored in Plymouth, England, where Agar received orders to proceed to Halifax in Canada.

On October 7, 1939, the cruiser sailed from Plymouth with gold bullion from the Bank of England bound for Montreal. As this voyage was a closely guarded secret, the crew wore tropical white uniforms to confuse German agents. As an escort, Emerald was accompanied by the battleships HMS Revenge and HMS Resolution, and the cruisers HMS Enterprise and HMS Caradoc.

Fearing a German landing in England, Churchill's government developed a plan to allow Britain to continue the war even if the island was captured. To achieve this, all gold reserves and securities were transported to Canada. Using its wartime powers, Churchill's government confiscated all securities held by banks in England and, under cover of secrecy, moved them to the port of Greenock in Scotland.

Within ten days, recalled one of the participants in this operation, all the deposits selected for transfer in the banks of the United Kingdom were collected, folded into thousands of boxes the size of orange crates and taken to regional collection centers. All this was wealth brought to Great Britain by generations of its traders and sailors. Now, together with the accumulated tons of gold of the British Empire, they had to cross the ocean.

The cruiser Emerald, now commanded by Captain Francis Cyrille Flynn, was again chosen to transport the first batch of secret cargo; on June 24, it was supposed to leave Greenock harbor in Scotland.

On June 23, four of the best specialists in the field left London by train for Glasgow. financial matters from the Bank of England with Alexander Craig at its head. Meanwhile, a heavily guarded special train brought the last shipment of gold and securities to Greenock for loading onto a cruiser docked in Clyde Bay. During the night, the destroyer Kossak arrived to join the Emerald's escort.

By six o'clock in the evening on the 24th, the cruiser was loaded with valuables like no other ship before it. His artillery magazines were filled with 2,229 heavy boxes, each containing four gold bars. (The load of gold turned out to be so heavy that at the end of the voyage, the corners of the floors of these cellars were found bent.) There were also boxes of securities, there were 488 of them, totaling more than 400 million dollars.

Thus, already in the first transportation there were valuables worth more than half a billion dollars. The ship left port on June 24, 1940 and, accompanied by several destroyers, sailed for Canada.

The weather was not very favorable for swimming. As the storm intensified, the speed of the escort destroyers began to drop, and Captain Vaillant, in command of the escort, signaled Captain Flynn to go in an anti-submarine zigzag so that the Emerald would maintain its higher and, therefore, safer speed. But the ocean raged more and more, and in the end the destroyers fell so far behind that Captain Flynn decided to continue sailing alone. On the fourth day the weather improved, and soon, on July 1, somewhere after 5 a.m., the shores of Nova Scotia appeared on the horizon. Now, in calm water, the Emerald sailed towards Halifax, making 28 knots, and at 7.35 on July 1, it safely docked.

In Halifax, the cargo was transferred to a special train, which was already waiting on the railway line approaching the dock. Representatives of the Canadian Bank and the Canadian National Express railway company were also present. Before unloading began, extraordinary precautions were taken and the pier was carefully sealed off. Each box, when removed from the cruiser, was registered as handed over, and then entered into the list when loaded into the carriage, and all this happened at an accelerated pace. At seven o'clock in the evening the train with the gold departed.

On July 2, 1940, at 5 p.m., the train arrived at Bonaventure station in Montreal. In Montreal, the cars with securities were uncoupled, and the gold moved on to Ottawa. On the platform, the cargo was met by David Mansour, acting manager of the Canadian Bank, and Sidney Perkins from the exchange control department. Both of these people were aware that the train was carrying a secret cargo codenamed "Fish". But only Mansur knew that they were about to take part in the largest financial transaction ever carried out by states in peace or war.
As soon as the train stopped, armed guards came out of the carriages and surrounded it. Mansur and Perkins were led into one of the carriages, where a thin, short man with glasses - Alexander Craig from the Bank of England - was waiting for them, accompanied by three assistants.

Now the valuables became their responsibility, and they had to put these thousands of packages somewhere. David Mansur has already figured out where.
The 24-story granite building of the Sun Life insurance company, which occupied an entire block in Montreal, was the most convenient for these purposes. It had three underground floors, and the lowest of them in wartime was supposed to be allocated for the storage of valuables like this “Valuable Deposit” papers of the United Kingdom,” as it was called.

Shortly after 1 a.m., as traffic died down on Montreal streets, police cordoned off several blocks between the marshalling yard and Sun Life. After this, trucks began to circulate between the cars and the rear entrance to the building, escorted by armed Canadian National Express guards. When the last box was in its place - which was duly recorded - the deposit officer, Craig, on behalf of the Bank of England, took from David Mansour a receipt on behalf of the Bank of Canada.

Now it was necessary to quickly equip a reliable storage facility. But making a chamber 60 feet long and wide and 11 feet high required enormous amounts of steel. Where can I get it in wartime? Someone remembered an unused, abandoned railroad line whose two miles of track had 870 rails. It was from these that the walls and ceiling, three feet thick, were made. Ultra-sensitive microphones of sound-collecting devices were installed in the ceiling, recording even the faintest clicks of drawers being pulled out of the iron cabinet. In order to open the vault doors, it was necessary to dial two different digital combinations on the locking device. Two bank employees were given one combination, two others were given a second. “Another combination was unknown to me,” one of them recalled, “and every time it was necessary to enter the cell, we had to gather in pairs.”

The Emerald's voyage was only the first in a series of "golden" transatlantic crossings of British ships. On July 8, five ships left British ports carrying the largest combined cargo of valuables ever transported by water or land. At midnight, the battleship Ravenge and the cruiser Bonaventure left Clyde Bay. At dawn, they were joined in the North Channel by three former liners: Monarch of Bermuda, Sobieski and Batory (the latter two were Free Poland ships). The escort consisted of four destroyers. This convoy, commanded by Admiral Sir Ernest Russell Archer, was carrying approximately $773 million worth of gold bullion and 229 boxes of securities with a total value of approximately $1,750,000,000.

Throughout the crossing of the Atlantic, eight 15-inch and twelve 6-inch guns and batteries of 4-inch anti-aircraft guns were in constant combat readiness. On July 13, the first three ships entered Halifax Harbor. Soon after this, Bonaventure appeared, and then Batory. Five special trains were required to transport the gold bullion to Ottawa. The load was so heavy that no more than 200 boxes were stacked in each carriage so that the floor could support it. Each train carried from 10 to 14 such freight cars. Each carriage was locked with two guards who replaced each other every four hours.

All this gold was transported without insurance. Who could or would even want to insure hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bullion, especially in wartime? The gold cargo delivered by the Ravenge convoy led to another record: the expenses of the Canadian National Express for its transportation turned out to be the highest in its history - something like a million dollars.

In Ottawa, the Canadian National Railroad arranged for special trains to arrive so that they could unload and transport the gold to the Canada Bank on Wellington Street at night. Who would have thought just recently that this five-story bank building, just 140 feet high, would become like Fort Knox, the largest repository of valuables in the world? For three days, the cargo of the Ravenge convoy poured into a golden stream into the bank's vault, which measured 60 by 100 feet. The trucks were unloaded, and the 27-pound pigs, like large bars of yellow soap in wire wrappers, were neatly stacked in the vault, row by row, layer by layer, into a huge, ceiling-high stack of tens of thousands of heavy gold bars.
During the three summer months, three dozen cargoes of securities arrived in Montreal by rail.

Almost 900 four-door cabinets were required to accommodate all the certificates. The valuables hidden underground were guarded around the clock by 24 police officers, who ate and slept there.

A spacious, high room next to a vault filled with securities was equipped as an office for working with deposits. Mansour brought in 120 people - former bank employees, specialists from brokerage firms and stenographers from investment banks - who were sworn to secrecy.

The office was certainly exceptional. There was only one elevator leading down to the third floor, and each employee had to present a special pass (which changed every month) - first before entering it, and then below - to the guards from the Mounted Police and sign for their arrival and departure daily. The guards' desks had buttons that triggered alarms directly at the Montreal and Royal Canadian Mounted Police departments, as well as at the Dominion Electrical Protection Service. Throughout the summer, during which the total number of boxes of securities reached almost two thousand, Craig's employees worked ten hours every day with one day off per week. All these securities, belonging to thousands of different owners, had to be unpacked, disassembled and sorted. As a result, it was established that there were approximately two thousand different types of stocks and bonds, including all listed shares of companies paying high dividends. By September, deposit man Craig, who knew everything he was supposed to have, knew that he did have it all. Each certificate was recorded and entered into the card index.

Gold, like securities, arrived continuously. As documents available at the Admiralty show, between June and August, British ships (along with several Canadian and Polish ones) transported more than $2,556,000,000 worth of gold to Canada and the United States.

In total, more than 1,500 tons of gold were transported during Operation Fish, and taking into account the gold received by England from Russia during the First World War, every third gold bar stored in Ottawa was of Russian origin.
In modern gold prices, the smuggled treasure corresponds to approximately $230 billion dollars, and the value of the securities stored in the Sun Life building is estimated at more than $300 billion in modern prices.

Despite the fact that thousands of people were involved in the transport, the Axis intelligence services never learned about this operation. This speaks volumes incredible fact that during these three months during which transportation was carried out, 134 allied and neutral ships were sunk in the North Atlantic - and not one of them was carrying a gold cargo.

Countries such as Germany-occupied Belgium, Holland, France, Norway and Poland stored their gold in Canada.

According to information published by the Central Bank of Canada on November 27, 1997, a total of 2,586 tons of gold were sent to Canada for storage by various states and individuals during the Second World War, between 1938 and 1945.

It is interesting that at present, Canada has generally sold all of its gold reserves, and not at all due to an emergency need for money.

For many decades, Canada has been among the top ten countries with the highest standard of living and was even in first place. The government explained this step by saying that the liquidity of securities is much higher than gold and gold has long been no longer a guarantor of the stability of the national currency, since The volumes of gold reserves, in monetary terms, even the most significant ones, constitute only an insignificant share in the total volume of circulating money supply in the commodity turnover of developed countries.

england history world war

The Second World War was for England, as for most countries of the world, a great historical test. In the mortal battle with fascism, everything was tested - the positions of classes and parties, the viability of ideologies and political doctrines, economic structures, the social systems themselves.

War 1939-1945 took place in an immeasurably more complex situation than the First World War. Subjectively, the ruling circles of England sought in this war only to defeat a dangerous competitor and to expand their world positions. But still it was a war against fascist states, against the most monstrous reaction that capitalism has ever generated. The contradiction between the liberation goals and the purely imperialist plans of the ruling circles of England, which was objectively generated by the very fact of the war against fascism, affected the entire duration of the war.

During the first year of hostilities, the reactionary maneuvers of the ruling elite clearly prevailed, and from the summer of 1941, when a military alliance between the USSR, England and the USA began to take shape, the war on the part of England finally acquired an anti-fascist liberation character.

When Hitler's troops invaded Poland (September 1, 1939), Chamberlain was still hesitant to declare war, despite the guarantees given in March and the mutual assistance pact concluded with Poland on August 24, 1939. The masses were so outraged by the government's inaction that even the Labor Party leadership strongly demanded an immediate declaration of war. As a result of pressure outside and inside the House, Chamberlain declared war on September 3. Following this, the dominions - Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the Union of South Africa - declared war. Chamberlain managed to “pacify” the opposition in the ranks of his own party by giving the portfolio of Minister of Navy to W. Churchill, and the Minister of Dominion Affairs to A. Eden.

The Munich people, who had a huge majority in the government, even after the declaration of war on Germany, still dreamed of an actual alliance with it against the USSR. Poland was sacrificed to these plans, to which England did not provide any real assistance. A “strange war” began: England and France undertook almost no operations either on land or in the air; Only at sea there were several battles that did not affect the balance of forces: preparations for future battles with Germany proceeded extremely slowly. Some military measures were nevertheless taken - both for reinsurance and to calm public opinion. Slowly, military leaders mobilized and transferred expeditionary troops to France; arms production increased; arms purchases expanded in the United States, where the “neutrality law” was revised, and the evacuation of women and children from big cities began. But compared to the frantic pace of preparation of the German armies for operations in the West, all these measures were very insignificant.

Retribution soon came. On April 9, 1940, German troops occupied Denmark and began the occupation of Norway. This defeat was the fruit not only of Munich’s policy in the pre-war period, but also of Chamberlain’s policy during the “Phantom War”. But the war has already lost its “strange” character. It was no longer possible to leave power in the hands of people who had absolutely failed both in the days of peace and in the days of war.

The mood in the country also found a response in parliament. On May 7-8, 1940, the long-overdue explosion occurred. Labour, Liberals and even some Conservatives attacked the government, demanding its resignation. L. Emery, addressing Chamberlain, repeated the words that Cromwell had once uttered: “In the name of God, leave!” Lloyd George said that the prime minister's best contribution to victory would be "if he sacrificed the office he now occupies."

On May 10, Chamberlain resigned. Labour's tactics, however, meant that power effectively remained in the hands of the Conservatives, although the new cabinet was a coalition one. Winston Churchill became the head of the government. Clement Attlee took over as his deputy. Many Munich residents remained in the new cabinet, including Chamberlain himself and Halifax. But the balance of power between them and the supporters of decisive resistance to the aggressor has now changed towards the latter.

At the same time that Churchill was selecting ministers for his government, Hitler's troops launched a gigantic offensive on the Western Front. Having invaded neutral Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, the German army rushed to the coast and to the borders of France. The Dutch army capitulated on May 14th. On the same day, the Germans broke through the front at Sedan and in five days, having passed through the entire north of France, they reached the Atlantic Ocean. Thus, they cut off the French troops who were fighting in Belgium from Central and Southern France. The threat of defeat loomed over Belgium and over France itself.

The British command, violating the plan developed by the joint headquarters of the Allies to encircle the German group that had broken through to the sea, suddenly ordered its troops to retreat to the ports for evacuation to England. Not only French patriots, but also some English officers and soldiers, this decision was perceived as a betrayal. Nevertheless, the operation to withdraw English and some French units to the British Isles was accompanied by a long-unprecedented patriotic upsurge in England. The masses did not understand the intricacies of strategy; they knew that on the other side of the English Channel, in the Dunkirk area, hundreds of thousands of “our guys” could die or be captured, and they rushed to the rescue. A wide variety of watercraft were used in the operation, from large merchant fleet vessels to pleasure yachts and fishing schooners. The heroism of ordinary people shown during the days of evacuation (May 26 - June 4, 1940) is beyond doubt, but this does not give grounds to interpret the defeat of the English expeditionary force as a victory, and this is precisely the legend about Dunkirk that many English memoirists and historians create.

The new powerful offensive of the German armies, which began on June 5, ended with the surrender of France. England lost an ally, having acquired another enemy during this time: on June 10, fascist Italy entered the war. During the entire period of the Second World War, England did not experience a more tense and dangerous period than the summer and early autumn of 1940. German naval bases and airfields appeared in the immediate vicinity of the British Isles.

Dunkirk marked the beginning of a new stage in the anti-fascist upsurge. The English working class understood the need to repel the aggressor both before the war and at its early stage, when Chamberlain's government was still looking for ways to reconcile with Hitler. The slogan put forward by the CPV is “Munich people must leave!” - was taken up by mass organizations of the working class. Although the hardships of the war fell specifically on the working class (12-hour working day with a 7-day working week, falling real wages, etc.), it did not even think about “peace without victory.” Thanks to the labor enthusiasm of the workers, military production grew rapidly: by July 1940 it had more than doubled compared to September 1939.

In preparation for the invasion, as well as for psychological pressure, Hitler ordered increased bombing of English cities. Massive German air raids began in August 1940 and caused enormous damage to London, Birmingham, Liverpool, and Glasgow. On November 15, 500 German bombers destroyed a significant part of small town Coventry. Despite the courageous resistance of British fighter aircraft, air superiority at this stage of the war was clearly on Germany's side. But the psychological effect of the aerial “Battle of Britain” was exactly the opposite of what was expected in Berlin. Hatred of the Nazis, who killed women and children, only strengthened the will of the English people to resist.

The danger looming over freedom and the very existence of the nation naturally aroused a high intensity of civic feelings, and the drama of historical battles gave rise to a thirst for true art. The leading actors of the English stage - John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, Sybille Thorndike and others - found their way to an audience they had never met before. On their own initiative and on the instructions of the Arts Council of Great Britain, created in early 1940, they traveled with small but artistically valuable troupes to industrial cities and mining villages, where they had never seen real theater. And now, before people whose spiritual needs had recently been tried to be satisfied by low-grade variety revues, Sybil Thorndike appeared in the roles of Medea and Lady Macbeth...

The Unity Theater was especially active, which did not stop working even during the most brutal bombings. In 1941, the theater staged a new play by Sean O'Casey, "The Star Turns Red" - a play, according to the author's definition, "about tomorrow or the day after tomorrow." The theme of the play is the future uprising of the working class, a direct clash between communists and fascists. Consonant with the whole spirit of the theater “Unity,” a work by a first-class playwright, made it possible to create a performance that became an event in the theatrical life of the capital.

In general, however, English drama, like the prose of the war period, did not satisfy the needs of viewers and readers for works saturated with the pathos of the anti-fascist struggle, posing the most pressing social and ethical problems of our time. Moreover, there was great interest in Soviet literature. The works of M. Sholokhov, A. Tolstoy, I. Ehrenburg, K. Simonov were widely translated and published in England at the second stage of the war, when the anti-Hitler coalition took shape. "Unity" staged K. Simonov's play "Russian People", and in other theaters productions of plays from the Russian classical repertoire became more frequent.

The reaction was not averse to giving the patriotic upsurge a nationalistic character. Turning to history, bourgeois ideologists highlighted events in which purely military traditions were manifested. Let the people compare the fight against Hitler and the fight against Napoleon - despite all the senselessness of this analogy between situations early XIX V. and the 40s of the XX century. there was some resemblance! The ongoing war was seen as another battle with a contender for European hegemony, and not as a fight against fascist reaction. In essence, this is exactly how the upper bourgeoisie viewed the war.

This was understood by the famous film director and producer A. Korda back in the 30s. Having settled in Hollywood, he decided to make a film about Admiral Nelson, a national hero and winner of the Battle of Trafalgar. However, this was a very unique Nelson - a knight without fear or reproach, very little like the historical Nelson. The image of Emma Hamilton, an international intelligence officer and intriguer, turned by the screenwriter into a loving and virtuous woman, devoted to Nelson, and even more so to her homeland, was even less consistent with historical truth. This is how Korda’s pseudo-historical action movie “Lady Hamilton” arose, which was a huge success. At that time, the viewer was attracted by the shallow resonance with modern events. Of course, the sentimental love line that was brought to the fore also played a role. But the main advantage of this shallow film was determined by the names of the leading actors - Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh.

The leftward movement of the masses, expressed in the growth of anti-fascist demands, in the struggle against the remnants of the Munich policy, in the growing influence of the communists, caused considerable concern in the ruling circles of England. The emergency legislation carried out by the Churchill government was used not only to organize resistance to Germany, but also to attack the working class and limit its rights. Labor minister Ernst Bevin issued Regulation 1305, which effectively nullified the right to strike. The persecution of communists continued in the trade unions.

Despite these measures, the struggle of the English people against internal reaction continued. On the initiative of left-wing trade union and Labor leaders, as well as prominent representatives of the left-wing intelligentsia, including communists, the People's Convention met in London on January 12, 1941. The delegates to the convention represented 1,200 thousand workers. The main slogan was "the creation of a people's government truly representing the working class." The convention demanded the implementation of a consistent democratic policy within the country and in the colonies, as well as the establishment of friendly relations with the Soviet Union. The government responded to these decisions with new repressions. On January 21, 1941, the Daily Worker newspaper was closed by order of Home Secretary Herbert Morrison.

In the most difficult days, immediately after Dunkirk, Churchill declared in Parliament that England would continue to fight “until, in the time appointed by Providence, the New World, with all its strength and might, comes forward for the salvation and liberation of the Old.” Indeed, in September 1940, a special agreement was concluded under which the United States transferred to England 50 old destroyers necessary for convoying military and food cargo. In return, England granted the United States the right to create naval and air bases on a number of British-owned islands: the American imperialists, taking advantage of the situation, strengthened their positions at the expense of England. And in March 1941, Roosevelt's supporters managed to pass a law in the US Congress, according to which American supplies were provided to England for rent or loan (Lend-Lease).

Making extensive use of the resources of the dominions and colonies, England achieved the creation of significant armed forces that conducted operations in Africa and other areas. The campaign in Africa (against Italy) went with varying degrees of success, but by the spring of 1941 the British managed not only to drive the Italians out of their colonies, but also to seize a number of Italian colonies and oust the Italians from Ethiopia. Only in North Africa, where Hitler sent the army of General Rommel to help the Italians, did the British troops retreat; the northwestern part of Egypt was occupied by the enemy.

But no matter how significant the colonial problems were from the point of view of the imperialist interests of England and its opponents, the African fronts, like the front in the Middle East, were of secondary importance. In Europe, Germany continued to strengthen. Completing preparations for the attack on the USSR, Hitler subjugated Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Now his plan was to achieve peace in the West and avoid a war on two fronts. For this purpose, Hitler's deputy for leadership of the Nazi Party, R. Hess, was sent to England. In correspondence with prominent Munich residents, he gradually prepared his secret visit to the most reactionary group of British politicians, hoping that they would help convince the government in one form or another to join the anti-Soviet campaign. We must not forget that the very parliament that voted for Munich was in power. But the impudent proposals of Hess, who demanded peace on the basis of freedom of hands for Germany in Europe (in exchange for freedom of hands of England... in the British Empire), were rejected. The English people, after Dunkirk and the “Battle of England,” would not have allowed anyone to make this shameful deal, and the government itself was well aware that in the event of the defeat of the USSR, England would not be able to withstand an even stronger fascist bloc.

The German attack on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 marked the beginning of a new stage of the Second World War. From that day until the final defeat of Germany, the center of world history was on the Soviet-German front; It was there that the outcome of the war was decided and the fate of humanity was determined.

Since the beginning of the Patriotic War, the situation in England has changed dramatically. Huge Hitler war machine moved to the East, meeting heroic resistance, and the immediate danger of an invasion of the British Isles by German armies no longer hung over England. Air raids also fell sharply. But the main thing is that England was no longer alone in the war against Germany; she had an ally who took upon himself the main burden of the fight against the common enemy. While remaining an implacable enemy of socialism, Churchill considered it advantageous to choose the path of cooperation with the Soviet Union.

Already on June 22, 1941, Churchill made a statement about his readiness to provide “Russia and the Russian people with all the assistance that we are capable of.” In other words, the British government agreed to an alliance with the USSR, which was formalized by an agreement signed in Moscow on July 12, 1941. This was the beginning of the anti-Hitler coalition.

The English working class made great sacrifices to increase military output, especially in cases where Soviet orders were being carried out. The mood of the masses also influenced the trade union leadership. Even the leaders of the Trade Union Congress were forced to establish close ties with Soviet trade unions.

In wide circles of the English people, interest in life in the Soviet Union and the social conditions that fostered mass heroism, perseverance, and selflessness in the Soviet people has increased unusually. At the same time, interest in Russian and Soviet culture and the history of Russia increased. Books by Russian and Soviet writers published in England were sold out in great demand. War and Peace was read by all levels of society - from the worker or clerk snatching a free minute, to Mrs. Churchill.

From the very first days of the existence of the Anglo-Soviet union, the Soviet government raised the question of creating a second front in Europe before Churchill's cabinet. A large English landing in France, Belgium, and Holland would have pulled several dozen divisions from the Soviet-German front. This would be truly effective help to the Red Army in the most difficult period of the war. The ruling circles of England preferred to avoid this operation under any pretext, shifting the entire burden of the war onto the shoulders of the Soviet people.

The question of a second front not only took a central place in the relationship between members of the anti-Hitler coalition, but also became the subject of an acute internal political struggle in ENGLAND. Communists, left-wing Laborites, some liberals and even some conservatives openly demanded the creation of a second front in Europe. However, Churchill's government, true to the long-standing tradition of fighting by proxy, failed to fulfill its most important allied duty for three years.

The pressure of democratic forces on the issue of supplying the Soviet Union with weapons turned out to be more effective. England, and after it the United States, agreed to provide weapons on the basis of Lend-Lease and provide escort for transport ships by the British and American navies. In September - October 1941, a meeting of representatives of the three powers was held in Moscow, at which the scale of supplies of aircraft, tanks and other weapons, as well as strategic raw materials, was determined. At the same time, the British and American representatives agreed to satisfy the Soviet side’s demand only by 50%, and for some requests - even by 10%. Subsequently, supplies increased, but still the assistance with weapons was significantly lower than the needs of the Red Army and the capabilities of industry in England and, especially, the United States.

The war economy was brought under state control, which led to a sharp leap in the development of state-monopoly capitalism. Ministries created to manage various sectors of the economy - aviation industry, fuel and energy, food, supplies, etc. - became new links between the state and monopolies. Government control of the economy played a positive role in England's war effort, but at the same time it was exploited by monopolists, who either personally headed the new departments or sent their employees to them. By fettering to a certain extent the arbitrariness of individual monopolies, this system ensured the interests of monopoly capital as a whole.

During the war years, British industry produced 130 thousand aircraft, 25 thousand tanks and many other types of weapons and equipment. The Dominions and India produced 10% of all weapons available to the Imperial military. Dominions and colonies played an even greater role in mobilizing human resources. Of the 9.5 million people under the command of British generals and admirals during the war, over 4 million were part of the Indian, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and South African divisions.

From the above data it is clear what enormous capabilities England had during the war and how little of it it used to help its Soviet ally. And yet, the very logic of joint struggle with the enemy, the efforts of Soviet foreign policy, and pressure from the British people led to the strengthening of the anti-Hitler coalition.

A new stage in the development of the Anglo-Soviet alliance and the entire anti-Hitler coalition began at the end of 1941. The victory of the Soviet armed forces in the Battle of Moscow unusually raised the international prestige of the Soviet Union. The positions of England and the United States were also significantly influenced by the attack on them by imperialist Japan (December 7, 1941) and the outbreak of the war in the Pacific Ocean. Now that a new front has emerged, the interest of England and the United States in an alliance with the USSR has increased even more.

Japan's attack on the United States led to the further formation of the Anglo-American bloc. Now that the United States has become a belligerent power, not only with Japan, but also with Germany and Italy, concrete coordination of military-strategic plans has become possible. This issue was considered at the Washington Conference, which lasted about a month - from December 22, 1941 to January 14, 1942. England and the USA agreed on the creation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of both countries.

Soviet-British negotiations continued, and in May 1942 England made a commitment, which was formulated in a communiqué as follows: “Full agreement has been reached regarding the urgent tasks of creating a second front in Europe in 1942.” There was similar wording in the communiqué on the Soviet-American negotiations. If the statement about the second front did not acquire practical significance, since it was not opened not only in 1942 but also in 1943, then the conclusion of the Anglo-Soviet “Treaty of Alliance in the War against Hitler's Germany and her accomplices in Europe and about cooperation and mutual assistance after the war."

However, immediately after the conclusion of the treaty and the solemn commitment to open a second front, Churchill began to prepare to abandon the plan to invade Europe. Instead of landing in France, the Anglo-American headquarters agreed to prepare for an invasion of North Africa. The talk was about conquering Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and in the future, the entire Mediterranean basin. In addition to the fact that this operation could be presented to the public as a “second front,” it suited England because it strengthened its position on the most important imperial communications.

In order to calm British public opinion and create the impression that the Soviet Union did not object to the strategy of the Western powers, Churchill went to Moscow in August 1942. He tried to prove to Soviet leaders that the operation in North Africa would be essential to the defeat of Hitler. At the same time, on behalf of England and the United States, a promise was made to open a second front in 1943. Most of all, Churchill wanted to make sure that the Soviet Union would continue the war under any circumstances. It is not for nothing that in a telegram sent from Moscow to the military cabinet, he considered it necessary to emphasize: “Throughout all the negotiations there was not a single, even the slightest hint that they could end the war.” And if so, then, according to Churchill’s logic, it was possible to continue to build up military power and conduct operations on fronts that were important for British imperialism, but of secondary importance for the overall course of the war.

Since the spring of 1941, when Italo-German troops invaded Egypt, there have been no significant operations in Africa. In May 1942, General Rommel's army went on the offensive and in June ousted the British from Libya. On June 21, 1942, Tobruk fell, the last stronghold in Libya covering the approaches to Egypt. Pursuing the rapidly retreating British, Rommel's army invaded Egypt and rushed to the Suez Canal. Only on the defensive line south of El Alamein did British troops manage to stop the enemy - only 100 km from Cairo. The Suez Canal was under immediate threat. Rommel was unable to build on his success these days and completely expel the British from Egypt only because a gigantic battle had already unfolded on the Soviet-German front and Hitler could not send even those relatively insignificant reinforcements to Africa that could have decided the matter.

Having received a respite, the British command strengthened its troops in Egypt, fully provided them with weapons and equipment, and also reorganized the administration. All units were consolidated into the 8th Army under the command of General Montgomery. At the same time, preparations for the landing of Anglo-American troops in North-West Africa were completed. Having launched an offensive in the El Alamein area on October 23, the British reoccupied Tobruk on November 13. Over the next months, just at the time when the Red Army, having surrounded Paulus' 300,000-strong army, was waging offensive battles, British troops completely occupied Libya and approached (February 1943) the Tunisian border.

Successful operations in Northeast Africa were accompanied by active operations in Morocco and Algeria. On November 8, six American and one British division landed simultaneously in the ports of Algiers, Oran and Casablanca and launched an offensive to the east. Trying to maintain their positions in Africa, the Germans urgently transferred several divisions from Italy to Tunisia, and already in December 1942 they managed to stop the offensive from the West. The Anglo-American command had a huge superiority of forces, but it preferred to thoroughly prepare the decisive blow; this again made it possible for Hitler to transfer divisions to the Soviet-German front. Only in March - April 1943 did major battles break out in Tunisia. The 8th British Army - from the east, American divisions - from the south and west, broke through the defenses of the Italo-German troops, occupied the cities of Tunis and Bizerte, which were of great strategic importance, in early May, and on May 13 accepted the surrender of the 250,000-strong enemy army.

The great victory at Stalingrad, which marked the beginning of a radical change in the course of the war, created excellent preconditions for delivering decisive blows against the common enemy. The summer and autumn offensives of the Red Army in 1943, and then the access to the state border, finally sealed the turning point in the war and created a completely new situation. The victory in the Battle of Stalingrad gave a powerful impetus to the rise of the Resistance movement in the occupied countries, and this caused considerable concern among British and world reaction. During the Resistance, peoples fought not only against invaders. There was a mature understanding among the masses that after the war there should be no return to the old reactionary regimes, which were responsible for national catastrophes in France, Poland, Yugoslavia and a number of other countries. The authority of the communist parties, which acted during the war as selfless fighters for the national interests of the peoples of their countries, increased enormously.

This new situation significantly influenced relations within the anti-Hitler coalition, and in particular the policy of the British government. It became clear to Churchill and his advisers that the Soviet armed forces were powerful enough to achieve complete victory in the war and liberate Europe without any participation from Britain and the United States. In addition, the West was interested in the Soviet Union's help to defeat imperialist Japan.

At numerous meetings of British and American statesmen, diplomats and generals that took place during 1943, the question of a second front continued to occupy a central place. Hypocritically assuring the Soviet side that the opening of a second front would occur in 1943, Churchill and his American colleagues decided to postpone this operation to 1944. Under such conditions, the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers of the USSR, USA and England took place (October 1943), and a month later - Tehran Conference of Heads of Government - J.V. Stalin, F. Roosevelt and W. Churchill. Here, under the influence of the firm position of the USSR, an agreed decision was made on the invasion of Anglo-American troops into France in May 1944.

While preparing for the invasion of France, Anglo-American troops at the same time continued operations in the Mediterranean. The defeats of the Nazis on the Soviet-German front, where the 8th Italian Army was defeated, the growing internal crisis in Italy, and the dominance of the Anglo-American fleet in the Mediterranean Sea made the capture of the island relatively easy. Sicily.

The further Allied offensive in Italy took place with their absolute superiority, especially at sea and in the air. The powerful blows that the Red Army delivered in the winter and spring of 1944 distracted more and more enemy divisions. Hitler had to send a lot of troops against the partisan armies and formations that operated in the occupied countries. Nevertheless, in the spring of 1944, the Anglo-American troops moved forward extremely slowly. Only by the end of May they managed to oust the enemy from Central Italy. On June 4, the Allies entered Rome, abandoned by the German command, without a fight.

And two days later, on June 6, 1944, the second front finally opened in Europe. The British and American command prepared this complex operation perfectly, and the soldiers of the allied armies, who had long been eager to fight the fascists, showed steadfastness and courage. England and the United States were able to superbly arm and train their armies solely due to the fact that for three years the Soviet Union, at the cost of the greatest effort and unheard of sacrifices, withstood the full brunt of the war.

The invasion forces included 20 American divisions, 14 British, 3 Canadian, and one each French and Polish. The Allies had absolute superiority in naval forces. American General D. Eisenhower was appointed commander-in-chief of the expeditionary forces, and British General B. Montgomery was appointed commander of the ground forces. The fleet and air force were also commanded by the British.

The Allies managed to create a bridgehead between Cherbourg and Le Havre. By the end of June, about a million soldiers and officers were already concentrated on the slowly expanding bridgehead. The German command transferred divisions from other regions of France, Belgium, and Holland to this area, but did not dare to withdraw troops from the Soviet-German front: just at this time the offensive of the Soviet armies began in Karelia and Belarus. The advance of expeditionary forces across French territory was ensured by the actions of combat detachments of the French Resistance, which not only disorganized the fascist rear, but also liberated cities and entire departments with their own forces. By August 24, the rebel Parisians liberated the capital of France with their own forces. By autumn, all of France, Belgium and part of Holland were almost completely liberated from the enemy. Anglo-American troops reached the German border.

In December 1944, Hitler's command launched an offensive in the Ardennes, where he managed to secretly concentrate large forces. On a relatively narrow front, the Germans threw into battle 25 of the 39 divisions they had at their disposal on the Western Front. Having broken through the Allied defenses, by the beginning of January they advanced 90 km, trying to cut off the northern group of the Allied armies. There were English troops here, and the threat of a “second Dunkirk” loomed over them. Reinforcements sent by Eisenhower slowed down German offensive, but they failed to push back the armies that had broken through. On January 6, 1945, Churchill asked the Soviet government to launch “a major Russian offensive on the Vistula front or somewhere else,” as “very heavy fighting is taking place in the West.” The Red Army, which in bloody battles in the fall of 1944 brought liberation to the peoples of Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Hungary, was preparing for a new offensive, but it was planned a little later. However, given the position of the Allies, the Supreme High Command accelerated preparations, and on January 12, the Soviet Armed Forces went on the offensive on a huge front from the Danube to the Baltic Sea. This dramatically improved the position of the Anglo-American troops, who managed to force the Germans to retreat by the end of January. In this situation it was necessary new meeting heads of government to resolve pressing military issues and especially post-war problems that have become urgent.

In Berlin they were already fully aware that the war was lost. The only hope that remained for Hitler was connected with plans for a separate peace in the West.

The Yalta Conference of the Heads of Government of the USSR, USA and England, which took place on February 4-11, 1945, convincingly demonstrated the groundlessness of Hitler’s calculations. Churchill had long been making plans for the post-war encirclement of the Soviet Union with a new “cordon sanitaire”, planned the restoration of Germany as a potential ally in the fight against the USSR, ordered his troops to suppress democratic forces on the continent, but neither Churchill nor to any other statesman the English working class, the entire English people. Western delegations also could not help but take into account the real balance of forces in Europe, as well as the role that the Soviet Union had to play in the defeat of Japanese imperialism.

The war in the Pacific was approaching its decisive stage. During its first months, Japan, through surprise attacks and the slow deployment of Anglo-American forces, achieved dominance in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. Having destroyed the main forces of the American Pacific squadron in the harbor of Pearl Harbor (Hawaii Islands) with a treacherous strike and sank the English battleship Prince of Wales, the Japanese captured the most important American possessions in the Pacific Ocean, including the Philippines, and at the same time attacked British bases and colonies. Soon the most important strongholds of British imperialism in the Far East - Hong Kong and Singapore - fell. Malaya and Burma were almost completely in enemy hands. By entering the borders of India, Japan threatened this “jewel of the British crown.” Therefore, the British command concentrated a large group of troops in the northeastern part of India under the command of Admiral L. Mountbatten. For more than two years it was inactive, and only in the summer of 1944, when the military-political position of Japan was greatly shaken due to the approaching collapse of German fascism and the successes of the American armed forces in the Pacific, Mountbatten invaded Burma and by the spring of 1945 cleared it of Japanese troops .

In addition to the agreed decisions on the final operations in the European war and in the war with Japan, the Yalta Conference adopted a detailed program for the destruction of “German militarism and Nazism”; it was a truly democratic program corresponding to the interests of all peoples of the world, including the German people.

Protecting the independence of the liberated peoples of Europe and their right "to establish democratic institutions of their own choice" was declared one of the goals of the three powers. Only the enormous power and authority of the Soviet Union, only the mighty rise of democratic forces throughout the world could force the imperialist governments of England and the United States to sign documents establishing the just, liberating nature of the war.

At the final stage of the war in Europe, as at all its stages, the main blows to the enemy were delivered by the Soviet Armed Forces. Breaking the resistance of Nazi troops, Soviet troops reached the last line before the assault on Berlin. Under these conditions, the offensive of the Anglo-American troops was not associated with great difficulties, especially since Hitler deliberately opened the front in the West, still hoping that a clash between the USSR and the Western powers would occur on German territory. Anglo-American troops, having launched an offensive on February 8, 1945, crossed the Rhine only at the end of March. The offensive was accompanied by massive air raids on German cities.

On May 2, Berlin was captured by Soviet troops, and on May 8, Germany capitulated. This was a great historical victory of peoples over fascism, in which decisive role played by the Soviet Union.

The victory of the Soviet Union undermined the forces of world reaction and destroyed it strike force, beat her main bet. In the anti-fascist Resistance in the countries of Europe and Asia, the unity of the working class and democratic forces took shape. The communist and workers' parties grew into a powerful force, accumulated vast experience and called the people to radical social and political changes. In the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, liberated by the Soviet Armed Forces, people's democratic revolutions had already begun. The crisis of the world system of capitalism entered the second stage, and through all the variety of processes taking place in various countries, the contours of the future world system of socialism were already visible.

The English people did not experience the horrors of the German occupation during the war, but they also suffered considerable hardships. The class struggle in England did not become as acute as in the countries of the continent. No matter how insidious the plans of the British reaction were, no matter how indignant the unjustified passivity of the British command was, England still fought as part of the anti-Hitler coalition and the English bourgeoisie did not compromise itself in the eyes of the people by direct collaboration with fascism, as was the case in the countries of the continent. But a serious shift in the alignment of class and political forces also occurred in England.

Throughout the war, the British working class put pressure on the government, demanding stronger cooperation with the Soviet Union and effective operations against the fascist states. While making a major contribution to the victory over the main centers of reaction on a world scale, the advanced workers of England did not forget about their own internal reaction.

It is not surprising that in this situation the authority of the CPV increased sharply. By the end of 1942, the party consisted of 60 thousand people - more than 3 times more than on the eve of the war. The party's position in trade unions has strengthened. Communists were often elected to the executive committees of trade unions and secretaries of local organizations. At the Trade Union Congress of 1944, a prominent figure in the trade union movement, communist A. Papworth, was elected to the General Council.

The masses of the working class forced the government to lift the ban on the CPV organ, the Daily Worker; in August 1942, publication of this popular newspaper resumed.

The struggle of currents within the Labor Party has intensified, and its left wing has strengthened. The anti-communists in the party leadership were defeated. But they took revenge when discussing the old issue of admitting the CPV to the Labor Party. Twice the CPV made a corresponding request, and in 1943 it was supported by such mass organizations as the British Coal Miners Federation, the Builders' Union, etc. But the more influential the CPV became, the more right-wing Labor leaders feared the role it could play in the Labor Party - the role of ideological leader and center of gravity of all left forces. The Executive Committee therefore rejected the Communists' proposal and thereby once again damaged the cause of working class unity.

The most pressing issues in the internal party struggle were issues of a programmatic nature. What social changes should victory in the anti-fascist war bring? What tasks should a party calling itself socialist set for itself? What plan of change should voters be offered when the war is over? On all these problems, the positions of the right-wing Labor leadership and the left wing of the party diverged throughout the years of the war, but especially during its last stage.

The matter was complicated by the fact that even at the top of the bourgeois political hierarchy they thought a lot about complex issues related to the transition from war to peace. The main idea that Conservative leaders wanted to instill in the masses was that social change was not needed in England, even within the narrow framework of Labor “socialism.” The government itself intends to carry out a “reconstruction” that will supposedly satisfy all segments of society. To study the problems of reconstruction, a committee was created back in 1941, headed by Labor Minister A. Greenwood; this appointment was supposed to give reconstruction plans a bipartisan, coalition character. In 1943, Churchill's government adopted the Beveridge Plan, a liberal reformer who proposed a radical overhaul of the entire social security system. This plan did not touch the foundations of the capitalist system, but it could form the basis of truly progressive reform. It is no coincidence that the CPV and other progressive forces spoke out for the implementation of the “Beveridge Plan”. The law on public education adopted in 1944 and some other measures were progressive in nature.

The Labor Party Executive Committee, for its part, also put forward various reconstruction projects. His plans included maintaining the state control over the economy that had developed during the war. The Labor right did not intend to include the nationalization of industry in its post-war reconstruction program - a policy provision that has appeared in the party charter since 1918. When in December 1944 the executive committee presented a detailed resolution to the party conference, the concept of “socialization of the means of production” or “nationalization” was absent from it. It was only about “control over the economy.” In other words, Labor leaders once again came to the defense of the capitalist system.

In England, which was approaching the end of the war in the camp of the winners, there was no immediate revolutionary situation. But here objective prerequisites have arisen for carrying out such fundamental changes that could undermine the omnipotence of the monopolies. Taking this into account, the Communist Party adopted at its XVII Congress in October 1944 the “Victory, Peace, Security” program, which, along with foreign policy objectives, indicated the paths of social progress: the nationalization of leading sectors of the economy and the participation of the working class in their management. The masses of the working class, the trade unions, in which the influence of the communists was great, achieved the inclusion of the demand for nationalization in the decisions of the trade union congress of 1944. Relying on this mass support, the left-wing Laborites at the party conference fought against the resolution of the executive committee. They managed to pass an amendment to “transfer into public ownership the land, large construction companies, heavy industry and all banks, transport and the entire fuel and energy industry.”

The Labor leadership was defeated and, in the atmosphere of the rise of democratic forces in England and throughout the world, did not dare to completely ignore the will of the masses. At a conference in April 1945, when things were already moving towards parliamentary elections, the “Facing the Future” program proposed by the executive committee was adopted. After general declarations about the socialist character of the party, voters were promised the nationalization of those industries that were “ripe for transfer to public ownership.”

After the victory over Germany, on May 18, 1945, Churchill proposed that Labor maintain the coalition at least until the victory over Japan, but mass protests thwarted this plan. Now Churchill preferred to rush through the elections, hoping to use his popularity as a military leader.

During the election campaign, Labor strongly emphasized the “socialist” nature of its program, and this made a considerable impression on the masses who sincerely strived for socialism. The people did not want a return to the past, to the reactionary Conservative government. Churchill’s personal popularity was still very great, but, as his English biographer figuratively writes, the Conservatives had nothing in their arsenal during the election campaign “except Churchill’s photo card.”

The elections took place on July 5 and brought a brutal defeat to the Conservative Party. She lost about half of her parliamentary seats; it now had only 209 seats, while Labor had an absolute and solid majority; they had 393 seats - 146 more than all other parties combined. 2 seats were received by the communists - W. Gallagher and F. Piretin.

The election results stunned the Labor leaders themselves as much as the Conservatives. Considering that Labour's election campaign was carried out under "socialist" slogans, the voting results could be seen as a decisive verdict on the capitalist system, pronounced by the majority of the English people. Now the right-wing Laborites saw their task as gradually - through real and imaginary concessions, pseudo-socialist reforms, propaganda of anti-communism, etc. - to change the public mood, save capitalism, and suppress leftist forces.

Party leader Clement Attlee, having become head of government, appointed Herbert Morrison as his deputy, Ernst Bevin as foreign minister, and equally well-known right-wing politicians to other posts. The bourgeois press welcomed the new composition of the government - it served as a reliable guarantee of the preservation of bourgeois rule.

The new cabinet had to take its first steps in the field of foreign policy. From July 17 to August 2, a conference of heads of government of the USSR, USA and England was held in Potsdam. Although the conference began after the elections in England, the counting of votes was not yet completed. The British delegation was headed by Churchill, who prudently invited Attlee with him as a potential prime minister in the event of a Conservative defeat in the elections. For two days - July 26-27 - the conference took a break, since it was on these days that the cabinet was changed in London. Having left for his capital, Churchill never returned to Potsdam; Attlee became the head of the delegation.

Both Churchill and Eden, and Attlee and Bevin, in contact with the American delegation, tried to use the Potsdam Conference to undermine the position of the Soviet Union in Europe, as well as to interfere in the internal affairs of the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe in order to disrupt the process of democratic transformation in these countries .

The British and American delegates in Potsdam were inspired by the first successful test atomic bomb, which was held in the United States the day before the opening of the conference. Churchill even said that the bomb would help “straighten the balance of power with Russia.” But the very first attempts at disguised blackmail were decisively suppressed by the Soviet delegation. The decisions taken in Potsdam were generally consistent with the objectives of a democratic solution to post-war problems. In the spirit of the Yalta decisions, detailed regulations were developed on the governance of Germany, on preparations for concluding peace treaties with its former satellites, on the status of Berlin, and on the trial of the main war criminals. The Soviet delegation rejected attempts by England and the United States to interfere in the internal affairs of Bulgaria and Romania. The Soviet Union confirmed its intention to enter the war against Japan. Under these conditions, for the final victory over Japan there was no need at all to use the atomic bomb. However, on August 6, by order of US President Henry Truman, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and on August 9, on Nagasaki. The calculation of the American imperialists was simple: to intimidate the people with weapons of unprecedented power, to prepare the ground for “nuclear diplomacy” towards the Soviet Union, to take a step towards achieving US world domination. Although British scientists also participated in the production of the atomic bomb, the emergence of new weapons made England even more dependent on the United States.

However, Japan, despite the death of almost 250 thousand people, was not going to capitulate. Only a powerful blow by the Soviet Army against the Japanese armed forces in Manchuria (the Kwantung Army) and their complete defeat forced Japan to capitulate. On September 2, 1945, the Second World War ended. Like other countries, England entered a new period in its history.

Some fought with numbers, and some with skill. The monstrous truth about the losses of the USSR in World War II Sokolov Boris Vadimovich

England (United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland) losses

About 5.5 million people served in the British armed forces. The latest estimate by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission puts the loss of military personnel of the United Kingdom as well as the British Colonies in the Second World War at 383,786 military personnel dead, of which 244,661 are buried in identified graves. Of this number, 31,271 military personnel died from natural causes, mainly disease and accidents. The British colonies involved in the war (Ghana, West Africa, East Africa, the Caribbean, Hong Kong, Malaya, Burma, Jordan, Sudan, Malta, and Palestine, represented by the Jewish Brigade) have lost 6,877 in the war since June 1945, according to preliminary data. killed, 14,208 missing (mostly in Japanese captivity), 6,972 wounded and 8,115 captured.

The distribution of British casualties by branch of the armed forces amounting to 357,116 dead, including the listed British colonies, as well as Newfoundland and Southern Rhodesia, according to the preliminary official casualty report made in June 1946, was as follows: Navy - 50,758, Army - 144,079, Air Force - 69,606, Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service - 624, Merchant Navy - 30,248, British Home Defense Forces - 1,206 and civilians - 60,595. By 28 February 1946, 6,244 people continued to be listed as missing, including Navy - 340, Army - 2267, Air Force - 3089, Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service - 18, Merchant Marine - 530. Probably the vast majority of these missing should be considered dead. In addition to the 60,595 civilians killed by air and missile attacks, 1,206 members of the British Self-Defense Forces became their victims. The report did not include the deaths of those civilians who died in Axis internment camps. Probably at their expense total number dead and civilian deaths rises to 67 thousand.

British civilian casualties amounted to 67,080 people - victims of bombing and V-missile attacks. This number may also include several dozen Australian citizens who were victims of the Japanese bombing of Australia. In England, merchant marine sailors who died during the Battle of the Atlantic, as well as in other theaters of war, including while escorting northern convoys to the USSR, are traditionally included in the losses of the armed forces.

British ground forces losses in killed and captured are distributed as follows across theatres:

Norway, 1940: killed - 0.8 thousand, captured - 0.2 thousand.

Western Front, 1940: killed - 11.01 thousand, captured - 41.34 thousand.

Balkans, 1941: killed - 2.0 thousand, captured - 0.8 thousand.

East Africa, 1940–1941: killed - 2.5 thousand.

North Africa, 1940–1943: killed - 13.4 thousand, captured - 10.6 thousand.

Italy, 1943–1945: killed - 24.6 thousand, captured - 3.5 thousand.

Western Front, 1944–1945: killed - 30.28 thousand, captured - 14.7 thousand.

Far East, 1941–1945: 5.67 thousand killed, 53.23 thousand captured.

The total losses of the United Kingdom in the war, together with the losses of the colonies, can be estimated at 450.9 thousand dead, of which only 97.8 thousand fell on the civilian population. We, unlike British statistics, classify the losses of merchant marine sailors as civilian losses. Colonial losses cannot exceed 21,085 military personnel killed. If we assume that of the 14,208 missing soldiers of the colonial troops, approximately half died, the total losses of the colonies in dead can be estimated at 14.0 thousand dead. Then the losses of the British Isles proper can be estimated at 436.9 thousand people.

From the book Baltics and Geopolitics. 1935-1945 Declassified documents of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation author Sotskov Lev Filippovich

ENGLAND I. SITUATION IN ENGLAND 1. Changes in the composition of the government Changes in the composition of the English military cabinet and government are a maneuver of British imperialism, calculated to calm public opinion, creating the appearance of “left” and

From the book The Path of Evil [West: Matrix of Global Hegemony] author Vajra Andrey

ENGLAND I. THE SITUATION IN ENGLAND 1. About the new composition of the governmenta) About the reactionary elements in the government and in circles around the governmentAdditional data have been received that the most reactionary elements in the new government are members of the military

From the book Anglo-Saxons [Conquerors of Celtic Britain (litres)] author Wilson David M

ENGLAND I. SITUATION IN ENGLAND 1) The fragility of the military cabinet The intelligence data received confirmed our earlier assessment of changes in the composition of the English government, which boiled down to the fact that these changes, made under the pressure of public opinion, had

From the book Medieval Warrior. Weapons from the times of Charlemagne and the Crusades by Norman A V

4. White emigration in England British counterintelligence materials dated February 1942 about Russian white emigrants in England were obtained through intelligence. According to these materials, there are about 3,000 white emigrants in England, most of whom have fully adapted

From the book The Evolution of European Arms [From the Vikings to the Napoleonic Wars (litres)] by Coggins Jack

CHAPTER IV THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND Englishmen!! You are a great people, I will say more - you are a great mob. The blows of your fists are more beautiful than the blows of your swords. You have an appetite. You are a nation that devours others. Victor Hugo Views of Higher English

From the book A Brief History of Freemasonry author Gould Robert Frick

The Emergence of a United England Because many tribal leaders came to England during the early period of the Conquest, many royal dynasties arose in England. Relations between them were more often hostile than friendly, but there are serious reasons to believe

From the book The Greatest Tank Commanders by Forty George

Feudalism in England The Norman conquest of England brought feudalism to these islands, but with several peculiar features. Apparently, the Normans, having arrived in England, sought to improve the system that existed in Normandy. In addition, the emerging English feudalism

From the book 100 Great Football Coaches author Malov Vladimir Igorevich

Development of Military Powers in England Inflation throughout the 12th century made horses, arms and armor increasingly expensive and at the same time reduced the amount paid out as "shield money", although as time went on the king seems to have tried to demand more and more fee. Earth,

From the book Who fought with numbers, and who fought with skill. The monstrous truth about the losses of the USSR in World War II author Sokolov Boris Vadimovich

From the book From Darwin to Einstein [ Greatest Mistakes brilliant scientists who changed our understanding of life and the universe] by Livio Mario

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE GRAND LODIES OF ENGLAND, SCOTLAND AND IRELAND Returning to the older Grand Lodge of England, let me say, in connection with the discussion of the transition from the ancient to the modern, that we have established that in the year 1761, during the tenure of Lord Aberdour

From the book Adventure Archipelago author Medvedev Ivan Anatolievich

From Litvinenko's book. Investigation [Report on the death of Alexander Litvinenko] author Owen Sir Robert

Sven-Göran Eriksson is the first foreigner to be offered the post of head coach of the national team by the FA

From the author's book

Irish Losses Ireland was the only British dominion to remain neutral during the Second World War. However, according to Irish authorities, about 70 thousand Irish citizens voluntarily served in the British army. In 1995, the then head of the Irish

From the author's book

Meanwhile, in England, three seemingly unrelated events that occurred in 1951 turned out to be fateful: thanks to them, the structure of DNA was discovered. It was in that year that Francis Crick, who was thirty-five years old, was working in Cambridge

From the author's book

In England At first, Countess Lamott settled down well on the shores of Foggy Albion. It is not known whether the count managed to take some of the diamonds with him to London, but the countess made good money from her memoirs, exposing the “secrets of the French court.” She doesn't have any special secrets

From the author's book

Chapter 3. UK Intelligence Services 9.17 The claim that UK intelligence services were involved in Litvinenko's death is part of the story of how Lugovoy was “framed”; I discussed this version above, in part 8. Lugovoi, for example, formulated it this way