"Cold War" in Asia and the Middle East. Southeast Asia during the Cold War

ASIA

In Asia, unlike Europe, where the psychological war was carried out, the superpowers were used by the power of weapons, encountered among themselves political parties of Asian countries. The southeastern region of Eurasia was a strategically important place for both countries. Having enlisted with the support of poor states, the United States could approach directly to the borders of the USSR, the Soviet Union sought to support communist parties in these countries, thereby significantly increasing the impact in the Pacific region.

The Soviet Union contributed to the creation of the authorities in the territories of China, representing the interests of workers. The USSR advocated the peaceful resolution of acute political disagreements between the Communist Party and the Agreement on the creation of a coalition government with the participation of communists and intermediate parties between them.

Immediately after the surrender of Japan, the US government took a course for the restoration of the Dictatorship of the Romintan in China. The American command on the Pacific allocated aircraft and sea transport vessels for transfer to the Northern and East China of the Khomintan parts from Western provinces and Burma. In Nanjing and Shanghai, by the beginning of September 1945, some divisions of two Khomintandan armies were transferred by air. Then, under the pretext of the fact that the surrender of Japanese troops has to be taken, since the end of September, the landing for American marines began. The purpose of the American landings was the seizure of the bridgeheads to arrive here of the Khomintan troops and ensuring their promotion in Manchuria.

In view of the upcoming civil war, the Americans took hurdled measures to increase the combat capability of the Khomintan army. It was transferred to the Japanese trophy weapons, the supply of American weapons on Land Lases continued, accelerated training and armament of 39 of the Khomintan divisions under a military time program. Marine infantry, fleet and aviation of the United States not only protected the communications and moved troops, but have repeatedly taken direct participation in combat operations at the fronts of the peasant war. (8)

However, the war was postponed. In January 1946, a truce was concluded between the Communists and the Romintan. Until 1947, the struggle between the parties was carried out on the principles of the country's political structure. In the course of a number of US provision agreements and their armed forces of special rights in China. In May-June 1946, the Khomintan troops went to the offensive. The Communists could not resist the Communists trained and well-armed army, and until 1947, the Khomintandov army tried one victory after another. In 1947, the USSR agreed to give the trophy Japanese technique of the peasant army in exchange for food supplies from Manchuria to the Far East. Nased a fracture during the civil war. In the first half of 1947, part of the Manchurian army took offensive operations. It forced the hominndanov to stop the offensive and go to the defense. Having won a number of victories, the peasant army seized a lot of weapons and reached 2 million people. The army of the Communists continued to push the army of opponents from the captured districts and in October 1948 won in the decisive battle in Manchuria. (9) By 1949, the peasant army almost won a complete victory over the Gomintan government. On October 1, 1949, the formation of the People's Republic of China was proclaimed in Beijing, but in the south of China wars continued. By 1950, the Communists were finally "kicked out" the Komintandan army from the mainland, forcing them together with American evacuated to Taiwan.

Inspired by the victory of the Communist Party in China, in neighboring countries, supporters of communism rose to war against pro-American parties. North Korea stood up on the path of war, attacking South Korea to her neighbor. At the time of attack the peninsula was divided into two parts. The northern part was under the control of the Communist Party, headed by Kim Il Sen, the southern part dominated the mode of the son of Mana under the sensitive control of the United States. And Kim Il Sen and whether the son of Mans wanted to unite the peninsula under its primacy. Against the background of this hostility and a military conflict broke out.

At dawn on June 25, 1950, North Korea struck artillery 6 points on the 38th parallels. Soon thousands of North Korean soldiers rushed south. A number of military units struck by the sea, sitting down along the east coast of South Korea. The attack was not surprising for South Korea and her patron-United States. South Korean officials of the highest rank have repeatedly warned that the invasion is inevitable. American observers were not so alarmed, but they also allowed the possibility of attacking North Korea. Since the attack occurred on the weekend, some of the officers from military units located along the border was absent on combat posts. As it turned out, the attack found the surprise of inexperienced South Korean soldiers and officers, whose confusion was played by the North Korean troops.

By midnight, on June 27, the defense of Seoul was on the verge of collapse. The factor of surprises partly explains the rapid promotion of the North Korean army. But a more important reason was that the attacking side had superiority over the enemy, both by the number of artillery and alive. Thanks to the generous help of the Soviet Union, the North Korean army had 150 average tanks and a small amount of tactical aviation; South Korea did not have tanks, and in fact she did not have military aviation. (10) Using the factor of surprises, the DPRK for August set the control of almost all of the peninsula, American troops were retreated to Busan and strengthened on the shore.

However, in September, the Americans with the support of the UN made the infantry disembarking near Seoul and the next day, breaking through the defense of North Korea, seized the cities, and by October already reached the 38th parallels. Fearing the loss of the comprehension of the Communist Party on the Korean Peninsula, the Soviet Union together with China entered into war with the United States and their allies in Korea. It was the first open use of the USSR military force against Americans. New MiG-15 joined the battle against American F-86. The United States knew that Soviet pilots were sitting behind the fighters feeders, but they tried not to raise this topic at the international level, fearing the beginning of the nuclear war. Soon the fighting was in a dead end, and in 1953 a truce was signed. The border returned to 38 parallel.

In my opinion, precisely the late military assistance to the Soviet Union and China did not allow the DPRK to establish full control over the peninsula. Stalin's policy in relation to North Korea leaves many questions. How could the USSR, who played a huge role in the establishment of a Communist Party at the head of the PRC, to allow such a huge slip? It seems that the USSR is not particularly interested in plans to Kim Il Sen. The United States, in turn, took advantage of this, strengthening its relations with Japan and South Korea and established in 1958 nuclear weapons in the south of the peninsula.

In 1957, a revolution in Vietnam began, which allowed the Soviet government to correct the mistakes committed during the Korean War. Vietnam, like Korea, was divided into 2 parts: North was under the control of Democratic Paris Vietnam, and the Southern French Local Administration. Both sides wanted to unite Vietnam under their beginning. The situation in Vietnam developed as well as in Korea.

The conflict began with the partisan war. In the period from February 3 to February 6, Vietkong's forces launched a large-scale offensive against the Southern Vietnamese in the province of Tai-Nin and in the Mekong Delta. On February 3, Vyatkrug attacked the residence of American advisers in the city of Conte. The official reaction from the United States did not follow.

On February 7, the Communists staged an explosion in the Metropolitan Theater of Kin, when there were only Americans. Three US military personnel died and five were injured. Again full silence from the American side. The Joint Committee of Headquarters came into rage and on February 18 again made a proposal to take serious measures against Northern Vietnam until the application of bomb strikes. (11) In August 1964, there was a complete contradiction incident in the Tonkin Gulf, who changed the course of the course of this strange war. If there is at least some logical explanation for the attack of the Northwenthenemian torpedo boats on the American destroyer in the Chinese Sea, then it is necessary to look for it in an incorrect assessment of the military operations of South Vietnam and the United States. In the summer of 1964, in the year of the presidential election, the "peaceful candidate" Johnson really wanted to avoid some complications in Vietnam. According to the results of polls, more than two thirds of the people of the United States belonged to Vietnam very indifferently, which was quite satisfied with the current president. So, the attacks and death of the Americans remained unanswered.

In 1965, the United States finally ceased to "help the South Vietnam - help himself" and moved to the maintenance of a large-scale war in the Asian continent. The spark, from which the flame of a big war was burned, was carved on February 7, 1965, when Vietkogovtsy attacked the US Air Force Base near the playlock. As a result, the basis of the base was made significant damage, there were losses among the American personnel. President Johnson, who won a confident victory over the Senator Galduer, was no longer shoved by the shackles of the pre-election abstracts "candidate of peace". Now he could change his attitude to the methods of solving Vietnamese problem. (12)

From mid-1965 to mid-1969, US forces conducted large-scale offensive operations in South Vietnam, aimed at discovering and destroying large divisions of the Severortenam army. Operations against basic areas were not effective enough. The refusal of President Lindon Johnson from partial mobilization and calling reservists meant that the replenishment of troops was carried out only at the expense of volunteers and limited call. Hoping to break the course of war, the leadership of Northern Vietnam in mid-19967 began to plan a large-scale offensive in the south, whose goal was the overthrow of the Government of Nguyen Van Thyeu and the creation of political prerequisites for the withdrawal of American troops. For the first time since the beginning of the war, the strikes were to be applied according to the largest South Names cities.

The actions of the United States were not effective enough to defend the victory over Northern Vietnam. The situation was complicated by 1970, when a revolution occurred in neighboring Cambodia. The American troops "burst" into two fronts and could not already actively resist the growing pressure of Vietcong. In the spring of 1973, the US Army left South Vietnam. Without the help of Americans, South Vietnam suffered defeat, and in 1975 the Communists raised a banner over the palace of independence in Saigon.

It is worth noting, the Soviet Union played a huge role in this war. The Soviet leadership at the beginning of 1965 decided to provide the Democratic Republic of Vietnam large-scale military-technical assistance. According to the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, A. Kosygin, the assistance of Vietnam during the war did the Soviet Union of 1.5 million rubles per day. The direct participation in hostilities was taken by calculations of anti-aircraft missile systems (SPC). It should be noted that in addition to the Soviet anti-aircraft workers in Vietnam, from the troops of the United States of the USSR, the pilots of the Fighter Aviation Air Defense of the USSR operated. (13) The Soviet Union took into account his mistakes of 1950-1953 and supported Vietnamese, sending not only weapons, but also pilots, soldiers and military specialists.

In general, the Soviet Union won the United States supporters in Asian wars, establishing almost all countries the communist parties. The new Soviet technique was tested by the battle, new knowledge was received in the fight, managed to take a threat directly from the borders of the USSR. All goals that the Moscow government has been completed.

Not a single income of someone else's land want. But also their land, not a single top of his land will give anyone.
Joseph Stalin

Cold War is a state of contradiction between the two dominant world systems: capitalism and socialism. Socialism represented the USSR, and capitalism, hawn, the United States and the United Kingdom. Today it is popular to say that the Cold War is the confrontation between the USSR-USA, but at the same time they forget to say that the Speech of the British Prime Minister of Churchillus led to the formal proclamation of the war.

Causes of war

In 1945, contradictions between the USSR and other participants of the anti-Hitler coalition began to appear. It was clear that Germany wage lost, and now the main question is the post-war device of the world. Here everyone tried to pull the blanket in his direction, to take a leading position relative to other countries. The main contradictions were in European countries: Stalin wanted to subjugate them to the Soviet system, and the capitalists sought not to let the Soviet state in Europe.

The reasons for the Cold War are the following:

Social. Cohesion of the country in the face of the new enemy.
Economic. Fighting sales markets and for resources. The desire to loosen the economic power of the enemy.
Military. Armament racing in case of the beginning of a new open war.
Ideological. The opponent's society is presented solely in a negative subtext. Fighting two ideologies.

The active stage of the opposition of two systems begins with the US atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we consider this bombardment apart, then it is illogical - the war is won, Japan is not a competitor. Why bomb cities, and even such a weapon? But if we consider the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War, then in the bombing anim is to show its power to the potential enemy, and to show who should be the main thing in the world. And the factor of nuclear weapons was later very important. After all, the atomic bomb from the USSR appeared only in 1949 ...

Start of war

If you briefly consider the Cold War, then its beginning today is associated exclusively with the speech of Churchill. Therefore, they say that the beginning of the Cold War is March 5, 1946.

Speech Churchill March 5, 1946

In fact, Truman (US President) said a more specific speech, from which everyone became clear that the Cold War began. And the speech of Churchill (it is not difficult today to find on the Internet and read) was superficial. It said a lot about the iron curtain, but not a word about the Cold War.

Interview Stalin dated February 10, 1946

On February 10, 1946, the Pravda newspaper published an interview with Stalin. Today, this newspaper is very difficult to find, but this interview was very interesting. In it, Stalin said the following: "Capitalism always generates crises and conflicts. It always creates a threat of war, which is a threat to the USSR. Therefore, we must accelerate the pace to restore the Soviet economy. We must give the priority of the heavy industry, and not the consumer goods. "

This speech Stalin turned over and precisely on it all Western leaders who spoke about the desire of the USSR to start the war. But, as you can see, in this speech, Stalin did not even have a hint of the Military expansion of the Soviet state.

Real start of war

To say that the beginning of the Cold War is associated with the speech of Churchill - a little illogical. The fact is that at the time of 1946 it was just the former Prime Minister of Great Britain. There is a certain absurd theater - the war between the USSR and the USA officially begins for the former Prime Minister of England. In fact, everything was different, and Churchill's performance is just a convenient pretext, which was later beneficial to write off.

The real start of the Cold War should be attributed to the minimum by 1944, when it was already clear that Germany was doomed to defeat, and all the allies pulled the blanket for themselves, realizing that it was very important to get domination over the post-war world. If to torture is to hold a more accurate line of the beginning of the war, then first serious disagreements on the topic "How to live on" between the Allies happened at the Tehran conference.

Specificity of war

To properly understand the processes held during the Cold War, it is necessary to understand what this war was in history. Today, increasingly talking about the fact that it was actually the third world. And this is a huge mistake. The fact is that all wives of mankind that were before that, including those of Napoleonic wars and 2 world wars, these were warriors of the capitalist world for rights dominated in a certain in the region. The Cold War was the first global war where two systems were confrontation: capitalist and socialist. Here I may argue that there were war in the history of mankind, where the corner was not capital, but religion: Christianity against Islam and Islam against Christianity. In part, this objection is true, but only from happiness. The fact is that any religious conflicts cover only a part of the population and part of the world, while the global cold war covered the whole world. All countries of the world could be clearly divided into 2 main groups:

Socialist. Recognized the dominance of the USSR and received funding from Moscow.
Capitalist. The United States dominated and received funding from Washington.

There were also "indefinite." There were few such countries, but they were. Their main specificity consisted in the fact that they could not decide what camp to join, so they received funding from two sources: from Moscow and from Washington.

Who started war

One of the problems of the Cold War is a question - who began it. Indeed, there is no army, which crosses the border of another state, and thus declares war. Today you can write off everything in the USSR and say that this Stalin began the war. But with the evidence base of this hypothesis of trouble. I will not help our "partners" and to look for what the USSR could have been motives for the war, but I will give the facts why Stalin the aggravation of relationships were not needed (at least not right in 1946):

Nuclear weapon. In the USA it appeared in 1945, and the USSR has in 1949. You can imagine that over the calculating Stalin wanted to exacerbate relations with the United States when the opponent's trump card has a nuclear weapon. At the same time, I remind, there was also a plan for the atomic bombing of the largest cities of the USSR.
Economy. The United States and the United Kingdom, by and large, in the Second World War earned, therefore they have no economic problems. The USSR is another matter. The country had to restore the economy. By the way, the United States had 50% in the global GNP for 1945.

The facts suggest that in 1944-1946 the USSR was not ready to start the war. Yes, and the speech of Churchill, which formally and began a cold war, was not uttered in Moscow, and not with her filing. But on the other hand, both opposing camps in such a war were extremely interested.

On September 4, 1945, a Memorandum 329 was adopted in the United States, which developed the plan for atomic bombings of Moscow and Leningrad. In my opinion, this is the best proof who wanted war and aggravate relations.

Goal

Any war has a goal and surprisingly that our historians are not even trying to identify the goals of the Cold War. On the one hand, it is justified by the fact that the USSR had only 1 goal - the expansion and strengthening of socialism by any paths. But Western countries were more ingenious. They sought not only to distribute their global influence, but also to apply spiritual strikes on the USSR. And it continues to this day. The following US goals can be distinguished in the War of Historical and Mental Impact:

Make the substitution of concepts at the historical level. Note that under the influence of these ideas today, all the historical personalities of Russia, which bowed to Western countries, are presented with ideal rulers. At the same time, everyone who performed for the rise of Russia is presented by tyrants, despoty and frills.
Development of the Soviet people complex of inferiority. We have tried to prove all the time that we are not such that we are guilty of all the problems of mankind and so on. In many ways, because of this, people were so easily perceived the collapse of the USSR and the problems of the 90s - it was "payback" for our inferiority, and on the self-aim was just reached the target in the opponent's war.
Discharge history. This stage continues to this day. If you learn Western materials, then there our whole story (literally everyone) is presented as one solid violence.

There are, of course, the pages of the story that our country can be punched, but most of the stories are sudden from the finger. Moreover, the liberals and Western historians for some reason forget that this is not Russia colonized the whole world, not Russia destroyed the indigenous population of America, not Russia shot the Hindus from guns, tieting 20 people in a row to save the nuclei, not Russia exploited Africa. Such examples can be remembered, because each country has uniceceptible stories in history. Therefore, if you want to pick up in bad events of our story - be kindly not forget that Western countries have such stories no less.

Stages of war

The stages of the Cold War are one of the most controversial issues, because it is very difficult to gradually. Nevertheless, I can offer the division of this war for 8 key stages:

Preparatory (193-1945). Another world war was and formally "allies" performed a single front, but the disagreements were already and everyone began to fight for post-war world domination.
Beginning (1945-1949). The usual hegemony of the United States, when the Americans manage to make a dollar with a single world currency and strengthen the position of the country in almost all regions other than those in which the USSR army was located.
Height (1949-1953). Key factors of 1949, which allow you to allocate this year as a key: 1 - the creation of atomic weapons in the USSR, 2 - the USSR economy comes out in 1940. After that, an active confrontation began when the United States could no longer speak from the USSR from the position of force.
First discharge (1953-1956). The key event is the death of Stalin, after which it was announced the beginning of the new course - the policy of peaceful coexistence.
New round of crisis (1956-1970). Events in Hungary led to a new twist of tension, which lasted almost 15 years, for which the Caribbean crisis came.
Second discharge (1971-1976). This stage of the Cold War, if briefly, is associated with the beginning of the work Commission for the withdrawal of tension in Europe, and with the signing of the final act in Helsinki.
Third crisis (1977-1985). A new round when the Cold War between the USSR and the United States reached apogee. The main point of confrontation is Afghanistan. In terms of military development, the country staged a 2Dikaya "surgery.
The end of the war (1985-1988). The end of the Cold War falls for 1988, when it became clear that the "new political thinking" in the USSR ends the war and so far only de facto recognizes the American victory.

These are the main stages of the Cold War. As a result, socialism and communism lost to capitalism, since the moral and mental impact of the United States, which was openly directed to the management of the CPSU, has reached its goal: the party leadership began to put their personal interests and the benefit above the socialist basics.

Forms

The confrontation of two ideologies began in 1945. Gradually, this confrontation covered all spheres of public life.

Military confrontation

The main military confrontation of the era of the Cold War is the struggle of two blocks. On April 4, 1949, NATO was created (the organization of the North Atlantic Treaty). NATO includes USA, Canada, England, France, Italy and a number of small countries. In response, on May 14, 1955, the ATS (organization of the Warsaw Treaty) is created. Thus, there was a clear confusion of two systems. But again it should be noted that the first step was made by Western countries that organized NATO 6 years earlier than the Warsaw Agreement appeared.

The main confrontation, which we have already said partially, is atomic weapons. In 1945, this weapon appeared in the United States. Moreover, in America developed a plan for strikes with nuclear weapons on the 20 largest cities of the USSR, using 192 bombs. This forced the USSR to do even impossible to create its own atomic bomb, the first successful tests of which were held in August 1949. In the future, all this resulted in the arms race of a huge scale.

Economic confrontation

In 1947, the United States developed the Marshall Plan. According to this plan, the United States provided financial assistance to all countries affected during the war. But in this regard, there was one limit - only those countries that share the political interests and goals of the United States were assisted. In response to this, the USSR begins to assist in restoring countries after the war, which chose the path of socialism. On the basis of these approaches, 2 Economic Blocks were created:

Western European Union (ZEV) in 1948.
Council of Economic Mutual Assistance (CEV) in January 1949. The organization, except the USSR, includes: Czechoslovakia, Romania, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria.

Despite the formation of unions, the essence did not change: Zev helped the US money, and CEV helped the USSR money. The rest of the countries consumed only.

In the economic confrontation with the United States, Stalin took two steps, which were extremely negatively affected by the American economy: March 1, 1950 in the USSR left from the calculation of the ruble calculus in dollars (as it was all over the world) to the Gold Security, and April 1952 of the USSR, China and Eastern European countries create trade zone, alternative dollar. This trade zone did not use the dollar at all, which means the capitalist world, which before that owned the 100% world market, lost the minimum of 1/3 of this market. All this happened against the background of the "Economic Miracle of the USSR". Western experts said that the USSR would be able to go after the war in the level of 1940 only by 1971, but it really happened in 1949.

Crisis

Cold War Crises

Event	date
	1948
War in Vietnam	1946-1954
	1950-1953
	1946-1949
	1948-1949
	1956
	Mid 50s - mid 60s
	Mid 60s
War in Afghanistan

These are the main crises of the Cold War, but also were other, less significant. Next, we briefly consider what the essence of these crises was, and what consequences they led the world.

Military conflicts

In our country, a cold war, many seriously perceive. In our consciousness sits the understanding that war is "checkers naked", weapons in hand and in the trenches. But the cold war was different, although even it did not cost without regional conflicts, some of which were extremely heavy. Main conflicts of those times:

Split Germany. FRG and GDR education.
War in Vietnam (1946-1954). Led to the country section.
War in Korea (1950-1953). Led to the country section.

Berlin crisis of 1948

For the correct understanding of the essence of the Berlin crisis of 1948, you should examine the map.

Germany was divided into 2 parts: Western and Eastern. Berlin was also on the zone of influence, but the city himself was deep in Eastern lands, that is, on the territory of the territory controlled by the USSR. In an effort to put pressure on Western Berlin, the Soviet leadership organized its blockade. It was the answer to the recognition of Taiwan and adopt it in the UN.

England and France organized a air corridor, providing residents of Western Berlin with all necessary. Therefore, the blockade failed and the crisis itself began to slow down turnover. Understanding that the blockade does not lead to anything, the Soviet leadership removes it, normalizing the life of Berlin.

A continuation of the crisis was the creation of two states in Germany. In 1949, Western lands were transformed into the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). In response, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) was created in Eastern lands. It is these events that should be considered a final split from Europe on 2 opposing camps - West and East.

Revolution in China

In 1946, civil war began in China. The Communist Block arranged an armed coup, seeking to overthrow the government of Chan Kaishi from the Gomindan party. Civil war and revolution became possible due to the events of 1945. After the victory over Japan, a base for lifting communism was created here. Since 1946, the USSR has been delivered by the supply of weapons, food and all necessary, to support Chinese communists who have been struggled for the country.

The revolution ended in 1949 by the formation of the People's Republic of China (PRC), where the whole full of power was in the hands of the Communist Party. As for Chankayshistov, they fled to Taiwan and formed their state, which was very quickly recognized in the West, and even accepted it in the UN. In response to this, the USSR leaves the UN. This is an important point, since he had a great influence on another Asian conflict - the Korean War.

Education of the state of Israel

From the first UN meetings, one of the main issues was the fate of Palestine State. At that time, Palestine was actually a colony of Great Britain. The separation of Palestine to the Jewish and Arab state was an attempt by the United States and the USSR to hit the United Kingdom and its positions in Asia. Stalin approved the idea of \u200b\u200bcreating the state of Israel, because he believed by the "left" Jews, and expected to gain control over this country, strengthened in the Middle East.

The Palestinian problem was solved in November 1947 at the UN Assembly, where the position of the USSR was played a key role. The poet can be said that Stalin played a key role in the establishment of the state of Israel.

The UN Assembly decided to create 2 states: Jewish (Israel »Arabic (Palestine). In May 1948, the independence of Israel was announced and the Arab countries declared this state a war. The Middle Eastern crisis began. The United Kingdom supported Palestine, USSR and the USA - Israel. In In 1949, Israel won the war and immediately between the Jewish state and the USSR arose conflict, as a result of which Stalin ruined diplomatic relations with Israel. The battle in the Middle East won the United States.

Korean War

The Korean War is an undeservedly forgotten event, which today is little studied, which is a mistake. After all, the Korean War is the third in the history of human victims. During the war years, 14 million people died! More victims only in the two world wars. A large number of victims is due to the fact that it was the first major armed conflict within the Cold War.

After the victory over Japan in 1945, the USSR and the United States divided Korea (formerly colony of Japan) to the zones of influence: Rolling Korea - under the influence of the USSR, South Korea - under the influence of the USA. In 1948, 2 states were officially formed:

Korean People's Democratic Republic (DPRK). Zone of the influence of the USSR. Head - Kim Il Saint.
The Republic of Korea. US influence area. The head is the son of Mann.

Having enlisted with the support of the USSR and China, on June 25, 1950, Kim Il Saint begins the war. In fact, it was a war for the korea uniting, which in the DPRK planned to finish quickly. The quick victory factor was important because only this could not give the US time to intervene in the conflict. The beginning was promising, UN troops came to the rescue of the Republic of Korea republic, which were 90% of Americans. After that, the Army of the DPRK retreats and was close to collapse. The situation was saved by Chinese volunteers who intervened in the war and restored the balance of power. After that, local battles began and the border between North and South Korea was established on the 38th parallels.

The first discharge of war

The first discharge in the Cold War happened in 1953 after the death of Stalin. An active dialogue between opposing countries has begun. On July 15, 1953, the New Government of the USSR, headed by Khrushchev, announced the desire to build new relations with Western countries, based on peaceful coexistence policies. Similar statements were made from the opposite side.

A large factor in stabilizing the situation was the end of the Korean War and the establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and Israel. Wanting to demonstrate to bented countries, the desire for the peaceful coexistence of Khrushchev brought the Soviet troops from Austria, having achieved a promise from the Austrian side to maintain neutrality. Naturally, no neutrality was, as there were no concessions and gestures from the United States.

The discharge lasted from 1953 to 1956. Ha This time of the USSR has established relations with Yugoslavia, India, began to develop relations with African and Asian countries, which only recently freed from colonial dependence.

New turn of tension

Hungary

At the end of 1956, an uprising began in Hungary. Locals, realizing that the positions of the USSR after the death of Stalin, became noticeably worse, raised uprising against the current regime in the country. As a result, the Cold War approached its important point. For the USSR, there were 2 ways:

Recognize the right of revolution on self-determination. This step would give all the rest of the countries dependent on the USSR, an understanding that at any moment they can escape from socialism.
Suppress the rebellion. This approach contradicted the principles of socialism, but only this could be kept the leading position in the world.

The 2nd option was selected. The army suppressed the rebellion. To suppress in places it was necessary to apply weapons. As a result, the revolution was able to win, it became clear that the "discharge" was over.

Caribbean crisis

Cuba is a small state near the United States, but it barely led the world to a nuclear war. In the late 50s, the revolution and the authorities took place on Cuba and the power seized Fidel Castro, who declared the desire to build socialism on the island. For America, it was a challenge - a state appeared near their border, which acts as a geopolitical opponent. As a result, the US planned to solve the situation by military path, but defeated.

The crisis began in 1961, after the USSR secretly delivered rocket to Cuba. This soon became known, and the President of the United States demanded to bring the rocket. The parties aggravated the conflict, until it became clear that the world was on the threshold of the nuclear war. As a result, the USSR agreed to bring the rocket from Cuba, and the United States agreed to bring their missiles from Turkey.

"Prague Vienna"

In the mid-1960s, a new tension arose - this time in Czechoslovakia. The situation here very much resembled the one that was previously in Hungary: democratic trends began in the country. Mostly, the youth opposed the current government, and the movement was headed by A. Dubchek.

There was a situation, as in Hungary, "will allow to hold a democratic revolution, meant to give an example to other countries that the socialist system can be overthrown at any time. Therefore, in Czechoslovakia, the countries of the Warsaw Treaty were sent. The rebellion was depressed, but the suppression caused indignation throughout the world. But it was the Cold War, and, of course, any active actions of one side were actively criticized by the other party.

Discharge in war

The peak of the Cold War fell on the 50s and 60s, when the aggravation of the relationship between the SSR and the United States was so big that the war could start at any time. Starting from the 70s, the discharge of war and the subsequent defeat of the USSR. But in this case I want to stop short to the United States. What happened in this country to "discharge"? In fact, the country has ceased to be people and moved under the management of capitalists, under which it is also under today. You can even say more - the USSR won a cold war in the United States in the late 60s, and the United States as the state of the American people ceased to exist. Power captured capitalists. Appoge of these events - the murder of President Kennedy. But after the United States of the country of the country representing the capitalists and oligarchs - they already won the Cold War of the USSR.

But back to the Cold War and discharge in it. These signs were marked in 1971 when the USSR, USA, England and France signed agreements on the beginning of the work of the Commission on the decision of the Berlin problem, as the constant tension points in Europe.

Final Akt.

In 1975, the most significant event of the "discharge" of the Cold War occurred. During this years, a pan-European security meeting was held, in which all European countries took part (of course, including the USSR, as well as the United States and Canada). The meeting was held in Helsinki (Finland), so the story included as a Helsinki final act.

At the end of the congress, an act was signed, but before that there were difficult negotiations, first of all, 2 points:

Freedom of the media in the USSR.
Freedom of the departure "From" and "B" of the USSR.

The Commission from the USSR agreed to both paragraphs, but in a special wording that had little to what had obliged the country itself. The final signing of the Act has become the first symbol that the West and East can agree among themselves.

New aggravation of relationships

In the late 70s and in the early 80s, a new round of the Cold War began when the relationship between the USSR and the United States was glowed. There were 2 reasons for this:

The United States in Western European countries have placed medium-range missiles that have been able to achieve the territory of the USSR.

The beginning of the war in Afghanistan.

As a result, the Cold War came to a new level and the enemy took up the usual business - race of weapons. She very painfully beat on budgets of both countries and ultimately led the United States to the terrible economic crisis of 1987, and the USSR to defeat the war and the subsequent collapse.

Historical meaning

Surprisingly, in our country a cold war is perceived non-serious. The best fact demonstrating the attitude towards this historical event and in the West is the writing of the name. We have a "cold war" written in all textbooks in quotes and from the capital letter, in the West - without quotes and with a small one. This is the difference in relation to.

It really was war. Just in understanding people who have just won Germany, war is weapon, shots, attack, defense, and so on. But the world has changed in the cold war against the forefront, contradictions and ways of their decision came out. Of course, it was poured into real armed clashes.

In any case, the result of the Cold War is important, because by its results of the USSR ceased existence. On this, the war itself ended, and Gorbachev received a medal "For the victory in the Cold War" in the US.

This book is about the participation of our country in the events in the Congo in 1960-1964, which entered the story as a Congolese crisis. Congo was the first hot spot of the Cold War in Africa south of the Sahara. The fight for a huge territory in the "Heart of Africa", rich in strategic mineral raw materials, is filled with events that "shook the world". The riots that swept the country a week after the declaration of independence, the branch of the province of Katanga and the UN Coach (July 1960). Killing Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, one of the symbols of independent Africa (1961). Dramatic, complete unexpected turns of a three-year struggle for the return of Katanga to the composition of the Congo (1960-1963), which was worthwhile to the Secretary General of UN Doug Hammarsheld. The powerful uprising of Lumumba supporters (1964), which was able to suppress only with the help of an external military intervention, which caused the death of tens of white hostages. Based on documents from the archives of Russia, Great Britain and the United States, the role of the Soviet Union in the Congolese crisis, its motives, intentions and action in the context of the policies of other players, foreign and Congolese has been investigated. The author analyzed the factors that caused the Soviet leadership to refrain from the steps on the escalation of the crisis. For historians, teachers and students.

From the series:Cold War

* * *

Company LITRES.

Dedicated to Marina's wife

THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Institute of Universal Story

Center of African Research

University of Dmitry Pozhassha

Printed by decision of the Academic Council of the University of Dmitry Pozharskaya

Reviewers:

d. and. N. Yegorova N. I.

d. and. n. Shubin V. G.

Introduction

Marcus suddenly realized that, whatever the world would be huge, the Congo would always be over this world.

Albert Sanchez Pinol. Pandora in Congo.

This book is about the participation of our country in the events in the Congo in 1960-1964, which entered the story as a Congolese crisis.

During the decolonization of the African continent, the Congo turned into an arena of the rivalry of opponents around the Cold War, it became its first hot spot in Africa south of the Sahara. Congo attracted many. In enviable geographical position - a huge territory in the center of the continent ("Heart of Africa"), bordering 9 colonies and states. Fabulously rich strategic raw materials are one of the world's largest deposits of copper, cobalt, uranium, industrial diamonds, significant deposits of tantalum, tin, zinc.

The United States and their allies on NATO feared that in the case of establishing in the Congo "Communist influence", according to the principle of Domino, the same fate will suffer from neighboring territories.

Fears were not devoid of grounds. The Prime Minister of Congo became Patrice Lumumba, the left nationalist, the admirer of the President of Ghana Kwame Nkruma and the President of Guinea to the Tour, who had established relations with the Soviet Union. The Soviet leader N. S. Khrushchev was not averse to replenish the list of African friends, with the help of which he counted on the growing anti-colonial wave to break into the "soft abdominal imperialism". Will the USSR manage to act in the Congo as successful as in Guinea, Ghana, Mali? This question for Africa was 1960 was a fateful.

After the declaration of independence of the Congo on June 30, 1960, the former Metropolis Belgium used the antibelgian mood of the Congolese to destabilize the situation in their former colony. Following the commissioning of the Belgian troops and the separation of the richest province of Katanga. Lumumba and President Congo Joseph Casavubu demanded urgently to send UN troops to "protect the state territory of the Congo from the place of external aggression, which threatens the International Mire."

The USSR and the United States agreed with the need for the UN operation in the Congo. The Congolese crisis has acquired an international character. US President Dwight Eisenhower, Khrushchev and Lumumba expected to wrap the internationalization of the crisis in their favor. The aim of Eisenhower was to turn the UN troops in the "shield" against the communist penetration, prevent direct Soviet intervention in the Congo, to protect the interests of the West by the UN's hands, saving his own funds and resources. Khrushchev believed that the UN operation would expand the possibilities of the USSR to influence the events in the Congo and support the Lumumba government. And the Congolese prime minister hoped with the help of UN troops to restore the territorial integrity of the country. The Soviet and Congolese leaders quickly made sure that an American script is being implemented through the UN operation in the Congo. Lumumba appealed to the USSR for help around UN to carry out a military action against the breakaway katanga. And received vehicles (trucks and civil aircraft) for the transfer of the federal government's troops to the borders of the rebellious province.

The beginning of hostilities against Katangian separatists in late August 1960 led to the exacerbation of the crisis. With the help of UN troops and pro-Western forces inside the Congo, Lumumba was removed from power, the Soviet embassy was expelled from the Congo. Khrushchev gave reverse. His Congolese policy began to be determined by the need to exit the crisis, while maintaining the "face" of the USSR and its own international reputation as a consistent wrestler against colonialism and imperialism. In the future, the Soviet leadership avoided the steps that could cause confrontation escalation with Western powers in the Congo.

The fight for the Congo is rich in the events that "shook the world". The riots engulfed the country a week after the declaration of independence, the department of Katanga and the UN Coach (July 1960). The murder of Patrice Lumumba (January 17, 1961), one of the symbols of independent Africa. Dramatic, full of unexpected turns struggle for the return of the Katanga to the composition of the Congo (1960-1963), which cost the lives by UN Secretary General Doug Hammarsheld. The powerful uprising of Lumumbers (1964), which was able to suppress only with the help of an external military intervention, which caused the death of tens of white hostages.

All institutions and mechanisms of the UN, General Assembly, the Security Council, the Specially Creative Congo Advisory Committee on Congo, the Congo situation were involved in the search paths from the crisis. The UN operation of peacekeeping in the Congo has become one of the most large-scale and sophisticated for Blue Casts.

The documentary basis of the book amounted to archival materials. The author found the most valuable documents in the Archive of Russia's foreign policy (WHP RF). These are informational messages, analytical references and notes, records of conversations, other products of the Soviet Embassy in the Congo and African Departments of the USSR Foreign Ministry, Cruschev's correspondence with foreign politicians about the situation in the Congo. This array of documents unevenly illuminates the various stages and episodes of the Congolese crisis. Sometimes due to objective reasons: the staff of the Soviet embassy in the Congo twice, in September 1960 and in November 1963, had to destroy the documents when the USSR citizens were prescribed for 48 hours to leave the country mainly due to the fact that a lot information is not declassified. The author failed to receive a single document of the Soviet diplomatic mission who worked in Stanlimivile in 1961, when the eastern part of the Congo controlled the government led by the successor Lumumba Antoine Gizeng. Inaccessible materials about the uprising of 1964

In the Russian state archive of the latest history (RGan) there are materials on the main directions of the USSR policy in Africa. Declassified documents on the Congo units. The rest are stored in closed for researchers in the Fund of the International Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

In the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF), documents were useful to stay in the USSR of Congolese politicians who came along the line of public organizations.

For several days of work in the National Archives of the United Kingdom, the author found important documents on the situation in the Congo. Of particular value are the materials about the Congolese policy of President Ghana Kwame Nkruma.

The author had no opportunity to work on the Congolese topics in the US archives. A good help for studying the Congolese crisis has become software documents on US policy in Africa and the analytical materials of the State Department and the CIA of activity on the continent of the Eastern Block countries, found in national archives when studying another topic.

Some "compensation" of the scarcity of documents from American archives was the collection prepared for the conference conducted by the project staff to study the history of the Cold War of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington on September 23-24, 2004. The collection includes, in particular, "Analytical Chronology" of events in the Congo prepared by the CIA. Interesting as "opponent's view" on the actions of the USSR in the Congo, many documents published in the United States International Relations series prepared by the State Department.

A lot of useful information about the situation in the Congo and Soviet position at different stages of the crisis contain UN materials - documents of the Security Council, General Assembly, reports of representatives of the Secretary-General in the Congo.

The valuable source is the oral evidence of the immediate participants of the events, those who literally "worked the story."

The memoir genre is represented by memories of diplomats, scouts who worked in the Congo under a diplomatic cover, politicians, UN staff, foreign mercenaries who fought in the Congo.

Congolese crisis - a gathering dish for researchers. American journalist and historian Madeleine Kalb believes that the battle for the Congo "worthy of the first-class adventure novel - an exotic place of action, full of drama plot, colorful and influential actors in a significant moment of their life against the background of the rolling empire, rivalry of the great powers and an unexpected surge of nationalism on everything Continent. " Historiography of the Congolese "thriller" is extensive: hundreds of monographs, thousands of articles.

The works of Soviet historians make up its small part. They contain useful actual material, but they are written not to objective analysis of the Congolese policy of the USSR, but for its excuse.

The discovery, although very limited, domestic archival documents made it possible to revise the stereotypes that have developed during the Cold War. Work appeared, where real Soviet motives and actions at various stages of the Congolese crisis are objectively investigated. However, the holistic picture of the participation of the Soviet Union in the battle for the "Heart of Africa" \u200b\u200bhas not yet been recreated.

The role of the USSR in the Congolese events of 1960-1964. It was not the subject of a special study of foreign authors. In the 1960s, most Western historians described the behavior of the Soviet Union as an integral part of the sophisticated "Plan of the Kremlin" on the seizure of Africa and the dissemination of the communist ideology there. Often, the "Red Threat" exaggerated that the policies of the Western Power, primarily the United States, to look logical and justified. The objectivist approach was rare.

In the 1970s, the work was reached, where the actions of the Soviet Union in the Congo were analyzed not to illustrate its expansionist aspirations, but as one of the main participants of the Cold War in the "Heart of Africa", where he opposed the West, protecting his national interests. The housing assessment of Soviet politics is found at M. Kalb. The decision of Khrushchev "Send planes, weapons and military advisers to help Lumumba in the suppression of Katangian separatism" was a "typical manifestation of adventurism" of the Soviet leader. The adventure turned into removal from the power of Lumumba, expulsion from the Congo of the Soviet embassy, \u200b\u200bthe murder of Lumumba and the "personal defeat" of Khrushchev. He was forced to "revise his optimistic calculations and seriously look at the African realities." By 1962, "after a number of disappointments and defeats in the Congo and other countries of the African continent, Khrushchev was ready to leave adventurous dreams and conduct more careful, realistic politics." And here it was waiting for a new disappointment: "He was in vain sought an effective radical policy that could replace Lumumba, and eventually decided to establish full-fledged diplomatic relations with a moderate government led by frankly pro-American prime minister."

Some researchers regard "Realism" of Khrushchev not like a healthy pragmatite Belgian journalist and sociologist Luda de Witte believes that the USSR imitated confrontation with the West in the Congo, "fought with one hand," was indifferent to the fate of the left Congolese nationalists and was guided solely by his own interests: " The Kremlin has no political will, funds and resources to create a real threat of west hegemony in the Congo<…> Obviously, the Kremlin did not want to support Lumumba unconditionally during the Congolese crisis. He was more interested in the victory in the propaganda war, and Khrushchev condemned the West intervention to strengthen the diplomatic positions of the Soviet Union in the African world. The defeat of the Congolese national liberation movement was a crushing blow for all fighters for freedom of Africa, but not for devoid of the vision of the historical perspective, conservative bureaucrats from the Kremlin, which treated Lumumba and African nationalism as a throwing thing. " In the Congo, the author concludes, there was no cold war: "The Congolese crisis was actually a war between East and West for hegemony in Central Africa."

Assistant Secretary of State for Political Affairs George McGee, who oversaw the Congolese policy of the United States since July 1962 to May 1963, considers Congo a very dangerous front of the Cold War. In an interview, this in 1990, he stated that the president of Kennedy "had all the grounds to consider advice as an" enemy "in the Congo." The Congolese crisis believes American politician, could well lead to war between the USSR and the United States.

Studies in the Congolese crisis of the American historian Lisa Namikas became innovative. The author managed to recreate a truly international history of the crisis, submitting it as a result of the complex interaction of five major players: USA - USSR - Belgium - UN - Congo. This became possible due to the extensive archival database - documents from the archives of the United States, Belgium, Russia, the GDR. In the GDR Namikas found materials that shed light on the Soviet position on the uprising of 1964. Documents on this plot in domestic archives are not declassified. She believes that the Soviet policy in the Congo was the result of a situational combination of pragmatic and ideological imperatives. Khrushchev, asserts Namikas, "walked on a weighted, reasonable risk" for the "establishment of Soviet influence in the Congo." The Soviet leader was not "clumsy hippo, which he was depicted in the historical works of the Cold War, he was a creature much more subtly organized and knew his weak things perfectly." It is logical that he "did not attach super passions to conquer the domination" in Central Africa, "Three-hearing for the USSR region". The main mistake of Khrushchev during the crisis Namikas considers his refusal of massive help Lumumba and attempts to save the Congolese prime minister, when he was removed from power. And immediately recognizes that it was impossible for a policy that really estimated its capabilities: "The inaction of Khrushchev can be explained by the fact that the USSR also turned out to be overly involved in the conflict at a distance of 12 thousand miles from its territory." Such diligence turned into the fact that the Soviet Union in the Congo "did not have consistent and solid politics", "there was no loyal strong man in power or a leader, which at least just was internally ready to lead a cold war in Africa, as it was in Asia and Latin America. "

The monograph L. Namikas introduced the Congolese crisis in the context of disputes in the historiography of the Cold War between neo -ordoxes and postrevionists. The first are responsible for the Cold War on the USSR with all the estimates of its genesis, entity and evolution. It is proved that the Soviet foreign policy was determined by the ideological imperatives decisively, and the United States only reacted to the propaganda and political offensive of the Eastern Block. The second believe that the Cold War has become a generation of mutual misunderstanding, recognize the presence of a powerful ideological component in American politics.

Namikas firmly takes up the side of post-reviewists: "New data clearly indicate that none of the opponents in the Cold War adequately presented the goals of the other party or the limits that it will (or not) protect their position in the Congo. The defendance of ideological principles that determined the goals more important than material and landed, increased the significance of the crisis. Both superpowers wanted to avoid direct clashes, but also sought not to look weak in front of young independent states. "

Elizabeth Schmidt, Elizabeth Schmidt, where the events in the Congo in 1960-1965 are written from postrevisionist positions. Dedicated separate chapter.

I put the goal to find out the role of the Soviet Union in the Congolese crisis, to explore its motives, intentions and actions on the basis of archival materials and in the context of the behavior of other players, foreign and Congolese.

The Congolese crisis for the USSR is one of the lost battles of the Cold War. N. S. Khrushchev did not write a word about him in his memoirs. Today it is necessary to comprehend the causes of the defeat and make the right conclusions. For the future. Russian historian A. I. Fursov substantiated this need accurately and clearly: "We need mercilessly honest knowledge of yourself, about the reasons for their historical defeat at the end of the 20th century. This is necessary, although the insufficient condition is not only victories, but also survival in the 21st century in those tests that he carries and who are not far off. "

I express deep gratitude and appreciation to the following people and organizations: Directorate of the Institute of Universal History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Director of Academician RAS A. O. Chubaryan) for the ability to implement this project; Employees of the Center for African Studies of the Institute of Universal History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (head of academician RAS A. B. Davidson) for valuable comments, suggestions and advice; American historian Lisa Namikas for fruitful cooperation on the Niva studying the Congolese crisis and unique information about US policy in the Congo; reviewers, doctor of historical sciences N. Igorova and the doctor of historical sciences V.G Shubin, for the attentive reading of manuscripts and constructive comments; A. V. Dmitriev for work on maps; Employees of the Archive of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, the State Archives of the Russian Federation, the Russian State Archive of the Newest History, the Russian State Archive of Film Documents, National Archives of the United Kingdom, US National Archives for professional assistance and a benevolent attitude towards the author.

* * *

Led Book Foreign Fragment Cold War in the "Heart of Africa". USSR and Congolese crisis, 1960-1964 (S. V. Mazov, 2015) Granted by our book partner -

Cold War in Asia

Foreign Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the United States, France and Great Britain gathered in Washington to consider important problems of international order affecting these three powers of the Western Block. On the agenda, the European problem is the re-equipment of Germany, the Far Eastern problem - the Korean War and Taiwan question, Help Indochka. It should be noted that the data complex on the Asian problem is taken into account, which, more than ever, is in the center of the international policies of both imperialist blocks, in the center of the balance of power between them and their expansionist calculations.

Knowing that the leading lines of the Atlantic Imperialism can not at the moment of tension and the open war undergo significant changes, one can foresee in general terms, which will be the result of a meeting of the three ministers of Western countries. Moreover, the meeting fits into the framework of the upcoming work of the UN General Assembly, where the same problems that have been debated today will be discussed.

These considerations, among others, allow us to conclude that we are talking about one of those numerous regular consultations organized for the sake of two closest purposes: a) one - direct: results of the current policy, accounting for possible shortcomings, changes that need to make, alleged budget for continuing joint activities; b) the second is indirect: the expansion of the area of \u200b\u200bactivity on the basis of directives developed and discussed by the Committee in a narrow composition, and the management of satellite countries is mediated through organizations created for this UN, the Atlantic Pact, PAM, etc. This is what imperialist action and diplomatic activities are. But when you try to more accurately determine the specific significance of the problems discussed for each of the countries presented, we notice the complex of contradictions, closely related to the complex of particular interests, and from this dialectic contradictions you understand that the Eastern problem approached with imperialist concepts.

Korean War, Taiwan Question and Indochinese problem - these events that play a role today cold War in Asia. But not only they. Others, more significant emerging in Japan to end in Europe. They are interrelated. All these elements in their interdependence, in their historical, social, economic development intersect, are confused, mixed, rotate each other and mutually determine themselves.

This complex system (politically at the stage of ripening, is economically and socio - at the stage of birth, historically - in the transitional stage) the field of action of four powers that have significant interests in the game: USSR, USA, England and France.

If in general, you can talk about two imperialist policies in the East, then more detailed analysis and, especially, the study of international relations inside the basis of world capitalism, shows four well distinguishable policies. This does not mean that the antagonism of interest between all four politicians is expressed in tough clashes (then there would be a war on four fronts), but even using alliances, it seems that the USA is binding, France and England, "Western countries" are forced to look for a consent point at least temporary. However, this point of the consent that they found in the joint struggle against the Soviet Union, in other matters (it will be visible) remains unattainable.

Because of this secret constant struggle, characteristic of imperialist groups, Asia has become a huge "node", to unleash which can only revolutionary path. We add that while Asia does not bring the revolution that began with the century to the end to the end, to free classless socialism, it will tear off the struggle of the imperialists who seek to dominate and exploit, to send her liberation movements to a dead end.

Here is what we see in the modern situation in the East.

Korea. The continuation of a large military operation, which inscribed as the extreme episode of the Russian-American "Cold War" into the social liberation uprising of the People's Cores of Korea. These masses of the decade were under Japanese dominations, fighting for their national exemption, but again fall under a new section imposed by the winners' powers.

Taiwan. The island is in the center of attention of the whole world. It serves as a striking illustration of how the Truman's policy may change for several months. An excellent example of imperialistic superdavical policy: unconditional protection, restrained non-interference, interference with the UN mediation. This is explained, in our opinion, the fact that Taiwan is the subject of Anglo-American disagreements. In the formal aspects hide the interests of England. They prompted to recognize Mao Zedong. And the interests of the USSR wanting the Chinese People's Republic to be in everything equal to the eastern unit and was free from deviations like "Titoism". And, as a result, Taiwan is an important pawn for both parties, it determines the development of the situation in the Far Eastern region, which even from a geographical point of view is in the foreground.

Indochytay. Continuation of the partisan war between the Vietnamese troops and the army of the marioneer emperor Bao G. The Republic of Vietnam occupies almost the entire peninsula and has about twenty million inhabitants, and Bao Giving Empire united the main cities of the coast. And for five years now this inner war continues. To understand what it represents, it is necessary to put it in the framework of the historical development, which led to the creation of the Republic of Vietnam. Indochina survived the war for the national liberation, which was accompanied within the country by the bourgeois-democratic revolution. The young Indochinese bourgeoisie, which headed the national liberation movement, as part of a single front with Ho Chi Minh, the head of the Indochian Communists, achieved the education of Vietnam. The last months of the History of Indochina demonstrate all the signs that the revolutionary phase, after the first bourgeois-democratic stage, develops in the socialist direction. Unfortunately, during this phase, Vietnam experienced interference of two foreign policy lines: the policies of the USSR, which led to the policy of the National Union between the bourgeoisia and the proletariat, and the politicians of France, which in the last conservative convulsions arms and finances the corrupt clique Bao Giving and directly introduces his troops.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

HTML version of the work is not yet.
You can download the archive of the work by clicking on the link that are below.

"Cold War" in Asia and the Middle East. Southeast Asia during the Cold War

ASIA

Causes of war

Start of war

Speech Churchill March 5, 1946

Interview Stalin dated February 10, 1946

Real start of war

Specificity of war

Who started war

Goal

Stages of war

Forms

Military confrontation

Economic confrontation

Crisis

Military conflicts

Berlin crisis of 1948

Revolution in China

Education of the state of Israel

Korean War

The first discharge of war

New turn of tension

Hungary

Caribbean crisis

"Prague Vienna"

Discharge in war

Final Akt.

New aggravation of relationships

Historical meaning

* * *

* * *

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents