How Vietnam defeated the French colonialists. Seventy years ago the First Indochina War began

The Vietnam War - the American view of things

The struggle between North and South for the unification of the country became extremely fierce. This was facilitated by military-technical support from overseas for the South Vietnamese regime. The number of military advisers in the country in 1964 was already more than 23 thousand people. Together with advisers, major types of weapons were constantly supplied to Saigon. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was technically and politically supported by the Soviet Union and communist China. The civil armed confrontation smoothly flowed into a global confrontation between superpowers supported by their allies. The chronicles of those years are full of headlines about how the Viet Cong guerrillas confronted the heavily armed army of South Vietnam.

Despite the serious military support of the South Vietnamese regime, the Viet Cong guerrilla units and the DRV army managed to achieve significant successes. By 1964, almost 70% of South Vietnam was controlled by communist forces. To avoid the collapse of its ally, the US decided at the highest level to launch a full-scale intervention in the country.

Marine Corps Vietnam

The Americans used a very dubious excuse to launch the operation. For this purpose, an attack by torpedo boats of the DRV Navy on the US Navy destroyer Medox was invented. The collision of ships of the opposing sides, later called the “Tonkin Incident,” occurred on August 2, 1964. After this, the US Air Force launched the first missile and bomb attacks on coastal and civilian targets in North Vietnam. From that moment on, the Vietnam War became a full-fledged international conflict, in which the armed forces of various states participated, and active combat operations were carried out on land, in the air and at sea. In terms of the intensity of the fighting, the size of the territories used and the number of military contingents, this war became the most massive and bloody in modern history.

The Americans decided to use air raids to force the North Vietnamese government to stop supplying weapons and assistance to the rebels in the South. The army, meanwhile, would have to cut off the rebel supply lines in the area of the 17th parallel, block and then destroy the units of the South Vietnamese Liberation Army.

Vietcong

To bomb military targets on the territory of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the Americans used mainly tactical and naval aviation based at the airfields of South Vietnam and the aircraft carriers of the 7th Fleet. Later, B-52 strategic bombers were sent to help front-line aviation, which began carpet bombing the territory of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the areas bordering the demarcation line.

In the spring of 1965, the participation of American troops on land began. At first, the Marines tried to take control of the border between the Vietnamese states, then the US Army Marines began to take regular part in identifying and destroying bases and supply lines of partisan forces.

The number of American troops was constantly increasing. Already in the winter of 1968, there was almost half a million American army on the territory of South Vietnam, not counting naval units. Almost 1/3 of the entire American army took part in the hostilities. Almost half of all US Air Force tactical aircraft took part in the raids. Not only the Marine Corps was actively used, but also Army Aviation, which took on the main function of fire support. A third of all attack aircraft carriers of the US Navy took part in organizing and ensuring regular raids on Vietnamese cities and villages.

Bombing of Vietnam

Since 1966, the Americans have headed towards the globalization of the conflict. From that moment on, support for the US Armed Forces in the fight against the Viet Cong and the DRV army was provided by Australia and South Korea, Thailand and the Philippines, members of the SEATO military-political bloc.

Background to the Vietnam War

Back in the summer of 1940, when, after the defeat of the French army in Europe, the Japanese hastened to seize French Indochina, the first resistance units began to appear on Vietnamese territory. The leader of the Vietnamese communists, Ho Chi Minh, led the fight against the Japanese invaders, proclaiming a course for the complete liberation of the countries of Indochina from Japanese domination. The American government, despite the difference in ideology, then declared full support for the Viet Minh movement. Communist partisan detachments, which were called nationalists overseas, began to receive military and financial assistance from the States. The main goal of the Americans at that time was to use every opportunity to destabilize the situation in the territories occupied by Japan.

Viet Minh

The complete history of the Vietnam War calls this period the moment of formation of the communist regime in Vietnam. Immediately after the end of World War II, the pro-communist Viet Minh movement became the main military-political force in Vietnam, bringing a lot of trouble to its former patrons. First, the French, and later the Americans, former allies, were forced to fight this national liberation movement in the region by all means. The consequences of the struggle radically changed not only the balance of power in Southeast Asia, but also radically affected other participants in the confrontation.

The main events began to develop rapidly after the surrender of Japan. Armed troops of Vietnamese communists captured Hanoi and the northern regions of the country, after which the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was proclaimed in the liberated territory. The French, who were trying with all their might to keep their former colonies in their imperial orbit, could in no way agree with this development of events. The French introduced an expeditionary force into North Vietnam, again returning the entire territory of the country under their control. From that moment on, all the military-political institutions of the DRV went illegal, and a guerrilla war broke out in the country with the French colonial army. Initially, the partisan units were armed with guns and machine guns, which they received as trophies from the Japanese occupation army. Subsequently, more modern weapons began to enter the country through China.

Air defense of DRV

It is important to note that France, despite its imperial ambitions, could not at that time independently maintain control over its vast overseas possessions. The actions of the occupying forces were of a limited local nature. Without American help, France could no longer keep a huge region in its sphere of influence. For the United States, participation in the military conflict on the side of France meant maintaining this region under the control of Western democracies.

The consequences of the guerrilla war in Vietnam were very important for Americans. If the French colonial army had gained the upper hand, the situation in Southeast Asia would have become controllable for the United States and its allies. Having lost the confrontation with pro-communist forces in Vietnam, the United States could lose its dominant role throughout the Pacific region. In the context of a global confrontation with the USSR and in the face of the growing strength of communist China, the Americans could not allow the emergence of a socialist state in Indochina.

Vietnam map

Unwittingly, America, because of its geopolitical ambitions, was drawn into another, the second after the Korean War, major armed conflict. After the defeat of the French troops and unsuccessful peace negotiations in Geneva, the United States assumed the main burden of military operations in this region. Already at that time, the United States paid more than 80% of military expenses from its own treasury. By preventing the unification of the country on the basis of the Geneva agreements, in opposition to the Ho Chi Minh regime in the north, the United States contributed to the proclamation of a puppet regime, the Republic of Vietnam, in the south of the country under its control. From this moment on, further escalation of the conflict in a purely military manner became inevitable. The 17th parallel became the border between the two Vietnamese states. In the North, communists were in power. In the South, in areas controlled by the French administration and the American army, a military dictatorship of a puppet regime was established.

Bamboo iron curtain

The Vietnamese, well aware of the Ho Chi Minh Trail and its significance for the guerrillas in South Vietnam, attempted to cut off the rebels from supplies from abroad. The line on the border with Thailand in its planned form could well please the eye of the Roman Emperor Hadrian - a wide clearing, a ditch studded with bamboo stakes, an earthen rampart with observation towers. The 20th century added barbed wire and minefields to the ancient recipe.

However, as construction progressed, it became clear that the line had two very serious enemies. Nature itself came first: tropical rains washed away the rampart, collapsed the walls of the ditch, and it was not difficult for the Khmer sappers to make passages. The Vietnamese did not even have enough strength to fully cover the line, not to mention its constant renewal. An even more serious problem was the fact that some partisan bases were located directly near the border with Thailand and took full advantage of this situation - even calling in artillery at their request.

Khmer youth (photo source)

In general, clashes with the Thai army happened regularly - either the Vietnamese would cross the border in pursuit of the rebels, or the Thais would support the rebels with fire. But no one dared to fight a full-scale war. Some bases were actually located right on the border. When carrying out operations against them, the Vietnamese informed the Thais in advance: “we will shoot here, but this is not an invasion.”

Incidents in the Gulf of Tonkin.

On August 2, 1964, the USS Maddox, a destroyer patrolling the Gulf of Tonkin, approached the coast of North Vietnam and was allegedly attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. Two days later, under unclear circumstances, another attack was carried out. In response, President L. Johnson ordered the American air force to strike North Vietnamese naval installations. Johnson used these attacks as a pretext to get Congress to pass a resolution in support of his actions, which later served as a mandate for an undeclared war.

Background

This section needs expansion

.
You can help by adding . (August 2022)

France invested in Dai Viet, supporting the Nguyen Anh faction against Tyson's rebellion during the Vietnamese Civil War (1789–1802). French King Louis XVI signed the Treaty of Versailles with Nguyen Anh in 1787 to give Nguyen's supporters an alliance with France. Although the treaty was never ratified, thousands of French mercenaries and officers rallied to Nguyen Anh's side and fought against the Tysons. When Anh defeated the Tysons and was crowned Emperor Gia Long (r. 1802–1819) of the united Kingdom of Vietnam in 1802, about 400 Frenchmen served the new monarchy as courtiers and advisors to Gia Long, who was relatively tolerant of all religions, including Catholicism. Unfortunately, Gia Long's successor, Emperor Minh Mong (r. 1820–1841), was a conservative ruler with Confucian views and isolationists. He canceled diplomatic relations with France in 1826. Beginning in 1833, after the rebellion of Le Van Khoi, the Vietnamese monarch persecuted mainly Catholic Christians for religious persecution, calling them tà o

(heretics), issued several
dụ cấm o Gia tô
(decree restricting the Catholic religion) and prohibited missionary activity. [1] [2] This persecution of Catholics and the executions of French bishops prompted French intervention, but the new French monarchy during the reign of Louis Philippe I (r. 1830–1848) did not focus on protecting its missionaries in the Far East. .

At the end of 1840, French captain Favin Levesque arrived in Da Nang and demanded the release of five imprisoned priests. The new Emperor Thieu Tru (r. 1841–1847) released the missionaries to demonstrate his friendly approach to France. But the situation worsened four years later when French Bishop Dominique Lefebvre was arrested and sentenced to death by Vietnamese authorities in 1845, prompting François Guizot to dispatch Jean-Baptiste Cécile and secure Lefebvre's release. [3] In 1847, Lefebvre was arrested again, Cecile sent Captain Lapierre and two warships to Da Nang. Although Lefebvre was released earlier, Lapierre, unaware of this, opened fire and destroyed five Vietnamese ships in Touran Bay. [4] Outraged by the French attack, Thieu Tru ordered the destruction of all European documents, ended all trade relations with France, and had all foreign missionaries imprisoned and executed. [5] He died in August 1847 and was succeeded by his son, Emperor Teok (r. 1848–1883). Realizing the rise of Western influence in Asia, Tök once again declared an isolationist closed country.

The policy, which prohibited the reception of embassies from France or Great Britain, the United States or Spain, increased the ban on trade and renewed the persecution of Catholics. [6]

In France, a new revolution overthrew Louis Philippe in 1848. Louis Napoleon became president and then emperor of France. To intervene in Vietnam as well as expand the French Empire, on April 22, 1857, Napoleon III created the Committee de la Cochinchine with Baron Brennier as its chairman with the goal of conquering Vietnam and capturing the Vietnamese monarch, taking advantage of Tauc's persecution of Catholics. and the repealed treaty of 1787 as a pretext for conquest. That same year, Tök executed two Spanish Dominican priests; France and Spain declared war and launched an invasion of Vietnam. [7]

Anti-war sentiments.

In the late 1960s, the United States was gripped by an unprecedented wave of public discontent over the undeclared war in Vietnam. Apparently, this was caused not only by the enormous costs of the war and heavy casualties (during 1961–1967, almost 16,000 American troops were killed and 100,000 wounded; total losses from 1961 to 1972 were 46,000 killed and more than 300,000 wounded) , but also by demonstrating on television the destruction caused by American troops in Vietnam. Johnson's decision not to run for re-election, which was announced at the same time he was abandoning the bombing of North Vietnam, was the result of a domestic protest movement against his policies in Vietnam.

Footnotes

Jump up
↑ McLeod (1991), p. 26.
Keith (2012), pp. 44–45.
Chapuis (2000), p. 4.
Chapuis (2000), p. 5.
Jump up
↑ McLeod (1991), p. 36–37.
Jump up
↑ McLeod (1991), p. 38–39.
Jump up
↑ McLeod (1991), p. 42.
Jump up
↑ McLeod (1991), p. 43.
Jump up
↑ McLeod (1991), p. 44.
Jump up
↑ McLeod (1991), p. 47, 50–51.
Chapuis (2000), pp. 48–49.
Staunton (1884), p. 12.
Chapuis (2000), p. 49.
Keith (2012), p. 40.
Goshcha (2016), p. 65.
Chapuis (2000), pp. 50–51.
Chapuis (2000), p. 52.
Chapuis (2000), p. 53.
Amirell (2019), p. 174.
Bradley (2016), p. 55.
Staunton (1884), p. 20.
Staunton (1884), p. 23.
Chapuis (2000), p. 58.
Staunton (1884), p. 24.
Staunton (1884), p. 25.
Chapuis (2000), p. 60.
Keith (2012), p. 42.
Staunton (1884), p. 40.
Bradley (2016), p. 102.
Amirell (2019), p. 191.
Chapuis (2000), pp. 62–63.
^ a b Staunton (1884), p. 42.
Goshcha (2016), pp. 69–70.
Chapuis (2000), p. 67.
Bradley (2016), p. 107.
Goshcha (2016), p. 70.
Amirell (2019), p. 197.
Bradley (2016), p. 123.
Chapuis (2000), p. 21.
Chapuis (2000), pp. 91–93.
Goshcha (2016), p. 72.

Military portal
Vietnam portal
Chinese portal
France portal

France clings to Indochina and its greatness, 1946-1954

The most famous in the world is the American campaign in Vietnam, which is attributed to the Second Indochina War. It was the first conflict in which almost every aspect was captured in photographs. However, historically Indochina was a zone of French influence. The USA came to replace the French, as if bringing with them the Modern Era to replace the modernity, the New Era, which passed away along with the colonial French administration.

In general, by 1939 the state of the entire French colonial empire was sad. Everywhere, the indigenous population demanded investment and more intensive development of territories from the metropolis. France was more concerned with affairs in Europe. By the end of World War II, the colonies just needed a casus belli, and they got it.

But first things first.

Colonies - the basis for the revival of France // The situation in France at the beginning of the war

On December 19, 1946, the First Indochina War began. France made a desperate attempt to maintain control over its possessions in Southeast Asia. There was no question of independence simply because during World War II France was greatly helped by the colonies. Charles de Gaulle wrote in his memoirs that without the help of France's colonies it would have been extremely difficult to eliminate the acute food crisis that arose in the country towards the end of the war.

French colonial empire in 1938

De Gaulle wanted to turn the colonial empire into the French Union

But the resources of the colonies were not only supposed to feed the mother country: “Amidst terrible trials,” General de Gaulle said in June 1942, “the French nation realized that there was one factor that was especially important for its future and absolutely necessary for its greatness. This factor is the French Empire. First of all, because it was it that was the initial basis for the revival of France.”

Death of Empire or Reform

De Gaulle was the main ideologist of France's turn towards the colonies. During the war, the French Committee of National Liberation (FCNL) developed plans for reforms, which then resulted in the Brazzaville Conference of 1944: they wanted to turn the empire into a union, decentralize, transfer powers to local elites and improve the standard of living in the colonies. Thus, the FKNO planned to maintain a balance between national liberation sentiments in the colonies and the desire of the French elite to leave everything as it was before

De Gaulle maneuvered between the revolution in the colonies and the elites in the metropolis

It is curious that the need to preserve the French and British empires was justified by de Gaulle's supporters by the need to maintain balance in the world after the war and by preventing a repetition of the mistakes of the Versailles Peace Treaty. They also stated that it was impossible to allow the list of weak and small nations to expand, simply incapable of independent governance and protecting their territories of interests. Simply put, it is sad to note, but the Gaullists foresaw the emergence of many “failed states”.

Charles de Gaulle opens the Brazzaville Conference, 1944

The results of the conference were positively received by the left in France, and in the colonies the results of Brazzaville awakened faith in the future. Colonial circles remained dissatisfied, for whom the resolution of the congress of colonial governors was the limit of concessions. Moreover, local French administrations quite often ignored the innovations of the FCNO and worked the old fashioned way. Big capital in the colonies was also not happy and did not really help reorganize life on the ground - they were afraid of revolution.

Were reforms possible? // Immediate causes of the collapse of the empire

The plans of the FKNO were dashed by harsh reality. To immediately answer the question about chairs: apparently not. Not the case with France. Especially when centrifugal processes were started a long time ago and then accelerated by war. About what happened specifically between France and Indochina - a little later, now - the general picture.

The factors that increased tension in the colonies were not only the conservative part of the elite of the metropolis. Great Britain and especially the United States added fuel, wanting to destroy the old-style colonial system. This, in fact, was to be expected from a country based, among other things, on the principle of free trade. The old borders prevented business from investing in the territories and increasing trade exchange (ultimately, to put it mildly, not in favor of the ex-colonies). In addition, let’s not forget about the existence (not yet officially in 1945) of an enemy in the form of the USSR.

The Second World War predictably worsened the state of economic relations between the metropolis and the colonies: in 1945, the volume of imports from France to the colonies amounted to 20% of all imports compared to 62% in 1939. Exports to France also fell during the war years: from 64% to 51%. This did not contribute to the creation of the French Union.

French paratroopers watch the landing of their colleagues, November 1953

The colonies were also pushed towards independence by the fact that during the war years the development of agriculture and industry accelerated in them. This was, of course, largely a forced measure on the part of conservative-minded French businessmen to help the metropolis.

Nevertheless, on October 13, 1946, as a result of a referendum in both the metropolis and the colonies, the Fourth Republic and the French Union were created. It is characteristic that in Morocco and Tunisia, where only French citizens could vote, 70% and 73% of those voting voted against the new constitution. In just two months and six days, the war in Indochina will begin - the second nail in the coffin of the French Union after the events of the 1940s in the Middle East. The Union’s rather ambitious project lasted 12 years.

"Civilization" and "savages". Part 2 // Indochina under French rule

Back in the second half of the 19th century, France began to colonize Eastern Indochina. Between 1858 and 1884, France conquered the territory of Vietnam, divided into the colony of Cochin China and the protectorates of Annam and Tonkin. Also under French control were the protectorates of Cambodia and Laos.

According to the plan, the small feudal lords of Indochina were supposed to help the French

In 1887, the Indochina Union was created - modern Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. A governor-general, representing the French president, was placed at the head of the colony. In addition, the French colonial authorities left the imperial court in Vietnam and the royal courts in Cambodia and Laos, and also retained the privileges of numerous small feudal lords, who, according to the plans of the colonial administrators, were supposed to help the French authorities in managing and maintaining order in the colonies.

And they really helped. In the provinces of French Indochina, uprisings against the colonial authorities broke out more than once, but they were brutally suppressed with the involvement of native and French troops. However, even in the first quarter of the twentieth century, revolutionary ideas began to penetrate into French Indochina, finding supporters among representatives of the local intelligentsia. And although the right was more influential before World War II, after the expulsion of the Japanese the communists became the main force of resistance.

On December 19, 1946, the French command demanded that the DRV leadership disarm the Viet Minh armed forces in Haiphong. And again the predictable decisive refusal of the DRV. On the same day, French armed forces began shelling the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi. The fighting in Hanoi lasted two months, until February 1947. Using superior force, the French were able to take control of the main cities of North Vietnam and block key roads. The communists retreated to the Viet Bac region, where they began guerrilla warfare and preparations for a retaliatory strike.

French landing before the battle in Dien Bien Phu

The French survived Vietnam 10 years before the Americans

Thus began the First Indochina War, which lasted eight years and ended with the complete defeat of France. In this war, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was opposed not only by French expeditionary forces and colonial troops totaling 190 thousand soldiers and officers and another 55 thousand people in auxiliary units, but also by the Army of the State of Vietnam, created in 1949 in the south of the country and under the control of the French.

The number of South Vietnamese troops was about 150 thousand troops, but their training and motivation were noticeably lower than that of the French and the DRV army.

Turning point in the war

In October 1947, French troops attempted to take control of Viet Bac, but encountered heavy resistance. The command of the DRV forces used the retreat to Viet Bak to strengthen their army and increase the level of its training. In the fall of 1949, the Viet Minh armed forces launched a large-scale offensive for the first time in three years after the start of the war and were able to take control of a number of important population centers. The autumn victories of 1949 marked the beginning of a turning point in the Indochina War.

Young recruits of the Khmer Serey (Free Khmer)

Gradually, the war became more and more difficult for France and required more and more effort. Moreover, on the side of the Viet Minh, the Khmer Issarak rebels (Independent Khmers, allies of the Khmer Serey and enemies of the Khmer Rouge) entered the guerrilla war with the French in Cambodia, and in Laos - fighters of the Pathet Lao front. In turn, France brought more and more troops to Vietnam, including units and formations from its African colonies. The financial costs of the French government for conducting military operations also grew, which caused discontent among French society, primarily the leftist forces.

When the Americans arrived, the Vietnamese were perfect guerrillas

In January 1950, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China recognized the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam as the sole legitimate authority of the Vietnamese people. Help for Vietnamese patriots began to flow from the USSR and China. As a result, the Viet Minh's position was significantly strengthened. In October 1950, French troops suffered a crushing defeat at Cao Bang, losing about seven thousand people killed and wounded. On October 21, 1950, French troops were driven across the Ca River (Red River).

It's too late for half measures

On December 22, 1950, the French government was forced to recognize the sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam within the French Union. But this step of the colonialists no longer suited the communists. The Vietnamese communists hoped to liberate all of Vietnam from the French, that is, also the southern one - the State of Vietnam. Therefore, in early 1951, the Vietnamese People's Army launched an offensive. However, French troops were able to repel the attack.

Point in the Vietnamese issue // Defeat at Dien Bien Phu

Four divisions of the North Vietnamese army took part in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, and it lasted 54 days - from March 13 to May 7, 1954. As a result of numerous mistakes made by the French command, North Vietnamese troops inflicted a crushing defeat on France. 2,293 French soldiers and officers were killed, 10,893 French troops were captured.

Light tank M24 Chaffee in French service, Dien Bien Phu area

The defeat of France in Indochina is another evidence of the beginning of a new era

The defeat at Dien Bien Phu effectively put an end to France's plans to maintain dominance in Indochina. The reputation of one of the strongest colonial powers in the world in the past was dealt a serious blow. More than 10 thousand French troops were captured in Vietnam.

In this situation, Ho Chi Minh, who was in Geneva at a conference, managed to force the French leadership to sign a ceasefire agreement. Vietnam was temporarily divided into two parts along the 17th parallel. In accordance with this decision, the Viet Minh armed forces were withdrawn to the north, and the troops of the State of Vietnam and France were withdrawn to the south of the country. By July 1954, the First Indochina War, which had lasted eight years, was over.

Franco-Vietnamese medics treating a wounded Viet Minh militia (1954)

The defeat of France in the First Indochina War was further evidence of the beginning of a new era. Decolonization could no longer be stopped, especially by force.

France was defeated despite an initially higher level of training, an incomparably better level of weapons and serious assistance from other Western countries, including Great Britain and the United States.

Roots of colonial policy (France) // Background

Having spoken about the desire of the peoples of Indochina for independence as the cause of the conflict, we looked very close to the past. In short: the reason for the national liberation struggle is not the desire for independence, but the fact that independence was once taken away. Despite the terrible banality, looking at any national liberation movement (no matter whether in an overseas colony, in a continental empire or in tyranny) from this angle, one has to look earlier and more broadly.

The underlying causes of the Indochina conflict of 1946-1954 lie in the essence of colonialism. France, subjugating vast territories, sought to spread its influence no worse than the British, provide itself with valuable goods from the colonies, create conditions for trade and, at the same time, spread cultural and religious influence. How did it happen that the European powers needed colonies in the first place? Let's look at the example of France, since we started.

The First Crusade is seen as the beginning of colonialism

For the purposes of the French, both in the 16th-18th centuries and in the 19th-20th centuries, one can guess what happened, oddly enough, back in the Middle Ages during the first Crusade. What happened in Clermont in 1095, like the Norman conquest of England, is considered in French historiography to be the beginning of France's colonial policy. Why?

Pope Urban II at the head of the Council of Clermont, miniature, c. 1474

The Crusaders wanted to spread their influence over more lands, weakening Byzantium and the Orthodox Church; provide yourself with valuable goods from the east, creating better conditions for Mediterranean trade; and, of course, to find lands for landless nobles, along the way - without this there is nowhere - spreading culture: the French language, law, ideas and trade dominated the crusader states.

Chivalry and Catholicism are witnesses to the common destiny of Europe

In addition to material factors, when we talk about people in general and especially about medieval Europeans, we cannot fail to take into account the spiritual factor. From the entire huge layer of meanings of Christianity, we will highlight the following within the framework of the article: the Western Middle Ages lived in the paradigm of religious opposition of the Roman Catholic truth to all possible errors. The second category included everything that did not belong to the first: pagans, heretics, Orthodox, Muslims - the list goes on for a long time.

Echoes of the Crusades

The external and internal spiritual struggle of “light” and “darkness,” which was reflected in the entire perception of reality, took place against the backdrop of constant strife, monotonous cyclicality and the hopelessness of a short life.

From 1096, following the call of the Bishop of Rome, Christians faced a completely different environment en masse. In intensive interaction with a completely different discourse, the multilingual army of crusaders and hordes of pilgrims felt their community. In short, what began at the end of the 11th century is not just tough men with swords and descriptions of battles. More important for us, mere mortals, are the changes in everyday life that occurred then.

Civilian Early Modernity

There is no point in describing in detail what happened to Europe next. We have already written about the most important thing - the development of capitalism according to the versions of the classics of sociology Weber and Sombart. Yes, and it’s said about Marx one way or another.

"Civilite" is a purely European phenomenon

Society will become more and more secular. But in the cultural memory of Europe it will remain: chivalry and the Roman Catholic Church are evidence of a certain stage in the development of Western society - a stage that all the great peoples of the West have equally passed through.

Type "Civilité" in a French courtly book, 1785

In the 16th century, during the Early Modern period, the result of the medieval development of society received its own concept - “civilité” (courtesy), and the verb “civiliser” (to soften morals, to enlighten) was also in use. At the same time, courtly, courtly (literally “amiable”, “courtesy”) culture flourishes. “Civilité” gains incredible popularity thanks to a small book by the philosopher Erasmus of Rotterdam (1464 - 1536) “De civilitate morum puerilium” (On the decency of children's morals).

E. Leighton. Tristan and Isolde. Their love story is a typical example of courtly love and the emancipation of individuality in the Middle Ages

The manual book for aristocratic children became a bestseller. Sociologist Norbert Elias (On the Process of Civilization) writes that within six years Erasmus's book was published more than 30 times. In total there were about 130 reissues! “The total number of translations, imitations and adaptations is boundless.” This reaction to the instruction on manners is symptomatic of a clear change in the way Europeans thought about their society.

Alas, changes in thinking, life and understanding of what is happening is something that is sometimes forgotten in the Early Modern era behind the vivid episodes of the fascinating adventures of Vasco da Gama, depictions of the battles of the Thirty Years' War or the horrors of St. Bartholomew's Night.

The meaning of the ubiquitous “softening of morals,” “gallantry,” and “courtesy”

The concept of "civilité" in modern times is, as Elias wrote, the expression and symbol of a social formation that embraced different nationalities and, like the church, used one common language - first Italian and then increasingly French. These languages took over the function that Latin had previously performed. It was in them that European unity, built on a new, social foundation, and a new social formation, as if forming its backbone, were manifested - court society. The position, identity and character of this society are expressed in the concept of “civilité”. And, let us remember, Werner Sombart even derived the birth of capitalism from the development of luxury at the court of the French king.

God help you! Edmund Leighton, 1900. Late Victorian Pre-Raphaelite artist's view of a lady courting a knight as she goes into battle

“Civilization” emerged from “civilité”, and if the latter is a property, then the former is a process of changing the state of society or part of this process in which we ourselves take part. Just as in the Middle Ages there was a contrast between Roman Catholic truth and heresy, modern times give rise to the “civilized” and the “uncivilized.” Usually people mean something "positive" and "negative" respectively. Elias argued that in fact we are dealing with different stages of ongoing development, and not opposition.

That is, New Time, or Modernity, has two maxims. From a “barbarian” to a “civilized” state, for example, a child from a noble family must pass. Elias has been criticized for such views by postcolonial theorists, since the upward view of "civilization" can create a top-down view of those who do not conform to European standards of etiquette.

Civilization and savages Part 1 //
Robinson and Friday
Inspired by the disastrous example of Elias and strongly generalizing the policies of European states in modern times, it can be noted that for approximately the XV-XIX centuries, the indigenous population of Africa, Asia, Australia and America were not even considered Europeans of people. At best, they were seen as savages. From the point of view of civilization, a savage is an unenlightened and unspiritual creature - in the sense that he has no inner light, the light of reason and rationality.

If Robinson Crusoe was a state, it would be a colonial empire

If the standard savage is Friday, then the standard European of the New Age is Robinson Crusoe from the famous book by Daniel Defoe in 1719. Robinson, finding himself alone on a desert island, reproduces around himself the society of the New Age in miniature: he has a good house, he sews his own clothes, he sows barley and rice. And most revolutionary for the average native, he domesticates wild goats, creating a stable source of milk.

Robinson Crusoe saves Friday

Friday lives in nature, but Robinson successfully tamed nature, both inanimate and living, and relying only on himself - a true European. In short, if Robinson lived today and went to diletant.media, then in the test “What type of state are you?” it would get the result "Modern Colonial Empire".

Civilization has its own character

And that means his features. Rationality, self-sufficiency, resourcefulness, arrogance, bias and arrogance. The last three within an hour lead to a contemptuous attitude towards other peoples and races. But in general, all these traits can be both positive and negative in different circumstances and points of view.

At the same time, the above character traits, in certain conditions, in combination with religious and cultural ideas, are ideal soil for many, in fact, immoral things. Among the long-term concrete processes are slavery and hunting of aborigines for fun.

The French in Egypt at the beginning of the 19th century. considered barbarians from the Middle Ages

As a separate manifestation - the behavior of the revolutionary army of General Bonaparte in Egypt. The French really thought that they were in the Middle Ages, where nothing had changed since the Crusades. Therefore, they thought that locals could be punished for some offenses using European medieval methods. For example, cutting off the right hand (with which the knight holds the cross sword), and then killing the unlucky one. The locals, shocked by the senseless cruelty in their opinion, did not understand anything and mistook the French for medieval barbarians. And they were right in some ways. From the changes: new weapons and uniforms, and the concept of God was “replaced” by civilization.

The right to “kill infidels” in modern times is the right to subjugate uncivilized peoples. This right is justified in part by doubts about the presence of souls in creatures encountered overseas. And if they don’t have a soul, then they are not people at all, and you can do whatever you want with them: the image of God, the value of life, rights - it’s not about them.

French Zouave, ca. 1870. Zouaves - light, brave and terrible in battle infantry of the colonial troops of France. Hired under contract

Without justifying immoral actions, we will only say that the masses of Europeans had reasons to be dumbfounded and not even try to understand a foreign culture. Let's say, it is very difficult to realize that someone can develop for several millennia without the idea of God, that is, without reflection, (self-)criticism, and internal tossing. But this is exactly what China is like (in general).

During the modern period (after 1789), a turning point in attitudes towards human rights occurred. We are interested in Kipling’s poem about the fate of a subject of the empire “White’s Burden”, or “The White Man’s Burden” (1899), which, as it seemed to many in the 19th century and still seems to justify the expansion of British colonialism. They say that any crimes against the subordinate population are still not as significant as the price that a citizen of Britain, France or the United States (they had just captured the Philippines by that time) pays for simply being like that.

The cartoon is a response to Kipling. John Bull and Uncle Sam carrying the "white man's burden" - carrying a variety of non-Europeans towards civilization

You don’t need to understand Kipling to slowly read the poem in the original or even in Russian to understand that the poem is indeed very ambiguous. But given that Kipling grew up in India and loved its people, and was generally distinguished by his sympathy for the peoples of the colonies, most likely Kipling really meant that no amount of impunity is worth the meaninglessness of existence.

Your lot is the Burden of the Whites! The reward of the Rewards is the contempt of the native state and the malice of the grazing herds.

You (oh, in what a wind!) You will light a lamp for the Mind, To listen: “We prefer the Egyptian darkness!”

“They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented by others.”

About 180 years after Napoleon began his campaign in Egypt, Palestinian-American literary critic Edward Said publishes Orientalism. A concept from art and science (orientalist) is enriched with political and cultural meanings.

Bonaparte's robbery of Egypt was entirely in line with Orientalism

The title of this part is the same quote from Karl Marx that was taken by Said as the epigraph to the book. According to Said, Orientalism is a political, sociological, ideological, military and scientific representation. Unlike presentation, representation displaces the subject of research, the subject itself, and replaces it with figurative structures. The principles of Orientalism logically follow from what was described above: the East cannot speak for itself, cannot present itself, it needs to be spoken for, to be represented, and therefore needs European science.

Ferdinand Max Bredt. Turkish women.

In other words, Orientalism (in all its manifestations) does not depict the East as a reality, a natural given, or describe it as a region. Instead of the full picture, we see a retouched part of it - diligent attempts to fit the picture to prejudices and ideology. The watered one occupies an organic place in the already existing system of knowledge about the East.

The representation of the East undermines the very possibility of understanding its essence. The fact that a significant part of European civilization perceives a person from the east through the prism of a “savage” undermines the very possibility of understanding the essence of culture. And it doesn’t matter how the “savage”, which has almost become an archetype, is viewed: positively, like Rousseau, or negatively, as Defoe’s tribe of cannibals is shown.

The East fulfills any desires

In the 19th century, the writer’s use of the word “oriental” involuntarily conjured up associations in the reader’s imagination with sensuality, backwardness, uncivilization, a tendency toward despotism, and so on. A bright line runs through the perception of the East as a place of liberation, fantasies and erotic desires.

Eugene Delacroix. Death of Sardanapalus. 1827

In the 20th century, the view of the East and the Arabs did not change: the mention of the East either caused fear (“yellow threat”, “Mongol hordes”, “dark dominions”), or the need to keep it under control (at the expense of sic!

pacification, exploration, development, occupation).

Are the stereotypes true?

Orientalism can be hidden or overt. The latter is reflected in politics and ideology. Hidden Orientalism at the same time manifests itself in unconscious perception.

All this is true of France's actions in Asia and Africa. Let us emphasize that this refers not only to the government, but to France in general. The very possibility of creating a French Union is the result of political Orientalism, as a way of communication with the East in particular and with the colonies in general. Such communication is characterized by the dominance of Western style, understanding, Western character of judgments, assessments and views.

Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingr. Odalisque and slave. 1839

So, after centuries of Western cultural (and military) hegemony, is it any wonder that in the East you can find everything that was previously associated with it? It is unnecessary to list the associations - this is simply the image of a “savage”, created under the influence of medieval communalism, Christianity and urban culture.

Orientalism ultimately manifests itself as dominium, power-possession, and the right to this power is undeniable. The chronologically oldest example, the First Crusade, is in this regard identical to the one with which the article began - the First Indochina War. In both cases, there was a struggle not only for the opportunity to benefit from these territories, but also to simply dispose of something simply because they liked it that way, for a variety of reasons.

********

In addition to the books mentioned in the text, also used: “The Fate of the Empire: An Essay on the Colonial Expansion of France in the 16th–20th Centuries.” Petra Cherkasova; ""History of private life. In 5 volumes" edited by Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby.