Moscow: Publishing house "XXI vek-Soglasie", 2000. 380 p.; Moscow: Publishing house "XXI vek-Soglasie", 2001. 463 p.

Two new books by E. A. Glushchenko, author of more than 50 scientific papers and the monograph "The First Republic in Nigeria", could be attributed to the historical and biographical genre, which has deep traditions in Russian historiography, but for a number of reasons in the last two and a half decades tends to politicized journalism and popularization. However, their subject matter goes beyond this genre, since the author examines the activities of his characters in the context of the problems of the colonial policy of Great Britain and Russia and colonialism in general. He addresses the debatable problems of the history of colonialism, offering, in particular, its new definition, pays special attention to the Russian-British colonial rivalry, similarities and differences between the Russian and British systems of colonial administration.

The author did not seek to completely recreate the military - political biographies of his heroes, but focused on the least known and controversial of their military - administrative activities. He relied on numerous scientific publications, memoir literature, archival documents available to him, and the press; he also uses some materials and photographic documents from his family archive (E. A. Glushchenko's ancestors served in Central Asia, participated in its colonial development).

The heroes of the book "Empire Builders" are the colonial figures of Great Britain F. Lugard and F. McCarthy. Robert, as well as Russia - K. P. von Kaufmann and M. D. Skobelev. Especially interesting is the essay about Frederick Lugard, who is known not only for his military-administrative, but also for his scientific and theoretical activities. The author pays special attention to F. Lugard's work " The Double Mandate in British Tropical Africa "(1914), which numerous admirers and followers of Lugard "eventually turned into a dogma, becoming more Lugardists than the founder of Lugardism himself" (Builders of Empires, p. 308). I would like to note that prior to E. A. Glushchenko, there was not a single serious study in Russian African studies about Lugard and his main work, which summarized the vast experience of colonial wars in the East and Africa, as well as colonial "organization".

The author convincingly shows that Lugard was a proponent of the concept of "cautious progress", which "assumed a dosed communication of whites with blacks and even segregation" (Empire Builders, p. 314). These provisions formed the basis of British colonial policy in Africa, especially in its settlement colonies and in South Africa, which became a dominion in 1910. Lugard deeply believed in the infallibility of the model of colonial governance created by him, although, as E. A. Glushchenko notes, it began to "fail" even in such a reference country of "double mandate" (indirect governance) as Nigeria even during Lugard's governorship there.

Lugard's theoretical legacy was not limited to the work of the Double Mandate, and his followers were not only British colonial officials. In this regard, it is a pity that the chapter on Lugard was left out of his work as director of the London Institute of African Studies, which was later renamed the International Institute of Language and Culture. It was there, especially under Lugard's successor as director, the outstanding German Africanist D. Westerman, that the concept of the" dual mandate " was further developed ¹ I would like to hope that E. A. Glushchenko will return to Lugardism and "lugardism", since this topic is still relevant today, when the depressing results of decolonization in many countries of the continent are being sharply discussed in Africa and abroad, and even calls for "recolonization"are being made.

A small portrait of another British colonial figure, Frederick Roberts, sung by R. Kipling, is interesting for the Russian reader primarily because of the novelty of the material: before E. A. Glushchenko about this man, who became in his time for the British

page 209

"the same national hero as M. D. Skobelev for Russians" (Builders of Empires, p. 347), was little known.

F. Roberts began serving in the British colonial forces in India, participated in the suppression of the Sepoy rebellion of 1857, in military campaigns in Abyssinia and Afghanistan. His real fame came during the Boer War, when in 1900 the British forces under his command turned the tide of hostilities in their favor. Field Marshal Count Robert of Kandahar was Commander-in-Chief of the British Army from 1900 to 1904. In 1914, ten years after his retirement, 82-year-old Roberts traveled to France "at his own risk" to take part in the First World War. There he fell ill and died.

F. Roberts, in the interpretation of E. A. Glushenko, is an ideal colonial hero, an intelligent, competent military man who devoted his life to serving the interests of England in its overseas possessions. He repeatedly saved the "imperial greatness", thus earning national recognition in his country. His bronze monument in London is "not in danger", as " in England, monuments are not encroached upon."

As the author writes, until recently, the attitude towards the figures of the Russian Empire - K. P. von Kaufmann, M. D. Skobelev and M. G. Chernyaev-was different. The monuments erected by him after the October Revolution were destroyed, and in Soviet historiography their activities were generally evaluated negatively. In the book "Empire Builders" there are chapters about Kaufman and Skobelev, the book "Heroes of the Empire" is dedicated to all three. In the second book, the author recreates the picture of the culminating period of the conquest of Turkestan (Central Asia), in which these figures played a decisive role.

The author considers the colonial conquest of Central Asia not as a result of the aspirations of Russian tsarism to achieve the expansion of its possessions at any cost, but primarily as a military and strategic necessity to respond to the aggressive challenge of Great Britain, which after the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War steadily expanded and strengthened its colonial empire in Asia. Resist Great Britain without even invading its Asian possessions (although such unsuccessful attempts, starting with Peter the Great I, E. A. Glushchenko cites many examples of Russian-British rivalry in Central Asia and mutual assessment of each other's military and colonial capabilities by both powers.

The author examines the military aspects of the colonial conquest of Central Asia in the context of the politics of St. Petersburg's dignitaries, the confrontation between the court and military elites, and Russian public opinion. All these factors influenced, of course, the planning and progress of the conquests, but the author emphasizes that his characters were people endowed, albeit to varying degrees, with military and administrative abilities, initiative, and their own vision of the task entrusted to them, and not blind executors of someone's will.

In the books of E. A. Glushchenko there is another, collective, hero-soldiers and officers of the Russian and British colonial troops. Obviously, no one wrote better about the colonial military campaigns than Kipling: "Only dust, dust, dust from walking boots, and there is no rest for a soldier in war." I have traveled to many places in Turkestan and East Africa where the heroes of Glushchenko's books fought, I am familiar with the materials on colonial wars stored in the German and Kenyan national archives, and I can testify: the conditions in which these campaigns were carried out (grueling marches, often through waterless deserts, in severe heat, and in Turkestan - sometimes in severe winter conditions, with chronic food shortages), are described reliably. The losses of Russian troops in Turkestan and British troops in Africa during such marches, when constantly attacked by an enemy accustomed to local conditions, usually exceeded the losses they suffered in major battles and during the storming of well-fortified cities.

The portraits of the" heroes of the Russian Empire " were recreated, in my opinion, also objectively and psychologically accurately. Talented commanders-the thoughtful and balanced K. P. von Kaufmann, the brilliant and ambitious M. D. Skobelev - irritated the dignitaries of St. Petersburg with their loud successes. The author shows that, contrary to the popular opinion in the capital about Skobelev as a careerist who did not spare soldiers ' lives to achieve his goals, he was one of the most educated Russian military of his time, never stopped studying, demanded the same from his subordinates and carefully thought out his own plans.

page 210

decisions before implementing them. This was one of the main reasons for his phenomenal victories in the Balkans and Turkestan.

The author opposes an unambiguous interpretation of the causes and consequences of colonial wars. He polemics with those who saw only cruelty in the Russian armies and their commanders who conquered Central Asia. He cites facts that show that Kaufman and Skobelev were not only talented military leaders, but also thoughtful colonial administrators who laid the foundations for a new socio-economic structure of the Central Asian possessions of Russia. During the governorships of Kaufman in Turkestan and Skobelev in Ferghana, railways and telegraph lines were laid there for the first time, new cities were built, the first Russian - native schools, libraries and newspapers were opened, slavery and the slave trade were abolished, and a bold partial redistribution of land in favor of the Dehkans was carried out by confiscating and buying it from the feudal elite.

E. A. Glushchenko shows that Skobelev was a staunch supporter of the reforms initiated during the reign of Alexander II, and, thanks to his outstanding personal qualities and beliefs, could have become after the death of the emperor "a key figure, a leader of the reform wing of Russian society" (Heroes of the Empire, p. 311).

At the same time, the author is far from idealizing his characters. Much less attractive and even somewhat grotesque in his book is the image of M. G. Chernyaev, the conqueror of Tashkent, who succeeded Kaufman as Governor-General of Turkestan. E. A. Glushchenko calls him "Ermak of the new age", "the most self-willed, most uncontrolled Russian conquistador "(ibid., p. 344), who, I will add from Finally, he ruined his career and died virtually in obscurity.

The psychological portrait of Chernyaev is no less successful than the portraits of Kaufman and Skobelev. The author tells not only about his military successes, but also about such actions, sometimes difficult to explain, as the closure of public libraries, the demand to stop the construction of the railway on the grounds that "it will still be covered with sand", fantastic projects of further conquests, etc. E. A. Glushchenko explains Chernyaev's actions not so much by tyranny as by his own the mentality that was determined by belonging to that stratum of Russian officers and generals who believed that it was he, and not the authorities of the distant capital of the empire, who knew how to manage the conquered peoples. Skobelev was also endowed with this trait to some extent.

As E. A. Glushchenko shows, Chernyaev was a capable military man (Tashkent was still taken, despite the desperate resistance of its defenders), but in the administrative sphere he often acted impulsively. Unlike Kaufman and Skobelev, he did not have strategic thinking and counted primarily on himself, did not tolerate "instructions from above".

E. A. Glushchenko's books are objective and at the same time polemical. In disputes with critics of the colonial policies of Great Britain and Russia and their heroes, the author is usually restrained, correct, although sometimes his arguments are unnecessarily harsh and politicized. In particular, he attacks M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin for his really bad works-essays "Tashkent civilizers" and "Modern Idyll", written without personal knowledge of the situation (Heroes of the Empire, pp. 144-147, 437-439). E. A. Glushchenko is even more irreconcilable in his correspondence disputes with A. I. Solzhenitsyn, V. Novodvorskaya and other authors, whom he calls "catastrophists". The point is not in the tone and style of polemics, but in the fact that questions about the past and future of Russia, the fate of its colonial heritage, should be discussed at a strictly scientific, rather than politicized, level.

In conclusion , here are a few comments on the problems of colonialism and its historical role, raised by E. A. Glushchenko. He offers his own definition of colonialism, which is fundamentally different from the one that was widespread in Russian historiography until the 1980s (I give a synthesized version), as the political, economic and spiritual enslavement of countries that are less developed in socio - political terms by the dominant classes of the metropolises. At one time, this definition, based on formation theory, seemed logical, although it did not answer some questions, for example: why is it said only about the ruling classes, when it is known that other social strata participated in the colonial wars, including the lower, marginal ones?

The definition of colonialism proposed by E. A. Glushchenko seems to be more accurate, although emotional, and influenced by the Russian historian and philosopher

page 211

L. N. Gumilyova: "Colonialism (imperialism) is a manifestation of the passion of the people; it is an expansion beyond the borders of the national habitat, it is the subjugation of autochthons to the power of newcomers, the development of the conquered space by the latter" (Builders of Empires, p. 5).

The author is one of the few in Russian historiography who emphasizes not only the cruelty inherent in colonialism towards the conquered peoples, but also its civilizing mission. In particular, Russian colonialism in the East. A century and a half ago, Karl Marx wrote about the dual, contradictory role of colonialism, its destructive and creative functions in his famous work "The Future Results of British Rule in India". Let me remind you, however, that his views on colonialism were not shared by all domestic and foreign historians.

Without justifying the Russian and British conquerors, who were often accused of cruelty and inhumanity to the conquered peoples, the author seeks to avoid one-sidedness. He gives documentary evidence of what the emirs, khans and leaders of the nomadic robber tribes of Central Asia did to Russian prisoners and Russian slaves.

Any war inevitably leads to the death of thousands and millions of people, and sometimes entire nations, although, of course, wars in the name of protecting the fatherland are fundamentally different from wars of conquest. But how do we evaluate wars that are waged in the name of destroying slavery, the slave trade, and brutal regimes? Where is the line separating "justice" from "injustice", and who can set it?

There is a historical reality: no matter how cruel and unfair the colonial policy of tsarist Russia was, it was it that laid the foundations of the later re-formed Russian Empire - the Soviet Union. What would have happened to our country in 1941-1942 if it had not relied on the inexhaustible human and material resources of the "components" of the former Russian Empire - Central Asia, Kazakhstan, the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East? Would small island England have been able to survive the Second World War if it had not possessed the enormous strategic, economic and human potential of the British Empire? Although I am aware that the answers to these questions can not be unambiguous.

Ye. A. Glushenko recreated impressive, voluminous portraits of prominent colonial figures in Great Britain and Russia, thereby contributing to the ongoing discussion about the historical role of colonialism.

note

¹ For more information, see: X plug. Diederich Westerman: attitude to the peoples of Africa and historical views / / Study of the history of Africa. Problems and Achievements, Moscow, 1985.

Permanent link to this publication: