Fourth year of the war, 1864 During the winter, both sides actively continued the armaments they had begun, especially in the north, where they now finally realized the seriousness of the situation. Although the number of troops decreased somewhat, they won in their internal qualities.K

January 3rd, 2014

Pay attention to the territory of Chile. There it is, a narrow snake of land stretching across half the continent and taking over the entire coastal zone. Well, this doesn’t matter to Argentina; it has access to the sea on the other side. Now pay attention to Bolivia! She was left without access to the sea. Well, isn't it a shame? True, Paraguay is still nestled in the middle of the continent. I never really thought about it... until today.

However, only recently did I learn that, according to historical information, Bolivia was “born with the sea.” So where did the access to the sea go? Let's find out more about this...

Bolivia lost its only access to the Pacific Ocean - a 400 kilometer long coastline with 7 ports - as a result of defeat in the war against Chile. In 1879, Chile, with the support of Great Britain, began military operations against Bolivia, which then had access to the Pacific Ocean in the Antofagasta region, and Peru, which sided with Bolivia.

The Second Pacific War, also called the Saltpeter War, officially began in 1879, but despite this, it had a fairly long history before that time. Back in the sixties of the nineteenth century, the reserves of guano and sulfur mined in the Peruvian department of Tarapaca and in the Bolivian territory of the Atacama Desert aroused great hidden envy among the government of Chile, which did not own a large number of equally significant deposits. As guano reserves are depleted, saltpeter becomes the main export product and the most important source of income for Peru.

If back in 1873 the export of Peruvian guano amounted to two million four hundred thousand pounds sterling, then five years later this figure was one million and eight hundred thousand pounds sterling. At the same time, the export rate of saltpeter is increasing. By 1876 it was already five million and two hundred thousand pounds sterling. Accordingly, the volumes of mined nitrate are increasing. If during the period from 1865 to 1869 ten and a half million quintals of saltpeter were mined and exported to different countries in Peru, then in the same time period from 1875 to 1879 this figure increased by more than two times. half times.

Back in 1841, large deposits of saltpeter were discovered in the Bolivian territory of the Atacama Desert. But Bolivia could not independently develop these deposits, so Chilean capitalists, with the active support of the British, began to mine Bolivian saltpeter. The sparsely populated villages of the Atacama were settled by Chileans. Adding to the tension between Bolivia and Chile was the uncertainty of the borders between the two states. All the forces of the Bolivian government were aimed at signing agreements on the state border with Chile, customs duties on the production of saltpeter by the Chileans in Atacama, as well as signing alliance relations with Peru, which also faced Chilean expansion in the area of ​​the saltpeter deposit in the Tarapacá department. As a result, in February 1873, a secret defense treaty was signed between Peru and Bolivia. With this agreement, the Peruvian side ensured free activity for its entrepreneurs in the Bolivian territory of Atacama, and also secured its saltpeter deposits in the department of Tarapaca.

In 1874, an agreement on the borders between the two states was signed between Chile and Bolivia. According to this document, the new borders ran along the twenty-fourth parallel of southern latitude. At the same time, in the zone between the twenty-third and twenty-fourth parallel, Chilean entrepreneurs could freely mine saltpeter, but Bolivia collected export duties. In addition, Chileans were able to import food into Bolivia without collecting duties, as well as equipment and devices necessary for the extraction of saltpeter. By this time, Antofagasta and Mejillones became the main ports for the export of saltpeter and silver.

Due to the global financial crisis that began in 1873, contradictions between countries began to appear more and more often. In 1873 and 1875, Peru established a state monopoly on the sale of saltpeter and the production of saltpeter, respectively. These measures were taken in order to be able to regulate world prices for saltpeter and guano, as well as increase the country's income. But as a result of the agreement of 1874, Chilean companies sold Peruvian saltpeter at a reduced price, which caused a considerable loss to Peru. The Peruvian government began nationalizing the existing and undeveloped ofesinas, but, nevertheless, forty percent of the saltpeter deposits in Tarapaca were owned by foreigners. The nationalization of saltpeter deposits made it possible for Peru to speed up the process of capital accumulation in the country, and, accordingly, get out of the crisis. But the actions of the Peruvian government caused indignation among Chilean and British entrepreneurs. At first, nationalization led to a reduction in saltpeter production in Tarapacá, a decrease in the number of foreign entrepreneurs and workers, and an increase in unemployment. At this time, Bolivian President Hilarion Daza declared saltpeter a national treasure. There was an acute crisis and hunger in the country. On February 14, 1878, the Bolivian Congress introduced an additional tax on the export of saltpeter. After this, the main exporter of saltpeter, the Anglo-Chilean company Compania de Selitres y Ferrocarril de Antofagasta (CSFA), turned to the Chilean government for support. Chile immediately protested to Peru, arguing that if the CSFA went bankrupt, more than two thousand people would be unemployed, and neither Chile nor Bolivia would be able to suppress the subsequent rebellion. After this, the Bolivian president canceled his decree. But the ruling circles of Chile decided to act actively and radically, because the loss of income from the production and sale of saltpeter threatened the economic interests of the English and Chilean oligarchs associated with KSFA. Among the company's shareholders were such well-known and influential personalities as the Minister of War Saavedra, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs Fierro and Santa Maria, the Minister of Finance Seghers, the Minister of Justice Unaeus, the Minister of the Interior Vargas and many others. Peru's active efforts to nationalize and buy up offices threatened English and Chilean entrepreneurs with the loss of large incomes received from the mining and sale of saltpeter.

In January 1877, the British diplomatic representative in Chile openly stated that every effort was being made to take control of the Chilean side of Antofagasta. Even more efforts to foment active action on the part of Chile were made by the Jibbses, who sponsored Chilean newspapers that published articles openly advocating the capture of Antofagasta. As a result, on November 8, 1877, Chile informed Bolivia that it would denounce the 1874 treaty to add Antofagasta to Chilean territory. In response, Bolivian President Hilarion Daza, on December 18, 1878, demanded that the CSFA pay arrears in the amount of eighty thousand pesos. Already on the first of February 1879, the company’s property was sealed, and an auction for the sale of the enterprise was scheduled for the fourteenth of February. In protest, on February 12, 1879, the representative of Chile in Bolivia left the country.

Two days later, without a declaration of war, Chile landed its detachment of five hundred soldiers under the leadership of Colonel Sotomayor in Antofagasta. Having encountered no resistance from the small number of Bolivian soldiers, the Chileans captured the capital of the Atacama province. Peru expressed its protest to what was happening and demanded the withdrawal of Chilean troops from Bolivian territory. In response, Chile demanded the denunciation of the agreement between the Bolivian side and Peru. Lavalle, Peru's representative in Chile, promised to consider this issue in parliament. But the Chileans believed that Peru was simply delaying time to prepare for the start of hostilities, and they were the first to declare war on Peru on April 5, 1879.

Despite the fact that the armies of Peru and Bolivia were more numerous than the Chilean armed forces, they were noticeably inferior to their enemy in combat readiness, weapons and training. The Chileans were armed with a new model of the Comblain type, as well as seventy cannons. The Chilean ground forces were also much more effective than the Peruvian and Bolivian ones, and large formations had their own headquarters. The Chilean officers had a plan and map of the area where military operations were carried out, but the Peruvians did not even have this. It is known that after the battle of Tarapaca, Peruvian officers searched the corpses of Chilean officers for maps of the territory. Often at the head of the military formations of Peru and Bolivia were “hacendados” - rich colonels who, with their own money, formed detachments consisting of Indians untrained in military affairs. Very often such formations waged guerrilla warfare and acted independently. The Chileans also had a significant superiority over their opponents at sea. Due to the length of the maritime border between the countries, the superiority of the Navy could play a decisive role in the final victory of one side or another. The Chileans had battleships of a new design, and the officers in charge of the personnel were trained in England. Chilean ironclads, built in 1874, had armor thickness of nine and a half inches. At the same time, the outdated Peruvian ironclads of the sixties had armor only four and a half inches thick.

The weakness of the Allied army was exacerbated by political infighting and ethnic conflicts within Bolivia and Peru. The weakness of Peru was also strengthened by the actions of the strongest state of that time - England. The British openly prevented the Peruvians from purchasing weapons in Europe. The British representative in Peru openly expressed his hostility towards the Peruvians, and the British government approved of the outbreak of hostilities on the part of Chile.

A big role in the success of the Chileans was their surprise attack on the allies. The Bolivian coast was captured by the end of March, allowing the Chilean army to reach the southern borders of Peru. On April 5, 1879, the Chilean squadron led by Admiral Rebolledo began blockade and bombardment of the ports of Iquique and Mollendo. But already on May 21, 1879, the Peruvian battleship Huascar and the frigate Independencia managed to sink the enemy ship Esmeralda and thereby lift the blockade of the port. Despite the numerical superiority of the enemy, the battleship Huascar for five months under the command of Captain Grau kept the Chileans from landing on the coast of Peru. The Peruvians were even able to capture the enemy transport ship Rimac, which was carrying reinforcements for the Chilean troops occupying Antofagasta. This event led to the fact that the Chilean Minister of War, Savedra, and the commander of the fleet, Rebolledo, were removed from their posts.

The commander of the Chilean army was given the main task of destroying the battleship Huascar and landing troops on the Peruvian coast. But this task was completed only in the fall. In October 1879, the Peruvian battleships Huascar and Union, between the ports of Mejillones and Antofagasta, collided with a Chilean squadron, where they were defeated. After this battle, during which the Huascar commander was killed, Miguel Grau is considered a national hero of Peru.

After the destruction of the Peruvian fleet, the Chileans began to implement the second stage of the war. The landing site for Chilean soldiers was Tarapacá. This was done because the Chilean government believed that the capture of Tarapaca with its saltpeter deposits would force the Allies to admit defeat. In addition, revenues from the sale of saltpeter would cover a significant part of Chile's military expenses.

While on November 2, 1879, a ten-thousand-strong Chilean army landed in Pisarua, Allied troops were located somewhat to the south, near Iquique. The Allied army consisted of nine thousand soldiers, whose commander was the Peruvian General Buendia. At the same time, part of the Bolivian army under the leadership of President Daza, located in Tacna, did not dare to engage in battle with the enemy and retreated. Daza's cowardice and actions brought demoralization to the Bolivian troops located at the disposal of General Buendia. Thus, the nine thousand allied army was blocked and had no access to the rest of Peru.

In July 1883, the Peruvian government was forced to sign a treaty transferring the province of Tarapaca to Chile. And according to the results of the truce concluded between Chile and Bolivia on April 4, 1884, the latter was deprived of the Antofagasta region and, accordingly, access to the sea.

The peace treaty signed in 1904 cemented these agreements, but with one condition - Chile pledged to provide Bolivia with a “corridor” to the Pacific Ocean.

This has not been done so far, so Bolivia has grounds for protest, but today, according to the Chileans, its government wants more - the return of sovereign rights to its lost lands. Relations between countries are torn apart by accumulated contradictions. Bolivia and Chile have not had diplomatic relations since 1978. However, in 2006, under the center-left government of Michel Bachelet, the countries signed a memorandum of 13 points to be discussed at bilateral meetings, one of them concerning the age-old Bolivian demand for access to the ocean.

Bolivia has now launched an international campaign to substantiate its territorial claims against Chile in order to ensure the country's sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. In this regard, the Bolivian President created the Bolivian Maritime Claims Authority (Diremar). Evo Morales confirmed that the corresponding lawsuit will soon be sent to the international court in The Hague.

The first of the events already took place at the end of the week in Barcelona. “While Latin Americans strive for integration, Chile behaves like the bad boy next door (in Spanish the word “Chile” is masculine - author’s note), like an unfriendly neighbor, provocative, aggressive, creating conflicts, hindering the process of continental integration, - Bolivian Vice President Alvaro García Linera said there. “We will go around country after country to show that Chile is a bad neighbor, an aggressor state that does not seek dialogue and does not give access to the ocean to a country born with the sea.”

According to the agreements, the Chilean government was supposed to convene a decisive meeting on this issue in 2010, but it did not do this for a very simple reason. Bachelet was replaced by the right-wing nationalist government of Pinochet supporter Sebastian Pinheira, which did not want to implement the decisions of its ideological opponent. Pinheira said that he would not cede sovereignty over his territories to either Bolivia or Peru. In response, an angry Morales announced in 2011 that he would appeal to international authorities, as the Peruvian leadership did in 2008. Now Peru's territorial claims are being considered in the Hague court, and much will depend on its outcome, but experts believe that the litigation will drag on.

Evo Morales

With regard to Bolivia, Chile bases its position on the fact that the 1904 treaty establishes for it the right to free movement of goods through ports on the Pacific Ocean, which Chile fully guarantees. In response to Garcia Liner's emotional speech, the Chilean Foreign Ministry responded that their country “does not have border problems with Bolivia” and is not going to discuss “unqualified” opinions. “The international community recognizes Chile as a country that respects the norms and principles of international law, is open to dialogue, and a country that is the engine of political and trade integration,” the Foreign Ministry said in its statement. “I regret these words from the lips of an intelligent and wise man,” said Juan Pablo Letelier, senator and chairman of the parliamentary commission on international affairs, as quoted by La Tercera newspaper.

Yet Bolivia is suffocating in isolation. The country produces oil, gas, and rare metals; their transportation is extremely difficult and expensive to operate. So far, Bolivia is getting out of this situation by using the port in Peru that is given to it almost completely. “But Bolivia cannot reach the level of world trade precisely because it has no access to the sea,” Vladimir Sudarev, deputy director of the Institute of Latin America of the Russian Academy of Sciences, told the Vzglyad newspaper. The country is experiencing the loss of access to the ocean very painfully. The country has a naval force, which even includes a marine corps unit. Apparently, this is why Chilean diplomatic circles believe that the current Bolivian offensive is a product for home consumption, and in the international arena the initiative has little chance of success, writes La Tercera. But the Bolivians are determined, they even budgeted funds to support their claim in the Hague International Court. The Bolivian Foreign Minister also noted that many "internationalists" have expressed their willingness to cooperate with Bolivia on this issue and noted that 33 countries have called on the OAS to ensure Bolivia's maritime sovereignty.

At the same time, Chile itself should be extremely interested in quickly establishing relations with Bolivia. “Chile suffers from a lack of electricity, and neighboring Bolivia has so much gas that it is more than enough for the whole of Latin America. Moreover, several years ago a survey of the Chilean population was conducted, and 60% of them were in favor of allowing it to go to the sea,” Sugarev said. Let us add that Morales needs to wait for the left forces to return to power, then the issue will move forward. The chances of Bachelet returning in 2014 are assessed as very high. She left her post only because she was unable to run for a second mandate, according to the Constitution.

In a November 2012 poll by La Tercera newspaper, 42 percent of Chileans said they would vote for Bachelet if elections were held today; the ruling party candidate received just 15 percent.

This is the history of this interesting geographical location...

Wars in South America 1864-1870

Spain never recognized the independence of Peru and when some disagreements arose in 1864, she decided on April 14 to occupy the Chinga Islands with their rich guano deposits with her Pacific squadron, under the command of Admiral Pinzón. The general indignation caused by this in America and Europe forced Spain to replace this admiral with Admiral Pareia.

Peru began to prepare for war; There was serious unrest in the country. Finally, Peru broke off the long-drawn-out negotiations and, together with Chile, Ecuador and Bolivia, which had joined it, declared war on Spain at the beginning of 1866.

At the end of November, after a battle off Valparaiso, a Chilean corvette took a Spanish gunboat belonging to the blockading squadron.

Admiral Pareya committed suicide because of this. His successor, Mendez Nunez, took up the blockade more energetically, which mainly affected the trade of neutral states.

He announced that he would bombard Valparaiso on March 31 if Spain's proposals were not accepted by then. The bombing lasted three hours and was carried out mainly on public buildings; Most of the city was destroyed and fires started in many places. The loss caused by the destruction of various goods exceeded 40 million francs.

Two weeks later, Nunez lifted the blockade and went north, without coming to any agreement with the enemy.

On May 2, he bombarded Callao in a similar way and attacked with his 7 frigates and 4 small ships the fortifications of the city, consisting of 9 batteries with 51 guns, but his ships suffered major accidents and serious losses. The Spaniards lost 300 people, the Peruvians - 1,000. After this, Nunez, wounded eight times, returned with his squadron to Spain.

Until now, never before has a squadron of steam ships suffered such a defeat in a battle with coastal forts.

Only at the beginning of 1869 a convention was concluded, followed two years later by the conclusion of peace. The Chinga Islands were returned after paying 3 million pesetas.

The desire of the dictator of Paraguay, Lopez, to expand his rule involved him in serious misunderstandings with neighboring states - Brazil and Argentina, which Uruguay also joined.

The dictator had a well-organized army of 60,000 people, which, however, due to the peculiarities of the country and the lack of roads, could only move along waterways. For this purpose there was a flotilla of 21 armed steamships and the required number of barges. The first were low-sided cargo ships, the last were ferries armed with one cannon.

In 1865, the first clash took place on the Riachuelo River, a tributary of the Paraná. 9 Paraguayan steamships with 6 "chatas" (ferries) went down the river, carrying 30 guns and 1000 people.

Nine Brazilian steamers with 60 guns and 2,300 men were anchored on the opposite shore.

Approaching them, the Paraguayan steamers turned against the current, and the Brazilians weighed anchor and a fierce battle immediately began.

The Brazilians managed to land several successful ramming attacks; then single battles between ships and with coastal fortifications began.

The Paraguayans repeatedly boarded enemy ships, but then each time their crew disappeared into the deck, and neighboring ships swept away those boarding from the upper deck with their fire.

The Brazilians were victorious and only four of the enemy ships managed to escape.

This was followed by an almost three-year (1865-1868) siege of the strong fortress of Humaita, accompanied by frequent battles on the shore and on neighboring rivers, for example, actions against the fortress of Curupaiti on the Paraguay River.

In 1867, the Brazilian river fleet increased from 4 ironclads and 18 gunboats to 12 ironclads.

In 1868, it was possible to force passage past the forts and through the barriers. The Paraguayans' repeated daring attempts to board them, even from boats and against monitors, were repelled as described above.

After a series of failed attacks, the fortress had to surrender, and Paraguay was forced to make peace.

Attempts to board monitors cannot but be called bold, and the method of reflecting them is very original.

A dispute arose between Chile and Bolivia over the area between Arequipa and Iquique, rich in ore and deposits of saltpeter and guano. After Chile unceremoniously occupied Antofagasta in February 1879, Peru had to intervene in the matter due to competition in the production of saltpeter.

The Peruvian fleet consisted of two small ironclads, two old monitors and two corvettes; Chile had: 2 medium-sized battleships, 2 corvettes and 4 older ships. Chilean ships immediately destroyed all transport ships in the southern Peruvian ports that could be used to transport troops, and blockaded Ikvikwe.

During reconnaissance towards Callao, the Chilean admiral Rebolledo did not show the necessary energy and initiative, which was completely unforgivable, since the Peruvian fleet was not yet ready to leave.

Rebolledo loaded coal and stood calmly in place, instead of attacking Callao and destroying the Peruvian transports. The Peruvians cleverly took advantage of his inactivity, sent troops south and appeared on May 21 in front of Ikvikwe, unexpectedly for the Chileans.

The Peruvian monitor Huascar sank one of the Chilean corvettes, striking it three times. Another Peruvian ironclad ran aground and died. The Chilean troops, however, could not travel north by sea and remained in place in complete inaction.

"Huascar" successfully withstood the battle with the large English cruisers "Shah" and "Amethyst" in 1877 during the mutiny of its crew.

The Chilean fleet assembled in early October.

On October 9, the Huascar was captured by the Chilean armored corvettes Amirante Cochrane (8 guns) and Blanco Encolado after the battle off Cape Angmos. The commander of the Huascar, Admiral Grau, who was ordered to preserve the ship at all costs, fell in this battle.

Now the sea was again free for the Chileans and subsequently served as their only base. They now occupied several southern cities, landed south of Callao, defeated the Peruvians at Chorillos Mirfalores and occupied Lima.

According to the peace concluded in 1882, Chile received Peruvian territory as far as Arica, and in addition, the entire coast of Bolivia.

This war, again, can serve as a good example of the fact that under special military-geographical conditions, only possession of the sea can lead to the goal, to victory on land.

If Grau had strictly adhered to his instructions not to allow the loss of his ship, then it was impossible to foresee how long the sea route would have remained closed to the Chileans.

One small battleship managed to delay strategic operations on the shore for a long time. Both sides were clearly aware of the full significance of supremacy at sea and acted accordingly.

Under similar circumstances, the struggle of the Chilean opposition against President Balmaceda broke out in 1891.

At the beginning of January, the Chilean fleet went over to the opposition, which had nothing before, and this fact, in fact, predetermined all further events.

The opposition managed, with the help of the fleet and its adherents who fled on commercial ships, to occupy Ikvikwe; its rich saltpeter deposits gave them great means of warfare. A small army was also formed there, mainly from workers in the saltpeter deposits. The commander-in-chief was Colonel Canto, and the instructor and chief of staff was Colonel Kerner of the German service, a teacher at the military school in Santiago.

The opposition fleet consisted of four large ships, including a new armored cruiser. Balmaceda was left with two destroyers newly arrived from Europe under the command of Captain Fuentes. These destroyers managed to blow up the battleship Blanco Encalado during a night attack in Caldera harbor. This case can perhaps be considered the first successful attack of a modern destroyer.

The first mine was actually fired in the same places from the cruiser "Shah" in 1877 at the "Huascar", but without success.

Balmaceda gathered his troops north of Valparaiso. Thanks to feints and command of the sea, the opposition managed to surprise the enemy by landing 10,000 well-trained troops from 24 transports at Quinteros, north of Valparaiso. They brilliantly defeated their enemy in two battles and occupied Valparaiso, after which the opposing party yielded.

The foreign colony in Valparaiso was guarded during these critical days by a German cruiser squadron (1 large and 2 small corvettes) under the command of Rear Admiral Valois, which was hastily called from China and landed a landing force of 350 people together with the British.

Only supremacy at sea gave the opposition, which started from literally nothing, such brilliant success after a few months. From the very beginning, she correctly assessed the unique military-geographical position of the country and acted quite expediently, based on the peculiarities of the existing situation.

They did not scatter their forces anywhere in vain, which with one successfully delivered blow broke the enemy’s resistance within several days.

Latin American peoples for national liberation in 1810-26. By the end of the 18th century, in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in America, the process of formation of the bourgeoisie accelerated, the layer of Creole latifundists, oriented towards foreign markets, strengthened, and the intelligentsia emerged. These social groups experienced acute dissatisfaction with the policy of severe restrictions on trade and entrepreneurship carried out by the colonial authorities, discrimination against Creoles in the legal sphere, and the lack of favorable conditions for creative activity. At the same time, a huge mass of peasants, consisting of Indians and mestizos, were subjected to brutal exploitation and sought to gain the opportunity to freely work on the land of their ancestors. Hundreds of thousands of slaves, who had no rights and were subjected to ruthless exploitation, also dreamed of freedom. The ideas of the Enlightenment had a huge influence on the educated part of Latin American society. Ferment in the colonies was caused by news breaking through censorship barriers about the victory of the former British colonies in the War of Independence in North America 1775-83, and about the French Revolution of the 18th century.

The collapse of absolutism in France gave impetus to the beginning of the armed struggle for liberation in Latin America. In 1789, mulattoes rebelled, and in August 1791, black slaves rebelled in the French island colony of Saint-Domingue (see Haitian slave revolution 1791-1803). In battles with French regular troops, they managed to win, achieve the abolition of slavery and proclaim the independence of the state of Haiti (1/1/1804). The liberation of Haiti had significant consequences for the emancipation of other Latin Americans, who took it as an example of decisive action and saw in Haiti a possible springboard for organizing military expeditions to the continent.

The occupation of Spain by Napoleonic troops in the spring of 1808 led to an acute political crisis in this country and the formation of a power vacuum in the Spanish colonies in America. The Creoles took advantage of this, consolidated and in 1810 began the struggle for independence. Three main centers of war emerged: most of the Viceroyalty of La Plata (modern Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay), the Andean countries (Venezuela, New Granada - modern Colombia, Chile, Peru and Quito - modern Ecuador) and New Spain (Mexico). The uprisings did not have a common leadership center, and the activities of the rebels were not coordinated in any way. The initiators of armed uprisings everywhere were Creole landowners, traders, artisans and intellectuals. In a number of areas they were joined by peasants and slaves, and in New Spain the peasant masses became the leading force of the liberation movement for two years (1813-15).

The war went through two stages. The first stage (1810-16) began with the seizure of local power by the Creoles. During the War of Independence in Venezuela, which began on April 19, 1810 under the leadership of F. de Miranda and S. Bolivar, the Creoles twice created an independent state (the First Venezuelan Republic in July 1811 - July 1812 and the Second Venezuelan Republic in August 1813 - December 1814). The May Revolution of 1810 in Buenos Aires, led by M. Belgrano and M. Moreno, led in its development to the declaration of Argentine independence at the Congress of Tucuman in 1816. In 1811, Paraguay became the independent republic. From November 1811 to May 1816, the Confederation of the United Provinces of New Granada existed, which was created by S. Bolivar and A. Nariño. In 1811, a rebel army led by J. Artigas began to operate in the province of the Eastern Bank (Uruguay), which managed to expel the Spaniards from its territory three years later. In Chile, patriotic rule lasted from September 1810 to October 1814. At this stage of the war, the struggle for national independence in New Spain, led by M. Hidalgo y Costilla and J. Morelos y Pavon, acquired the most fierce character. The first stage of the war ended everywhere (except La Plata) with the restoration of the power of the Spanish colonial administration. The defeat of the liberation movement was due to the inconsistency of the actions of the rebels, different understandings of socio-political tasks by the participants in the movement, as well as the restoration of the old government in Spain itself, encouraged by the Holy Alliance to suppress anti-colonial protests.

The second stage (1816-26) began in the context of the retreat of revolutionary forces. However, the patriots soon seized the initiative. The army of J. de San Martin was especially successful, which completed the liberation of most of the territory of La Plata and, in cooperation with the army of B. O’Higgins (Battle of the Chacabuco Plain 1817), expelled the Spaniards from Chile. A huge role at this stage was played by S. Bolivar, who managed to mobilize the forces of patriots in the Andean countries. The independence of Venezuela was ensured by the victories of his army in the battles of Boyaca (1819) and Carabobo (1821). His comrade-in-arms A.H. de Sucre won freedom for Quito, Peru and Upper Peru (modern Bolivia) in the battles of Pichincha (1822), Junin and Ayacucho (1824), and Tumusla (1825). Mexico declared independence in 1821. In 1823, the peoples of this region, liberated in the early 1820s, united into the United Provinces of Central America. The final act of the war was the surrender of the last Spanish garrison in January 1826 in the Peruvian port of Callao. Spain managed to maintain only two colonies in the Western Hemisphere: Cuba and Puerto Rico.

The liberation process took place in a special way in the Portuguese colony in America - Brazil. The development of the situation in this country was seriously influenced by the move to Rio de Janeiro in 1808 from Europe of the Portuguese royal court and the creation in 1815 of the “United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves,” which existed until Brazil declared independence in 1822. As a result, Brazil retained its territorial integrity and form of government, but its development acquired a distinctly conservative character.

The victory of the Latin Americans in the War of Independence was greatly facilitated by external circumstances, including events in Spain (the revolution of 1820-23 and the French intervention of 1823), strong British objections to the interventionist plans in Latin America of the Holy Alliance powers (Russia took a neutral position, objectively contributed to the achievement of the goals of the patriots), the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, proclaimed by the United States in order to prevent the penetration of European rivals into lands that the American government and the business class considered their zone of interests.

The Revolutionary War brought about important economic and political changes. Their original focus, especially in those areas where the movement was led by forward-thinking figures, was associated with the desire to transform Latin America into a civilized community in which a dynamic economy would be combined with the establishment of civil society and democratic institutions. This was achieved by measures to expropriate the lands of the church and Indian communities, free trade and production from all kinds of restrictions, abolish slavery, and proclaim republican constitutions. But the ways in which these types of programs were implemented led to different results. The land was not in the hands of the peasants, but passed to the latifundists, which led to centuries-long stagnation in agrarian relations. The consequence of the liberalization of foreign trade was the massive displacement from domestic markets of the products of local handicraft enterprises and manufactories by goods produced in British factories, which, together with government loans from European bankers, soon resulted in the stable financial and economic dependence of Latin America on the leading powers. The republican form of government met the political interests of large landowners, who for many years did not allow representatives of other social groups to come to power. The War of Independence acquired some features of a bourgeois revolution, which stopped in its development and remained unfinished. Nevertheless, it solved the most important historical task - it brought the countries of Latin America out of the colonial state and laid the foundations for their development as sovereign states.

Lit.: Campano L. Biografia del Libertador Simon Bolivar. R., 1868; Slezkin L. Yu. Russia and the War of Independence in Spanish America. M., 1964; Alperovich M.S. Spanish America in the struggle for independence. M., 1971; Marchuk N. N. Liberal reforms and the War of Independence of Latin America. M., 1999; Silva Ericksen G. V. Breve encuentros con la historia: la independencia de América y sus causas. Iquique, 2001; Fornés Bonavia L. La independencia dê América. Lima, 2005.

E. A. Larin, N. N. Marchuk.