Military Review

Mosul operation. How the British, until recently, tried to use the Russian "cannon fodder"

37
Capture Baghdad


In the Baghdad direction, Baratov’s troops pursued the enemy and caused great damage to the Turks. By 6 (19) March 1917, the Russian troops reached Miantag. Here, the retreating 2-I Turkish Infantry Division occupied the defenses to cover the flank and rear of the 6-th army, retreating under pressure from British troops. The 1-I Caucasian Cossack Division, advancing along the Miantag Gorge in the area of ​​Qasr-Shirin, launched an attack of the fortified position of the 2-division, which locked the exit from the mountain gorge. However, due to the fact that the infantry and artillery were far behind, the Russian troops managed to take the Miantag only on March 17 (30).

The British have made great strides. In early March, they began the battle for Baghdad. Turkish troops repulsed the attack at the confluence of the Diyala and Tigris rivers, south of the city. Then the British decided to transfer the main forces to the north, bypass the Turkish troops and attack the city from the unprotected side. The Turkish defense collapsed and the Ottomans fled. 11 March, pursuing the retreating Ottoman troops, the British entered Baghdad. As a result of this operation, about 9000 Turkish soldiers fell into British captivity. The Ottoman province, with its center in Baghdad, became the first province to be taken over by the British army. Governor-General in Mesopotamia was appointed General Maud. The Turkish command was forced to begin the formation of a group of troops to prevent the British offensive in the direction of Mosul. The German command allocated the headquarters of the front led by Falkenhain (former head of the German General Staff) and organized a special Asian corps to manage this campaign. But poor communications, general economic disruption in Turkey and the frivolity of the Turkish high command, all this did not allow for the normal preparation of the operation. As a result, the German units were sent to Syria. Minor Turkish reinforcements were sent to the Mesopotamian front, which could not change the situation.

Meanwhile, the British 10 (23) March took Sheraban and moved towards Beled. In the Bakuba area, the British concentrated a cavalry brigade with the aim of advancing along the right bank of the Diyala River. While the Russian troops were fighting with the enemy at Miantag, the British brought down the rearguards of the 6 of the Turkish army and 12 (25) of March took Jeas Hamrin. March 22 (April 4) Russian cavalry occupied Khanakin and fought with the Turks at Deck on the crossing over Diyala, on the right bank of which parts of the 6 Army retreated to Suleymaniyah. A Cossack hundred was sent to communicate with the British in Kizil-Rabat. In addition, in early April, radio communication was established with the headquarters of General F.S. Moda, and staff officers were periodically sent there. March 24 (April 6) The Turks destroyed the bridge at Decke and took a strong position on the right bank of the river.

Having taken a position west of Khanakin, the Russian troops (about 3 thousand soldiers) experienced a severe food shortage, as communications with Enzeli stretched for 800 km. The British categorically refused to share their abundant reserves, and offered the Russians to pursue the Turks in the direction of Kifri. They themselves planned to thrust the Ottoman troops along the Tigris. In connection with the development of hostilities on the Mesopotamian front, the Russian command planned to create a new rear corps at the junction of the 7 and 1 of the Caucasian cavalry corps to operate in the direction of Suleymaniyah, in the region of Credj (40 km west of Tehran). solve the problem of supplying troops. These four corps were to form a new 2-th Caucasian army under the command of General Baratov. However, due to the general collapse in 1917, this plan could not be implemented.

Mosul operation. How the British, until recently, tried to use the Russian "cannon fodder"

British troops enter Baghdad

Mosul operation

In early April, reaching Diyala, the Russians and the British stopped the persecution of the Turks. March 28 (April 10), the Chief of the British General Staff, General Robertson, suggested that the Russians attack Mosul so that the British could focus on actions in the Tigris Valley. According to the British, the Russians could interrupt the posts of the 6 of the Turkish army, shorten their front and threaten the right flank of the 2 of the Turkish army. At the same time, this allowed the British troops to transfer their efforts to the area of ​​the Euphrates River, which allowed them to intercept another supply line of the 6 Army.

However, Baratov, considering the general condition of the troops, poor supply, sprawling communications and lack of organization of the rear of the corps, considered it appropriate to stop the movement in Mesopotamia. Meanwhile, the British army under Mode (1 British, 5 Indian Infantry Divisions, one cavalry brigade, more than 60 thousands of bayonets and sabers with 200 guns), continued to advance north with their left wing. General Maud expressed sharp dissatisfaction with the ally’s passivity, and suggested organizing the supply of the Russian detachment if he went on the offensive against Kifri. But the commander of the Caucasian front, General N. N. Yudenich, who was well aware of the collapse of the army, spoke out against the continuation of the Mosul operation.

The interim government, while continuing to pursue the military-political line of “war to a victorious end” in the interests of Britain and France, pressed on the command of the Caucasian army, demanding support for the allies. The commander-in-chief of the Caucasian front, Yudenich, reported a catastrophic loss of the army from hunger and disease: only from 1 to 18 in April, 30 thousand people were out of action from scurvy and typhoid. There has also been a depletion of vehicles and major supply problems. The nekomplekt carts reached 55%, horses - 24%, personnel in the wagon train - 52%. Some artillery batteries in positions and many transports almost lost horses. It was possible to hold the position of the Russian army only because things were no better for the Turkish army. Under these conditions, the command of the Caucasian army considered it expedient to withdraw the army to the supply bases: the center - to Erzerum, the right flank - to the Russian border. This made it possible to improve supply, put in order and save the remaining troops. True, this withdrawal reduced the front and liberated part of the Turkish troops in the Caucasus, which worsened the position of the British. As a result, this sensible offer was rejected by the Stake, which strenuously pleased the allies. May 31 (June 13) Yudenich, who proposed to withdraw the troops back to the supply bases, was replaced by General MA Przhevalsky. Baratov, who was replaced for a while by Lieutenant-General A. A. Pavlov, was returned to the post of corps commander.

Offensive actions were hampered by extremely difficult natural conditions. It was a terrible heat - it was reported 68 ° C with a strong wind. The Russians did not have special equipment, in the units located in the malaria region of Diyala, the incidence reached 80%. The command had to leave only two hundred in the area to observe the Turks and to communicate with the British, while the rest of the forces were taken to the mountainous regions of Persia.

For the operation on the Mosul direction, parts of the 7 Caucasian Corps were concentrated, which were concentrated near Sakiz, and the 1 Caucasian Cavalry Corps, which was to advance from Senna to Penjvin-Suleymaniyah-Kirkuk. This offensive, according to the command, was to divert significant enemy forces and provide great assistance to the actions of the British army. However, our troops had many problems. The possibility of carrying out the Mosul operation depended on the conditions of supply. The main problem was the lack of pasture, as the summer sun completely burns grass in the Mesopotamian foothills. Another problem was the depreciation of the ruble in Persia and the absence of local currency among the troops. The British offered to provide a loan in pounds, but instead demanded the resignation of the intractable Baratov, to which the Russian command did not agree. In addition, the Kurds intensified their actions, attacks on Russian units began, and the Persian government demanded the withdrawal of troops.

The offensive was launched by separate units on the front of the 7 (10) June 23 (1 (13)) 26 Corps. Initially, the offensive was successful. In Urmia region of the Kurdistan unit (3-I Kuban Cossack Division, shelf guards and Turkestan arrows) in the stubborn fighting 10-11 (23-24) in June rejected the Turks to Rouen pass, 17 (30) in June captured the position on a ridge Kara Severiz , and 18 June (3 July) took Penjvin. However, on June 22 (July 5), Turkish forces launched a counteroffensive, threatening to bypass, and our troops returned to their original positions. The British did not support the offensive. 23 June (6 July) 1917, in battle with the enemy, fell the head of the Kurdistan detachment and the commander of the 3-th Kuban Division Nikolai Alekseevich Gorbachev. The colonel personally led the battle, repelled four enemy counterattacks, and attempted to repel the weapons seized by the Turks, he rushed into hand-to-hand combat with the closest units, was surrounded and raised on bayonets.

Thus, the Russian offensive on the Mesopotamian front, which coincided with the offensive of the Russian troops in Galicia, as well as there, was not successful. Affected the general decomposition of the Russian army. In fact, the Provisional Government and the Stavka, pleasing the British, threw Russian troops who had lost their fighting capacity for slaughter.

To avoid the consequences of the autumn counter-offensive of the Turkish army, the British offered to deliver a new blow on the Mosul direction to Kirkuk with 14 forces of thousands of fighters with 6 of thousands of horses, and were ready to organize supply on Diyala. In this case, the Russian had to promptly obey the British. The British planned to attack Mosul. The British hoped to get out on Small Zab, and part of the forces even on Big Zab. It was planned that put forward on the river. Diyala group of Russian troops will attack on Kirkuk. Also, the left wing of the 4 Caucasian Corps was to capture the Bitlis area and advance south from the city of Van in order to divert part of the enemy forces from the Mosul group. The operation was scheduled for the end of October 1917.

However, 5 (18) of October. The rate, on the basis of the deplorable state of the troops and the rear, proposed to transfer the Mosul operation to the spring of 1918. The Caucasian front was given the task of holding positions and, if possible, promoting the advance of the British in the Tiger Valley.


Commander of Russian troops in Persia Nikolai Nikolayevich Baratov (Baratashvili)

Results of the 1917 campaign of the year

In connection with the complete disruption of supplies and in order to prevent a full-scale famine, a radical regrouping of troops and rear was made. A significant part of the forces was taken to the line of the main railways of the Transcaucasus and the North Caucasus. The troops were deployed so that they could be quickly focused in the event of the Turkish offensive on dangerous areas. Thus, almost all the successes of the Russian troops during the entire Caucasus campaign of the First World War were lost. All losses, efforts, heroism of the Russian troops were in vain.

In general, only minor clashes occurred on the Caucasian front from the Black Sea to Lake Van during the 1917 campaign, without major changes in the front line. The Turkish 2 and 3 armies, which were defeated during the 1916 campaign of the year and suffered heavy losses, suffered serious losses from epidemics in 1917 and could not conduct active offensive actions. By the end of 1917, in some areas, the Turkish army had only the protection of their Kurdish irregular units, while the main forces were taken to the rear for recreation, to communications nodes.

At the Persian Theater, the Russian army did not achieve much success due to poor supply and extended communications. The British, as always, pulled the blanket over themselves, not caring about the interests of the Russians. The Provisional Government and the Stavka completely subordinated the actions of the Russian Caucasian Army to British interests.

In the 1917 campaign of the year on the Caucasian front, Mosulskaya could become the only major operation. However, the Russians and the British could not organize interaction. The Russian army experienced a lot of problems (hunger, disease, poor supply, general disintegration of the army and the country after the February revolution), so the command of the Caucasian army was opposed to this operation. However, the British, through the Provisional Government and the Stavka, pushed through the decision on this operation. As a result, the Mosul operation ended without result.

Until the end of the year, minor clashes occurred, and on December 4 (17), the command of the Caucasian Front concluded an armistice with the Turks in Erzincan. These negotiations were already in a situation of complete collapse of the national economy of Russia, the collapse of the country itself, in an atmosphere of general fatigue from the war, the withdrawal of troops from the front and the disappearance of the front itself. That is, the Bolshevik government simply could not continue the war, it was necessary to make peace (since the Central Powers themselves soon collapsed and could not fully use the fruits of victory). By the spring of 1918, the Russian army had virtually ceased to exist, having surrendered not only Erzerum and Trebizond, but even Kars and Ardahan without a fight. The Turkish forces in the Transcaucasus were actually opposed by only a few thousand Caucasian (mostly Armenian) volunteers with the support of some officers of the former Russian army.



Sources:

Korsun N. G. The First World War on the Caucasian Front. M., 1946.
E. Maslovsky. The World War on the Caucasus Front, 1914 — 1917: Strategic Essay. M., 2015.
Strelyanov (Kalabukhov) P.N. Cossacks in Persia. 1909 — 1918 M., 2007.
A. Shishov. The Persian Front (1909 — 1918). Unjustly forgotten victories. M., 2010.
Author:
Articles from this series:
1917 Campaign

The transition of the Central Powers to a strategic defense
Entente plans for 1917 year: bet on a decisive victory in the war
Russian army to the beginning of the 1917 campaign of the year: the approach of the general collapse
Attack without shot: Mitav operation
How Germany began the unlimited submarine war
German submarine vs UK
How the German submarine fleet tried to crush the "mistress of the seas"
The United States used the myth of "inhuman" submarine warfare to oppose Germany
Caucasian front in 1917 year. Baratov corps offensive in southwestern Persia
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rotmistr
    Rotmistr 15 February 2017 06: 53 New
    22
    What ridiculous slogans: "use meat until the very end."
    This operation was supposed to be an example of the interaction of equal partners.
    The plan of operations of 1917 provided for striking at the Turks in order to prevent the transfer of their troops to Galicia and the Balkans, and subsequently act aggressively on the Mesopotamian front. The revolution did not allow these plans to be realized, but the corps of N. N. Baratov and the detachment of General A. M. Nazarov were actively operating in the Baghdad direction.
    In fact, the actions of N. N. Baratov at Khanekin led to the establishment of military communications with the Allies and the formation of another inter-union front. It was supposed to create a 2nd Caucasian army led by the aforementioned general - this direction was so important.
    Since March 1917, Russian and English troops acted together, and at the suggestion of the British, the Mosul operation began to be prepared. The 7th Caucasian Army and the 1st Caucasian Cavalry Corps were intended for the operation. The offensive was planned for June, in close collaboration with the British. The revolutionary collapse slowed down the operation, it was postponed to the spring of 1918.
    This operation could become the most striking example of direct combat cooperation of large Entente forces in one theater of operations.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 15 February 2017 07: 48 New
      +4
      Quote: Rotmistr
      The revolutionary collapse slowed down the operation, it was postponed

      ... what, again, the Bolsheviks ruined the "mass"? laughing
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 15 February 2017 08: 08 New
        +6
        Quote: V.ic
        What, again, the Bolsheviks "messed up" ruined?

        Basically, order number 1 VP. But the Bolsheviks tried.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 15 February 2017 08: 36 New
          +5
          Quote: Dart2027
          Basically, order number 1 VP. But the Bolsheviks tried.


          Order 1 was issued by the PETROSOVET before the VP, but in reality it was created by a crowd of reserve soldiers.
          In October, the front was still standing, but after a stupid peace decree, the decree on the ELECTION of commanders, a telegram to the regiments (?!) About the ceasefire, it collapsed.

          I recommend "Army and Revolution" to the milter, there are the primary sources.
          1. Uncle Murzik
            Uncle Murzik 15 February 2017 08: 46 New
            +2
            Olgovich, well, as always, you fantasize and do not blush! laughing The actual power in Petrograd by March 1 (14) belonged to the Provisional Committee of the State Duma (VKGD) and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' Deputies created on February 27 (March 12). In conclusion, the Executive Committee notes that most of the clauses of Order No. 1 already received the force of law part of the time of the post of Minister of War A.I. Guchkova, partly during A.F. Kerensky. As for the regimental, company and other committees, the idea of ​​which was first expressed in Order No. 1, not only public institutions, but also many representatives of the high command staff spoke about the positive, organizing role.
            Source: http://statehistory.ru/5545/Iz-istorii-Prikaza-1-
            Petrogradskogo-Soveta-rabochikh-i-soldatskikh-dep
            utatov / Here, together with members of the Menshevik faction of the Duma, representatives of other socialist parties, workers of legal trade unions, cooperatives and other organizations, the Provisional Executive Committee of the Council of Workers 'Deputies was formed - the body for convening the constituent assembly of the Council of Workers' Deputies. Its members included K. A. Gvozdev, B. O. Bogdanov (Mensheviks, leaders of the Central Military-Industrial Complex), N. S. Chkheidze, M. I. Skobelev (deputies of the State Duma from the Menshevik faction), N. Yu. Kapelinsky, K. S. Grinevich (Shekhter) (Menshevik-internationalists), N. D. Sokolov (non-factional social democrat), G. M. Erlich (Bund).
            The Bolsheviks were not part of the Provisional Executive Committee.
            1. V.ic
              V.ic 15 February 2017 09: 18 New
              +3
              Quote: Uncle Murzik
              There were no Bolsheviks in the Provisional Executive Committee

              A colleague, it’s impossible to explain to “them”, because the postulate about the Bolshevik roots of “February 17” is knocked out on the inner surface of “their” skulls and cannot be doubted otherwise ... the break of the template. good
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 15 February 2017 10: 15 New
                +5
                Quote: V.ic
                A colleague, it’s impossible to explain to “them”, because the postulate about the Bolshevik roots of “February 17” is knocked out on the inner surface of “their” skulls and cannot be doubted otherwise ... the break of the template.


                This postulate is forever enshrined in your Bible, "A Short History of the CPSU," the main creator of which was the Great Leader of All Nations, the Great Creator of Industry, Industrialization and Collectivization, and other comrade. STALIN !!
                1. V.ic
                  V.ic 15 February 2017 10: 31 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  This postulate is forever enshrined in your Bible "A Short History of VKPb"

                  ... and did you believe? You should not believe everything written, for as it is said in the joke = "on the fence" X .. "is written, but" P .... "got it and came up." Surely one of your distant relatives was telling with an anguish in his voice how he helped Ilyich carry a log on a community work day! laughing
                  1. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 15 February 2017 11: 45 New
                    +4
                    Quote: V.ic
                    .and did you believe?


                    Where he is right, there is right.
                    And you yourself do not believe the leader of Stalin? !!belay
                    1. V.ic
                      V.ic 15 February 2017 14: 17 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Olgovich
                      And you yourself do not believe the leader of Stalin?

                      Quote: Olgovich
                      Where he is right, there is right

                      ... I'm sorry, I rearranged your phrases for a better explanation, and the question of what is called "forehead": and comrade. Was Stalin always right? He himself did not write "A Short Course ...". By the way, you have a mistake in the designation, it should be the CPSU (b), and not the CPSU stop . The Bolsheviks better than you owned a letter. laughing
                      1. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 15 February 2017 21: 28 New
                        +3
                        Quote: V.ic
                        and comrade Was Stalin always right? He himself did not write "Short Course ..."


                        Read the story of the creation of the History of VKPb — he is the MAIN creator, editor and leader. The “course” merely listed real well-known events — strikes, demonstrations, etc. What could be true or false here? belay
                        Quote: V.ic
                        By the way, you have a mistake in the designation, it should be the CPSU (b), and not the CPSU. The Bolsheviks better than you owned a letter.


                        You yourself prostrate yourself in front of the brackets (b), but for me they are just Great Cre .. Po.ki -and Without brackets. yes
                2. Uncle Murzik
                  Uncle Murzik 15 February 2017 10: 50 New
                  +1
                  Olgovich Do you see a gopher? - No - And I do not see. But he is. ... laughing
            2. Olgovich
              Olgovich 15 February 2017 11: 03 New
              +5
              Quote: Uncle Murzik
              Olgovich, well, as always, you fantasize and do not blush! By March 1 (14), the de facto power in Petrograd belonged to the Provisional Committee of the State Duma (VKGD) and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' Deputies created on February 27 (March 12)

              Dear comrade, one cannot but know the BASIS: Order 1 is developed March 1 in the evening at a meeting of the so-called "Petrosovet" and in the morning March 2 in his .... um. the Izvestia body was published. VKGD was not involved in him sidewaysThe interim government was officially announced generally on March 2.

              Is it really hard to learn?
              1. Uncle Murzik
                Uncle Murzik 15 February 2017 13: 40 New
                +1
                Olgovich you are already funny laughing that is, Order No. 1 was developed by the Bolsheviks? belay I can still reassure you that the Bolsheviks did not have any relation to order No. 1 of the one who allowed the army! In conclusion, the Executive Committee notes that most of the clauses of Order No. 1 already received the force of law during their tenure as Minister of War A.I. Guchkova, partly during A.F. Kerensky. As for the regimental, company and other committees, the idea of ​​which was first expressed in Order No. 1, not only public institutions, but also many representatives of the high command staff spoke about the positive, organizing role.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 15 February 2017 21: 18 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Uncle Murzik
                  Olgovich, are you already funny? That is, Order No. 1 was developed by the Bolsheviks?


                  Alas, the Russian language is not available to you, I repeat:Order 1 was developed on March 1 at a meeting of the so-called "Petrosoviet", and on the morning of March 2 in his .... um. the Izvestia body was published. VKGD was not involved with him sideways,

                  By ignorance, you insisted on the involvement of the VKGD and even the Provisional Government in the issuance of this order, which is nonsense, which you and the SECOND time indicated.
      2. Gopnik
        Gopnik 15 February 2017 12: 07 New
        +3
        Including. Because after February, the Bolsheviks were able to legally carry out their anti-state and defeatist propaganda. Well, after the "October Maidan" they directly led the army and its destruction.
        1. V.ic
          V.ic 15 February 2017 18: 22 New
          +1
          Quote: Gopnik
          Because after February, the Bolsheviks were able to legally carry out their anti-state and defeatist propaganda.

          ... and the "gopniks" from the EsRs and the Mensheviks could not "legally carry out their anti-state and defeatist propaganda"?
          1. Gopnik
            Gopnik 15 February 2017 18: 29 New
            +2
            It makes no difference what kind of crap this was — the Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries. All one - left-wing revolutionaries under red rags. Although of all of them, the Bolsheviks are the most radical and most negative variety. Because the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, at least, took a defensive position, therefore they did not carry out "anti-state" (since they were not against Russian statehood) and defeatist (because they stood for the war until victory) propaganda.
            1. Uncle Murzik
              Uncle Murzik 16 February 2017 07: 06 New
              0
              my friend Gopnik, you ridiculous little birds to cover your ass to the provisional government! Therefore, the "allies" of Russia joyfully welcomed the February Revolution. The first, on March 9 (22), 1917, the Provisional Government officially recognized the United States of America. In a day, March 11 (24) - France, England and Italy. Soon Belgium, Serbia, Japan, Romania and Portugal joined them. The reason for joy was really great: in London and Paris they could breathe calmly. No one could even hope that in just a few days the operation of the “union” special services to change the state system of Russia would end with such a tremendous success! All the planned steps were taken, not a minimum program was decided, but its most complete version.
              The new "independent" government took upon itself all the obligations of the tsarist government, both financial and political. All debts were recognized and the determination to wage war to a victorious end was declared. And if the old tsarist government at least sometimes could refuse the “allies”, then the new rulers of Russia depended on them completely. And they didn’t even think about how the British and French acted in relation to the deposed Russian monarch. First, they forced him to shed seas of blood of his soldiers in the name of utopian "allied" ideals, and then threw Nikolai Romanov into the trash of history. After renunciation, not a word of support, not a single phrase in his defense. There, into oblivion, after a short period, the Provisional Government will set off. No need to be surprised - no one takes the waste material, slag with him to the political future. lol
        2. Uncle Murzik
          Uncle Murzik 16 February 2017 07: 08 New
          0
          You do not see the difference between March and December 1917! belay can i tell you march comes earlier! lol Guilty of the death of the Russian army can be called directly by name. These are the members of the Petrograd Soviet who wrote the text of the order, Yu.M. Steklov (Nakhamkes) and N.D. Sokolov. Minister of War Guchkov is to blame, to blame, everyone who was part of the government and smartly peed in their notebooks. But more than others, Alexander Fedorovich Kerensky is to blame. After all, he was a member of the Council, which wrote and issued the order; he was the minister of government, who was able to strangle in the bud the catalyst for the decomposition of his own army. Kerensky could have prevented all this twice! But he did not do this, but on the contrary helped the order to be born, although it is not difficult to foresee its consequences. No army can live by such rules. Even the most ardent "supporters" of Order No. 1, the Bolsheviks, used it only as a tool to seize power and decompose the old army. As soon as they came to power, they began to create a new Red Army, with a new discipline. More precisely, with the well-forgotten old: for disobedience shooting. The army is submission, a clear hierarchy, where orders are carried out implicitly. There is no discipline - there will be no armed force, but there will be a huge discussion club. It is obvious. It seems incomprehensible to others. It was not Lenin and Trotsky who printed and distributed Order No. 1, not the Bolsheviks initiated it. Others did it. So, what, the Provisional Government did not understand that it is impossible to win a war with such an army? Did idealistic patriots understand even less of ours in military affairs?
          For the further collapse of the country, it was necessary first of all to decompose the army - conscious and disciplined, it could instantly suppress any foci of anti-state actions
          Here you have the answer to all questions at once. Kerensky is justified: "one, or some group whose authenticity is still a mystery," issued this order, and the Russian army collapsed. And I, Kerensky, is white and fluffy! He is simultaneously in two power structures and does not know anything about the origin of this document! But for us it is not so important who published it. Suppose that everything dark and anti-Russian came from the Petrograd Soviet, and its member Kerensky simply did not attend meetings, but drank somewhere with nice ladies. Nothing changes from this. Then we will have to admit that this gentleman also did not appear at the meetings of the Provisional Government. Recall the "Declaration of the Provisional Government on its composition and tasks of March 3, 1917." It says practically the same thing there, democratic freedoms are introduced in the army, in other words, the army begins to engage in politics and listen to someone whose language is better suspended. Kerensky is trying to relieve himself and his colleagues of the responsibility for the collapse of the army, but is doing it very awkwardly.
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 15 February 2017 07: 37 New
    +7
    M.A. Przhevalsky was from the Tver nobles, but the Cossacks who served with him considered him to be their true Cossack general.
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich 15 February 2017 07: 52 New
    +9
    That is, the Bolshevik government simply did not have the opportunity to continue the war, it was necessary to make peace

    There are wonderful Russian sayings on this subject: you can’t, don’t torture .....
    NONE of the numerous political forces in Russia, except the Bolshevik so-called. "government" was not going to make peace like Brest.

    Having destroyed the front with a stupid peace decree, what did they promise? - WORLD and - NO losses for the honor and territory of Russia. What did they give?
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik 15 February 2017 08: 51 New
      +3
      Olgovich, well, here’s what’s more suitable for you: “who about what, but lousy about the bathhouse”. It is often claimed that it was the Bolsheviks who destroyed the army. But listen to a disinterested person. On July 16, 1917, Denikin stated in the presence of Kerensky: “When they repeat at every step that the Bolsheviks served as the cause of the collapse of the army, I protest. This is not true. The army was destroyed by others. The military legislation of recent months has destroyed the army. ” It was the “heroes” of February that the system of ministries was defeated: the ministers and their deputies were dismissed and partly imprisoned, the shuffling of ministerial colleges and the cleaning of apparatuses began. New ministers were appointed strange people who do not have real experience in managing the state ... (http://www.samisdat.ru/2/2123e-rp.htm). Desertion has grown. On September 1, 1917, 1 million 865 thousand people deserted from the army (http://soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter2_2.h
      tml). The number of the Russian army in the First World War is 15 million 500 thousand. That is, 12% - almost every tenth.



      For comparison: during the First World War, 600 deserters were shot in the French Amyah, 346 British and 48 German deserters. A total of 7361 people were accused of desertion and other misconduct in the British army (http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk)
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 15 February 2017 09: 21 New
        +2
        Quote: Uncle Murzik
        It is the "heroes" of February

        +++! My comment is above. 09:18
      2. Olgovich
        Olgovich 15 February 2017 11: 42 New
        +4
        Quote: Uncle Murzik
        Olgovich, well, here’s what’s more suitable for you: “who about what, but lousy about the bathhouse”. It is often claimed that it was the Bolsheviks who destroyed the army. But listen to a disinterested person. July 16, 1917 Denikin

        Another, another suits you: "A bad dancer gets in the way"
        And now let’s listen to Denikin, since you trust him:
        The first period of the Bolsheviks' activity, from the beginning of the revolution to the October coup, consisted of a struggle for power by abolishing the entire bourgeois system of the country and disruption of the army
        For the first period of activity of the Bolsheviks, their tactics based on the following specific provisions are more important:
        1) the overthrow of the government and decomposition of the army;

        Some bodies close to the Soviet officialdom, Izvestia Workers and Soldiers' Deputies, were shaken, while others, such as Pravda (an organ of the Social Democrat. Bolshev.), Destroyed the country and the army.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Uncle Murzik
          Uncle Murzik 15 February 2017 14: 25 New
          +1
          Olgovich, and what do you think the Bolsheviks should stand aside, correctly use the situation in October and overthrow the liberal provisional government! The Bolsheviks have nothing to do with order No. 1 of those who destroyed the army, Denikin speaks directly about this!
          1. Uncle Murzik
            Uncle Murzik 15 February 2017 14: 37 New
            +1
            Here is another curious document that led to chaos in the country. It was called the “Declaration of the Provisional Government on its composition and tasks” and was published on March 3, 1917. Paragraph 5 of the declaration directly said: 1) “Replacement of the police by the people's police with elected authorities, subordinate bodies local government "
            It’s strange. Is it not clear to the gentlemen from the government the simple truths that during the war the dissolution of the police will lead to a surge of crime and add unnecessary difficulties in achieving the long-awaited victory? The very fact of the tsar’s abdication — unprecedented in Russian history — was a heavy blow to the defenses and morale of the troops. Why exacerbate all this?
            Has ever in history, when all the forces of the state were tense, carried out a complete restructuring of the state mechanism? Every driver knows that to repair a car, you must at least stop it. No one will try to replace the punctured wheel at full speed - after all, this threatens disaster! And the first paragraph of the first document of the Provisional Government reads: 2) “A complete and immediate amnesty for all political and religious matters, including terrorist assassinations, military uprisings and agrarian crimes, etc.” Those who detonated bombs will be released killed in every possible way the citizens of the Russian Empire during our first revolution! In what other country during the war, all those who tried to destroy this country more recently were released from prison? Do not look, you will not find examples in world history! 3) “Freedom of speech, press, unions, meetings and strikes with the extension of political freedoms to military personnel to the extent permitted by military-technical conditions?” How do you order to understand this? What kind of political freedom can a soldier have during a war? Soldiers and officers during the period of hostilities have the same duties. Unpleasant - kill other people who wear the form of an enemy army. And terrible for every normal person - to die for themselves when their commanders demand it. Other rights during the war were neither among the Roman legionnaires, nor among the Napoleon’s guards, nor among the Suvorov miraculous heroes. What kind of strikes, meetings and alliances in the army can be?
          2. Olgovich
            Olgovich 15 February 2017 21: 08 New
            +3
            Quote: Uncle Murzik
            Olgovich, and what do you think the Bolsheviks should stand aside, correctly use the situation in October and overthrow the liberal provisional government! The Bolsheviks have nothing to do with order No. 1 of those who destroyed the army, Denikin speaks directly about this!

            Dumb secret (criminal) about the world, dumb telegrams to the regiments of truce, dull cease-fire, dumb secret about committees and a cherry on the dumb cake
            Decree on the elective beginning and on the organization of power in the army

            December 16 (29), 1917



            3) The sectors of the life and activity of the troops, already under the jurisdiction of the committees, are now subject to their direct leadership. The control of committees or Soviets is established over those branches of activity that cannot be taken over by committees.

            4) The election of commanding officers and officials is introduced. Commanders up to and including the regiment are elected by the general vote of their units, platoons, companies, teams, squadrons, batteries, divisions and regiments. Commanders above the regimental, up to and including the supreme commander in chief, are elected by the relevant congresses or meetings under the appropriate committees.

            Note. By meeting, we mean the meeting of the relevant committee together with delegates from the committees, one step below those standing.

            5) The elected commanders, above the regimental, are approved by the nearest higher committee.

            Note. In the case of a motivated refusal by the higher committee to approve the elected chief, the chief second elected by the corresponding lower committee shall be subject to mandatory approval.

            6) Army commanders are elected by army congresses. Front commanders are elected by front-line congresses.

            National traitors, so President Putin spoke of the Bolsheviks. I agree.
            1. Alexander Greene
              Alexander Greene 16 February 2017 01: 55 New
              +2
              Quote: Olgovich
              Dumb secret (criminal) about the world, dumb telegrams to the regiments of truce, dull ceasefire, dumb secret about committees


              I don’t understand: is hatred towards the Bolsheviks or the limitations of your thinking blocking your eyes? I understand that you hate the Bolsheviks, but do not be so limited. You cannot understand in any way that all events must be considered within the historical framework in which they took place. From your point of view, they are all stupid. And then these were the only right decisions.

              The country is tired of a meaningless slaughter. The people wanted peace and the Bolsheviks gave it. The army was falling apart, and there was no way to keep it, and therefore the Bolsheviks began to build a new army. In order to exclude the betrayal of the revolution from the side of the new commanders, they were not appointed, but elected, and those who were well known, who were sure that he would not betray, were elected. There were no commissars then. When I had to deal with regular, trained intervention troops, we realized that only the regular Red Army could counter them, then they began to attract and appoint military specialists to command posts and put commissars to them. When the need for commissars disappeared, they introduced one-man management. To understand this is so elementary.
            2. Uncle Murzik
              Uncle Murzik 16 February 2017 06: 51 New
              0
              darling Olgovich you do not see the difference between March and December 1917! belay I can tell you March comes earlier! lol Guilty of the death of the Russian army can be called directly by name. These are the members of the Petrograd Soviet who wrote the text of the order, Yu.M. Steklov (Nakhamkes) and N.D. Sokolov. Minister of War Guchkov is to blame, to blame, everyone who was part of the government and smartly peed in their notebooks. But more than others, Alexander Fedorovich Kerensky is to blame. After all, he was a member of the Council, which wrote and issued the order; he was the minister of government, who was able to strangle in the bud the catalyst for the decomposition of his own army. Kerensky could have prevented all this twice! But he did not do this, but on the contrary helped the order to be born, although it is not difficult to foresee its consequences. No army can live by such rules. Even the most ardent "supporters" of Order No. 1, the Bolsheviks, used it only as a tool to seize power and decompose the old army. As soon as they came to power, they began to create a new Red Army, with a new discipline. More precisely, with the well-forgotten old: for disobedience shooting. The army is submission, a clear hierarchy, where orders are executed implicitly. There is no discipline - there will be no armed force, but there will be a huge discussion club. It is obvious. It seems incomprehensible to others. It was not Lenin and Trotsky who printed and distributed Order No. 1, not the Bolsheviks initiated it. Others did it. So, what, the Provisional Government did not understand that it is impossible to win a war with such an army? Did idealistic patriots understand even less of ours in military affairs?

              For the further collapse of the country, it was necessary first of all to decompose the army - conscious and disciplined, it could instantly suppress any foci of anti-state actions

              Here you have the answer to all questions at once. Kerensky is justified: "one, or some group whose authenticity is still a mystery," issued this order, and the Russian army collapsed. And I, Kerensky, is white and fluffy! He is simultaneously in two power structures and does not know anything about the origin of this document! But for us it is not so important who published it. Suppose that everything dark and anti-Russian came from the Petrograd Soviet, and its member Kerensky simply did not attend meetings, but drank somewhere with nice ladies. Nothing changes from this. Then we will have to admit that this gentleman also did not appear at the meetings of the Provisional Government. Recall the "Declaration of the Provisional Government on its composition and tasks of March 3, 1917." It says practically the same thing there, democratic freedoms are introduced in the army, in other words, the army begins to engage in politics and listen to someone whose language is better suspended. Kerensky is trying to relieve himself and his colleagues of the responsibility for the collapse of the army, but is doing it very awkwardly.
              1. Uncle Murzik
                Uncle Murzik 16 February 2017 07: 01 New
                0
                Therefore, the "allies" of Russia joyfully welcomed the February Revolution. The first, on March 9 (22), 1917, the Provisional Government officially recognized the United States of America. In a day, March 11 (24) - France, England and Italy. Soon Belgium, Serbia, Japan, Romania and Portugal joined them. The reason for joy was really great: in London and Paris they could breathe calmly. No one could even hope that in just a few days the operation of the “union” special services to change the state system of Russia would end with such a tremendous success! All the planned steps were taken, not a minimum program was decided, but its most complete version.

                The new "independent" government took upon itself all the obligations of the tsarist government, both financial and political. All debts were recognized and the determination to wage war to a victorious end was declared. And if the old tsarist government at least sometimes could refuse the “allies”, then the new rulers of Russia depended on them completely. And they didn’t even think about how the British and French acted in relation to the deposed Russian monarch. First, they forced him to shed seas of blood of his soldiers in the name of utopian "allied" ideals, and then threw Nikolai Romanov into the trash of history. After renunciation, not a word of support, not a single phrase in his defense. There, into oblivion, after a short period, the Provisional Government will set off. No need to be surprised - no one takes the waste material, slag with him to the political future.
  4. Medium
    Medium 15 February 2017 14: 03 New
    +3
    An article is a good example of manipulating history with a simple combination.
    The combination is really simple. Take chapter IV of the book "Korsun N. G. The First World War on the Caucasus Front. Operational and Strategic Essay. - M.: Military Publishing House, 1946." We rewrite it. good chapter takes 3 pages. To the title of the chapter from the book we add about the ugly British - a historical study is ready.
    An unprepared reader burns with anger towards foggy Albion, a slightly prepared reader scratches his head and goes to the bookshelf. And what is interesting! And in the thirties, and forties, and fifties, and the thaw and stagnation, and during democracy, historians say one thing - Russia, less than other countries in need of a new living space, in the general European turmoil decided to improve its strategic position: to become the mistress of the Black Sea straits and Constantinople and the only patroness of the Balkans, as well as finally solve the Polish question (to unite under its authority all the Polish lands).
    The question for the author is how these goals were achieved without a war with Turkey and military operations in the Caucasus?
    The second question. Why does Russia, with its glorious history, need such manipulations?
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 15 February 2017 18: 25 New
      +1
      Quote: Medium
      Why does Russia, with its glorious history, need such manipulations?

      ...really! Why do Russia need the Bosphorus and Dardanelles? Perhaps the Bolsheviks needed?
      1. Medium
        Medium 15 February 2017 18: 26 New
        +4
        You could not explain your "deep" maxim.
        1. V.ic
          V.ic 16 February 2017 07: 43 New
          0
          Quote: Medium
          You could not explain your "deep" maxim.

          1.
          Quote: Medium
          The question for the author is how these goals were achieved without a war with Turkey and military operations in the Caucasus?

          ... and why not explain it to you personally, since you were aroused by my comment. RI in 1914 had no intention of starting a war with the Ottoman Empire. The cries of Mr. Milyukov and the Odessa merchants about the straits to Emperor Nicholas II were "flat parallel." The Turks themselves entered the war with the Republic of Ingushetia firing in October / OCTOBER / 2. Russian ports on the Black Sea. It was now very easy for the Russian people to justify the need for a war with Turkey, adding to the goals of the war the erection of a cross on the church of St. Sophia. The brainless leadership of the Republic of Ingushetia simply could not comprehend the simple idea that neither the British nor the Frenchman would ever give control of the straits to Russian hands! Nevertheless, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles were declared goals of the war. As for the Bolsheviks, they didn’t need the Bosphorus and Dardanelles at that time ... I believe that I answered your first question, addressed to the "author", although I am not the author, but just have my opinion.
          Quote: Medium
          The second question. Why does Russia, with its glorious history, need such manipulations?

          Regarding your second question to the "author", so he generally NOTHING ABOUT! In the same vein, my comment on yours, marked "Yesterday 14:03", followed.
      2. Gopnik
        Gopnik 15 February 2017 21: 57 New
        +1
        The Bolsheviks, by the way, needed it. In 1940 they wanted them, and they got the Great Patriotic War, and in 1945 they wanted again, and they got the Cold War
        1. V.ic
          V.ic 16 February 2017 07: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: Gopnik
          The Bolsheviks, by the way, needed it. In 1940 they were wanted, and they received the Second World War

          The top of the "Bolsheviks", IV Stalin "put into the spray" in the thirties. As for the second half of your “pearl”: the question of the straits in 1940 has nothing to do with the causes of the Second World War, if only because Turkey was a neutral power in 2 MB.