Military Review

100 years of soldier glory. Preface to the First World War

26
100 years of soldier glory. Preface to the First World War



What does an average citizen in the post-Soviet space know about the First World War? Yes, actually nothing. In Soviet times history, as they said, “imperialist war” completely covered the history of the Civil War.

And the reasons, the reasons, the course of the largest conflict of the beginning of the century, little attention was paid. This practice essentially continues today. We have the Great Patriotic War. Point. Although, in principle, even with her really have not figured out. But at least books are being written and films are being made. The quality is worth keeping silent, but it's better than just a vacuum.

About the First World virtually nothing, or again, all within the framework of the Civil War. There was, say, an "imperialist" war that spilled over into the Civil War, and everything became good. All won.

At the same time, this military conflict directly affected the western lands of the then Russian Empire. The fighting went on the territory of Poland, Ukraine, Belarus. A part of the territories was lost and occupied, which later gave rise to the Soviet-Polish war, but we'll talk about this some other time.

Today I would like to tell you where the legs of an event from one of the most terrible people who turned the worldview and which led to even more terrible - World War II grow from.

Please remember this postulate. It was the results of the First World War that gave birth to the Second.

Let's start, perhaps, with the fact that progressive Europe constantly fought, not only with the colonies, but also with itself. Then you and the war for the Spanish inheritance, and the Seven Years War, and the Napoleonic wars, and many other conflicts. The European powers then fought each other, then entered into alliances, in general, there was a normal "civilized" life.

It should be understood that 1 August 1914 of the year, that is, the official beginning of the Great War, did not happen just like that, no one snapped his finger and did not call for a pike or a genie for everything to start, this process was quite long. Just over 40 years. Why is that? It's simple.

To begin with, the murder of the archduke is not a reason for unleashing a world war. This is an excuse. And an excuse, rather well formed, for there was no worse place for the visit of Franz Ferdinand than Sarajevo. And time could not be worse.

Or - it is better if we proceed from intentional provocation and the creation of a preposition. What actually happened.

But unscrew the wheel of history a little back.

By the time a new state appeared on the map of Europe. German Empire / German Reich / Second German Reich.

It is worth explaining that the Germans considered the First Reich to be the holy Roman Empire (962-1806), which included Germanic lands in its heyday. About the Third Reich, I think, no need to explain.

The new German Empire appeared like an elephant in a china shop, defeating the French near Sedan and proclaiming its creation in the Hall of Mirrors of the Versailles Palace.

And then it was not even politics that began, although nobody expected such agility from the German principalities. But the German ace ace Otto von Bismarck played his game beyond praise.

As a result, the newly-minted German Empire not only won, selected Alsace and Lorraine, but also greatly humiliated France, which until that time was in fact the hegemon in continental Europe. But politics is not the main thing, the main thing is the economically very rich areas inherited by Germany.

It is logical that the next year, 43, France was looking for opportunities for revenge. An important factor was the time that Germany was late to the redistribution of the world and, unlike its future opponents, did not have extensive overseas colonies.

And the colony is at that time a very decent engine for the economy. The German political and economic elites considered their inclusion in the process of plundering the rest of the world quite logical, as the UK, France, Spain and Portugal have been doing for hundreds of years.

But these guys did not want to share. What was left to the Germans? Start your expansion, support the opponents of your opponents and stuff like that. For example, during the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, Germany supported the Boers. The Germans almost immediately began to carry out attempts to penetrate the "zone of British interests" in East and South-West Africa.

In this regard, the British deviate from the policy of "brilliant isolation" (the essence of which was to refuse to conclude long-term international military-political alliances in the second half of the XIX century) and begin the formation of the Entente, a union directed exclusively against Germany.

With France, things were virtually the same. The third republic suffered greatly from the economic expansion of Germany in the territories of its colonies and its usual sales markets. German goods were just better at a comparable price to the French.

And France could not solve this problem in a simple, that is, military way. There was a real threat of a repetition of the Franco-Prussian war, in which the French suffered a sensitive defeat. In this regard, the two once irreconcilable adversaries, the United Kingdom and France, are beginning to draw closer to each other, seeing in Germany a common enemy.

Moreover, Kaiser Wilhelm II did everything and even more to make it happen.

There were contradictions of the Second Reich with the Russian Empire. This and the construction of the railway line Berlin - Baghdad, which, in the opinion of St. Petersburg, threatened Russia's legitimate interests in the Balkans. Plus, Germany’s support of Turkey, which has been trying to squeeze Constantinople for more than one hundred years and to take control of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, both Russians and British.

In the Balkans, in connection with the weakening of Turkey, Serbia and Bulgaria began to butt. Both countries had significant political ambitions and sought to take a leading position in the region. And the Bulgarians also managed to suffer a defeat from the Serbs and Greeks a year before the First World War, and this wound was fairly fresh. In general, wherever you go, at that time in Europe there are only continuous contradictions and claims.

Meanwhile, at the very beginning of the century, a number of military and political conflicts occurred. This is the aforementioned Anglo-Boer war, and the Russo-Japanese war, in which Great Britain actively helped Japan in order to weaken Russia, which, in turn, threatened British interests in Central Asia and the Far East. The two Balkan wars, 1912-1913, and two Moroccan crises, where France and Germany clashed for control of Morocco.

And the knot of contradictions in Europe that emerged by July 1914 in Europe could actually be cut only by a blade called “war”.

War wanted everything. Germany needed new lands. France and Britain had to short out Germany, which was too eager to take up the construction of the empire. Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, too, were absolutely not against the "return of their", previously lost. The Ottoman Empire, having suffered great losses as a result of the Russian-Turkish wars, pursued a revanchist policy.

There were too many mutual claims and, most importantly, political and economic desires. The war for the redivision of the world was simply inevitable, the question was only behind the excuse.

And what about Russia?

The paradox is that there were no territorial claims in terms of colonies or in Europe. The Russian Empire had no colonies at all, and didn’t really need them. From here the political and economic interests of Russia lay in the south and east.

Russian interests in the Far East were badly undermined by the Russian-Japanese war, but the question remained open. In the south, the “cherry on the cake” was the Turkish straits, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, for the sake of which Russia could get involved in a world war. Moreover, such plans took place to be, and they were realized two months after Germany and Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia.

It’s impossible to say that Russia really wanted to participate in that war. Nicholas II, we must give him his due, for his part he did everything to prevent war. However, Kaiser Wilhelm II did not even respond to the proposal from the Russian emperor to transfer the investigation into the events in Sarajevo to the Hague Conference.

All too needed this war.

But the Russian autocracy also needed it. And necessarily victorious war. It was a victory in the war that could really strengthen the power that was somewhat shaken as a result of the failures of the Russian-Japanese war and the events of 1905.

Plus, the reason for the war was simply superbly implemented. It would be possible for some time to play up in front of the allies, delaying Russia's entry into the war. But Serbia, as a reason, is just elegantly played. The attack on the old ally of Russia, for the help of which the grandfather of Nicholas II, Alexander II, received the honorary nickname "Liberator" (yes, and for the abolition of serfdom, but this is an internal matter, and in Serbia, following the Russian-Turkish war 1878, he was called so), - this was the reason that it was impossible to shut up.

The whole problem of the then Russia was that the empire clearly followed its allied obligations.

Do not enter Russia on the side of the Entente on the European theater of operations, the outcome of the war could have been quite different. The straits would be in Russia and (possibly) in Serbia and Bulgaria, and the Germans would once again have drunk in Paris. The British would have stayed behind the English Channel, and what allies and fighters from the Italians, it is not even worth talking.

But this is from the field of alternative fiction, and in August 1914, the Russian army began its war. While on one front, the second was open only in November.

We will talk in detail in the next article about what the Russian imperial army was like in 1914.
Author:
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. soldier
    soldier 16 October 2017 15: 04 New
    19
    What does the average citizen in the post-Soviet space know about the First World War?

    Already quite a lot - and not least thanks to the efforts of VO and its authors
    Although there are many white spots
    Work and work
  2. Basil50
    Basil50 16 October 2017 15: 40 New
    +5
    About PMV in the SOVIET school they taught themselves quite well. Even the textbooks did not bypass this period of the history of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 16 October 2017 15: 58 New
    +5
    The British, German, French, Austrian, Russian and other imperialists wanted less war .. In this war they pursued their own selfish goals .., they didn’t want to benefit mankind ... When soldiers of the warring armies died on the battlefields, capitals flowed into the pockets of a narrow circle of people ... This circle profited from the deaths of millions ... A big mistake of Russia that got into this massacre ...
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 16 October 2017 18: 24 New
      +9
      wonder how Russia should have acted? Let the Austrians occupy Serbia?
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 17 October 2017 07: 55 New
        +4
        Quote: Cartalon
        wonder how Russia should have acted? Let the Austrians occupy Serbia?

        It is impossible to explain anything to these people with a frozen baggage of knowledge in the volume of the textbook “History of the USSR” for the 4th grade.
        For them, the strategic plan for waging Germany’s war, providing for the lightning defeat of France for the subsequent transfer of the severity of the attack to Russia, is an insignificant piece of paper .. But the wise actions of Russia, which provided itself with allies in the inevitable war, suffered the main blow of Germany to them, is a mistake. request
        They have their own, invented and comfortable world ...
        1. badens1111
          badens1111 17 October 2017 08: 00 New
          0
          Quote: Olgovich
          own, fictional and comfortable world.

          Do you have?
          Not tired of fantasizing?
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 17 October 2017 10: 39 New
            +4
            Quote: badens1111
            Do you have?

            I and other commentators write clearly and unequivocally, who we are talking about and to whom we are talking. Everything is clear to everyone.
            And only one poorly reading comrade all asks dozens of times the same thing: "Are you talking about yourself?" or: "With you?"
            We advise comrade: read it at least ten times, if it is not clear from once about whom. Should help!
            When we want to write about ourselves, we use personal pronouns of the first person "I" and "we" http://obrazovaka.ru/russkiy-yazyk/mestoimeniya-1
            -lica.
            Having learned this simple rule of grammar, the comrade will save himself and, most importantly, others, from this boring question. hi
      2. Laurus
        Laurus 17 October 2017 13: 28 New
        +1
        What would be a tragedy for Russia, if Austria had taken Serbia? What, having a completely legitimate reason for this? Is Serbia really so valuable that it costs millions of lives of citizens of the Republic of Ingushetia and the subsequent collapse of the country? Yes, Nicolas No. 2 didn’t have to be blamed in the basement, but put on a stake on Red Square for driving Russia into this absolutely unnecessary war.
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 17 October 2017 14: 19 New
          +3
          That is, the fact that Germany declared war on Russia - this fact is a helm nafig and live on? Oh well...
          1. Laurus
            Laurus 17 October 2017 16: 48 New
            +3
            This is not a fact, but only part of the fact. Germany declared war in response to the start of mobilization in Russia. And the fact is that Germany began mobilization later than Russia. And the fact is that it was precisely in Germany that diplomatically tried to prevent a war with Russia, and Russia, having risen in a proud pose, sent it to FIG. Well and sent.
            1. Trapperxnumx
              Trapperxnumx 17 October 2017 17: 21 New
              +1
              German Foreign Minister von Jagov - to the German Ambassador in London K.M. Likhnovsky, 15 July 1914
              Secretly. Berlin
              It is now a question of a highly political issue, perhaps the last opportunity to deliver a mortal blow to the Great Serb movement under relatively favorable conditions. If Austria misses this case, it will lose all prestige and become in our group an even weaker factor,
              We are vitally interested in keeping the Austrian ally in a global position. Your Grace knows what significance the position of England will have for us in the event of further possible results of the conflict.
              I'm ready
              (MO 1870 – 1918. S. 267.)

              German Ambassador to London K. M. Lychnovsky - German Foreign Minister von Jagow, 24 July 1914 London
              Sir Edward Gray called me to his place ... He stated that a state that would accept such demands would cease to be considered an independent country (Mark of William: “It would be highly desirable- This is not a state in the European sense, but a band of robbers!”) It is difficult for him, Gray, to give any advice in St. Petersburg at the moment ...
              If Austria enters Serbian territory, then, in his opinion, there will be a danger of European war. (Wilhelm’s mark: “It will undoubtedly be,”) It’s impossible to even imagine the consequences of such a war of four - he emphasized the word “four”, referring to Russia, Austria-Hungary, “Germany and France, (Wilhelm’s mark:“ He forgets Italy. ") Lichnovskt (MO 1870 – 1918. With 272.)

              Note verbale from the Austro-Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Russian ambassador in Vienna, Shebeko, dated 15 / 28 on July 1914.
              To put an end to the destructive intrigues emanating from Belgrade and directed against the territorial integrity of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, the imperial and royal government transmitted a note dated 10 / 23 on July 1914 to the Royal Serbian Government, which contained a number of requirements for the adoption of which the Royal Government was 48 hours granted. Since the Royal Serbian government did not respond to this note in a satisfactory manner, the imperial and royal government is forced to attend to the protection of their rights and interests and resort to the force of arms for this purpose.
              Having made Serbia a formal declaration in accordance with Article I of the Convention of October 5 / 18 of October 1907 regarding the opening of hostilities, Austria-Hungary has been considering itself from this time on in a state of war with Serbia ...
              The embassy is requested to favor the urgent notification of this notification to its government.
              (MOEI. S. 486.) Per, with Fr.

              British Ambassador to France, Sir F. Bertie, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of England, Sir E. Gray, 30 July 1914
              (Received 30 July) (Telegram) Paris
              The President of the Republic informed me that the Russian Government was informed by the German Government that if Russia did not stop mobilizing, Germany would do the same. But a further message received from St. Petersburg says that the German official message has been changed and now is a request on under what conditions Russia agrees to be demobilized. The subsequent answer states that she (Russia) agrees to demobilization, provided that Austria commits itself to preserve the sovereignty of Serbia and to submit for international consideration some of the demands of the Austrian note rejected by Serbia.
              The President thinks that these conditions will not be accepted by Austria. He is convinced that peace between the powers is in the hands of Great Britain: if the Government of His Majesty declares that England will come to the aid of France in the event of a conflict between France and Germany due to real disagreements between Avaria and Serbia, there will be no war, since Germany will immediately will change its position.

              I explained to him how difficult it is for the Government of His Majesty to make such a statement, but he still insists that this is necessary in the interests of peace, France, he said, is peaceable. She does not want war and so far has limited herself to preparations for mobilization so as not to be taken by surprise. The French Government will inform His Majesty's Government of everything that will be done in this direction.
              The French Government has reliable information that the German troops are concentrated around Thionville and Metz. If a general war broke out on the continent, England would inevitably be involved in it in order to preserve its own vital interests. A statement of her intention to support France, which sincerely wishes to maintain peace, will undoubtedly keep Germany from striving for war.
              (White paper. With 77- 78.)


              IMHO. I am convinced that in those conditions, Russia simply could not act differently and leave Serbia at the mercy of Austria-Hungary. Mobilization in Russia began after the declaration of the AB war of Serbia. Germany at that time, without announcing mobilization by agendas, began to call and collect reservists at assembly points.
              Imagine today if Russia did not support Syria? They can’t forgive Libya for Medvedev. And Serbia for Russia in the 1914 year was much closer than today Syria and Libya.
        2. Cartalon
          Cartalon 17 October 2017 20: 17 New
          +2
          That is, Nicholas had to abandon the status of a great power, achieve his reputation and lose any support in society, it’s wonderful of course only he couldn’t do this in principle, and no one else in his place either.
      3. horhe48
        horhe48 20 October 2017 13: 52 New
        +2
        And what kind of benefit did Russia derive from this war for itself, dear? Actually, drawing Russia into this war unnecessary to it is a multi-pass special operation of the British, French and Serb special services controlled by it. In order for war supporters to prevail , in 1911, the charismatic Russian Prime Minister Stolypin was destroyed. He was categorically against the war, talked about 20 peaceful years, after which "you do not recognize Russia." He could well have kept the weak-willed Nicholas II from a military adventure. And so Russia was dragged into the war for interests alien to her. Russian soldiers died for France and England. If Russia did not get involved in this massacre under the ridiculous pretext of protecting the "little brothers" who throughout their history, they only did that they betrayed and betray Russia, it was it, and not the United States, that would emerge victorious from this massacre. Weapons, ammunition, food, oil, etc. could be sold to both Germans and the Entente. And towards the end of the war, enter the war on the side of the designated winners on their own terms. And then Russia would become the number 2 country in the world. And so, millions of people killed, millions of people with disabilities, a destroyed economy, revolution, civil war, poverty, typhoid, etc., who threw the country away decades ago. Here is the price of royal stupidity and weakness. Before the war, only in Tsar the tsar had 1 thousand loyal guards. And he managed to lay all this guard, mainly in Galicia . In the 70th year of the king refused to defend even the convoy. insights: near Borodino, the marshals begged Napoleon-Syr, give us the guard and we will break through the positions of the Russians. He answered: maybe they will break through, maybe not. And stay here thousands of leagues from Paris with you, but without my guard, madness. he was saved and allowed the living to escape from Russia. Then she was the first to go over to him during the "restoration" and stood with him to the end. If the tsar could keep the backbone of the guard, then there would be no revolution at all. Neither February nor October.
  4. Cartalon
    Cartalon 16 October 2017 18: 22 New
    +8
    frivolous tone and false statements in the article, no one wanted the war except the Austrians who had nothing to lose, the rest were afraid to lose face, strengthen competitors and so on
  5. moskowit
    moskowit 16 October 2017 19: 28 New
    +5
    What does the average citizen in the post-Soviet space know about the First World War? Yes, actually nothing. In Soviet times, the history of the “imperialist war”, as they said then, was completely covered by the history of the Civil War.

    You write nonsense "average" authors .... The events of the First Imperialist War in the textbooks on the history of the USSR were presented in a decent volume ... And such works of art as "Quiet Flows the Don" by Sholokhov, or Sergeyev-Tsensky saga "Transformation of Russia" to you had to read? We can also name the works of Soviet literature and cinema on the theme of the First World War, which naturally ended for our Motherland with the Revolution and later the Civil War. It was. Everything is interconnected ... During World War II, half of the confrontations fought in the First in officer ranks by non-commissioned officers ... Almost all commanders of armies, corps and divisions had combat experience of the First World War and most of them served in the Imperial Army by no means ordinary. ...
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 17 October 2017 09: 41 New
      +4
      Quote: moskowit
      You write nonsense "average" authors .... The events of the First Imperialist War in the textbooks on the history of the USSR were presented in a decent volume.

      Authors write the TRUTH, unlike you. In the textbooks of the USSR (https://sheba.spb.ru/shkola/ist.htm) about PMV -4 (four) pages, half of which are pictures, and another half are the exposure of the “rotten” tsarist regime. Is this a decent amount for World War II?
      For comparison, purely a thief (the so-called oct. "Revolution") - 40 (forty) pages.
      ALL monuments to the heroes of the PMV are destroyed by adherents of the VOR.
      ALL cemeteries of the heroes of the Second World War are destroyed by them, plowed under gardens and construction sites.
      Quote: moskowit
      We have during the Great Patriotic Half confrontations the others fought in First in officer ranks by non-commissioned officers ... Almost all the commanders of armies, corps and divisions had combat experience of the First World War and most of them served in the Imperial Army by no means ordinary ....

      Yes, yes: in the German army almost all battalion commanders and even PMV company officers, not to mention headquarters, fronts, etc., etc. How much is this thousands?
      In the Red Army, out of 275 thousand corps of officers of the Republic of Ingushetia to the Second World War there are few ... hundred.
  6. igordok
    igordok 16 October 2017 19: 44 New
    +5
    It is the results of the First World War that gave rise to the Second.

    And I would even say - World War II is a continuation of the First MV, with a small truce.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 16 October 2017 20: 00 New
      +4
      Quote: igordok
      And I would even say - World War II is a continuation of the First MV, with a small truce.

      But the Germans do not distinguish between them at all.
  7. Curious
    Curious 16 October 2017 20: 09 New
    +5
    "In Soviet times, the history of the “imperialist war”, as they said then, was completely covered by the history of the Civil War.
    And little attention was paid to the reasons, reasons, and the course of the largest conflict of the beginning of the century. "

    With someone’s easy hand (obviously with an average knowledge of history) this idea went for a walk on all sorts of resources and articles of “average” historians.
    In fact, a study of the history of the First World War began almost immediately after the end of hostilities. Over the years, an extensive domestic scientific and educational literature has been created, the concepts of the history of the whole war and its most important problems have been established
    The Russian historiography of the First World War developed in the following main areas: military-historical, foreign policy, the history of the workers' and socialist movements, with emphasis on the collapse of the Second International, the history of the West during the war and a whole range of aspects related to the participation in Russia. Here really research was conducted mainly in the light of the maturation and victory of the October Revolution.
    By the way, the very first trend in Soviet historiography of the First World War was precisely military-historical.
    It was created mainly by the military themselves, participants in the war - and those who remained in their homeland, and those who ended up in exile. Everywhere there was an active search for documents and their publication was carried out, memories were published and the first research work. Numerous military-historical institutions and organizations were created that carried out a large search and research work. A military-historical commission functioned in the USSR, then a military-historical department of the General Staff of the Red Army. Military academies published many documents and studies, but mostly for official use. Various magazines, and not only military ones, printed a lot of materials about the war, but in 1939-1941. the Military History Journal was published. The rebirth of which took place in January 1959. It was in the 20s and early 30s that numerous facts about military operations in 1914-1918 were put into scientific circulation in open and closed military academic publications Memoirs of the military - war veterans, politicians and diplomats: A. P. Izvolsky, M. K. Lemke, P. N. Milyukov, A. A. Polivanova, M. V. Rodzianko, V. A. Sukhomlinova, V. V. Shulgin and others. The works of AI Denikin and other participants in the world and civil wars were known. Not often, but still from time to time memories of “ordinary” officers and soldiers were collected, and collections of soldier letters of a revealing character were published.
    By 1941, an extensive military-historical literature was published in the USSR on a variety of problems. It relied on a wealth of factual material, on the whole differed in depth of analysis and a high scientific level and represented an independent school of military history, which was not at all inferior, and in some cases surpassed foreign schools. Cadres of capable military historians have grown. Among them were A.E. Boltin, M.R. Galaktionov A.K. Kolenkovsky, I.T. Korsun, V.F. Novitsky, I.A. Talensky, A.A. Strings and many others.
    Yes, there were different periods in Soviet historiography of the First World War. But to say that it was not there is by no means impossible.
    Perhaps the time has come for some rethinking, supplementing and supplementing the established concepts and all literature on the history of the First World War on the basis of new documents. But this should be done professionally and without market opportunism.
    And not in such a patronizing - satirical manner as today's article.
  8. solzh
    solzh 16 October 2017 20: 19 New
    +4
    What does the average citizen in the post-Soviet space know about the First World War? Yes, actually nothing. In Soviet times, the history of the “imperialist war”, as they said then, was completely covered by the history of the Civil War.

    We know enough. I studied in the 80s and we knew perfectly well the reasons for the WWII and its results, and we also knew about the reasons for the beginning of WWII. The only thing we did not know well was about actions on the Caucasian front and about military operations in Africa.
  9. Lieutenant Teterin
    Lieutenant Teterin 17 October 2017 09: 52 New
    16
    The article is extremely controversial. Russia couldn’t “sit back” due to the fact that the Kaiser theorists of the war planned not only the defeat of France, but also the rejection of a number of Russian lands:
  10. Olgovich
    Olgovich 17 October 2017 09: 56 New
    +4
    Many thanks to the authors for the absolutely correctly raised topic about the forgotten feat of the Russian soldier who made the most significant contribution to the Victory and the defeat of the German-Turkish invaders.

    Remarkably said about the situation with this war President of Russia V.V. Putin:

    "It forgotten war. Forgotten, she understands why. Our country achieved a lot during the Soviet period of time, this is an obvious fact, but there are things that are also obvious. This war was called imperialist in Soviet times. ”

    “How the Second World War differs from the First, in fact, is unclear,” he continued. - There really is no difference. But I think that they were not hiding it because they called it imperialist, although it was primarily about the geopolitical interests of the countries involved in the conflict. Hidden it for completely different reasons. We hardly think about what happened. Our country has lost this war to the losing side. A unique situation in the history of mankind! We lost to the losing Germany. In fact, they capitulated to her, and after a while she capitulated to the Entente herself. And this is the result national betrayal of the then leadership of the country. It is obvious, they were afraid of this and did not want to talk about it, and kept silent about it, and carried this cross on themselves. ”
    But what a price this defeat was! What we lost after capitulating! Huge territories, huge interests of the country were given away, laid incomprehensibly for the sake of what interests, for the sake of the party interests of only one group that wanted to stabilize their position in power. But time has passed, now we need to return to this, because people who gave their lives for Russia's interests should not be forgotten ”


    I fully agree with the President.

    It is remarkable that the editorial board of VO raises this topic by printing a lot of materials on this topic, in particular, the materials of the historian Oleinikov and journalists Skomorokhov and A. Prokurat.

    Thanks to her! hi
  11. Laurus
    Laurus 17 October 2017 13: 31 New
    +2
    I read this phrase “What does the average citizen in the post-Soviet space know about the First World War? Yes, actually nothing”, interest has gone on reading. If the article is designed for ignoramuses, which authors in their transcendent conceit believe their fellow citizens who have received the best Soviet education in the world, then let the ignorant read them.
  12. alatanas
    alatanas 17 October 2017 17: 20 New
    +4
    for whose help Nicholas II’s grandfather, Alexander II, received the honorary nickname “The Liberator” (yes, and for the abolition of serfdom, but this is an internal matter, and in Serbia, following the results of the Russian-Turkish war of 1878, he was called that way

    Not in Serbia, but in Bulgaria. In Sofia there is a monument to the Tsar the Liberator:


  13. looker-on
    looker-on 19 October 2017 00: 17 New
    +1
    I really liked the article! Skomorokhov usually writes differently, but this one is very good. Easy feed and good squeeze. I would do an introductory history lesson in school with such a syllable. It's interesting to read and the main milestones are clear. And further, deeper.
  14. kipage
    kipage 25 November 2017 18: 24 New
    15
    Extremely weak article
    And not an article at all
    Reasoning, reasoning ...
    Figures, facts? wassat