How Russia lost a historic chance to take Constantinople and the Straits

67
140 years ago, 3 March 1878, a preliminary peace treaty between Russia and Turkey was signed in San Stefano. Russia won a convincing victory over the Ottoman Empire and put the winning point.

The treaty was of great importance for the liberation of the Balkan peoples from the Ottoman yoke. The day of the signing of the San Stefan Peace Treaty is a national holiday of Bulgaria, on which the day of the liberation and restoration of the Bulgarian state is celebrated.



On the road to peace

During the winter campaign 1877 — 1878. The Russian army inflicted a crushing defeat on the Balkan theater to the Turkish troops. Russian troops successfully overcame the Balkan Mountains, which were considered impregnable in the winter, defeated the enemy in a series of battles and moved to Constantinople. The port lost the opportunity to wage war and was in danger of losing the capital of Constantinople.

Even before the capture of Plevna in December 1877, Petersburg announced to Berlin and Vienna its project for the future world. It provided for: 1) the creation of the Bulgarian principality, within wide boundaries, vassal in relation to Porta; 2) autonomy of Bosnia and Herzegovina with their transfer under the protectorate of Austria; 3) the complete independence of Romania, Montenegro and Serbia; 4) the return to Russia of southwestern Bessarabia; 4) compensation of Romania at the expense of Dobrogee; 5) Kars, Batum, Ardagan and Bayazet joining Russia in the Caucasus; 6) payment by Turkey of the contribution. There was also some change in the regime of the straits. Russia received the right, if necessary, to conduct military ships through the straits, but only one at a time and with the permission of the Sultan.

The defeat of Turkey on the Balkan front seriously worried England. London has repeatedly set neighboring countries on Russia, including Turkey, in order to limit the growth of strategic, military and economic power of the Russian Empire. London sought to oust Russia from the Black Sea and the Baltic, not to allow it to strengthen its position in the Balkans and the Caucasus. The ideal for England was weak, having lost access to the seas and preferably divided into parts of Russia. It is clear that the decisive defeat of the Turkish Empire did not suit London. Russia could seriously strengthen its position in the Black Sea, on the Balkan Peninsula and the Caucasus, and penetrate further into the Near and Middle East, into the Mediterranean Sea. They were especially afraid in London that Petersburg would sweep the Black Sea Straits and Constantinople-Constantinople, deciding the thousand-year historical the task of Russian civilization. The same fears - the consolidation of the Russians in the Balkans and in the strait zone, was also expressed by Vienna. The Austrians feared that the Christian and Slavic peoples of the Balkans would fall under the care of Russia. This jeopardized the dominance of the Habsburgs over a large part of the Balkan Peninsula and the Slavic peoples within Austria-Hungary.

December 13 London 1877 expressed the hope that if the Russian troops would cross the Balkans, they would not occupy either Constantinople or Gallipoli. It is a peninsula in the European part of Turkey, between the Saros Gulf of the Aegean Sea and the Dardanelles. The British again warned Petersburg that even the temporary occupation of Constantinople would force England to take "precautionary measures." Petersburg responded by saying that the capture of Constantinople was not part of Russia's intentions and the Gallipolsky Peninsula would not be busy if neither the Turks nor the British would concentrate their troops there. Russia cannot, however, guarantee that the course of military operations will not force it to temporarily occupy Constantinople.

London during the Russo-Turkish war developed plans for the direction fleet for occupying the straits and landing troops in Gallipoli. Part of the British cabinet even advocated joining the war on the side of Turkey and the landing of British expeditionary forces in Batumi and Varna. This could direct the war according to the Crimean scenario. However, caution prevailed. England did not have a strong ground army to confront Russia in the Balkans and the Caucasus, not to mention the impossibility of its normal supply. But there was no “cannon fodder” - allies who would like to fight the Russians. London tried to provoke Vienna to oppose Russia. However, Austria also showed caution. Without strong allies, such as Germany and France, Russia had every opportunity to defeat the Austrian army in the Balkan Theater and provoke a split in the Habsburg empire, with the separation of Hungary and Slavic regions. In addition, Austria has not yet recovered from the defeat of 1866.

24 December 1877, the defeated Ottoman Empire appealed to the great powers to mediate in peace negotiations. Only London responded. The English government notified St. Petersburg about this. The Russian chancellor and foreign minister, Alexander Gorchakov, said that if Porta wants to end the war, then she should apply for a truce directly to the commander-in-chief of the Russian army. The endowment of the truce depended on the preliminary adoption of the provisions of the future peace agreement. At the same time, the Russian government reaffirmed its readiness to transfer to the discussion of an international conference those clauses of the treaty that affect "common European interests".

8 January 1878, the Port appealed to the Russian commander-in-chief, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, requesting an armistice. The offensive of the Russian army was developing successfully, so the Russian high command and the government did not hurry with the actual start of negotiations. In addition, Vienna expressed dissatisfaction with the conditions of peace conveyed to it, which agitated Tsar Alexander II and Gorchakov. On January 17, Alexander ordered the commander-in-chief not to present the Russian “foundations of the world” to the Turks at once, and request their own proposals regarding the conditions for the cessation of hostilities. “It is important for us to gain time,” Gorchakov noted, “in order to come to an agreement with Austria.”

On January 20, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich received the Turkish delegates at Kazanlak (where the Russian main apartment was located at that time) and asked what conditions of peace the Port offers. The Turks replied that they did not have instructions to this effect and were sent only to receive Russian conditions. Then the king’s brother, violating instructions, informed the Russian conditions of peace. The next day, the Turkish commissioners rejected most of the Russian demands. However, they were informed that these conditions are not subject to change, and so long as Turkey is not an example of them, there will be no truce. The Turks requested instructions from the Sultan. More than a week they have been waiting for a response. At this time, the Russian army continued its march on Tsargrad.

On January 22, the Russian commander-in-chief proposed that the tsar take Constantinople and Gallipoli in order to prevent the English fleet from entering the straits. However, he was forbidden to do it. It's obvious that it was a strategic mistake of Petersburg. It was necessary to take Constantinople and the flow zone in order to negotiate with defeated Turkey and the Western powers from this position. By controlling the straits, we ensured the protection of the Russian Black Sea region and the southern strategic direction, excluding the possibility of a repetition of the Crimean scenario. England could not threaten us, relying on the base in the straits. Germany would not oppose Russia. In addition, Berlin could be neutralized by promising him support in the final resolution of the French question, which Bismarck so desired. The weakened France, after the defeat of Prussia in 1870, could not fight with Russia. Austria, without the support of Germany, also would not have decided to go to war with Russia. England remained alone. Without strong allies, the British could only threaten.

However, St. Petersburg went on about the western "partners." The Russian army was allowed to enter Constantinople only with the permission of the Turks themselves or the requests of representatives of foreign powers. "In the case of the entry of foreign fleets," it was proposed "to enter into a friendly agreement with the commanders of squadrons regarding the establishment of order in the city by general forces." Even "in the case of a foreign landing force in Constantinople" it was prescribed to "avoid any collision with it, leaving our troops under the walls of the city."

Thus, despite the decisive victory of the Russian army and the possibility of dictating the Porte any conditions of peace, having solved Russia's age-old national tasks, St. Petersburg was frightened by his brilliant victory and took a hesitant position, which later allowed the West to take away from the Russian Empire most of the fruits of victory of the historical enemy. .

In England they were confused. Russians were on the verge of a historic victory. The British Cabinet continually discussed the situation. Queen Victoria wrote hysterical letters to the prime minister, saying that "if she were a man, she would immediately go and beat the Russians." The surrender of the army of Osman Pasha in Pleven, the fall of Shipka, the defeat of the armies of Suleiman and Mukhtar and the approach of the Russians to the capital, made a terrible alarm in Constantinople. Parliament demanded a change of government and an immediate end to the war with Russia. Sultan Abdul-Hamid II prepared to flee to Asia, the remnants of the army were demoralized, chaos everywhere. Turkish Sultan was afraid to ask England to send a fleet into the straits. Obviously, he was afraid that he would be trapped in his capital between the Russian troops and the British fleet.

London asked Vienna: Will Austria not announce mobilization? The Austro-Hungarian foreign minister, Andrássy, was ready to take that step. But at the request of the military command, which took a guarded stance, knowing the weakness of the army, gave a repeated refusal. January 23 British Cabinet decided to send a fleet into the straits. Parliament has been asked to 6 million pounds for military training. In protest against this decision, two ministers - the Lords of Derby and Carnarvon, resigned. But then a telegram arrived that the Turks accepted the conditions of the Russians. Then the Sultan asked either to refuse the direction of the fleet, or to publicly declare that the British fleet was directed against his will. The English Cabinet reversed its decision. Lord Derby (foreign minister) returned to his post and restrained the belligerent attitude of Prime Minister Disraeli (Earl of Beaconsfield).

31 January 1878 of the year in Adrianople, amid complete military defeat and inability to protect the capital, the Turks signed an armistice agreement. It included Porta’s consent to the preliminary peace terms offered to her.

Vienna demanded the transfer of the condition of the future world to the discussion of an international conference. The Austrians reported that the Russian conditions of peace violate, in their opinion, the former Reichstadt and Budapest agreements between Russia and Austria-Hungary. The Bulgarian principality was designed so extensive that a new large Slavic state arose in the Balkans. This changed the balance of power in the Balkans, which worried Vienna. Meanwhile, in the Reichstadt and Budapest, it was precisely this that was agreed not to allow. After some hesitation, London joined the request of Vienna to convene a conference. Petersburg did not dare to defend its position, going to conflict with Vienna and London. The tsarist government officially agreed to pass on to the discussion of the international congress the conditions of a future peace treaty.

Meanwhile, in London continued hysterics. Disraeli ordered Admiral Hornby to go to the Dardanelles. The Cabinet of Ministers adopted the relevant decision 8 February. In this case, the admiral was told that he must obtain permission from the Sultan to pass the ships. The fleet moved into the Dardanelles and, entering the strait, the ships anchored, waiting for the sultan's permission. Without waiting for permission, Admiral Hornby headed back to Bezik Bay. Abdul-Hamid was afraid to give permission for the passage of the British fleet to Constantinople, because of the fear that in response the Russian troops would occupy the city and it would become a place of collision between the two great powers.

Petersburg was also a mess. Learning about the movement of the British fleet to Constantinople, the king of February 10 decided to give permission to send Russian troops to Constantinople. Gorchakov and the Minister of War Milutin opposed such a decision. The emperor changed his mind: only the landing of the British troops was to be a signal for the seizure of the Turkish capital. Then Alexander II changed his mind again and was inclined to occupy Constantinople. It all ended with an unexpected decision: one order after another was passed to the commander-in-chief.

Meanwhile, the British fleet 12 February again received instructions to go to the Sea of ​​Marmara, even without the permission of the Sultan's government. The British fleet passed the Dardanelles and February 15 anchored off the Princes' Islands. The fleet passed the strait without the permission of the Sultan and violated the 1871 convention of the year. In response, the Russian army advanced to the western suburbs of Constantinople, the town of San Stefano. The British government threatened that the entry of Russian troops into Constantinople would lead to a rupture of diplomatic relations. Vienna also stated that the appearance of Russian troops in Constantinople would lead to a rupture.


Signing the San Stefan Treaty

Peaceful agreement

3 March 1878, the San Stefan World was signed. On the Russian side, the contract was signed by the former Russian ambassador to Constantinople, Count Nikolai Ignatiev, and the head of the diplomatic office of the commander-in-chief of the Russian army in the Balkans and the future ambassador A. I. Nelidov. With Turkish - Foreign Minister Savfet Pasha and Ambassador to Germany Saadullah Pasha.

At that time, in Russian diplomacy, the supporters of the conciliatory, cautious line — Gorchakov — were winning up; his closest employees in the Foreign Ministry — Girs, Jomini, one of the most influential ambassadors P. Shuvalov in London. However, the supporter was led by a supporter of the great-power Russian policy, the former ambassador to Turkey - N. Ignatiev. Therefore, the conditions of peace dictated by Turkey as a whole met the national interests of Russia.

The peace treaty significantly expanded the territory of Bulgaria. A new autonomous Slavic state (princedom) was created in the Balkans - Bulgaria, which included ethnic Bulgarian territories in Mesia, Thrace and Macedonia. Bulgaria stretched from the Danube to the Aegean Sea, from the Black Sea to the Ohrid Lake and had to be under Russian control for two years, after which to get full autonomy by paying Turkey a nominal tribute. The Turks lost the right to remain within Bulgaria.

The Treaty of San Stefano also recognized the independence of Serbia, Montenegro and Romania, and their territory increased. So, Montenegro was supposed to get the port on the Adriatic Sea, Romania - Northern Dobrudja. The Turks pledged to carry out reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the interests of the Christian population, as well as similar changes in Crete, Epirus, Thessaly and Western Armenia. Russia returned to the south-western part of Bessarabia, in the Caucasus, Turkey was inferior - Kars, Ardahan, Bayazet and Batum. Turkey pledged to pay 1,410 billion rubles. contributions, but most of the payments were covered at the expense of territorial concessions to Russia. The question of the straits in this agreement was not raised.

Thus, in general, the Treaty of San Stefano was in the interests of Russia and the Balkan peoples. However, Russia did not solve the problem of Constantinople and the straits in its favor. Petersburg did not dare to confront the West (mainly London and Vienna), although the options were, in particular, an agreement with Berlin and a military challenge. Turkey was already completely defeated and could not fight. Austria-Hungary has not yet recovered from 1866's defeat of the year. England alone would not fight with Russia.

Despite the fact that Russia did not occupy Constantinople and the straits, the Treaty of San Stefan did not suit England and Austria. London feared that Russia would take dominant positions in the Balkans and, by including Bulgaria in its sphere of influence, would receive a strategic foothold on the peninsula and access to the Mediterranean Sea. In addition, the new borders of Bulgaria came so close to Constantinople that the Turkish capital and the straits were under the constant threat of a strike by Russian troops from the Bulgarian springboard.

Vienna expressed similar concerns. In the Reichstadt and Budapest it was agreed that the creation of a large Slavic state in the Balkans would not be allowed. In its draft, the Constantinople Conference divided Bulgaria into two parts along the meridional direction: Western Bulgaria was to fall into the Austrian sphere of influence. Now Russia has abandoned these agreements and projects. Bulgaria was created as a single state and occupied a significant part of the peninsula. This did not suit Vienna: the Austrians did not want to part with the plans of their rule in the peninsula.
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    2 March 2018 06: 36
    From Samsonov's articles, I somehow began to get tired. No.
    1. +4
      2 March 2018 10: 21
      When reading Samsonov’s articles, you need to skip the paragraphs in bold, in which case it becomes much easier to read. :-)
      1. +3
        2 March 2018 11: 50
        Petersburg will sway at the Black Sea straits and Constantinople-Constantinople, deciding the thousand-year-old historical task of Russian civilization.

        and typical (like superethnos or Russo-Varangians etc)
  2. +6
    2 March 2018 06: 38
    The chance has been lost several times.
    1. +17
      2 March 2018 07: 33
      Yes, it was especially serious under Catherine the Great
      1. +2
        2 March 2018 13: 54
        Quote: XII legion
        Yes, it was especially serious under Catherine the Great

        Quote: Adjutant
        The chance has been lost several times.


        HOW MUCH HUNDREDS of hundreds of years this sneaky island England dirty Russia and set its sixes on us ...
    2. +5
      2 March 2018 10: 19
      Russia made one fundamental strategic mistake on the Balkans! She was not allowed to create a large Bulgarian state within the ethnic borders of the Bulgarian people. Such a state could be a weighty guarantor of Russian interests, in view of the fact that Bulgaria is located in the center of the Balkans. The Bulgarian people were themselves numerous Orthodox people at that time on the Balkans, which had great potential if they could unite into one state. It would be a powerful pro-Russian state! Not having time to defend the results of the San Stefano Peace Treaty, Russia went along the lines of creating a broad coalition of "pro-Russian" Balkan states - Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania at the expense of Bulgaria! To attract these 4 states to their policies, Russia went into conflict with the interests of the Bulgarian people! In the following periods, Russia invariably opposed the aspiration of the Bulgarians to unite the same lands inhabited by the Bulgarian population for almost 13 centuries! The Balkan wars, the WWII-WWII at the Balkan Air Force theaters, were fought precisely for the lands that, according to the San Stefan Treaty, were to be included in Bulgaria! Russia has adopted the tactics of transferring large territories from the Bulgarian non-settlement to the neighbors of Bulgaria as “compensation” for their pro-Russian political course! The Bulgarians, as if grateful, were not to their Liberator, they could not agree with this! Nobody would agree to their place! Moreover, in the territories inhabited by Bulgarians and handed over to neighbors, the persecution of the Bulgarians by the new occupants / Greeks, Serbs, Romanians / exceeded the Turkish! The Bulgarians there also lost those little freedoms that they had in the Ottoman Empire as a result of their centuries-old struggle for Freedom! This is the whole problem between Bulgaria and Russia's policies! Oh, no Bulgarian "betrayal" is out of the question! After all, the Bulgarians, in fact, tried to finish the liberation mission of Russia, begun, but not brought to an end in 1878! Russia would bet on the just aspirations of the Bulgarian people, The Straits would now be Russian! What do we have now? In the Russophile region of Europe itself, there is almost no Russia ... Moving away from the principles of Justice, Russia shocked the Bolkans! Unfortunately, this policy is being pursued by the Russian Federation now! If Russia ceases to put on contradictions between the Balkan peoples, it has every chance to return to this strategically important region! There are not many places in the world where Russia is perceived as positively as on the Balkans!
      1. +7
        2 March 2018 11: 47
        Quote: pytar
        Russia made one fundamental strategic mistake on the Balkans! She was not allowed to create a large Bulgarian state within the ethnic borders of the Bulgarian people.

        My dear Bulgarian friend! Let's look at your ideas in historical retrospective. Bulgaria in the first and second world wars fought against Russia. Now a member of NATO and has introduced anti-Russian sanctions. What is the conclusion? If Bulgaria got a large territory and occupation, Russia would be much more difficult. Prince Gorchakov was a wise politician and could look into the future. Agree.
        1. +5
          2 March 2018 12: 14
          Bulgaria in the first and second world wars fought against Russia. Now a member of NATO and has introduced anti-Russian sanctions. What is the conclusion? If Bulgaria got a large territory and occupation, Russia would be much more difficult. Prince Gorchakov was a wise politician and could look into the future.

          Dear, you confuse consequences with the cause! Everything you have recounted is the CONSEQUENCE of the unattained / not through her fault / goal in Russia in 1878! This is not about "getting more territory and population" for Bulgaria, but about the liberation of territories inhabited by 13 centuries with the predominant majority of the Bulgarian population returned back to other people's slavery according to the results of the Berlin agreement! The "treaty" is criminal, disastrous for the Bulgarian nation! 2 / 3 of the Bulgarian people after 500 years of slavery, were free only for 3 months! Can you imagine what was going on in the souls of these people? How normal would a person agree for his sibling to stay slave under someone else's occupation? Ask yourself: Russia to replace the Bulgarians, would you agree?
          You quote Prince Gorchakov, but remember the position of Count Ignatiev! He argued with conviction about the creation of a powerful, strong Bulgarian state, which should dominate the Balkans and be a conductor of Russian politics! This is possible only if there is a coincidence of the vital interests of the Bulgarian people and the interests of Russia! How can they coincide if Russia is an ally of our worst enemies ???
          Moreover, you make factual errors in your judgment! In WWII, Bulgaria and the USSR did not fight among themselves until 05.1944 and supported the norms. diplomatic relations! After this date, Bulgaria enters WWII on the side of the USSR and sends a half-million army against the Wehrmacht! Be correct and do not slip on the stamps primitive propaganda!
          There would be Bulgaria, in its natural ethnic borders, Russia would have the most faithful ally, with a very combat-ready army! The army, which in battle did not lose a single battle banner! Come see the Bulgarian museums! There are full of captive banners taken from the army of our enemies! In 1912, the Bulgarian army swept away the Ottoman hordes reached 37 km. from Constantinople! We took it without any doubt, if there was no betrayal of our "allies"! Bulgaria was ready to give Russia Constantinople! We did not need him!
          1. 0
            2 March 2018 13: 29
            Bulgaria could and would have been within its ethnic borders if it had not started the 2 Balkan War, contrary to the opinion of Russia, and had not entered the 1MB against the Entente (i.e. against Russia). They spoiled themselves, and Russia, which in 1878 did not fight with half of Europe, was to blame.
            1. +1
              2 March 2018 13: 58
              Bulgaria could and would have been within its ethnic borders if it had not started the 2 Balkan War, contrary to the opinion of Russia, and had not entered the 1MB against the Entente (i.e. against Russia). They spoiled themselves, and Russia, which in 1878 did not fight with half of Europe, was to blame.

              Nobody reproaches Russia for what happened at the Berlin Congress! Of course, Russia could not start a war against the entire Western world! It's about something else! That Russia subsequently took an anti-Bulgarian position! So the Russians failed to take Constantinople from the Straits!
              Bulgaria would not start the 2-th Balkan war if Serbia and Greece, in violation of the union agreement, would not occupy Macedonia! Russia was an arbiter, but it did not cope with this task!
              In 1MV Russia, France, Britain did not have time to force the Serbs, because of which the whole meat grinder began, to retreat to the just demands of Bulgaria! The stubbornness and short-sighted position of Serbia outraged Nicholas II himself! Just 7 years after the liberation of Bulgaria in 18815, Serbia attacked us from the west while the young Bulgarian army stood on the southern border in anticipation of the Turkish invasion! In the 1-Balkan war, 2 / 3 of the Ottoman forces fought against the Bulgarians! And in the rear, Serbs and Greeks agreed and slowly occupied Macedonia! In a short period from 1913 to 1914, in Macedonia 2 uprisings of the Bulgarian population broke out against new occupants! Serbian authorities suppressed these upturns in the blood! After this, how do you imagine for Bulgaria to become an ally of Serbia? If you were in our place, now you would not say all kinds of nonsense!
              One such simple fact does not bother you: As a result of 1-MV, Serbia and Romania tripled their territories, and the Russian Empire, having lost millions of lives, ceased to exist and entered into a terrible civil war! Russia and Bulgaria were defeated! Was Russia on the wrong side in 1-MV?
              1. +2
                2 March 2018 14: 26
                Russia did not take an "anti-Bulgarian" position, but did not take a "pro-Bulgarian" position, trying to be equidistant and not incite contradictions. Those. how to listen to Russia's advice so "yourself with a mustache", and how the situation is not in your favor so "Russia has failed in the role of arbiter." But what about Bulgaria starting the 2nd Balkan war without waiting for Russian arbitration?

                Quote: pytar
                In WW1, Russia, France, and Britain did not manage to force the Serbs, because of which the whole meat grinder began, to retreat before the just demands of Bulgaria!


                Did not have time before the idiotic entry of Bulgaria into the war? And who made Bulgaria rush? There was a chance to force the Serbs to give at least part of Macedonia until Bulgaria itself destroyed it. And in any case, having entered the war on the side of the Entente in 1915, Bulgaria would not only not lose access to the sea, but would also return the territories occupied by Turkey. Here truly "spite my mother frostbite ears." As a result, they themselves lost and framed Russia
                1. +2
                  2 March 2018 15: 21
                  Russia did not take an "anti-Bulgarian" position, but did not take a "pro-Bulgarian" position, trying to be equidistant and not incite contradictions ...

                  Russia has taken an unprincipled position! What kind of dispute could be discussed if, even under the San Stefan Treaty, signed by Russia itself, the territory of ALL MACEDONIA was recognized as Bulgarian! This territorial girth is based on PLEBISCITA carried out among the Christian population of the empire in 1870 by the Sultan Abdul Azis during the establishment of the Bulgarian Orthodox Exarchy! Only 6 years before the start of the War of Independence!
                  But what did Bulgaria start the 2 Balkan War without waiting for Russian arbitration?

                  Do you really know what arbitration should have been? About belonging to Northern Macedonia! Serbia also occupied southern, which, by union agreement, undoubtedly had to go to Bulgaria! These zones were called in the agreement, whose guarantor was Russia - Indisputable and Controversial! No exhortations could force the Serbs to abide by the treaties!
                  Have you heard about 8 member from the agreement between Russia and Bulgaria, signed in 1908? Russia pledges to prevent Romanian attacks on Bulgaria! Who decided the outcome of 2-Bolk. war? Romania ... attacked from the north! 450 thousand. the army which didn’t take part in the war before ... They crossed the Danube and how they reached Sofia in a parade! No Bulgarian troops were there! Bulgarians naively relied on contracts with Russia! And Nicholas II even awarded the Romanian king Carol! By the way, before that moment, there have never been wars between Bulgaria and Romania in history! So Russia received “thanks” from the Romanians in view of the occupation of Moldova and Bessarabia at the end of the 1-MV, and you already know about the 2-MV.
                  Did not have time before the idiotic entry of Bulgaria into the war? And who made Bulgaria rush? There was a chance to force the Serbs to give at least part of Macedonia until Bulgaria itself destroyed it. And in any case, having entered the war on the side of the Entente in 1915, Bulgaria would not only not lose access to the sea, but would also return the territories occupied by Turkey.

                  1-MB begins on 28.07.1914. Bulgaria declares war on Serbia on 14.10.1915. More than a year passed until it became clear that the Serbs would not release Macedonia voluntarily. As an illustration of how Bulgarians perceived their fair cause as fair, to say the fact that with a population of approx. 5 million, 950 thousand passed through the fronts. Bulgarian men! The highest mobilization factor for this war. They did not wait for the agenda for mobilization. A quarter of them are Bulgarians from Macedonia.
                  At the suggestion of Russia to “compensate” the Bulgarians for Macedonia from Turkish eastern Thrace, the Bulgarians refused, since at that time the Bulgarian population was no longer in this small region. At the same time, in Macedonia, the majority of the population was Bulgarian, and, together with the refugees, almost a million people. The situation was the same with the "Aegean" Thrace and the "Aegean" Macedonia. We did not want to conquer lands on which there was no Bulgarian population! We wanted to free our sonarodniki!
                  If you are a normal person, you will understand that you will not go to drive the Turks from their homes in East Thrace, but you will go to free your sonarods from occupation in Macedonia and E. Thrace. Fine?
                  Here truly "spite my mother frostbite ears." As a result, they themselves lost and framed Russia

                  Extremely inadequate judgment. "Little Bulgaria framed Great Russia, so much so that Russia lost the war ..." fool Well, exchanging Bulgaria, you have acquired much more "allies" in mind Serbia, Greece, Romania and Cerna Gora. Exchanged 5 million for 20 million! Che is wrong with your thoughts ... wink
                  1. 0
                    2 March 2018 15: 58
                    Quote: pytar
                    Have you heard about Part 8 from the agreement between Russia and Bulgaria, signed in 1908?


                    I have not heard. What kind of contract?

                    Quote: pytar
                    If you are a normal person, you will understand that you will not go to drive the Turks from their homes in East Thrace, but you will go to free your sonarods from occupation in Macedonia and E. Thrace. Fine?


                    Well, if it’s normal, they didn’t want to help the Entente (including Russia) in the fight against Turkey, then do not complain that Bulgaria’s interests were poorly defended. Liberated Macedonia? What, then, is the sense of Russia in Bulgaria, if Bulgaria has been harassing Austria and the whole point of its policy is to take away Macedonia, and fight with Turkey "it will not go to drive the Turks from their homes in East Thrace." Serbia at least a part of the Austrian forces distracted itself, but what good is from Bulgaria?

                    Quote: pytar
                    Well, exchanging Bulgaria, you have acquired much more "allies" in mind Serbia, Greece, Romania and Cerna Gora.


                    Those. is that Bulgaria started the war in 1913, without waiting for the mediation of Russia, and Russia did not fit into this war on the side of Bulgaria the fault of Russia? Great logic. Russia did not change Bulgaria for anyone; it was Bulgaria that changed Russia to Austria and Germany. Even after entering the war, Bulgaria was persuaded to change their minds and conclude a separate peace, but wanting to get everything, Bulgaria lost what it had.
                    1. +2
                      2 March 2018 16: 56
                      I have not heard. What kind of contract?

                      I quote from memory, as I find time, I will give an explanation. By mistake quoted quot. 8.
                      Well, if it’s normal, they didn’t want to help the Entente (including Russia) ...

                      And let's look on the other side - the Entente wanted to help the Bulgarians, free their lands? She had wishes, but she couldn’t!
                      ..do not complain that Bulgaria’s interests were poorly defended

                      The article under which we write, essentially complains that Russia failed to take the Straits. Seen poorly defended their interests ...
                      Liberated Macedonia?

                      Then failed. But that time will come. For the people who have survived 13 centuries with the most difficult trials, time is of relative importance. With peace and goodness, you will achieve more. The truth is on our side, that is our strength.
                      What, then, is the sense of Russia in Bulgaria, if Bulgaria leads tricks with Austria and the whole point of its policy is to take away Macedonia, and “will not fight with Turkey ...”. Serbia at least a part of the Austrian forces distracted itself, but what good is from Bulgaria?

                      Who just didn’t "drive tricks" on the threshold of 1-mv !? Do not take away, but free Macedonia! The difference in these concepts is fundamental! Bulgaria has put one single condition on its accession to the Entente - Macedonia! In the contract quoted to me / the same member 8 / "Tsarigrad abandonment of the object (celta) for the Ruschat rally, for befell in Koito, both, the Bulgarian army and our participation, at the same time remove the troops from the sea along the sea there." Tsarigrad was to take from the unified Bulgarian land and Russian army from the sea! Think about who the Straits would be if an almost million-strong Bulgarian army would fall on the Turks along with the Russian expeditionary copus!
                      Those. is that Bulgaria started the war in 1913, without waiting for the mediation of Russia, and Russia did not fit into this war on the side of Bulgaria the fault of Russia? Great logic.

                      One-sided "logic" you have. You have absolutely no ability to see things from the other side. The war in 1913 occurred due to the fact that Russia did not fulfill its obligations. Could or did not wish, not so important.
                      Russia did not change Bulgaria for anyone; it was Bulgaria that changed Russia to Austria and Germany.

                      If before and even during the 1MB, Russia directly or indirectly recognized Bulgaria’s rights to Macedonia, why did it become a support for the occupiers / Greece, Serbia / the same Macedonia? Bulgarian goals and rights have not changed! Russia's attitude towards the problem has changed!
                      Even after entering the war, Bulgaria was persuaded to change their minds and conclude a separate peace, but wanting to get everything, Bulgaria lost what it had.

                      What a separate world, bro?!?! My descent from Macedonia! After 1-BV, half of my family escaped from Serbian and Greek atrocities, and half remained in unbearable conditions there. Could my grandfather leave his brother under foreign oppression and not return to free him? Would you leave yours? Here the question is not about expediency, but about much more valuable things!
          2. +4
            2 March 2018 14: 42
            Quote: pytar
            Dear, you confuse consequences with the cause!

            Рytar, when I wrote “My dear Bulgarian friend!”, I wrote sincerely. I am also sincerely convinced that the large territory of Bulgaria would not have made it a greater ally of Russia.
            Want a story? 3 March 2004 year, the headquarters of the combined armed forces of NATO in Europe. The head of the Bulgarian representative office at the headquarters organizes a reception in honor of the Independence Day of Bulgaria. This was on the eve of Bulgaria’s entry into NATO, and the number of representatives was significant. I was also invited. Your leader and your spouse are standing at the entrance, guests take turns approaching, congratulating and passing into the hall. I congratulated you on Independence Day and the anniversary of the San Stefano Peace Treaty. It turned out that I was the only one of those invited who knew the history of independence of Bulgaria (representatives of the order of 40 countries were invited). Your manager spat, told his deputy to deal with the guests. And he and several senior mission officers sat at a separate table and started talking about the history of Russian-Bulgarian relations under brandy. Very sincerely happened.
            Happy holiday to you, Pytar!
            1. +4
              2 March 2018 15: 43
              Рytar, when I wrote “My dear Bulgarian friend!”, I wrote sincerely. I am also sincerely convinced that the large territory of Bulgaria would not have made it a greater ally of Russia.

              Thank you Armeec! Brother, does not cease to be a brother if he is wrong! I think Russian Brothers! With all due respect to you, I say - you are wrong! We really can’t guess what would happen! But we know what we have now! Russia, now almost gone to the Balkans! According to the results, we can draw conclusions for our right or wrong in the past!
              3 March 2004 year, the headquarters of the combined armed forces of NATO in Europe. The head of the Bulgarian representative office at the headquarters organizes a reception in honor of the Independence Day of Bulgaria. This was on the eve of Bulgaria’s entry into NATO ..

              It was a period when all sorts of Bulgarian-speaking "non-Bulgarians" settled in Bulgaria ... You know, in Russia itself there were many such non-Russian muttering Russians!
              Moreover, at that time, the Russian Federation and NATO were very active friends. But you need to watch the video, not from the NATO headquarters on 3 March, but from Shipka! There you will see the collected tens of thousands of real Bulgarians, as the Russians welcome! Tomorrow are the bright Bulgarian holiday of all! ДThe liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottoman yoke! This is our great day with you! It costs a million times more than all the little things that scatter us. This week the weather turned out to be snowy. Frost and snowstorm. Shipka peak is hard to reach and I don’t know if it will be possible to get to it in such weather. But in all of Bulgaria there will be celebrations! At more than 400 monument, people will go to put flowers and wreaths! The Patriarch of All Russia has already come to Sofia! President Putin will come after the election. Probably in the middle of summer.
              Eternal Glory to the Russian Wars that fell for the freedom of my Motherland! Bow before their feat! Happy friends! love
          3. 0
            2 March 2018 17: 13
            Quote: pytar
            Bulgaria was ready to give Russia Constantinople! We did not need him!

            Did Constantinople ever belong to Bulgaria? How were you ready to give it to Russia?


            Quote: pytar
            2/3 of the Bulgarian people after 500 years of slavery, were free for only 3 months! Can you imagine what was going on in the souls of these people? What normal person would agree that his sibling remain a slave to someone else's occupation? Ask yourself: Russia to replace the Bulgarians, would you agree?

            The conclusion is simple, Russia needed to return all of Bulgaria back to Turkey. Why do we need such allies who DO NOT BE ABLE TO BE Grateful for their independence. I understand that if you yourself were free, and Russia betrayed you. So there is no war for your independence, you created a state and Russia is to blame anyway. You are not England and the West to blame under the pressure of which RI was forced to make concessions, namely Russia, which shed blood for your freedom.
            Quote: pytar
            Dear, you confuse consequences with the cause!

            You confuse it.
            1. RI won you independence.
            2. Bulgaria was offended that the Republic of Ingushetia was unable to defend the San Stefano peace at the congress and began to pursue a policy that was contrary to the interests of the Republic of Ingushetia.
            3. Only after this RI refused to patronize Bulgaria.
            1. +2
              2 March 2018 18: 16
              Did Constantinople ever belong to Bulgaria? How were you ready to give it to Russia?

              In 1913, the Bulgarian army was at 37 km. from Constantinople. They were preparing to storm the last fortification line of Chataldzha, and the city itself was behind it ... The Bulgarian command intended to take it and thus secure itself from the side of Turkey, removing it altogether from the Balkans. Since the city had never before belonged to Bulgaria, they offered to transfer it to Russia or Greece if Russia refused. As you can see, Bulgaria was not going to take away for itself what it did not belong to before. Russia could get straits on the Bulgarian shtiks, without any special efforts on its side!
              In 1BM, the situation was similar! Russia at 2 times missed the best opportunities to seize the Prolivov! The price that the Bulgarians demanded was ... Macedonia. The land on which 13 centuries lived and lives my people.
              The conclusion is simple, Russia needed to return all of Bulgaria back to Turkey. Why do we need such allies who DO NOT BE ABLE TO BE Grateful for their independence.

              Conclusion I’ll say frankly crazy you did! The present, the correct conclusion is different:
              Russia had to follow steadily the strategy that was laid down in 1878. In alliance with Bulgaria, in support of its just goals! After all, the Bulgarian goals, in essence, absolutely repeat the goals of Russia itself, in the name of which it launched the Liberation War in 1877! Therefore, following justice, the entire Balkan Peninsula would now be different! The world is so arranged that great forces influence small states. In Bulgaria, there are few who reproach Russia. According to all opinion polls, most of the Bulgarians remain pro-Russian.
              Just a few words, otherwise I wrote a lot of things. The author of the article will be jealous! winked I apologize!
              1. RI won you independence.

              Indisputable fact Fact. And if they gave us independence, then we have the right to defend our vital interests!
              2. Bulgaria was offended that the Republic of Ingushetia was unable to defend the San Stefano peace at the congress and began to pursue a policy that was contrary to the interests of the Republic of Ingushetia.

              Nothing like this. Everyone in Bulgaria understood and understands that Russia could not do more, in view of the then international situation. Subsequently, Russia changed its position and its interests came into conflict with the Bulgarian. Serbia, Greece, Romania skillfully adapted to the situation. As a result, they grew territorially at times including and due to significant Bulgarian territories. The Bulgarians naively believed that if the truth was on their side, they could achieve victory! Time will tell who was right. In Macedonia, a process is already underway for the restoration of Bulgarian ethnic identity. We will not destroy the Bulgarian Spirit!
              3. Only after this RI refused to patronize Bulgaria.

              Russia demanded that Bulgaria unconditional submission and renunciation of some vital Bulgarian interests. For the Bulgarians, as well as for all other peoples, there is a border of compromise that cannot be crossed.
              1. 0
                2 March 2018 19: 45
                Quote: pytar
                As you can see, Bulgaria was not going to take away for itself what it did not belong to before. Russia could get straits on the Bulgarian shtiks, without any special efforts on its side!

                And after that get a war with Britain and Germany? No, thank you, we don’t need such a gift. RI and without any Bulgaria could capture the straits only then all of Europe would be against us.
                Well, and most importantly, no one would ever have allowed you to do this, the British Navy would have sailed and you would have run only with your heels sparkling. Therefore, you could not transmit anything to us, because you did not have anything.


                Quote: pytar
                In 1ВМ the situation was similar! Russia 2 times missed the best opportunities to seize the Prolivov! The price that the Bulgarians demanded was ... Macedonia. The land on which my people lived and lives for 13 centuries.

                This is called an excuse for betraying your brothers in blood and faith, which almost 100.000 people have laid for you. For Macedonia, you betrayed everyone, and then you sold yourself to Hitler. So what did Macedonia get? Although they could get it, for example, through a plebescite after the victory in WWI, and Serbia, for example, received part of Albania instead of Macedonia.
                Quote: pytar
                Russia had to follow steadily the strategy that was laid down in 1878. In alliance with Bulgaria, in support of its just goals! After all, the Bulgarian goals, in essence, absolutely repeat the goals of Russia itself, in the name of which it launched the Liberation War in 1877!

                That is, Russia had to submit to Bulgarian politics, right?) Did you happen to follow in the footsteps of Ukrainians? You are nobody and your place in the gallery, and Russia was engaged in geopolitics and took all the costs. I am convinced once again that nationalists of different stripes do not know how to think ahead.
                Quote: pytar
                The world is so arranged that great forces influence small states. In Bulgaria, there are few who reproach Russia. According to all opinion polls, the majority of Bulgarians remain pro-Russian.

                The world is so arranged that some brothers betray you (Bulgarians), while others stand to the last (Serbs, Montenegrins). When will the pro-Russian comrades leave NATO?

                Quote: pytar
                Indisputable fact Fact. And if they gave us independence, then we have the right to defend our vital interests!

                You have, of course, but is it necessary to betray those who set you free?
                Quote: pytar
                Everyone in Bulgaria understood and understands that Russia could not do more, in view of the then international situation.

                You just wrote that you were offended by the Republic of Ingushetia, that it divided Bulgaria into two parts. Forgot?
                Quote: pytar
                Subsequently, Russia changed its position and its interests came into conflict with the Bulgarian. Serbia, Greece, Romania skillfully adapted to the situation.

                This is a lie. Reforms were underway in Russia and she asked only one. SAVE THE STATUS-QUO for at least 30-40 years. You, like crazy ones, wanted to join the second part of Bulgaria, which was de facto independent. Russia was afraid of a big war, and instead of supporting your ally, you sent him three letters. In fact, we betrayed our brothers because of our small-town ambitions, and only after that we began to support Serbia. When a brother betrays it is much more painful than a neighbor betrays Kong.
                Quote: pytar
                In Macedonia, a process is already underway for the restoration of Bulgarian ethnic identity. We will not destroy the Bulgarian Spirit!

                Macedonia will never become Bulgarian; the West will not allow it. Moreover, most of the population already consider themselves a separate people.
                Quote: pytar
                Russia demanded that Bulgaria unconditional submission and renunciation of some vital Bulgarian interests. For the Bulgarians, as well as for all other peoples, there is a border of compromise that cannot be crossed.

                Russia requested only one. DO NOT BEGIN the reorganization of borders until the situation and Russia are prepared for this. You did not care and you got from friends on the borders of the enemies, and then you became allies of the Turks who considered you to be animals.
                1. +2
                  2 March 2018 20: 59
                  Something from the parallel universe is written! fool "your truth is the most truthful." lol that's why you are not here. negative
                  1. 0
                    2 March 2018 22: 04
                    History has put everything in its place. Beggar Bulgaria from where the people fell.
                    1. +2
                      2 March 2018 23: 29
                      Not only about the past, but also about the present I draw "information" from the same parallel universe ... bully
                    2. +2
                      2 March 2018 23: 31
                      Just think in the Russian Federation is adding people. No need to joke when your situation is also not so hot.
                      1. 0
                        4 March 2018 03: 35
                        Quote: Mac Simka
                        Just think in the Russian Federation is adding people. No need to joke when your situation is also not so hot.

                        If, instead of their pride, the interests of the Republic of Ingushetia would have been protected, now both our peoples would be rich, well-fed and would not suffer demographic losses.
      2. BAI
        0
        2 March 2018 22: 47
        She was not allowed to create a large Bulgarian state within the ethnic borders of the Bulgarian people.

        Why should Russia create a large state of traitors when the small one has always opposed Russia in all wars?
        1. +2
          2 March 2018 23: 32
          In fact, history says that ALWAYS Russia was the first to speak - both in 1885 and in 1915 and in 1944. Maybe enough to distort the truth?
          1. 0
            3 March 2018 10: 24
            Russia FIRST performed in 1915 ???? Are you out of your mind?
            1. 0
              4 March 2018 23: 08
              Of course, dear Gopnik,
              I answered the question:
              Why should Russia create a large state of traitors when the small one has always opposed Russia in all wars?


              You can google when Bulgaria and Russia fought and who declared war / was the first to speak, etc.
      3. 0
        3 March 2018 21: 33
        "They don’t look at a gifted horse" (Russian proverb)
        "Eh ... if yes, if only mushrooms had grown in your mouth, there would have been no company in the whole garden" (Russian proverb)
  3. +2
    2 March 2018 07: 13
    One of the most painful defeats of Russia on the diplomatic front. The real benefit is only in the revival of the Black Sea Fleet. We have received haemorrhoids in the Balkans, which continues to this day. As an example, the betrayal of the "little brothers" and the destruction of Yugoslavia with consequences (Kosovo)!
    1. +4
      2 March 2018 08: 38
      Quote: andrewkor
      As an example, the betrayal of the "little brothers" and the destruction of Yugoslavia

      Well, this is on the conscience of our leadership, it was not necessary to betray either the "brothers" or the Yugoslavs. The Communists lost everything that the Russian tsars and Russia and allies gathered.
      1. +1
        2 March 2018 09: 53
        I do not defend the Communists, but in 1878 they ruled completely different and could not create the Balkan province for the evil of the whole of Europe. If the Russian soldier would have figured out Europe as well, not for the first time!
  4. +3
    2 March 2018 07: 18
    it was a strategic mistake of Petersburg. It was necessary to occupy Constantinople and the strait zone in order to negotiate from this position with the defeated Turkey and the Western powers
    This meant a war with England and Austria-Hungary, which was one of the key players in the Balkans and the strengthening of Russia was absolutely unacceptable to her.
    Germany would not oppose Russia. In addition, Berlin could be neutralized, promising him support in the final solution of the French question
    The French question was resolved 7 years ago and Russia did not have any leverage on Germany.

    Politics is the art of the possible ....
    1. +3
      2 March 2018 11: 28
      Quotes and answers were removed from the language, Olgovich!
      Prince Alexander Gorchakov is the greatest diplomat and statesman of Russia (not counting citizen Samsonov, of course).
      After the Crimean War, a little more than 20 years passed. Reforms (including military ones), initiated as a result of it, have not been completed. There are no allies in Europe. But, according to the conviction of citizen Samsonov, they could and should take the straits and Constantinople (and then keep them?).
      By the way, all this is described in detail in novels from the category of alternative history. Maybe publish these novels in VO?
      1. +2
        2 March 2018 17: 27
        Quote: Army 2
        Prince Alexander Gorchakov - the greatest diplomat and statesman of Russia

        In youth, probably yes, but it is a very controversial issue. You can’t recall what Gorchakov advised the emperor when our sailors arbitrarily annexed Sakhalin and the mouth of the Amur?
        Quote: Army 2
        After the Crimean War, a little more than 20 years passed. Reforms (including military ones), initiated as a result of it, have not been completed. There are no allies in Europe. But, according to the conviction of citizen Samsonov, they could and should take the straits and Constantinople (and then keep them?)

        Actually, this is not Samsonov proposing, but many historians think so. It was necessary to take the straits to block the straits until a peace treaty was signed no more, in other words, that the British fleet could not get into the Black Sea. From a position of strength, it is always easier to make peace than from a position of weakness.
        Quote: Army 2
        By the way, all this is described in detail in novels from the category of alternative history. Maybe publish these novels in VO?

        That is, you are against alternative opinions and assume that the historical process cannot be discussed?
        Well, for example, the USSR fell apart and everyone who discusses why and whether it was possible to save it could be sent to the category of alternativeists?
    2. +1
      2 March 2018 12: 58
      Olgovich, it’s hard for you to object: everything is laid out on the shelves. But Samsonov, as a historian, should know that Gorchakov is one of the best Russian diplomats and A. A. Gromyko used him as a role model
      1. +1
        2 March 2018 17: 30
        Why did he offer the emperor to abandon the mouth of the Amur?
    3. BAI
      0
      2 March 2018 22: 50
      Politics is the art of the possible ....

      I can not agree. As the Bolsheviks demonstrated at the conclusion of the Brest Peace in 1918.
      1. 0
        3 March 2018 09: 34
        Quote: BAI
        As the Bolsheviks demonstrated at the conclusion of the Brest Peace in 1918.

        They were NOT going to fight and AT opportunity to fight
  5. BAI
    +1
    2 March 2018 11: 09
    it was a strategic mistake of Petersburg. It was necessary to take Constantinople and the flow zone in order to negotiate with defeated Turkey and the Western powers from this position.

    This is not a mistake, but an absolutely correct decision. Otherwise, the West would again unite with Turkey, and would receive another siege of Sevastopol.
    And in any situation in 1917, the straits would have been completely lost, so that everything turned out well.
    1. 0
      2 March 2018 13: 06
      How to say: by that time, the RIA could occupy the straits, but V.I. Lenin would have withdrawn the troops by the first decision.
      In Shirokorad’s book: "" The Miracle Weapon of the Russian Empire "tells in detail what were the plans for occupying the straits
    2. +1
      2 March 2018 17: 33
      Quote: BAI
      This is not a mistake, but an absolutely correct decision. Otherwise, the West would again unite with Turkey, and would receive another siege of Sevastopol.

      And how would they be able to carry out a siege of Sevastopol if the straits are closed?
      If they could not cajole Germany and AB it was always possible to give the back and leave Konstatinopol.
      Quote: BAI
      And in any situation in 1917, the straits would have been completely lost, so that everything turned out well.

      Can you explain your idea? Who lost what in 17?
      1. BAI
        0
        2 March 2018 23: 12
        And how would they be able to carry out a siege of Sevastopol if the straits are closed?

        And you yourself think, could Russia keep the straits against the combined army of Europe and Turkey? Alaska was surrendered with a much lower threat.
        Can you explain your idea? Who lost what in 17?

        I can. Not lost, but would lose. Agree, there is a difference. Only a strong state can solve territorial issues in its favor (USSR 1939, RF Crimea 2014). The RSFSR in 1918 was a weak state, then it could only lose territories. The straits would be overcome without options.
        How is the Japanese admiral declared? "The war is reviewing the outcome of any treaties."
        1. +1
          2 March 2018 23: 22
          Quote: BAI
          USSR 1939

          Quote: BAI
          can only a strong state

          The USSR in 1939 was not a strong state. Which was proved in 1941.
          To legitimize the pre-war territorial acquisitions, he had to sacrifice a hefty piece of the occupation zone in Germany and Europe as a whole later, in 1945. Actually, the fourth, as it were, main winner, France arose. So that no one would have unnecessary questions, such as: "Why did the USSR get so little?"
          Therefore, the pre-war territorial acquisitions of the USSR, they cost a lot of blood. And only on these conditions were legitimized.
        2. +1
          3 March 2018 12: 39
          Quote: BAI
          And you yourself think, could Russia keep the straits against the combined army of Europe and Turkey? Alaska surrendered with much less threat

          Why keep them under such conditions? If it had not been possible to politically prevent the creation of a coalition against the Republic of Ingushetia, it was always possible to "meet" towards and withdraw the army from Constantinople. It makes no sense to fight against a united Europe. Only here to prove that Europe would certainly unite against RI no one can. Britain and Germany had too different interests then and RI could easily play on it.
          For example, Putin is doing about the same thing with the West today.
          Quote: BAI
          The straits would be overcome without options.

          You did not understand . The straits had to be occupied temporarily while negotiations are ongoing and then returned back to Turkey. Simply put, having occupied Constantinople it was possible to avoid the Berlin Conference where we actually surrendered everything for which we fought.
          Quote: BAI
          How is the Japanese admiral declared? "The war is reviewing the outcome of any treaties."

          That's right. Therefore, I propose to surrender the Crimea, well, to avoid war. Am I right?
  6. 0
    2 March 2018 12: 45
    Quote: igordok
    From Samsonov's articles, I somehow began to get tired. No.

    Unfortunately, we have no other historian. Shpakovsky is more in knights and castles; Oleinikov is not interested in other than PMV.
    And we have Samsonov: "The Shvets and the reaper, and the igrets to the tune"
  7. 0
    2 March 2018 12: 50
    occupy Constantinople and the strait zone in order to negotiate from this position already with defeated Turkey and the Western powers. By controlling the straits, we provided protection for the Russian Black Sea coast and the southern strategic direction,

    and get a blockade in the Danish Straits
    B BULLETINS - WHAT HAPPENED IN CHINA AND DOSE EAST?
    England climbed into China and SRIA - what could RI answer?
    again twenty-five, to occupy 2 cities to get smoldering conflicts in the "soft underbelly" and not discuss today with Yapy South Kuril Islands.
    1. +1
      2 March 2018 17: 37
      Quote: antivirus
      and get a blockade in the Danish Straits

      Well, would the Danish Straits be blocked for military courts, and then what?
      The straits had to be occupied precisely in order not to get the Berlin Congress.
      1. 0
        2 March 2018 19: 59
        And Danish and the exit of the Egeisk Sea.
        and Danube-AvVegnr closed.
        habit of fighting for war
        and the loot does not count.
        weakness of RI - there is no closed cycle of economic economy (not to be confused with the natural).
        What to do with the "straits" ??
        if all is closed (by blockade - not by war) trade through Danish and Bosphorus pr ???
        THIS IS A CALCULATION OF ECONOMISTS-KAREDVORSEVS and Gorchakov, a great one, and not alternatives to the site.
        looked 10-20 years ahead.

        where to get rails, locomotives, braids, reapers, cotton (not yet in Central Asia), fuel? oil-coal mining and processing technologies? not to be confused with the discoveries of scientists.
        MECHANISMS AND ENGINEERS NEEDED NOW
        without capital letters - for 10-20 years BEFORE THE ACTIVITY, the Black Sea Straits NADO needs to be trained in literacy and distinguish from 50-70 million people --- PTUshnikov + medical assistants + engineers + doctors + handwitches (ITTs and VKP (b) in 20 years 41g !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) steam engine drivers + their repairmen + pipe production and other steel production facilities to build? when the famous yuzovsky-donbass pool was mastered ???
        compare RI with Germany and England

        THERE IS NO ROLE OF MILITARY IN THE STRAIGHT CAPTURE - THERE IS 100% SIGNIFICANCE PREPARATION OF ATTENDANTS - WORKERS AND DOCTORS (AND OTHER SERVICES).


        in WWII-WWII they won only at the expense of mothers who let their sons go to war and took the disabled back (well done, you did everything you could, the other son went to your place in the ranks)

        many people "modestly" do not understand the changes in the nature of wars - by the end of the 19th century, they switched from sharing among the suzerens to the nationwide, liberation (the Bulgarians write what) and the mass (the realization "why do I need this strait?" was?)
        and I can add a lot more from political economy or the hostel
  8. 0
    2 March 2018 12: 51
    In response, the Russian army advanced into the western suburbs of Constantinople, the town of San Stefano. The British government threatened that the entry of Russian troops into Constantinople would lead to the severance of diplomatic relations. Vienna also stated that the appearance of Russian troops in Constantinople would lead to a break.
    [b] [/ b] ... And as a result, the Berlin Congress, which brought to naught all the successes of the Russian army ...
    1. +1
      2 March 2018 17: 39
      Quote: parusnik
      And as a result, the Berlin Congress, which brought to naught all the successes of the Russian army ...

      This is taken into account by the weak. Putin could also pass the Donbass in exchange for sanctions and we would get even more sanctions for the Crimea)
      1. 0
        2 March 2018 20: 05
        The result of the Berlin congress is to catch up with England in terms of industrial potential !!! and failed for 30 years later
        or 20 years before Congress, it must be caught up (PREDICTION HOW TO DEVELOP EMPIRE) and insist on its own at the negotiating table
  9. BAI
    0
    2 March 2018 23: 22
    And to summarize the article and discussions - Russia did not have a chance to capture the straits and Constantinople.
    1. +2
      2 March 2018 23: 34
      As a result, we got closed straits in any situation.
  10. +2
    3 March 2018 21: 26
    Eh .. sorry that it was necessary not to listen to the "partners" and take Constantinople - now there would be much less problems ...
    1. +1
      4 March 2018 23: 10
      And would they have mastered against all of Europe?
  11. +1
    4 March 2018 23: 31
    co-creator,
    It is necessary to observe your interests, and then again, what thread Gorbi appears and write is gone. Surrender and sell offal.
    1. 0
      4 March 2018 23: 55
      Well, your interests apparently fight on the side of Hitler.

      Now you, too, are observing. I see that they are ordering from Washington. Apparently, the interests of Bulgaria are equal to the interests of the United States.

      But the interests of the Republic of Ingushetia do not need to be observed correctly. You think you’ve been released, you’ll think for equals and considered brothers. Spit in the back and run to the Turks.

      Gorbi how did you pass you can recognize?
      1. +1
        5 March 2018 16: 30
        Let's separate the flies from cutlets:
        1. We did NOT fight on the side of Hitler, but on the side of the USSR — look at the military route of the First Bulgarian Army. At least we got acquainted with Wikipedia - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria_to_Second_
        world war

        2. No need to duplicate your speculation and cheers patriotic shouts of shkolota. Bulgaria lost more than 33 thousand people in the war against Hitler. And in the "war with the USSR" - 0 (zero) people. Do you catch the difference?

        3. The interests of Bulgaria are equal to the interests of Bulgaria. And here is no place for either the United States or the Russian Federation.

        4. Think of the statue of Alexander the 2nd is not in front of the parliament and the burial places of Russian soldiers are not in perfect condition. And about equal and not necessary. Just count how many times only on the forum they wrote the word bros in quotation marks. And do you need to remind you of the interpretation of the word "brother"? Look at Ushakov’s dictionary.

        5. How did you ask? I handed over with giblets - at first I organized "perestroika in 1986-1989, then the re-revolution in Bulgaria in 1989. And the fact that I transferred all the calculations between Bulgaria and the USSR in dolars, when they were not from the word at all (before that they had been trading in rubles) it generally threw our economy back a couple of decades.
        1. 0
          5 March 2018 18: 20
          Quote: Mac Simka
          1. We did NOT fight on the side of Hitler, but on the side of the USSR — look at the military route of the First Bulgarian Army. At least we got acquainted with Wikipedia - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria_to_Second_
          world war

          Were allies of Hitler and did not fight?
          Did you read the link yourself?
          On the side of the USSR, you have forgiven your sins for an alliance with the Nazis. Romanians did the same, for example.
          Quote: Mac Simka
          2. No need to duplicate your speculation and cheers patriotic shouts of shkolota. Bulgaria lost more than 33 thousand people in the war against Hitler. And in the "war with the USSR" - 0 (zero) people. Do you catch the difference?

          Hitler fought not only with the USSR catch? Yugoslavia, Greece. So no need to juggle. Those German divisions that were supposed to be in
          occupied Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria fought with the USSR.
          Quote: Mac Simka
          3. The interests of Bulgaria are equal to the interests of Bulgaria. And here is no place for either the United States or the Russian Federation.

          NATO in the interests of Bulgaria? Waiver of the South Stream in the interests of Bulgaria? Do you even understand that in the conflict between the Russian Federation and the USA (NATO) your land will be used as a platform for the murder of Russians? What again do you want to pretend that you have nothing to do with it?
          Quote: Mac Simka
          4. Think of the statue of Alexander the 2nd is not in front of the parliament and the burial places of Russian soldiers are not in perfect condition. And about equal and not necessary. Just count how many times only on the forum they wrote the word bros in quotation marks. And do you need to remind you of the interpretation of the word "brother"? Look at Ushakov’s dictionary.

          So I say, honor is not about the Bulgarians. Oh, they’ve taken in quotation marks, what a whip. You are like Ukrainians "and we are for sho"
          Quote: Mac Simka
          5. How did you ask? I handed over with giblets - at first I organized "perestroika in 1986-1989, then the re-revolution in Bulgaria in 1989. And the fact that I transferred all the calculations between Bulgaria and the USSR in dolars, when they were not from the word at all (before that they had been trading in rubles) it generally threw our economy back a couple of decades.

          Did the Russians make a coup in Bulgaria?
          Eccentric tell me, and Bulgaria was taking rubles for its goods at this time, or they also asked for bucks, eh?
          1. +1
            5 March 2018 21: 48
            Maybe you don’t need to “poke” a stranger. Didn't you study at school?

            1. As an ally of Germany in WWII, Bulgaria fought only with England and the United States. With Yugoslavia and Greece - no, they did not fight. Read carefully.
            Or do you have a claim that Bulgaria fought with England and the United States?

            2. Sins are hushed up in the cathedral. And never did the Bulgarians commit crimes against citizens of the USSR. So there is no place for sins not here.

            3. As for NATO, your envoy in 2004 said that it was in the interests of Bulgaria. Not heard, no? And as for the South Stream, the story is not over yet. Let's see what happens.

            4. And about whom you wrote - about the Martians? And as for the quotation marks, this suggests that some people have different words from the action. So it’s not necessary about brotherhood and marriage and about what white and fluffy elves have freed us.

            5. Yes, dear, already three times from 1989 to 1997. I will not even remember the Russophile coup in 1885.

            6. Until 1988, trade between Bulgaria and the USSR was conducted in transferable rubles — the official currency of the NWZ. And then the USSR introduced the settlements in dollars in a fundamental way, which Bulgaria had nowhere to take so quickly. 2/3 of the sport went to the USSR.
            1. 0
              6 March 2018 00: 58
              1. Hye. We read carefully, Bulgaria occupied part of Yugoslavia and Greece, thereby freeing several German divisions that were sent to the eastern front.
              And that I should not have claims against those who fought against our allies?

              2. The union with Hitler who destroyed the Russians is already a crime. You put up a grie in the Red Army, you had no choice.

              3. Haaaa .. Again, the Russians are to blame. So I understand being in NATO is in the interests of Bulgaria?

              4. Apparently you did not understand. There is a joke about ukrov
              Two Ukrainians are coming and one is telling the other
              - Mykola let's go beat Muscovites.
              “What if they beat us?”
              - And US FOR SHO?

              So you are also wondering why you are quoted.

              5. Three times from 89 to 97 did Russians make coups in Bulgaria? Are you drunk or something?
              6. Do you yourself understand what you wrote? Export is when you sell, not buy. This is paid to you for the goods, not you. Your export collapsed not because of the abolition of the SPZ, but because the USSR had nothing to pay for the goods. The USSR lived off loans for which it was obliged to buy Western goods.
              Now you live bohato go.
              1. 0
                6 March 2018 10: 12
                In a certain group of "forum users", not only on this forum, as under the carbon copy are the same theses, stitched with "white ropes"! It can be seen that information warfare developed according to the training manual of certain structures! It is suggested that all enemies and traitors, all are bad, one "we" are beautiful! wink I wonder if there are normal Russians who are led by such primitive schemes !? The falsity of your firm is obvious!
                1 .... Bulgaria occupied part of Yugoslavia and Greece, thereby freeing several German divisions that were sent to the eastern front.

                "The occupied parts of Yugoslavia and Greece" is a part of the Bulgarian land. Bulgarian land with the Bulgarian population, formerly occupied by the same Greeks and Serbs. An interesting fact, but there was no partisan movement in these territories, since the local population met the Bulgarian army as the Liberator! I don’t know how you calculated how many German divisions were liberated there, but Germany was forced to keep 3 divisions in Bulgaria itself because of the Bulgarian communist partisans.
                And that I should not have claims against those who fought against our allies?

                You personally can have claims against anyone! This is of little concern to anyone. request
                2. An alliance with Hitler who destroyed the Russians is already a crime ...

                It turns out that the Ribentrop-Mollotov Pact was criminal? And what was the criminal cooperation between the USSR and Germany in the 30, when many German soldiers subsequently fought on the Eastern Front trained on the territory of the USSR?
                3. Haaaa .. Again, the Russians are to blame. So I understand being in NATO is in the interests of Bulgaria?

                First, there is a difference between “Russians” and “Soviet”! Completely different ideologies, while hostile to one another! And yes ... Being in NATO for a defined period of time has no alternative.
                4. Apparently you do not understand. There is such an anecdote about ukrov ... So you also wonder why you are quoted.

                What do you and you alike get away from the same sheltersXXX? The same inadequately react! You don’t see logs in your eyes, but you constantly find fault with a straw in strangers then! Therefore, do not be surprised that they look at you as if they were sick!
                5. Three times from 89 to 97 did Russians make coups in Bulgaria? Are you drunk or something?

                Yes, they did coups! Todor Zhivkov removed! Gorbachev did not like him!
                We love to drink, but don't get drunk! Walk the streets of Bulgarian cities and villages and you don’t see anywhere drunk! But in Russia, you know yourself ... I often visit the Russian Federation. I see, I know, but I will refrain from commenting.
                6. ... Export is when you sell, not buy. This is paid to you for the goods, not you. Your export collapsed not because of the abolition of the SPZ, but because the USSR had nothing to pay for goods. The USSR lived off loans for which it was obliged to buy Western goods.

                The entire social system was economically inefficient! But it was created according to the Soviet model, and all attempts to refrm it were punished ... It did not take root in the countries of Eastern Europe. Nothing that stands on the brackets is stable.
                Now you live bohato go.

                Not rich, but definitely better! Especially those who are more proactive, hardworking and not afraid to take their personal destiny in their hands! This is all who are below 50! I am glad that the situation, although slowly but smoothed out! Economic results over the past 5 years give optimism!
                1. 0
                  6 March 2018 17: 24
                  SW pytar already answered. There is nothing for me to carry out an educational program of shkoloty.
                  I think that the topic of WHO, WHERE and WHEN fought in the Balkans in WWII requires a separate article. but will some overpower the truth?
  12. +1
    6 March 2018 15: 02
    Porta lost the opportunity to wage war and faced the threat of losing the metropolitan area of ​​Constantinople.

    This is not entirely true. The British fleet entered the Bosphorus and with the squint of Tsarigrad there was no chance of encircling the city. The Russian army did not manage to be taken by the squint of the small town of Pleven and had to be surrounded by it. In Tsarigrad, the Turks were beaten by inexhaustible human resources and the British fleet as an appendage. They didn’t have enough weapons, but they could get it from a British bistro. In addition, the main forces of the Turkish army in the Balkans were not defeated, they remained blocking in northeastern Bulgaria. But they can be beaten evacuated to Tsarigrad by a fleet.
    So there was no chance of taking Tsarigrad and correctly ended the war on time. The Turks also did not want to be so much dependent on the British Empire and were afraid of the British no less than the Russians.
  13. +1
    6 March 2018 17: 27
    Quotation: blooded man
    3. Haaaa .. Again, the Russians are to blame.


    And what - Russians as Caesar’s wife are always beyond suspicion? But I can count a lot of moments from history when the role of Russia / USSR / RF led to negative consequences for Bulgaria. However, this does not mean that "the Russians are to blame." This is called the "Big Game ... and it will end when everyone dies" (c). Learn Mat Part, in short.