Military Review

Britain vs Russia. How states converged in bloody wars

131
Recently, relations between Russia and the UK have finally deteriorated. The formal reason for the real hysteria from London was dark and incomprehensible история with poisoning of the former Russian colonel of military intelligence Sergey Skripal, who had served his sentence in the Russian Federation for espionage and moved to the UK, and his daughter. Obviously provocative and inexplicable from the point of view of common sense, the crime was absolutely useless to the Russian special services. But London immediately used Violin poisoning to start a large-scale anti-Russian demarche, which was joined by a number of states, including the historical satellites of Great Britain, like Australia and Poland.


Of course, Britain was never a friend and ally of Russia. Even when the British soldiers fought against Germany on the same side as the Russians and Soviet soldiers during the First and Second World Wars, tensions remained, and as soon as the wars ended, everything returned to its place. Britain constantly waged a “cold war” against both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. By the way, the forms of government, political and economic system in Russia are indifferent to London. For Britain, Russia is a traditional, historical enemy, regardless of political or economic specifics. The situation with the violinist's poisoning again emphasized this circumstance, forcing us to recall how, in the distant and recent past, our country was at enmity and was at war with Great Britain.



If London built intrigues against Russia practically throughout the whole length of Russian history, then the countries did not move into open armed confrontation so often. And, nevertheless, history knows many examples of armed conflicts between Russia and Great Britain. For example, Russia and England found themselves in opposite camps during the Seven Years' War 1756-1763, when the Russian Empire allied with Austria, France, Saxony and Sweden opposed Prussia. England was on the Prussian side, without whose support the Prussian king would hardly have decided to oppose such a powerful coalition. But there were no direct clashes between the Russian and British troops during the Seven Years' War. British troops fought mainly in North America - for the American colonies of France. After the Seven Years' War, England became the largest colonial power in the world, and relations with the Russian Empire seriously deteriorated, which inevitably affected the subsequent history of the two countries.

The next war took place half a century later and, unlike the Seven Years' War, was already accompanied by a direct confrontation of Russia and England. We are talking about the Anglo-Russian war of 1807-1812. Although this war was of low intensity, the English fleet entered into two bloody battles with Russian ships in the Baltic Sea in 1808. As a result of these battles, Russia lost the 74-gun battleship Vsevolod and three gunboats. But, which is very significant, the British sailors completely destroyed the Russian crews, leaving only senior officers who were captured fleet. British ships also made several attacks on Russian merchant ships and peaceful fishing villages in the Murmansk coast region.

Thus, in 1807-1812. Russia is already fully faced with large-scale brutality and deceit of the British. In 1812, the British pushed their heads together the two largest monarchies of continental Europe - the Russian Empire and Napoleonic France, as a result of which Napoleon was defeated, and Britain even more strengthened its military-political and economic positions both in Europe and in the world. After the defeat of Napoleon, France was pushed into second place in Europe and turned into Britain's eternal ally in major conflicts.

Perhaps the biggest example of Britain’s participation in an open war against Russia was the Crimean War 1853-1856, when, as a result of the confrontation of the Ottoman Empire and Russia, England, France and Sardinia stood up for the sultan. In addition, there was a real threat of entry into the war on the side of the pro-British coalition also Austria, Prussia and Sweden.

Britain vs Russia. How states converged in bloody wars


The initiator of the war was London, who really disliked the growing influence of the Russian Empire and its claims to go to the Mediterranean. In no case did England want to get such a serious enemy in Europe, so she launched a bloody war against Russia. Unlike previous wars, in the Crimean War, which, incidentally, took place not only in the Crimea, but also in the Caucasus, the Balkans and the Far East, the British naval and land forces took an active part. The largest in size, the British group was transferred to the Crimea. In total, 200 864 British soldiers and officers took part in the war, moreover 4250 volunteers also served in the Anglo-German Legion and around 2200 volunteers in the Anglo-Swiss Legion.

During the Crimean War, the British fleet undertook a number of raids on Russian cities on the shores of the Sea of ​​Azov - Berdyansk, Mariupol, Taganrog, destroying any Russian ships and ships, including schooners and boats of local fishermen. British and French ships fought against the Russian fleet in the Baltic Sea. In the Pacific, Russian sailors successfully repelled the attack of Rear-Admiral David Price of the Anglo-French squadron against Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Nevertheless, the Anglo-French squadron managed to seize the island of Urup (Kuril Islands), which was released only on the basis of a peace treaty.

Despite the fact that during the Crimean War, the ground forces of the Ottoman Empire and France played the role of the main "cannon fodder" of the coalition, the losses of Great Britain were also very significant. The French army lost more than 97 thousand people dead and dead from wounds and diseases, the Ottoman Empire about 45 thousand people, and the United Kingdom 22,6 thousand people dead and dead and more than 18 thousand people wounded. Near Sevastopol, British Field Marshal Lord Raglan (Fitzroy James Henry Somerset) died of cholera. Under Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Rear Admiral David Powell Price, who commanded the Anglo-French combined squadron operating against the Russian fleet in the Pacific, was killed by an accidental shot from his own pistol. British troops took an active part in the siege of Sevastopol, which lasted 11 months. By the way, the siege of Sevastopol for the British army had disastrous consequences - thousands of British soldiers and officers died, serious shortcomings in the organization of military affairs in the British Empire were revealed.

The Crimean War was accompanied by further incitement of anti-Russian sentiment in Europe. England continued the usual song that Russia is a tyrannical state, focused on expansion in Europe and the Middle East. Nicholas I was reminded of his protective policy, although the European powers themselves were not at all “good liberals” - they cruelly punished the population of their African and Asian colonies, suppressed any anti-colonial speeches, and pursued their own revolutionary movements no less actively.

Most of all, Great Britain at that time sought to prevent the growth of Russian influence in the Middle East, for which, with the help of the Ottoman Empire, it inflamed anti-Russian sentiments in the Caucasus. The outcome of the war became disastrous for Russia. Up to 1871, Russia was forbidden to have a navy on the Black Sea, a serious blow was delivered to the Russian economy. But the consequences of the war were serious for opponents of Russia, for example - for the Ottoman Empire, which was forced to declare bankruptcy of the sultan's treasury.



The next direct confrontation between Russia and Great Britain occurred 61 a year after the end of the Crimean War and was associated with the October Revolution in Russia and the beginning of the Civil War. London could not take advantage of the collapse of the Russian Empire and the political chaos that arose on its lands. British troops took an active part in the intervention on the territory of Russia. The British fleet appeared along the coast of Russia; English landing forces landed in the region of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, in the Far East, in the Caucasus, and appeared in Central Asia.

In addition to England itself, its dominions and colonies — Australia, Canada, and India — participated in the intervention. 4000 Australian units operated in Murmansk, Canadian troops in Murmansk (500 people) and Siberia (around 4000 people), and Indian troops in Transcaucasia. In addition to direct military intervention, the United Kingdom provided financial, military, technical, and organizational assistance to many armed forces and groups that fought against Soviet Russia — from Admiral Kolchak to Central Asian Basmachism.

However, despite the enormous scale of intervention, foreign countries did not manage to dismember the territory of Russia and destroy Russian statehood. In 1919 - 1920 British troops were withdrawn from the territories of the former Russian Empire. But this circumstance did not mean a real cessation of anti-Russian, and then anti-Soviet policy. British military instructors and personnel intelligence officers worked actively with anti-Soviet movements in Central Asia, the Caucasus and Transcaucasia. At first they trained and financed the army of the Bukhara emirate, trying to turn the former protectorate of the Russian Empire into the main center of anti-Bolshevik resistance in Central Asia.



After the overthrow of the Emir, the British concentrated on supporting numerous anti-Soviet detachments operating on the territory of modern Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. It is known that it was Britain that financed and supplied weapons numerous Basmachi formations in Central Asia, preparing the invasion of the gangster groups from the territories of Afghanistan and Iran on the Soviet territory. The anti-Soviet game in Central Asia was of great importance for Britain, since in London they were mortally afraid of the spread of revolutionary and communist sentiments to the countries of the Middle East and, especially, British India. There was a real war of intelligence services, in which the British pursued as one of the primary goals to prevent the strengthening of Soviet influence in the British colonies and those countries which in Britain considered their sphere of influence (Iran, Iraq, Egypt).

Only joint participation in the war against Hitler Germany, and then the Japanese Empire for some time reconciled the Soviet Union and Britain. But as soon as Hitler's Germany fell, British intelligence immediately resumed support for anti-Soviet forces in Eastern Europe. It is known that Great Britain rendered a serious patronage to the Ukrainian nationalists, who led a sabotage war against the Soviet power in the territory of Western Ukraine.

Not without the participation of British intelligence, conditions were created for the evacuation of Nazi war criminals and Ukrainian nationalists to Western Europe. In London, they hoped to use Bandera for further struggle against the Soviet Union. Already in 1949, British intelligence allocated large financial resources to pay for Bandera sabotage in the cities of Western Ukraine. In 1950, Bandera 75s received special training at training centers in British intelligence, which were then abandoned on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR.

In addition to supporting Bandera, the British intelligence services continued to actively cooperate with all anti-Soviet forces in the national republics of the USSR. In London, it was hoped that stirring up nationalist sentiments in the Baltic States, in the Caucasus, in Central Asia would make it possible to seriously weaken the Soviet state. And it really turned out to be so. Huge funds were invested to destabilize the situation in the national regions of the USSR. Britain has always provided unconditional support to the opponents of the Soviet state beyond its borders, primarily in Africa and Asia.

Thus, the present position of Great Britain in relation to Russia is not surprising. Britain is a long-standing historical enemy who will never become a friend. It is hardly necessary to count on a real normalization of relations with this country. At best, “armed neutrality” is possible with Great Britain, which slightly hides the traditional confrontation, at worst - open armed conflict. There is no other way.
Author:
Photos used:
magSpace.ru
131 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Theodore
    Theodore 22 March 2018 06: 16
    +2
    But Britain has no allies! There are interests!
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 22 March 2018 07: 50
      +5
      Quote: Theodore
      But Britain has no allies! There are interests!

      The same goes for Russia. As, however, and all the great powers.
      Therefore, England was in conflict with Russia, these were two fast-growing empires. And due to their rapid growth, their interests constantly clashed: in Asia, in Europe in the Balkans, in the North, etc.
      1. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 15: 49
        +1
        Quote: Olgovich
        And due to their rapid growth, their interests constantly clashed: in Asia, in Europe in the Balkans, in the North, etc.

        and what are the arrogant interests in the north? !!!
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 22 March 2018 16: 29
          +4
          Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
          and what are the arrogant interests in the north? !!!

          Everywhere where there was trade and there were markets, there were the interests of England.
          England sided Sweden in the Russian-Swedish war of 1808
          1. Vasilenko Vladimir
            Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 17: 38
            +2
            that is, we just had the audacity to settle where the interests of the arrogance were ?!
      2. Alber
        Alber 23 March 2018 13: 10
        +1
        Quote: Olgovich
        Quote: Theodore
        But Britain has no allies! There are interests!

        The same goes for Russia. As, however, and all the great powers.
        Therefore, England was in conflict with Russia, these were two fast-growing empires. And due to their rapid growth, their interests constantly clashed: in Asia, in Europe in the Balkans, in the North, etc.

        The Anglo-Saxons are the worst tribe of evil conquerors, vile robbers, pirates, invaders, and other sheluponi. Yes, even Koroleva Elizabeth with her current family are the Jewish descendants of Abraham Lincoln, maybe the anger, revenge and meanness of the Anglo-Saxons in relation to Russia
  2. Korsar4
    Korsar4 22 March 2018 06: 33
    +2
    English tank - Mark 5 is still on the street of Arkhangelsk. Remember.
    1. akims
      akims 22 March 2018 23: 50
      0
      And Kharkov.
      1. Antares
        Antares 23 March 2018 00: 16
        0
        Quote: akims
        And Kharkov.


        but there were other tanks ...

        which also need to be remembered ... for it was the most difficult moment in the life of our state and the world.
  3. Hard Rock
    Hard Rock 22 March 2018 06: 34
    +12
    With the stubbornness of an idiot - a masochist and a maniac - a mutilator, England climbs and climbs to Russia! He gets his mouth, howls, but climbs again! In the article, they forgot to add, in the battle of the balaclava, the Russians laid to rest the whole hereditary color of the aristocrats of England! They got used to fighting as if for a walk, but got buckshot in the body! The Russian soldier never attacked, neither England nor France! Probably time? England - a rag soaked in shit and blood, France - use a gasket! There are simply no other epithets! Constant lies and deceit! And cruelty just rolls over!
    1. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 22 March 2018 09: 49
      0
      Well, here you got excited Prince Kutuzov treacherously attacked Napoleon near Borodino!
    2. yttg
      yttg 22 March 2018 15: 51
      +2
      Quote: Hard Rock
      England climbs and climbs to Russia!

      Yes? In fact, Britain and Russia (and even the USSR) have always been like allies (as far as a prince and a beggar can be allies). In all world and European wars. And they fought only once, during the Crimean War.
      Russia (USSR) more often fought with Romania than with Britain. And even with Bulgaria they fought as much as they did with Britain, once. Only one something "bro", and others, like "crap." Probably because the result of those isolated wars was the opposite. Like, resentment gnaws.
      Quote: Hard Rock
      in the battle of the balaclava, the Russians repose the whole hereditary color of the aristocrats of England!

      It is a pity that the color of those aristocrats does not even know such a word as Balaclava.
      Quote: Hard Rock
      They got used to fighting as if for a walk, but got buckshot in the body!

      Only now did I understand who capitulated in that war.
      Quote: Hard Rock
      The Russian soldier never attacked, neither England nor France!

      1. The "Italian" campaign of Suvorov.
      2. Ushakov in the Mediterranean.
      3. Russian voyages across Europe, which ended in the defeat of Russian troops at Austerilits.
      4. Russia's declaration of the war of France in 1811, which ended with the fact that Napoleon came to Russia in 1812. Where he defeated the Russian troops at Borodino.
      But Russia has never attacked Britain. Elephant and Pug.
      Quote: Hard Rock
      England - a rag soaked in shit and blood, France - use a gasket! There are simply no other epithets!

      Yes, some have normal epithets only for themselves, loved ones.
      Quote: Hard Rock
      Constant lies and deceit! And cruelty just rolls over!

      Why are you so on the historically traditional boss ("senior ally") of the Russian Empire and the USSR so eaten up?
      Do you not like the fact that Britain has always used RI and the USSR as cannon fodder?
      But Britain was just a buyer. And I bought what was for sale. Therefore, sellers must blame everything. The Germans of Holstein-Gottorp, better known under the pseudonym "Romanovs". And a certain "leader" Dzhugashvili, better known under the pseudonym "Stalin".
      1. Antares
        Antares 23 March 2018 00: 19
        0
        Quote: yttg
        But Russia has never attacked Britain. Elephant and Pug.

        Well, you could use the same France and let it wait 3 "foggy days" ..
        so not the same ... our rake is everything.
      2. Weyland
        Weyland 24 March 2018 18: 27
        0
        Quote: yttg
        Elephant and Pug

        then "Elephant and Shark"!
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. kalibr
    kalibr 22 March 2018 06: 57
    +8
    What smart English, however ?! It’s not just an article, but a panegyric to their mind and the stupidity of everyone else. And all = then they pushed their foreheads ... and which ... was to collide? That is, everyone else was so stupid that they went and died for British interests? That's lovely! The slogan of the day - there is no mind, learn from the British!
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 22 March 2018 07: 56
      +3
      Quote: kalibr
      And all = then they pushed their foreheads ... and which ... was to collide? That is, everyone else was so stupid that they went and died for British interests?

      So it turns out: neither OWN interests, nor their MIND, no one "had": everyone stupidly went to the slaughter at the whistle of the puppeteer.
      As one comrade loves to say, "nouskali" and "set" and - all with an evil bark rushed at each other .... yes
      And what? Everything is simple and clear .... yes
  6. kalibr
    kalibr 22 March 2018 07: 01
    +4
    Quote: Hard Rock
    In the article, they forgot to add, in the battle of the balaclava, the Russians laid to rest the whole hereditary color of the aristocrats of England!

    So is that all? Is there really nobody left? And the same Churchill got wound up with dirt? You would like to visit the Mikhailovskaya Battery battery museum in Sevastopol, where there is a microdiorama with this battle and lists of the dead ... And ... yes, I wanted to, but, alas, what is not, that is not. But, however, Tennyson wrote "Attack of the Light Brigade."
  7. kalibr
    kalibr 22 March 2018 07: 05
    +9
    Quote: Hard Rock
    A Russian soldier never attacked ... nor on France!

    And why Suvorov trapped in Italy? And Ushakov to Corfu ... That is, wars of the anti-French coalition ... There were several of them, I remember ... Never, you know, that word ... "Never say never."
    1. Romulus
      Romulus 22 March 2018 07: 25
      +3
      Quote: kalibr
      And why Suvorov trapped in Italy? And Ushakov on Corfu ... That is, wars

      Vyacheslav hi No words - "I laughed for a long time" (c)
      a terrible thing - the Internet is in the hands of du.raka)
  8. XII Legion
    XII Legion 22 March 2018 07: 16
    +19
    British politics is a subtle thing. And the one who will always carry chestnuts from the fire is always needed on the continent.
    Well...
    In the Crimean War, half of Europe (England, France, Sardinia) + Turkey 2 years with difficulty trying to recapture one city from us. Finally, we left Sevastopol, but Crimea is still ours.
    And in London there are now 100 mosques, and the crown prince (!!) will marry a mulatto and an actress (as you know, once Russian officers were forbidden to marry actresses - for well-known reasons, and in ancient Rome, actresses and others .sst.t.u.t.c. and were not allowed on the Forum).
    Here are the results of the policy of Misty Albion, after the WWI lost its Great Fleet and transferred the functions of creditor to the former colony - the United States.
    And the former colony is now a superpower
    1. andrewkor
      andrewkor 22 March 2018 14: 44
      +1
      I’ll clarify that they left, retreating in perfect order, half the city of South!
    2. Antares
      Antares 23 March 2018 00: 22
      0
      Quote: XII Legion
      In the Crimean War, half of Europe (England, France, Sardinia) + Turkey 2 years with difficulty trying to recapture one city from us. Finally, we left Sevastopol, but Crimea is still ours.

      although Sevastopol is the central battle arena, but I advise you to see how many Russian cities and fortresses were taken at the World Cup ... There, only Sevastopol Nikolaev and Odessa were defended .. and Kerch for example? The Sea of ​​Azov? Anapa *? Kinburn’s armored fleet? Evpatoria? .....
      in general, they forget the whole picture ....
  9. Serg65
    Serg65 22 March 2018 07: 36
    +1
    what The article is somehow half!
    For Britain, Russia is a traditional, historical enemy

    And why? What does the UK dislike about Russia's actions?
    In 1919 - 1920 years. British troops were withdrawn from the territories of the former Russian Empire. But this circumstance did not mean a real end to anti-Russian, and then anti-Soviet policies. British military instructors and personnel intelligence actively worked with anti-Soviet movements in Central Asia, the Caucasus

    And here is just the tip of the iceberg! Article minus, if we speak, then we must talk about everything, and not pull out episodes of history!
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 22 March 2018 08: 12
      0
      Quote: Serg65
      And why? What does the UK dislike about Russia's actions?

      Probably avenged due to the fact that Ivan the Terrible to the red queen Elizabeth married.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 March 2018 15: 30
      0
      Quote: Serg65
      Article minus, if we speak, then we must talk about everything, and not pull out episodes of history!

      The problem is that if we talk about everything, we will have to remember, for example, the Archipelago expeditions (Admiral Spiridov and others), during which the RIF ships underwent overhaul (by today's standards) at British shipyards. And without this repair, the ships would simply not have reached their destination. And we would not have the same Chesma, and on the Black Sea the fleet of the Sultan would reign supreme. smile
    3. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 16: 56
      0
      Quote: Serg65
      And why? What does the UK dislike about Russia's actions?

      we don't like
    4. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 16: 57
      0
      Quote: Serg65
      Article minus, if we speak, then we must talk about everything, and not pull out episodes of history!

      tell about what the author of the article kept silent about
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 23 March 2018 11: 54
        +2
        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
        tell about what the author of the article kept silent about

        smile Short course of English-Russian relations.
        Full-fledged Anglo-Russian relations began from the 1553 year with the creation of the English Moscow company, which existed by the way until the 17 year.
        The first strain in relations occurred under Ivan the Terrible; the British offended the tsar greatly.
        In those days, India was Russia for England, so the British tried their best to protect Russia from communication with the rest of the world.
        the second conflict was under Peter the first and it was associated with the Northern War, England was an ally of Sweden. By the way, during the struggle for the Spanish crown, the reorientation of Charles XII from Spain to Russia was achieved by the ancestor of Winston Churchill, John Churchill!
        In the 1713 year, Peter took the first step in a feint, transferred all overseas trade from Arkhangelsk to St. Petersburg, and in order to trade in St. Petersburg, the British had to defend themselves from Swedish privateers, which in turn complicated relations between England and Sweden!
        In 1719, a new conflict broke out, in June this year the English fleet entered the Baltic Sea but Peter did not dare to attack due to the superiority of the Russian fleet ( lol and this was in our history)!
        In the 1761 year after the fall of Pondicherry (the French colony in India), the passions between England and Russia noticeably calmed down and flared up with renewed vigor already in the 19 century due to Russia's movement towards India and the Turkish Middle East. At the beginning of the 20 century, a purse of the English throne under the name Rothschild, who had a great interest in Baku oil, entered a new page in this already classic antagonism, which greatly upset the Rockefeller American upstart. The result of this feud was the Russo-Japanese War, the revolution of the 1905 and 1917 years, and the First World War! But comrade Rockefeller won and became the USSR’s best friend until the 91 year, however he is now a friend of the Russian Federation!
        Briefly of course, well, like that! hi
  10. Prometey
    Prometey 22 March 2018 08: 10
    +2
    You can write similar articles about relations with other countries. How many wars were with Sweden, France, Poland.
    The passage about the clash of foreheads in 1812 in France and Russia touches. Two morons - Napoleon and the Russian Tsar, at the command of the British, rushed into the meat grinder of the war. Oh well...
    1. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 22 March 2018 09: 52
      +1
      Well, the conciliator after Napoleon signed an alliance treaty with Pavel and Pavel sent 25 thousand Cossacks to conquer India and Alexander twice violated the British blockade because of the fear of not getting snuffbox into his temple himself! And Bonopart did not go to the capital of Russia, but captured the provincial town of Moscow and waited for Alexander to realize his mistakes and sign a peace treaty
    2. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 16: 57
      0
      Quote: Prometey
      You can write similar articles about relations with other countries. How many wars were with Sweden, France, Poland.

      didn't even lie nearby
  11. Huumi
    Huumi 22 March 2018 10: 11
    +3
    It’s high time to lower this island under water along with their Big Ben. Do they like the okiyans? -Well, let them swim in them ..
  12. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 22 March 2018 10: 34
    +3
    "For Britain, Russia is a traditional, historical enemy,
    regardless of political or economic specificity "////

    History does not confirm this. In the time of Ivan the Terrible, England was
    partner and allied (Grozny even corresponded with the queen).
    Further, Russia and England were allies in the wars against Napoleon,
    were allies in the Entente.
    Further, England instantly reacted to Hitler’s attack on the USSR,
    having provided much-needed military assistance, which arrived in time for the beginning
    counteroffensive near Moscow.
    After the war, England transferred to the USSR jet engines for the MIG-15.
    That is, summarizing, England was sometimes a friend, then an enemy - equally.
    Unlike the United States, which almost all the time was an ally or assistant to Russia.
    (assistance in the First World War, assistance in the famine of the Volga region, industrialization of the USSR in the First Five-Year Plan
    and the creation of the military-industrial complex of the USSR, Lendliz)
    1. sib.ataman
      sib.ataman 22 March 2018 10: 47
      +4
      All the help of the arrogant Saxons in all historical periods was nothing more than a bait on a hook! You "Zion sage" is well aware! And you all philosophize slyly, perverted!
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 22 March 2018 10: 52
        +1
        Quote: sib.ataman
        And you all philosophize slyly, perverted!

        Refute his facts, if possible.
        1. jktu66
          jktu66 22 March 2018 13: 13
          +2
          Spring 1943. Churchill, through friendship, told Stalin that the Germans in the east did not plan anything global. At the same time, having studied the encryption German enigma, the British knew almost everything about the Citadel!
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 22 March 2018 10: 55
        +3
        What are the hooks?
        Here are the Soviet tankers in the English tank Walentine
        One of 3300 received from England during the Second World War.
        1. fighter angel
          fighter angel 22 March 2018 12: 57
          +3
          Well, maybe you don’t have to have a "barrel organ" again? How many times have already discussed, all with their opinions.
          For the most part, the Angles supplied us with junk, something that they themselves did not like.
          And our pilots during the war years had a saying-question: "Are you my friend, or Hampden?"
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 22 March 2018 13: 00
            +1
            Well, valentine was produced on special order
            only for the Red Army right up to the very end of the war.
            The Russians wanted more and more. So he wasn’t such junk. smile
            1. fighter angel
              fighter angel 22 March 2018 13: 58
              +2
              Are the "Hurricanes" and "Hampden" also special for our Air Force?
              Valentine talk.
              Well, why say "not quite true"?
              The Walentines were delivered to the USSR last time on APRIL 1944. And this is not at all "even the very end of the war." Total delivered - 3.332 cars. We built “Seventy” 2.5 times more, more than 8.500 pieces.
              They produced Valentine before the beginning of 1945, but they were not supplied to the USSR after April 1944.
              So, we will not "attract by the ears" and allow the "free interpretation" of historical facts.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 22 March 2018 14: 53
                0
                In Hurricanes, the British themselves fought. What they had then
                and sent. It used to be a good technique, it happened so-so.
                Like Soviet military equipment during the war, by the way. hi
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 22 March 2018 14: 55
                +1
                Quote: fighter angel
                The Walentines were delivered to the USSR last time on APRIL 1944. And this is not at all "even the very end of the war."

                “Valentines” were supposed to be removed from production in 1943. But they left it for another year - especially for the USSR.
                And we rated these tanks very highly. “Valentine” and “Sherman” in 1945 completely satisfied the State Academic Technical University in combat qualities and completely surpassed domestic tanks in repair and maintenance. In a well-known letter, the marshal of the armored forces Fedorenko just demanded that the domestic design bureaus bring our tanks to the level of "foreign cars".
                1. fighter angel
                  fighter angel 22 March 2018 15: 24
                  +3
                  to Alexey Ra, you write:
                  ... "Valentines" were to be removed from production in 1943. But they left it for another year - especially for the USSR ... "

                  Well, what’s the use of these tales about the “overwhelming” demand for “felt boots” in the tank forces of the Red Army?
                  I wrote that Valenoks were built in England and Canada until SPRING of 1945, AND IN THE USSR THEY DELIVERED BEFORE APRIL 1944 !!!
                  This means that the tanks released between April 1944 and the spring of 1945 did not go to the armor of the tank troops of the USSR, but somewhere else!
                  The Valenoks were built for a whole year, and this was after the USSR stopped taking them.
                  That is, "Valenki" released not only for the USSR!
                  Thus: Especially and only for the USSR HE NEVER RELEASED.
                  No need to pull an owl on a globe ...
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 22 March 2018 15: 53
                    0
                    "I wrote that the" boots "were built in England and Canada until SPRING 1945" ///

                    What do you not understand? Built in Canada until the spring of 1945, the plant was built specifically for Lend-Lease. But they didn’t manage to transport them to the USSR. Crossing (all logistics) took several months.
                    1. fighter angel
                      fighter angel 22 March 2018 16: 37
                      +4
                      Do not get out. I will never believe what a YEAR! For the whole year, the required quantity would not be transported to the USSR. The capitalists count money well; it was in their interests. However, the production went on for a whole year, and during the whole year not a single tank was sent to the USSR.

                      In total, "Valenkov" produced about 8.300 units, and 3.332 tanks were delivered to the USSR. And there is no need to tell fairy tales here, as if supposedly, the whole British industry worked only to provide the tank units of the USSR with their beloved “beloved Valenki”. And about the special order and about the continuation of production by order of the USSR, that's all, sorry, nonsense and nonsense.
                      If "Valenok" were not needed by themselves, then a damn two they would have done it separately for the USSR.
                      1. voyaka uh
                        voyaka uh 22 March 2018 17: 10
                        0
                        "that's all, sorry, nonsense and nonsense." ////

                        You have strong arguments in discussions. smile
                      2. Alber
                        Alber 24 March 2018 16: 59
                        +1
                        Quote: fighter angel
                        Do not get out. I will never believe what a YEAR! For the whole year, the required quantity would not be transported to the USSR. The capitalists count money well; it was in their interests. However, the production went on for a whole year, and during the whole year not a single tank was sent to the USSR.
                        In total, "Valenkov" produced about 8.300 units, and 3.332 tanks were delivered to the USSR. And there is no need to tell fairy tales here, as if supposedly, the whole British industry worked only to provide the tank units of the USSR with their beloved “beloved Valenki”. And about the special order and about the continuation of production by order of the USSR, that's all, sorry, nonsense and nonsense.

                        +1000 !! )))
                        This is their hutspa ...
                  2. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 22 March 2018 15: 55
                    +1
                    Quote: fighter angel
                    Thus: Especially and only for the USSR HE NEVER RELEASED.

                    In Canada, it was produced: smile
                    1,388 of the 1,420 Canadian tanks went to Russia (with the remaining 32 staying in Canada for training), as did 2,394 from British production, for a total of 3,782.

                    32 training “Valentine” remained at home, the rest went to the USSR.
              3. yttg
                yttg 22 March 2018 15: 58
                +3
                Quote: fighter angel
                We built “Seventy” 2.5 times more, more than 8.500 pieces.

                But the armor for Soviet tanks, what were they made of? Where did nickel and other additives come from?
                And the machines for their production, where are they from? Hardware, where?
                The same applies to aviation with the same gas "seventies". If not for deliveries under Lend-Lease, then in 1945, I would have had to fight on the I-16. For steeper engines there was no fuel.
                1. fighter angel
                  fighter angel 22 March 2018 16: 32
                  +3
                  I have no desire to argue with you, unknown.
                  All your beloved Lend-Lease is 7-10% of what you released in 41-45. Soviet industry.
                  Here is the point.
                  Data from Soviet sources. You- from pro-Western.
                  In my opinion, your lie, in your - my lie.
                  There is nothing to talk about.
                  Persuade anyone else.
                  It will not work with me.
                  I am unilaterally discussing this topic.
                  for apart from a waste of time I see no benefits for myself.
                  The topic has been raised hundreds of times.
                  TIRED!
                  Until next time!
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 22 March 2018 16: 50
                    +2
                    Quote: fighter angel
                    All your beloved Lend-Lease is 7-10% of what you released in 41-45. Soviet industry.

                    Gorgeous.
                    And now we remove the land-lease - and the production of T-34-85 is reduced to the only Sormovsky plant. Because without LL for the entire USSR there are 2 machines for processing shoulder straps of towers with a diameter of more than 1500 mm. And one of them is engaged in the production of heavy tanks.
                    Oh yes, there won't be shots for 85 mm guns either - in those quantities. which were. For their release was provided by LL copper. You can also forget about the mass production of subcaliber in the first half of 1943.
                    42% of the 1944 gunpowder was negative. All high-octane gasoline, including supposedly domestic mixed gas, is also in the red. All-wheel drive trucks - in the red (and this is at 25-30% loss of vehicles in operations in the same 1942).
                    And the main thing is that the entire cargo delivery system is negative. Because, on its own, the USSR can provide transportation only 40-50% of what was delivered via a single - Far Eastern - route. Iran and the North disappear immediately - there is nothing to transport, nothing to escort.
                    1. yttg
                      yttg 22 March 2018 17: 34
                      +1
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      And now we remove the land-lease - and the production of T-34-85 is reduced to the only Sormovsky plant.

                      Yeah. Only there will be this T-34:
                      1. Very much of structural, not armored steel.
                      2. The gun will be 76 mm F-34, not 85 mm S-53. This is unambiguous.
                      3. OFZ will be a large deficit, there is no explosive - there is nothing to fight with the enemy’s anti-tank guns.
                      4. BB and others will also be a big deficit, there is no gunpowder for a propellant charge.
                      Yes, and one more thing - there will be no tankers and tank builders. Because there will be no food in the country.
            2. Fayter2017
              Fayter2017 22 March 2018 14: 01
              +3
              I read the memoirs of a tanker who praised Valentine very much, including for his low altitude and relative noiselessness, citing an example when two tigers settled in the village, it was precisely two Valentines from the intelligence service who were sent to fight them, they quietly approached the tigers from the sides and shot those T-34 would "burn" immediately.
              Which once again proves that in skillful hands, any technique is capable of much, despite its characteristics.
              1. fighter angel
                fighter angel 22 March 2018 14: 06
                +1
                Nothing is supernatural.
                Our T-70 also beat the Panther. At least one case is known and confirmed.
                1. BAI
                  BAI 22 March 2018 15: 58
                  +2
                  Not a Panther - but a Panther, at least 2 pcs.

                  T-70 commander junior lieutenant A. Pegov was introduced to the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union.
                  1. fighter angel
                    fighter angel 22 March 2018 16: 48
                    +1
                    Thank you Supported. Indeed, somehow forgotten- "Seventy" Pegov against two "Panthers".
                2. The comment was deleted.
          2. yttg
            yttg 22 March 2018 15: 54
            +2
            Quote: fighter angel
            For the most part, the Angles supplied us with junk, something that they themselves did not like.

            1. Are you a great specialist in the field of BTT from the time of 2MB?
            2. Even if the British BTT were junk, even junk is better than nothing.
            1. fighter angel
              fighter angel 22 March 2018 16: 53
              +3
              A young man, registered today at VO, have you been taught the elementary rules of decency?
              Didn’t have time to come in and are already starting to mess out?
              Ask provocative bad questions to the elders.
              It’s not accepted here.
              There will be no dialogue with you until you learn to behave normally.
              You’ll bother, and a complaint to moderator will go to you.
              I ended the conversation with you.
              1. yttg
                yttg 22 March 2018 17: 37
                0
                Quote: fighter angel
                Didn’t have time to come in and are already starting to mess out?

                For example?
                Quote: fighter angel
                Ask provocative bad questions to the elders.

                I’m suitable for your fathers. Yeah I understood? The eldest was found.
                Quote: fighter angel
                also a moder’s complaint will go to you.

                When there are no arguments in the dispute, the admin will do as well. resource.
                1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                  Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 19: 05
                  +2
                  Quote: yttg
                  I’m suitable for your fathers. Yeah I understood? The eldest was found.

                  how old are you dad?
                2. fighter angel
                  fighter angel 22 March 2018 21: 29
                  +4
                  Father, first of all, I don’t need to “poke”, fortunately I didn’t drink with you. I don’t poke you. Secondly, judging by your dialect, well, what kind of "father" you are to me - none. Sinul you in comparison with me. I received boots and an overcoat, and you still didn’t even hang a little muddy, so behave yourself. Congratulations, the corporal received. But only
                  here when I served as an urgent in the days of the USSR, there was a saying: "Better a daughter forgive me than a son - corporal." Respect others - and they will begin to respect you too.
        2. Vasilenko Vladimir
          Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 17: 36
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          One of 3300 received from England during the Second World War.

          for 1941-45 the USSR issued
          Light Armored Vehicles - 30079
          Medium armored vehicles - 62424
          Heavy armored vehicles - 13979
          total - 106482
          1. yttg
            yttg 22 March 2018 18: 00
            +1
            Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
            for 1941-45 the USSR issued

            Himself released?
            Where did you get the raw materials? Where did you get the equipment? Where did you get food for workers and tankers?
            In the country, even with Lend-Lease deliveries, the shells were stuffed mainly with ersatz and the gunpowder in the shells was not quite full gunpowder. And what would happen without these supplies?
            1. Vasilenko Vladimir
              Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 18: 59
              0
              Quote: yttg
              Himself released?

              no damn with zulus
              impudent here from which side?
              1. yttg
                yttg 22 March 2018 19: 17
                +1
                Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                damn it with zulus

                With the help of the Anglo-Saxons.
                Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                impudent here from which side?

                From direct. Have you heard anything about the northern convoys? Which ships were part of the convoys, you know?
                1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                  Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 21: 33
                  +1
                  Quote: yttg
                  From direct. Have you heard anything about the northern convoys? Which ships were part of the convoys, you know?

                  I know, but I also know that these convoys were not for beautiful eyes, they were paid for with blood, you know how many participated in the toughest battle in Africa or on TO ?!
              2. fighter angel
                fighter angel 22 March 2018 21: 58
                +3
                The so-called supplies of amers and Angles were only a help, nothing more. The entire severity of the war was borne by Our industry, Our equipment and Our Soldier. It would have completely dispensed with Anglo-Saxe handouts. Howl, liberoids, work out grants.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 23 March 2018 11: 00
                  +2
                  Quote: fighter angel
                  The entire severity of the war was borne by Our industry, Our equipment and Our Soldier. It would have completely dispensed with Anglo-Saxe handouts.

                  What always struck me as a patriot was that they don’t understand that refusing to lend-lease would be paid for by the blood of a Soviet soldier. And a lot of blood.
                  Because Lend-Lease is not so much tanks, planes and other military equipment. These are machines, machine tools and raw materials with which Soviet industry was able to expand its bottlenecks or replace its own output.
                  Without Lend-Lease, we immediately lose more than half of aluminum (because the USSR has only one plant left) - and our pilots will be forced to fight on "varnished guaranteed coffins." We lose 45% of copper - and the ammunition industry is suffocating. We lose all high-octane and mixed gasolines - and increasing the power of engines becomes fantastic. By the way, the dependence of the USSR on imports for some of the components for the production of aviation gasoline was 100%. We lose 25-40% of gunpowder - but this is already very dangerous. For even in real life the release of ammunition was such that it took several months to save them for the preparation of large operations in 1942-1944.
                  The army is losing 480 four-wheel drive vehicles. And that puts an end to fast offensive operations. Because as a serial all-wheel drive. The USSR does not have a truck - there is only its own jeep, produced by homeopathic parties. In theory, the USSR has a pre-war GAZ-000. But the trouble is - for its release at the GAZ plant, you need to either stop the production of "one and a half" for six months, or stop the production of T-63 and SU-70. During the war, yes ... Oh yes, there are no domestic tires for the GAZ-76 either.
                  In total, LL helped free 300 skilled workers. Where do you propose to take them for import substitution?
                  1. fighter angel
                    fighter angel 23 March 2018 11: 20
                    +1
                    Alexey RA:
                    I repeat to you once again: I am not discussing these issues more about lend-lease.
                    Why?
                    See above in the comments, all clearly explained.
                    Therefore, do not try to prove something to me here.
                    "Leave unnecessary disputes,
                    I’ve already proved everything to myself ... "precisely on this issue.
                    Do not waste time.
                    Disputes with you about Lend-Lease and its significance will not be.
                    Greetings to you!
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 23 March 2018 12: 00
                      0
                      Understand. When they switch to specific positions from the general temperature in the hospital, taking into account the morgue, it becomes very difficult for the fans of Voznesensky to argue about the insignificance of lend-lease with his 4%.
                      Especially when opponents begin to take numbers, say, from the book "Ammunition of Victory" by Ivan Ivanovich Vernidub, who occupied in 1962-1970. the post of director of NII-6 of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR. smile
                      1. fighter angel
                        fighter angel 23 March 2018 12: 28
                        +1
                        You see. That's good.
                        On this and go on this issue.
                        Each with his own opinion.
            2. Alber
              Alber 24 March 2018 17: 05
              0
              Quote: yttg
              Himself released?
              Where did you get the raw materials? Where did you get the equipment? Where did you get food for workers and tankers?
              In the country, even with Lend-Lease deliveries, the shells were stuffed mainly with ersatz and the gunpowder in the shells was not quite full gunpowder. And what would happen without these supplies?


              No, they took from you in Israel ...)
          2. fighter angel
            fighter angel 23 March 2018 14: 43
            +1
            For Vasilenko Vladimir Ivanovich:
            That's right, Valenkov’s supplies accounted for less than 3% of what the USSR tank industry released! What can I talk about here? Why should we "kneel down and give thanks in tears" ???? For the pathetic 3% ??? IT'S FUNNY TO EVEN TALK.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 23 March 2018 18: 43
              0
              Quote: fighter angel
              That's right, Valenkov’s supplies accounted for less than 3% of what the USSR tank industry released!

              Heh heh heh .. and if you take the year 1944, the supply of "Valentine" amounted to about 100% of the light tanks received by the Red Army. smile It was Lend-Lease that allowed the USSR to completely abandon the production of its own light vehicles and start production at the same facilities of the SU-76 assault guns.
              By the way, for the USSR, it was Valentine that was considered the standard of a light tank.
              And do not forget that the Soviet tank production included, for example, the mass of cardboard "overgrown bugs" T-60. How many USSR produced tanks with frontal armor more than 60 mm?
              1. fighter angel
                fighter angel 24 March 2018 13: 23
                +1
                Light tanks in 1944! Hehehehe ... of the Red Army they were no longer needed, and not relevant.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 26 March 2018 10: 54
                  0
                  Quote: fighter angel
                  Light tanks in 1944! Hehehehe ... of the Red Army they were no longer needed, and not relevant.

                  LT type T-70 and T-80 - but not needed. But the army demanded a heavy reservation such as “Valentine” in 1943, and in 1944, and in 1945.
                  Back in the spring of 1943, the T-50 was pulled out of nothingness. Tactical and technical requirements for the new tank reminiscent of this car. In early January 1944, a team of design bureau of plant No. 174 began work on a promising tank. Headed the work of G.V. Gudkov, chief designer of the T-50 tank. Engaged in a new tank Bushnev, the former chief designer of the plant number 185, which also played an important role in the creation of the T-50.
                  © Y. Pasholok
                  In TTT, the reservation for the new tank was set to just 60 mm. True, the design bureau was asked to lower it to 45 mm.
                  1. fighter angel
                    fighter angel 26 March 2018 11: 20
                    0
                    The need and demand for a particular type of tank is determined by HIS ACCEPTANCE !!! And not design work!
                    What is the use of pulling the T-50 project? It was finalized and adopted? Master in production? No no and one more time no!!!
                    Means- THE LIGHT TANK WASN'T NEEDED then, at the end of the 43rd - beginning of the 44th as a type of tank! And no matter what kind of reservation he had there.
                    I would need a “Lightweight” - DID DO, DO NOT Doubt!
                    Looking ahead, the only "light" tank, (relatively, of course, light), adopted, although after the war it’s a floating PT-76, a "float", and that’s because of its unique quality - the ability to sail.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 29 March 2018 19: 38
                      0
                      Quote: fighter angel
                      Means- THE LIGHT TANK WASN'T NEEDED then, at the end of the 43rd - beginning of the 44th as a type of tank! And no matter what kind of reservation he had there.

                      Right. Do you know why it was not needed? Because this niche was closed by the same "Valentine".
                      If a light tank were not needed, tank commanders would not have demanded it in 1943 and 1944.
                      Quote: fighter angel
                      I would need a “Lightweight” - DID DO, DO NOT Doubt!

                      Yah?
                      The army requested a medium anti-ballistic reservation tank from 1941 - when it turned out that the T-34 armor did not protect against German anti-tank shells. She never received a new medium tank: the KV-13 died, and the T-43 was launched and immediately discontinued. And they fought the whole war with the 45-mm VLD and with tanks in the fighting compartment.
                      ZSU have been asked since 1940. There was a hell of a car - to cover the same columns on the march. The niche was closed by Lend-Lease, their ZSU were buried in 1942 and made only in 1944 - as many as 75 pieces.
                      Self-propelled guns to combat the bunker GAU and the State Academic Bolshoi Technical University have been requested since 1940. They have asked for the entire war. Did not do. They made the SU-152, which the GAU considered a palliative.
                      A self-propelled 203 mm gun was also requested throughout the war. They didn’t do it, and they had to pull out direct fire in B-4 cities in the SPS.
                      1. fighter angel
                        fighter angel 30 March 2018 09: 47
                        0
                        Alexey RA: "Really?"

                        DO NOT DO, DO NOT harness.
                        There are good words about "they asked, they wanted, they demanded the whole war, they didn’t give it." Alexander Sergeyevich Yakovlev, who, incidentally, was a friend of Joseph Yakovlevich Kotin, general designer of heavy tanks, said wonderful words: "We must give not what they want, but what they REALLY NEED!" Everyone has their own Wishlist, and if you adapt to the wishes of everyone, no industry will be enough. If desired, shortcomings and lack of something can be found in any army, not only ours.
      3. fighter angel
        fighter angel 22 March 2018 12: 53
        +1
        to sib ataman
        You are famously with the "Zion wise man."
    2. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 17: 28
      +4
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Further, Russia and England were allies in the wars against Napoleon,
      were allies in the Entente.

      highly doubtful example
      so that Russia would herds of England as an ally of the British organized the assassination of the Russian emperor and just in case sent a squadron to St. Petersburg
      Quote: voyaka uh
      were allies in the Entente.

      the truth is that the impudent people set Japan on Russia and generously financed this war
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Further, England instantly reacted to Hitler's attack on the USSR

      again before ....
      Quote: voyaka uh
      After the war, England transferred to the USSR jet engines for the MIG-15.

      Unthinkable
      Quote: voyaka uh
      That is, summarizing, England was sometimes a friend, then an enemy - equally.

      the enemy she was always sometimes when it was beneficial to her she pretended to be an ally never really do this
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Landlize

      I'm sorry but Lend-Lease is impudent
      Quote: voyaka uh
      help in the famine of the Volga region

      can be more detailed about the help of the brazen
      ... in February 1922, the response of the British government to the request of the Christian International to accept starving children from Russia in England. The reply signed by Harold Scott said: “Upon your request to bring 250 starving children from Russia, I inform you that I am authorized by the Secretary of State to express my regret that at the present moment he is not able to accept them in England”

      By the way, at the same time, the impudent ones are intensely financing the basmachism
      Quote: voyaka uh
      (help in the 1st World

      it generally causes a homeric laughter, RI can be said to have been dragged into this war which she had never needed, and it was not the impudent ones that helped us, and we
    3. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 17: 31
      +4
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Further, Russia and England were allies

      for Christ's sake return the minuses
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 22 March 2018 17: 50
        +1
        Especially for you love
        https://angliya.com/2017/05/03/rossiyskie-tsari-i
        mperatory-v-londone /
        Visits of Russian emperors to England:
        1) Peter [the First] was not completely satisfied with the teaching methodology and went to prosperous England.
        In London, the Russian Tsar was settled near Strand ... and later moved to Greenwich
        2) Alexander I - godmother of Queen Victoria.
        When Alexander I sailed to Dover, he was carried in his arms to Dover Castle, located on a high cliff.
        They promised to carry it to London, but Alexander ordered to wake him up early in the morning, at four
        3) Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich, future Emperor Nicholas I,
        first visited London in 1816, that is, two years after the visit of his brother, Tsar Alexander
        4) In 1844, Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich arrived in Britain at the invitation of Queen Victoria.
        In the magazines of that time there were illustrations depicting the trip of the Russian Tsar to the races in Ascot and in Windsor.
        After the races, Queen Victoria hosted a ceremonial parade in the Great Windsor Park,
        and in London arranged a dinner party at Buckingham Palace
        5) the future Emperor Alexander II, arrived in London before accession to the throne, being the Grand Duke.
        This trip took place in 1839. The formal occasion was the 20th anniversary of the still unmarried Queen Victoria
        The next meeting between Alexander II and Queen Victoria took place in 1874, when the emperor arrived in London
        visit her daughter Maria, who married the second son of Queen Victoria Alfred
        1. Vasilenko Vladimir
          Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 18: 00
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Visits of Russian emperors to England:

          and that this cancels all the abominations that the naglia committed in relation to my Motherland, by the way, you did not indicate one failed visit that crosses out all the other accomplished ones
          1. yttg
            yttg 22 March 2018 18: 15
            0
            Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
            the abominations that the naglia committed against my homeland

            For example?
            What abominations did Britain commit against your USSR?
            1. Vasilenko Vladimir
              Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 19: 01
              +2
              Quote: yttg
              What abominations did Britain commit against your USSR?

              unthinkable enough? !!!
              Russia, RI is the same Motherland for me as the USSR
              1. yttg
                yttg 22 March 2018 19: 17
                0
                Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
                Russia, RI is the same Motherland for me as the USSR

                Judging by the flag, no.
                You, or change the flag. Or ... no need for Russia. And about Russia, too.
                1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                  Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 21: 35
                  +1
                  Quote: yttg
                  You, or change the flag. Or ... no need for Russia. And about Russia, too.

                  oh .... God forgive me
                  you dad (God forgive me) study the history of your homeland first, and after that you’ll climb into the debate
                  so for the "unthinkable" say? !!!
                2. fighter angel
                  fighter angel 23 March 2018 16: 35
                  +1
                  yttg: "... you, or change the flag. Or ..."

                  Persistently demanded a man who generally has no flag ...
                  1. Alber
                    Alber 24 March 2018 17: 11
                    +1
                    Quote: fighter angel
                    yttg: "... you, or change the flag. Or ..."

                    Persistently demanded a man who generally has no flag ...


                    He is cosmopolitan rootless ...)
        2. Alber
          Alber 30 March 2018 16: 30
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Especially for you love
          https://angliya.com/2017/05/03/rossiyskie-tsari-i
          mperatory-v-londone /
          Visits of Russian emperors to England:
          1) Peter [the First] was not completely satisfied with the teaching methodology and went to prosperous England.
          In London, the Russian Tsar was settled near Strand ... and later moved to Greenwich
          2) Alexander I - godmother of Queen Victoria.
          When Alexander I sailed to Dover, he was carried in his arms to Dover Castle, located on a high cliff.
          They promised to carry it to London, but Alexander ordered to wake him up early in the morning, at four
          3) Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich, future Emperor Nicholas I,
          first visited London in 1816, that is, two years after the visit of his brother, Tsar Alexander
          4) In 1844, Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich arrived in Britain at the invitation of Queen Victoria.
          In the magazines of that time there were illustrations depicting the trip of the Russian Tsar to the races in Ascot and in Windsor.
          After the races, Queen Victoria hosted a ceremonial parade in the Great Windsor Park,
          and in London arranged a dinner party at Buckingham Palace
          5) the future Emperor Alexander II, arrived in London before accession to the throne, being the Grand Duke.
          This trip took place in 1839. The formal occasion was the 20th anniversary of the still unmarried Queen Victoria
          The next meeting between Alexander II and Queen Victoria took place in 1874, when the emperor arrived in London
          visit her daughter Maria, who married the second son of Queen Victoria Alfred


          Yes your Anglo-Saxons have failed ...
      2. kalibr
        kalibr 22 March 2018 21: 59
        +1
        Forget and take it easy!
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. fighter angel
        fighter angel 23 March 2018 09: 20
        +2
        "for Christ's sake, return the minuses."

        I fully support!
    4. fighter angel
      fighter angel 23 March 2018 07: 58
      +3
      Eco you, voyaka uh, suffered. This is how the Angles gave us jet engines "HANDED"? They SOLD THEM! And it’s very expensive! Both Nin and Dervent. And this is only because they had more advanced developments in this area at that time. So no need to talk about "English kindness" here
      Well, what you deigned to write about the USA - that they "have always been an ally or assistant to Russia" is utter stupidity. It is not clear only, did you sincerely write this, or did you want to "have fun"?
  13. Luga
    Luga 22 March 2018 13: 16
    +5
    I agree with the author in part. There are comments.
    In addition to the enumeration of Anglo-Russian conflicts, in my opinion, it was possible and should have analyzed the causes of these conflicts in each specific case, to identify common ones, to draw parallels in modernity ... The same is desirable for conflicts in which Britain and Russia spoke on the same to the side - reasons, similarities, differences ...
    For example, I see the situation as follows.
    After losing the Hundred Years War, Britain was “doomed” to become a “sea” empire. Russia has always been a continental empire. Britain carried out the expansion by sea, Russia - by land. Because of this, Britain has always been keenly responding to the strengthening of competitors at sea, and Russia - on land. When a serious competitor appeared on the European continent, they threatened both to conclude an alliance and smash together. In the absence of serious competitors fought among themselves.
    The United States as a metastasis of Britain in the American continent completely adopted this policy, and if after the collapse of the USSR the situation with the unipolar world did not develop and conditional parity remained, it is quite possible that now both monsters (Russia and the United States) would quietly jointly crush China, clearly challenging the superpowers ... And strangling him, would gladly again engaged in each other.
  14. andrewkor
    andrewkor 22 March 2018 14: 38
    +1
    As far as I remember during the reign of Ivan the Terrible during the Livonian War, England imposed sanctions on Russia!
  15. Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 15: 49
    +4
    Of course, the UK has never been a friend and ally of Russia
    to put it mildly, the murders of Russian tsars, practically all Russian-Turkish wars, Caucasian wars, Basmachism, Russian-Japanese war, "unthinkable", the Cold War is a very small list of nasty things
  16. Captain Nemo
    Captain Nemo 22 March 2018 19: 51
    +3
    In many ways, the British Empire (with Austria, Canada, etc.) and the United States are ruled by one gang. And the attitude of this gang towards Russia perfectly characterizes the following statement of Harry Truman: “If we see that Germany wins the war, we should help Russia, if Russia will win, we should help Germany, and let them kill each other as much as possible, although I I don’t want to see Hitler in the winners under any circumstances. "
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 22 March 2018 21: 56
      0
      Very correct, one can say the only correct and reasonable policy in relation to any opponent!
  17. kalibr
    kalibr 22 March 2018 21: 55
    0
    Quote: fighter angel
    For the most part, the Angles supplied us with junk, something that they themselves did not like.

    Strange ... But didn’t Stalin insist that the British not withdraw from production Valentine? They wanted to, but it was on our order that they continued to do it. Well, did we order shit? And the pilots ... they would try to praise them. Quickly in a penal battalion.
    1. fighter angel
      fighter angel 23 March 2018 08: 20
      +1
      Kalibr, Have you seen at least one Soviet order of that time? What equipment was ordered there? I doubt that one of us saw them. But what we received is well known to us. And it was 80% received that either the Angles themselves did not fit, either became outdated or became unnecessary. This is what we had to get. Accordingly, the USSR was forced to order it. And they would not have let out “Valenka” only for us alone — they also needed it. That's all. This is capitalism. And the fact that there Stalin personally asked the production not to be turned off is, excuse me, the tales of the Vienna Woods.
      But the planes, the fact that “Hariton” with “Hampden” - crappy, it became clear immediately. G..- whatever you call it, it will remain gnom.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 23 March 2018 11: 12
        0
        In fact, the first Hurricanes delivered to the USSR were the very machines on which the British defended the sky of our Murmansk. The personnel have gone, and the equipment has been left to us.
        Or do you think that the British command deliberately sent their people to the slaughter, forcing them to fight in crappy cars - in order to later fuse them with the USSR? wink
        By the way, this also applies to the "Hampden" - for these machines were exactly the same we got from the British who arrived to fight us.
        But the main question is - what prevented them from refusing supplies? Why didn’t the proud Stalinist falcons land at the helm of domestic aircraft models and soar into the sky? In general, what could domestic industry offer them? The answer is well known - the Navy’s Air Force, which got the first Khuri and Hampden, was so well equipped that the mtap received DB-1942F in pieces, and the Navy’s Air Force flew on the I-3. 16 giap, which covered the most important Road of Life, flew on donkeys until January 4. Against FW-1943.
        1. fighter angel
          fighter angel 23 March 2018 11: 59
          +1
          And you do not know, Alexey RA, why? Yes, because all our industry was evacuated from the European part beyond the Urals. And then mastered in a new place. At this time, and this is precisely the period from the fall-winter of 41st to the fall of 42nd, objective interruptions began with the supply of military equipment, including aircraft. And the Air Force of the Red Army had to hold out at all costs, until our plants reach normal operation. We were forced to accept and be content with English technology, but this is a temporary measure, I emphasize, until the aircraft plants are fully commissioned. And the Angles understood this in their own way: "It is bad for the Soviets, they will take from us now any trash that we put to them!" Thank you, even though the "Gladiators" with the "Bulldogs" and "Deviants" had no conscience to deliver to the USSR!
          Air Force of the Northern Fleet - God himself ordered to rearm on this materiel-deliveries arrived just in Murmansk. Here is pure logistics: why drive Yaki to Murmansk from Saratov and Novosib, if they can be immediately sent to the Caucasus and Stalingrad, and the "northerners" are easier and faster to equip allied equipment.
          The I-16 not only “flew” against the FV-190. But it also shot them down! In the year 1943. There are facts.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. fighter angel
              fighter angel 24 March 2018 13: 31
              +1
              "... So the Allies supplied us the same thing that they fought on their own ..."
              But then where are the Spitfires, Bofayters, Beauforts, Wellington, Lancaster, Stirling ??? The Angles fought on them too! "Double standards" - in other words, take God (that is, the USSR), which is worthless! So it turns out !!!

              ".... Well, yes ... just those I-16 pilots who were shot down did not leave memories ..."
              Are you going to mock me, I don’t understand something?
              Go from here to another place.
              Do not be ashamed of you for such "vys.e..ry"?
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 26 March 2018 12: 53
                0
                Quote: fighter angel
                But then where are the Spitfires, Bofayters, Beauforts, Wellington, Lancaster, Stirling ???

                That is, do you propose that Britain, without completing the rearmament of its squadrons, rush to help the USSR with all the breadth of the British heart? smile
                Or do you think that the British in 1941-1942 all flew as one on the "sleeps", "typhoons" and "bofayters" and delivered to us the "hurricanes" thrown into the garbage? I’m afraid to upset you, but on the main British land theater - in Africa - the RAF “Hurricanes" in war quantities fought under El Alamein. Moreover, limes themselves in 1942 were forced to fight on foreign cars - R-400 and various models of the "ax" R-40.
                The USSR began to receive Spitfires in 1943 - and at first a quarter of the cars had to be taken from repair, since there were simply no new ones in lime.
                And instead of the “beauforts,” we got the American A-20 attack aircraft (aka “Boston”), which were used as torpedo bombers and ground-attack attack aircraft.
                Quote: fighter angel
                "Double standards" - in other words, take God (that is, the USSR), which is worthless! So it turns out !!!

                Once again: the USSR received exactly the same cars that the British fought in RAF. Navy Air Force generally received "Hurricanes" and "Hampden" in the state "still cups have not cooled"- it was a materiel on which British squadrons flew, flown to the USSR to cover the convoys and flying from Soviet airfields.
                Quote: fighter angel
                Are you going to mock me, I don’t understand something?

                Not. I just write that the FW-190s shot down on the I-16 is an extremely rare case, and we only know about them because the Golubev-thirteen who shot them left memories. More often, the result of the meeting between the Focke-Wulfs and the donkeys was the opposite. And these battles remained, at best, only in reports and reports - there was no one to leave memories. sad
                1. fighter angel
                  fighter angel 26 March 2018 13: 29
                  +1
                  "... with all the breadth of a British heart rushed to help the USSR? ..."

                  The brazen have no hearts or breadth. There is only money, profit and interests.
                  Vile people.

                  "... Do you propose that Britain, without completing the rearmament of its squadrons, rush to help the USSR with all the breadth of the British heart?
                  Or do you think that the British in 1941-1942 all flew as one on the "sleeps", "typhoons" and "bofayters" and delivered us the "hurricanes" thrown into the garbage? ... "

                  Ah, here it is! That is, you think that the Angles needed to fight, re-equip themselves with modern equipment, and you can send them to the USSR, why are they re-equipping?
                  And our Soviets didn’t need modern technology, so it turns out? Indeed, what really is there - half a year to get out. And this "rubbish" will come down !!!
                  And the Angles need to fight! His own shirt, she’s closer to the body!
                  Therefore, no "emotion and tears of gratitude" for SUCH "HELP" SUCH THERE - NAGLES WILL NOT WAIT !!!
                  The value of such "help" is very, very doubtful. And especially in the context of recent events.
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 26 March 2018 14: 21
                    0
                    Quote: fighter angel
                    Ah, here it is! That is, you think that the Angles needed to fight, re-equip themselves with modern equipment, and you can send them to the USSR, why are they re-equipping?

                    I believe that sending to the USSR in 1941-1942 those cars on which at that time the British themselves were fighting, is not a cause for indignation. British and Soviet pilots flew the same equipment.
                    China did not complain that they were supplying it with I-16 instead of MiG and Yak.
                    Or are you outraged that Britain dared to put its national interests and the lives of its citizens above the national interests of the USSR? So it’s natural - the observance of one’s national interests is always the basis of the policy of any state, unless, of course, it is the RF of the EBN era. The Soviet Union, you know, was also not particularly eager to observe the national interests of the Allies, allowing Japan to produce oil in the Soviet Northern Sakhalin until 1944. Or not throwing the formations weakened by the multi-hundred-kilometer offensive to the aid of the Pro-British rebels - thus saving the lives of their military personnel. wink
                    Quote: fighter angel
                    Therefore, no "emotion and tears of gratitude" for SUCH "HELP" SUCH THERE - NAGLES WILL NOT WAIT !!! And especially in the context of recent events.

                    And someone requires affection and tears of gratitude? belay
                    So far, the whole discussion revolves around the thesis " it’s not worth saying that the limes delivered us the written-off trash - they gave us absolutely the same thing on which they themselves fought". Moreover, that VBR itself was a recipient of Lend-Lease.
                    1. fighter angel
                      fighter angel 26 March 2018 14: 52
                      0
                      Not a damn thing like that!
                      They gave us something that was an order of magnitude worse than what they themselves preferred to fight on. Moreover, strictly by the residual principle.
                      Well, at least frank junk did not have to be accepted from them, such as “Bulldogs”, “Gladiators”, “Wheatley”, “Battle”, “Deviants”.
                      Here is my opinion. I think so.
  18. Operator
    Operator 22 March 2018 22: 01
    +1
    The most interesting thing in the Crimean War took place in the Baltic - in 1855, as many as 81 (eighty-one) screw ships with cannon armament (superweapons at that time) were riveted in St. Petersburg and the most powerful British fleet justified itself from fear, after which it turned operation.

    PS Pity the microscopic British kingdom - it has been 70 years since it’s not an empire over which the sun does not set laughing
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 22 March 2018 22: 31
      0
      The empire is over. And Russia is no longer an empire. A large country with nuclear weapons but a weak economy.
      1. Operator
        Operator 22 March 2018 22: 37
        0
        Quite right, the Russian Federation is not an empire - we have the largest national state in human history (with 70% of Russians), then there will only be more (by territory and percentage of the titular nation).
        1. Vasilenko Vladimir
          Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 22: 44
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          That's right, the Russian Federation is not an empire

          still what empire was and will be
      2. Vasilenko Vladimir
        Vasilenko Vladimir 22 March 2018 22: 41
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The empire is over. And Russia is no longer an empire

        rare stupidity, you do not know the definitions do not be clever
      3. fighter angel
        fighter angel 23 March 2018 08: 25
        +1
        And what is the "cry of Yaroslavna" heard from the promised land? Do you like the Russian economy?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 23 March 2018 11: 44
          0
          On the topic of the article. Compare England and Russia. Both are former empires. Who fought, then made friends. Both now have a weak economy after the collapse of imperial structures.
          1. fighter angel
            fighter angel 23 March 2018 12: 35
            0
            You are right here in one thing: the Angles and I either fought, then swore "friends." The second, by the way, is much more often than the first.
  19. Operator
    Operator 22 March 2018 22: 56
    0
    Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
    empire was and will be

    Empire is a multinational state (with a titular nation in the minority) such as Rome until 476, Byzantium until 1453, Japan until 1945, Britain until 1947, or the USSR until 1992.
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 23 March 2018 08: 28
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      Empire - a multinational state (with a titular nation in the minority)

      where did you read that definition
    2. fighter angel
      fighter angel 23 March 2018 10: 34
      +1
      Operator: "... Empire is a multinational state like ..."

      For such a definition, they immediately put 2 points in social sciences in the Soviet military educational institutions. The breadth and depth of your knowledge is immediately visible.
  20. Antares
    Antares 23 March 2018 00: 00
    0
    England has no enemies and no allies, only interests.
    A similar article can be dashed about France - it has much more graters with England than with Russia. And much more time. But something they don’t bother with on this subject.
    Searching for enemies is something psychological .. why?
    By the way, Russia's biggest victories are just in alliance with England. But the biggest defeats from England itself or her protégé (Eastern and RVE) ... Apart from the USSR, where Russia was not, they used the capitalists to their advantage.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 24 March 2018 00: 33
      0
      "Searching for enemies is something psychological .. why?" ///

      The usual custom-made article "at the wickedness of the day" ...
      Now the aggravation of relations between Russia and England, and articles went: "England is an eternal enemy / England is so weak that it is about to fall apart." All - fit, silence inappropriate information or disa, of course.
      Similar articles about Georgia, Ukraine, Germany (when Merkle declared something unfriendly), and Turkey regularly appeared in recent years. Whom did you forget?
      And about the USA - here regularly: "the eternal enemy / is about to fall apart."
      1. Crane operator Nahamkinson
        Crane operator Nahamkinson 24 March 2018 00: 48
        +3
        What about Israel?
        Is he a friend of Russia?
        You can’t forget everything, your difficult childhood in the USSR. wassat
  21. Catfish
    Catfish 25 March 2018 14: 54
    0
    "Rear Admiral David Powell Price, who commanded the Anglo-French combined squadron operating against the Russian fleet, died as a result of a random shot from his own pistol."

    Soyuznichki got snot there, Petropavlovsk did not succeed in taking it. The Saxons had to get out, the officers were deprived of all orders, and then they tried again. And the Anglo-French occupied it after the Russian ships safely left there, and in the city there remained a small invalid team led by a one-armed lieutenant.
    Now, with regards to Admiral Price: he "accidentally" shot himself in the chest in the heart region BEFORE the storming.
    Interesting, right? Especially when you consider what kind of disgrace all British officers got after an unsuccessful assault. I can’t pretend to say, but it’s quite possible that the British admiral, being an experienced person, had a clear idea of ​​how their attack would end and what dishonor would cover his “gray head”. There was a rumor then, it went that Price simply shot himself. But, rumor is rumor, and as it was, in fact, only Price himself knows, and he will not say anything already.
    In any case, our guys smashed a British lion there, and plucked a Gallic rooster. lol
  22. Andrey Smolin
    Andrey Smolin 21 September 2019 00: 49
    0
    The war of Britain against Russia began 400 years ago and has not yet been completed. That is why our countries cannot be friends, and any citizen of the USSR and Russia, except diplomats and politicians, could be arrested and sent to a cell upon arrival in Britain. I was invited to Britain a lot of times. But, I refused and pointed to which cell and in which prison I was supposed to be placed. And whoever came to Britain was often trapped.
    The mass of objects throughout the USSR until 1990 remained in British ownership. With the collapse of the USSR, Russia had to defend its rights to property located in the vastness of Russia. And in the Caucasus, Britain built the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline and returned to the Caucasus as a mistress. Both the interests of Britain are behind the liquidation of Adzharia and the wars in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as the conflicts in Central Asia and Karabakh in the 80s-90s.
    Doing business with Britain is very difficult. You need to know the position and approach of Britain to resolve the issue. But, replaying Britain is possible. And this is exactly what professionals are doing. But the war of Britain against Russia is impossible to stop. If someone signs the World, then one of the countries should disappear from the World map. In the XVI century, Britain was forced to give Russia all the land east of the Volga. It was precisely so that Russia began to develop the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East. But Alaska was forced to transfer Russia to the United States in 1867, since under an agreement with Britain from the 400th century Russia could not have land in America. So we have been in conflict for 1989 years. The Great October Revolution was also a British coup in Russia. And the gold of Russia turned out to be in Britain. Hitler fought with the USSR according to the plan of Britain. And Martin Bormann, Britain, in her submarine, was taken to Britain, and then delivered to Latin America. And the Nazi money until XNUMX lay in Switzerland. And the current conflict in Ukraine is connected precisely with these Nazi capitals that came from Switzerland to Western Ukraine. The war of Britain against Russia continues and goes on in Ukraine.
    Sincerely, Andrey Smolin, Moscow, UN expert from 1985 to 2002
  23. Yakov Oganov
    Yakov Oganov 22 August 2020 09: 46
    0
    England has always quietly, if not openly, pursued a hostile policy against Russia. How did it happen that our oligarchs, pumping out everything that is possible from our country, are transferring their finances to the country of open enemy number 1, thereby helping it to strengthen its power. If this is not a betrayal of the Motherland, then what is the name of this act. If some engineer is publicly imprisoned for transferring dubious information to foreigners, and is called a traitor to the Motherland, then is the transfer of huge assets to the enemy not treason ?????? ...