Entente did not forget about the contribution of Russia

243
As we know, the Entente is a military-political alliance of France, England and Russia, formed in 1891 — 1907. and became a counterweight to the Tripartite (then the Fourth) alliance or the German bloc. Back in 1879, Germany entered into a military alliance with Austria-Hungary (Italy joins it in 1882), aimed against France and Russia. The Triple Alliance marked the beginning of the division of Europe into opposing coalitions.

The Russian-French alliance is formed in 1891 - 1893.




Place of Russia in the Entente.

In 1891, a union agreement between Russia and France is signed, and in 1892, a Franco-Russian military convention is concluded. The convention was signed by the chief of the Russian General Staff N. N. Obruchev and the assistant to the chief of the French General Staff R. Sh. F. Bouadeffre (approved in December 1893). It was defensive in nature, providing for the mutual assistance of the allies with the whole aggregate of free forces, simultaneous mobilization efforts. The main opponent is Germany.

After the agreements of Russia and France in the 90-ies. XIX century. The Anglo-French 1904 and the Anglo-Russian 1907 agreements became major events for the formation of the Entente. As a result, the Franco-Russian alliance turned into a Triple Consensus.

In 1908, the Russian and British monarchs exchanged views on a possible joint war against Germany, and in the minutes of one of the meetings of the chiefs of the Russian and French general staff there appeared the rule that in the case of the German mobilization against England, all allies immediately mobilized.

And the Triple Accord (Entente) becomes a counterweight to the German bloc.


The military-political leadership of the allied powers of Russia in the First World War.

In 1912 - 14 carried out the organizational design of the Entente. During this period, bilateral and trilateral agreements are concluded between its participants. Germany has repeatedly tried to prevent the formation of the Entente - it had an effect on England, then on Russia. For her, their neutrality in a future war was important.

T. o. the creation of the Entente was a reaction to the formation of the Triple Alliance and the strengthening of Germany - and an attempt to prevent German hegemony in Europe. Later, after the collapse of the Triple Alliance (in 1915, Italy took the side of the Entente), the Fourth Alliance (consisting of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Bulgaria) - the combatant of the Entente - is formed.

Entering the Entente, Russia reacted to Germany’s plans to weaken its influence in Europe, tried to resist a possible withdrawal of the Baltic states, Poland and parts of Ukraine and wanting to restrain the Austro-Hungarian expansion in the Balkans.

It was obvious that France, even with the support of the British Expeditionary Army, could not stand up to the German armed forces — for her, an alliance with Russia became an important prerequisite for continued existence as a great power.

It must be emphasized that the creation of the Entente was defensive in nature. The Entente mechanism was put into action under one condition - the presence of a hostile initiative of Germany. And the Russian war on the Austro-German front was defensive in nature. Rejection of any territories from Austria-Hungary and Germany with their inclusion into Russia before the war was not planned. But the logic of being in major military-political alliances tied their participants into a sort of mutual responsibility, and everyone began to join the war along the chain. The logic of the coalition war turned on.

The confrontation of the military-political blocs ultimately led to World War I 1914 - 1918. For more than three years, the Russian army was pushing off considerable forces of the enemy coalition — and, as soon as the enemy took serious action in the west, came to the aid of her allies. This enabled Britain and France to mobilize their resources, and the United States to deploy production power and the armed forces, and comprehensively prepare for entry into the war.


Coalition war.

Both before and during the war the coalition was transformed and developed. For example, in the prewar period, England entered into a series of cooperation agreements with the Japanese Empire (in 1902, in 1905, and in 1911). In September, 1914, under the London Protocol, the Entente powers assumed obligations not to conclude a separate peace with the enemy. If in 1914, the Entente comprised the 3 of the state adjoining it, Japan was considered, and Italy and Romania were sympathetic, then at the end of the war there was up to the 30 allied states of the Entente, including such exotic ones as Siam and Cuba. The term "Entente" was used to refer to the entire anti-German coalition - in relation to both the Entente itself and its allies.

But who was the Entente after Russia left the world war, and especially after the start of the Civil War in our country? Let's take a look at the facts, and the conclusions about who the Entente was for this period for Russia will be left to the reader.

The October coup in Russia initially had disastrous military prospects for Russia's allies on Entente - for it was fraught with Russia's withdrawal from the war. France, England, and Italy reasonably believed that the pro-German party seized power in Russia — after all, its steps (an armistice and the beginning of peace talks with Germany and Austria-Hungary on Russia's withdrawal from the war) fully allowed for this conclusion. And the allies of Russia are taking the natural decision to support the forces that did not recognize the power of the new regime - which, among other things, was established through a military coup.

22. 12. 1917, the conference of representatives of the Entente countries in Paris, considered it necessary to establish and maintain contacts with the anti-Bolshevik governments of the Cossack territories, Ukraine, Siberia, the Caucasus and Finland.

23. 12. 1917 is the Anglo-French agreement on the division of responsibilities in Russia. According to the latter, the Cossack regions and the Caucasus became the responsibility zone of Great Britain, Ukraine, Bessarabia and the Crimea became the responsibility zone of France, and Siberia and the Far East became the responsibility zone of the USA and Japan.

After the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty 03. 03. 1918 Entente declares non-recognition of this separate treaty - but it is not yet going to military actions against the Soviet authorities. She is trying to negotiate with the latter.

On March 6, a minor English landing force landed in Murmansk. He was supposed to prevent the Germans from seizing military cargoes that had been supplied by Russia's allies. The detachment did not undertake hostile actions against the Soviet authorities (up to June 30). Similar symbolic actions took place in the Far East - when the landing of insignificant subunits (a total of 2 companies) of Japanese troops in Vladivostok (then returned to the ships) in response to the assassination of 5-s Japanese citizens.

The aggravation of relations between the Entente and Soviet Russia began in May of 1918 - when Germany demanded that the latter strictly comply with the conditions of the Brest Peace Treaty, including interning the servicemen of the Entente and its allies on Soviet territory. An attempt to fulfill this requirement led to the uprising of the military unit of the Entente - Czechoslovak Corps, as well as the landing of the 2-thousandth British troops in Arkhangelsk (August 1918) and the advancement of Japanese troops in Transbaikalia and Primorye.

After the defeat of the German bloc in November 1918, the Entente attempted to fill the military-political vacuum formed after the withdrawal of the German-Turkish troops, occupying some Black Sea cities and Transcaucasian territories. But (with the exception of the Greeks battalion, who fought with Grigoriev's units near Odessa), the Entente troops, without participating in hostilities, in April 1919 were evacuated from the Crimea and Odessa.

Japan continued to be active in the Far East. British troops in the spring of 1919, at the invitation of the governments of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, landed in the South Caucasus.

The material and economic assistance of the Entente powers to the White movement on a serious scale lasted only until the conclusion of the Versailles Peace Treaty, which formalized the defeat of the German bloc in the First World War. Then the corresponding assistance gradually stops, which is not surprising, since the main interests of the Entente were to preserve the similarity of the Eastern front of the anti-German struggle and to protect the property and citizens of the coalition states in Russia.

Entente did not forget about the contribution of Russia

Opening of the Paris Peace Conference

Entente did not forget about Russia's contribution to the victory over the German bloc. Having canceled the Brest-Litovsk agreements, the allies in Art. 116 of the victorious Treaty of Versailles recognized for Russia (in fact, the RSFSR) the right to reparation from Germany, in fact, including our country among the winners.
243 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    30 March 2019 04: 37
    Entente did not forget about Russia's contribution to the victory over the German bloc. Having canceled the Brest-Litovsk agreements, the allies in Art. 116 of the victorious Treaty of Versailles recognized for Russia (in fact, the RSFSR) the right to reparation from Germany, in fact, including our country among the winners.

    "In fact" or legally?
    Who canceled the Brest-Litovsk peace?
    What states of the military-political union intervened against the young Soviet republic?


    Questions, questions, questions ... And this is only to one paragraph ...

    Article - fatty "-". For distorting the historical truth.
    1. -2
      30 March 2019 07: 07
      You're right. The author distorted a lot and did not mention how the Entente was created.
      The French refused to help the RUSSIAN EMPIRE in the war with Japan, despite the military treaty.
      The French entered into a military treaty with the British and demanded that the RUSSIAN EMPIRE fulfillment of * allied obligations * now also before the British.
      It was the French and British who initiated the February coup in 1917 in the RUSSIAN EMPIRE. It is today in France and England that they lie about those events, and at that time they were proud of it and were not embarrassed. And why were they shy, temporary, having destroyed the RUSSIAN EMPIRE, they cut the occupation zones for the countries of the Entente, turning RUSSIA into a colony of French-English-Japanese-Americans.
      1. +13
        30 March 2019 07: 54
        Vasily50 (Dmitry)
        The French refused to help the RUSSIAN EMPIRE in the war with Japan, despite the military treaty.

        We look in the book, but we see a fig.
        What does Japan have to do with it. Entente - Angitegman union. And came into effect only in the event of German aggression.
    2. +3
      30 March 2019 07: 24
      Quote: Separ DNR
      "In fact" or legally?

      and in fact and legally: the Versailles world is a legal international document that determined the world order after the WWII and is recognized by the whole world.
      He canceled Breaking betrayal, recognized only .... by the occupiers and the illegal "government" of the usurpers of power.
      The Entente drove the invaders away from the territory of Russia.

      The Bolsheviks themselves rejected reparations and indemnities from Germany designated in Versailles. Rappals Treaty with Germany continuing same line betrayal of interests Russia, as in Brest.

      It was the fault of the Bolsheviks, did not take place nuremberg after WWI: saving their friends, the German occupiers, they destroyed hid documents of the Imperial Extraordinary Commission to investigate German crimes in Russia. And as in WWII, the Germans committed the main atrocities in Russia.
      Quote: Separ DNR
      Revoked the Brest-Litovsk peace who?

      ANTANTA-such things you might know
      Quote: Separ DNR
      the convictions of which military-political union intervened against the young Soviet republic?


      and HOW should the warring Entente act when this happens:
      Germany demanded from the latter strictly comply with the conditions of Brest peace treaty, incl. intern the Entente military personnel and its allies in Soviet territory. ,
      ?
      The author, unfortunately, did not mention another demand of the occupying owner: to return MILLION German prisoners of war to Germany, which meant a mortal threat to Europe and, in fact, the victory of Germany and the fulfillment of Germany’s goals in WWII after WWII

      Only thanks to the unfolding uprising in Russia against the putschists, they could not fulfill this demand of the owner.

      I suggest that you CONDEMN intervention and war of the USSR against pro-German IRAN in 1941committed, by the way, in alliance with .... England. for the same reasons as the intervention in 1918Yes
      And never forget: before the Brest betrayal, there was NO intervention and was planned.
      Quote: Separ DNR
      Article - fatty "-". For distorting the historical truth.

      Article and respected author-huge PLUS- for an objective presentation of events, incentives and facts hi
      1. -3
        30 March 2019 07: 52
        In gives ....
        In fact, the Versailles world established a ceasefire for 20 years .. and everyone understood this.
        Contribution reparations so the God-chosen scattering fought for it?
        You still do not mention the fate of the Entente in the overthrow of the Russian Tsar why would it?
        But German as you say the hosts of the Bolsheviks in more detail. with a book of accounting. but somehow it is not clear for the money or for love they have developed.
        For Iran. You are a respected treaty with the Soviet Union and Iran. Read. There lucidly outlined how you can send troops.
        1. +3
          30 March 2019 09: 15
          Quote: apro
          In fact, the Versailles world established truce for 20 years..and everyone understood that.

          That's right! Yes But WHY?
          And the reason is simple: without Russia, ensuring peace in Europe (containing and controlling Germany) is IMPOSSIBLE! France, even with England it is not within the power (see article)

          Brest betrayal Bolsheviks deprived Russia of this opportunity and right, betraying and making meaningless feat and memory of MILLIONS of Russian soldiers and officers killed and wounded for the Fatherland.

          It is a inevitably led to WWII and WWII.
          The proof is simple: after WWII- USSR ADOPTED participation in the device of the world- and TMV-NO. the same would be after the WWII.

          Hiding your shame and shame. even ALL cemeteries Heroes of the WWII were demolished by the Bolsheviks and on their bones vegetable gardens (Tsarskoye Selo) and dance floors (Moscow) are arranged.
          Quote: apro
          Contribution reparations so the God-chosen scattering fought for it?

          Oops! belay in your opinion, he fought in the WWII of the USSR ... for reparations (since he received them)? belay
          Quote: apro
          You still do not mention the fate of the Entente in the overthrow of the Russian Tsar why would it?

          belay
          Quote: apro
          But German as you say the hosts of the Bolsheviks in more detail. with a book of accounting. it is not clear for money or for love they have developed.

          Love is for money. Is it clear now? Yes
          Quote: apro
          For Iran. You are a respected treaty with the Soviet Union and Iran. Read. There lucidly outlined how you can send troops.

          Show WHERE it is indicated there that you can fight, bomb and occupy Iran Yes
          1. -5
            30 March 2019 10: 13
            It's worse than I thought ...
            So show when this Russia played a decisive role in European affairs? At the Vienna Congress after the Napoleonic Wars? Received an alliance of the Angles and Bourbon France against her. At the Paris peace talks on the outcome of the Crimean War where she directly indicated her place. Or at the Berlin Congress following partition of the Ottoman empire where she received several new enemies of the Bulgarians of the Romanians and the incomprehensible formation of Yugoslavia at once. Having lost influence on the Balkans due to the accession of German kings and tsars. Or, following the results of the San Francisco peace treaty with the loss of territories? Did empire Russia have the possibility of upholding due to economic backwardness your interests? I don’t think.
            And you don’t have to poke in the USSR and there were enough opportunities for 1945, and there was both military and economic strength. The second power in the world.
            In World War II, the USSR defended itself. By being subjected to an unjustified attack. If that.
            About love for money ... you will not name the sum? Otherwise it is a word to believe ....
            For Iran, the 1921 treaty, read paragraphs 5-6. Enlighten.
            1. +6
              30 March 2019 10: 45
              Quote: apro
              So show when Did this Russia play a decisive role in European affairs?

              on such senseless question, I have no answer.
              Quote: apro
              did empire Russia, due to economic backwardness, have the opportunity to defend its interests? I don’t think.

              the largest country in the world and europe (and this is Russia, not the USSR) - the answer to you
              Quote: apro
              And you don’t have to poke in the USSR and there were enough opportunities for 1945, and there was both military and economic strength. The second power in the world.

              wherein. by the way. in the rear, people were starving to death.
              Why not? FACTS (there is no Russia in the world order, there is WWII, there is Russia, there is no TMV) to argue, can you? No.


              Quote: apro
              About love for money ... you will not name the sum? Otherwise it is a word to believe ....

              the amount is POWER given by the invaders. And this is a lot of money ... Do you know this either? request
              Quote: apro
              For Iran, the 1921 treaty, read paragraphs 5-6. Enlighten.

              I have long read:
              Both High Contracting Parties agree that in the event that third-party countries take place attempts by armed intervention to implement an invasive policy on Persian territory or to transform Persian territory into a base for military operations against Russia, if this would threaten the borders of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic or its allied powers, and if the Persian Government, after a warning from the Russian Soviet Government, would not be able to avert this danger itself, the Russian Soviet Government would have the right to send its troops into the territory Persia, in the interests of self-defense to take the necessary military measures.

              remember?
              Now say:
              1. WHO carried out armed intervention in Iran .... before the intervention of the USSR? fool
              2. WHERE is the warning to Iran and its inability to avert danger? fool

              And now, as it was REALLY: already after start aggression the shah called the ambassadors of Great Britain and the USSR Reader Ballard and Andrei Smirnov for explanations. He asked on what grounds their states invaded his country and why they did not declare war. Both responded that this happened due to the presence of .... "German representatives" in Iran. (650 workers and engineers, while the British were many times more).
              1. -5
                30 March 2019 11: 18
                A meaningless question? ... and maybe there is nothing to answer?
                Size matters if it is supported by something more substantial than hectares of the tundra ... for example, an industry providing complete self-sufficiency in all respects. Or cx fully satisfying the physiological need of the entire population. Or universal education ... even if the mouse is fed up to the size of an elephant. This is just a mouse.
                In the USSR, after a very difficult war, people died of hunger. This is a fact. But in Ri and without a war, famine claimed a lot. The dispersal empire is the third category and the facts of its decisive voice in any serious issues are negligible.
                You can name a respected amount of money or not? How did you give power? The Kaiser issued a decree issued by the interim ruler to transfer power to the Bolsheviks? Think of something smarter. The Bolsheviks took power themselves. If that.
                You are scrupulous. I trust IV Stalin in this matter. So there were foreign forces in Iran that threatened the interests of the USSR in that region.
                1. +7
                  31 March 2019 08: 11
                  Quote: apro
                  Size matters if it is supported by something more substantial than hectares of tundra

                  And you try to create first, these sizes Yes . Russia is-managed
                  But your government, after all sorts of struggles, "succeeded" only CUT down to FOUR.
                  Quote: apro
                  cx fully satisfying physiological need of the entire population.

                  belay fool There were no famines like yours in any Africa and never -1922,33,47gg.
                  And in your happiest year of the highest Stalin. achievements:
                  in the diet of the population of the USSR completely not enough presented foods containing fats (58% normal), protein (74% normal)
                  -According to the CSB Report.
                  Quote: apro
                  In the USSR, after a very difficult war, people died of hunger. This is a fact. But in ri and without war, famine claimed a lot

                  When will you study the history of YOUR country?
                  Famine claimed the lives of people in the rear during WWII -Bashkiria, the Urals.
                  RI is the ONLY country during WWII, in which there was no famine.
                  Quote: apro
                  the scattered empire is the third bit magnitude and the facts of its decisive voice in any serious issues insignificant.

                  you are ridiculous in your slander of the motherland.
                  Quote: apro
                  You can name a respected amount of money or not? How did you give power? The Kaiser issued a decree issued by the interim ruler to transfer power to the Bolsheviks? Think of something smarter. The Bolsheviks took power themselves. If that.

                  We took it ourselves, and kept it, thanks to the Germans. read Stalin, why was Brest: to hold POWER
                  Quote: apro
                  You are scrupulous. I trust IV Stalin in this matter. So there were foreign forces in Iran that threatened the interests of the USSR in that region.

                  Why did I bring you the CONTRACTLY CONTRACT? so you nonsense wrote about some "forces"?
                  By the way, for your motives, Atatnta had MUCH more reasons for intervention against the Bolsheviks: they had forces hostile to the Entente — a million times more.
                  1. -5
                    31 March 2019 09: 15
                    Good day. Well, let's start ....
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    And you try to create first, these sizes

                    And how did they take them? As a result of heavy wars? Siberia. Transbaikalia Far East desert regions occupied them and didn’t conquer anybody to conquer. The value of the territories was zero. They had to invest money and resources. And not to deal with war. Part bought. Buying feudal lords and equating them to the indigenous ones. but the brains were not set back on track.
                    And once again, what does the Bolsheviks of 1917 have to do with the bourgeois coup of 1991?
                    And we know about Africa and about the Bengal famine and about the Great Depression and about the famine in RN Tolstoy sometimes read. And about the American help to the starving Romanov empire.
                    And you, dear, are absurd in the undeserved praise of the Romanov empire.
                    And where does IVStalin come from? Did he personally receive power from the hands of the Kaiser? To whom did the Kaiser transfer power in Russia? I do not understand your idea. It's all confused ....
                    If you dear think that for the good of society it is necessary to invite the invaders to your country? .There is only one conclusion. The anticommunist is also a Russophobe. Moreover, the Entente welcomed the overthrow of the tsar this time. It took part in the conspiracy. This two. The Entente too often interfered in the internal affairs of Russia. which speaks of unequal relations. The Soviet government broke the cobal treaties. fulfilling the will of the people.
                    What kind of hostile Entente forces are you talking about? This is something new. Or do you want to say that the Soviet government entered into a military alliance with Germany? Or how do you understand this?
                    In addition, in Iran, the Soviet government, apart from German agents, was also worried about the English presence. For any fire incident. We were not legally allies until 1942. In fact, they could not be called allies. There were too different goals.
      2. -4
        30 March 2019 09: 03
        Quote: Olgovich
        The Entente drove the invaders from Russia.

        The documentary can lead that the Entente drove the invaders? No? You can not?


        Before the Brest Peace, there was a convention on the division by allies of Russia. The Entente Plan was adopted at a meeting in Paris on December 23, 1917 and was made public by US President Woodrow Wilson on the eve of 1918. The plan provided for the partition of Russia. At the end of the same December 1917, Clemenceau and Cecile signed a secret convention on dividing the south of Russia into areas of interest and areas of future operations of the British and French troops. London and Paris agreed that they would consider Russia not as an ally for the Entente, but as a territory for the implementation of their intervention plans to expand their colonial territories. What they were helped by the opponents of Soviet Russia, the White Guard traitors, the same Kolchak and Wrangel, who traded the territory of Russia as their own property.
        1. +3
          30 March 2019 10: 57
          Quote: solzh
          The documentary can lead that the Entente drove the invaders? No? You can not?

          "By herself, by herself!" (FROM). Yes Compiegne and Versailles help.
          Quote: solzh
          Before the Brest Peace, there was a convention on the division by allies of Russia. The Entente Plan was adopted at a meeting in Paris on December 23, 1917 and was made public by US President Woodrow Wilson on the eve of 1918. The plan provided section of Russia.

          You-when Articles start to read -before commenting, at least out of respect for the author, huh? belay

          What, in, "the division of Russia? fool From the article:
          23. 12. 1917 the English-French agreement is concluded on the section areas of responsibility in Russia.
          Quote: solzh
          Before the Brest Peace

          AWARE in the occupier to negotiate separate world and negotiations started in NOVEMBER 1917, BEFORE the conference, which was FORCED to respond to traitors.

          The division of Iran after the war with it (and TOTALLY, and not like in Russia) between the interventionists of the USSR and Great Britain in 1941 will help you.
          Was the USSR right? Yes definitely-: He was forced to do so. but for you it is not clear ...
          Also, by the way, they occupied the pro-German ICELAND.
          1. -7
            30 March 2019 12: 23
            Iran was in 1941. I am not writing about Iran, but about the division of the territory of Russia by the Entente and the help of the White Guards.
            Quote: Olgovich
            When will you start to read articles, before commenting, at least out of respect for the author, eh?

            I read the article in full, there would be the possibility of minus the article, minusanul with pleasure. Is the truth written in the article? No.
            Quote: Olgovich
            "By herself, by herself!" (FROM). Compiegne and Versailles to help.

            I was sure that you would answer that way. You cannot imagine a reference to the document on the "exodus of German troops by the Entente," a document of which never existed, but you argue otherwise.
            Quote: Olgovich
            The division of Iran after the war with it (and TOTALLY, and not like in Russia) between the interventionists of the USSR and Great Britain in 1941 will help you.
            Was the USSR right? Yes, unconditionally: he was forced to do so. but for you it is not clear ...
            Also, by the way, they occupied the pro-German ICELAND

            You give completely different examples: there is a huge difference between the entry of troops into Iran and the intervention of the Entente in Russia, followed by the division of the Entente of Russia in the colony, which you cannot understand. For me, the main thing is that these creatures from the Entente carried out an intervention against my homeland, which they trampled with their dirty feet and destroyed my compatriots. But for some reason you consider this a blessing for Russia.

            PS Question to the administration of the portal and to knowledgeable people: I have stopped receiving information on answers to my comments on the mobile version of the site. Do I have one like that?
            1. +8
              30 March 2019 13: 24
              The article says the truth

              The article does not just set out the real facts - it will become part of one of the Encyclopedias of the Russian Federation.
              Whether it wants to someone from nameless spiteful minusers or not wink
              1. -5
                31 March 2019 06: 48
                Quote: Rodent
                The article does not just set out the real facts - it will become part of one of the Encyclopedias of the Russian Federation.

                And Rodent Volodya will write it ...
                1. +7
                  31 March 2019 07: 24
                  Or maybe already written?))
                  If I see it, I will definitely send you a link. With volume and page.
                  1. -5
                    31 March 2019 07: 26
                    Quote: Brutan
                    Or maybe already written?))
                    If I see it, I will definitely send you a link. With volume and page.

                    Better shove the whole volume into the Internet cable connector, I will pay for the delivery upon receipt.
                    1. +9
                      31 March 2019 07: 32
                      I understand who you are. Again, one Internet on your mind, a step left and right is already a problem.
                      no, I’ll send a link to that and the page. And - step march to the library of the Russian Academy of Sciences or to the bookstore.
                      Our libraries are still free
                      1. -4
                        31 March 2019 07: 36
                        Quote: Brutan
                        I understand who you are.

                        Not understood No. ...

                        Quote: Brutan
                        And - step march to the library of the Russian Academy of Sciences or to the bookstore.
                        Our libraries are still free


                        And since they didn’t understand who you were dealing with, then why are you climbing with the RAS?

                        Little "tip" - I'm not from ROSSI AND (hope so far)
                      2. +6
                        31 March 2019 07: 45
                        And since they didn’t understand who you were dealing with

                        Should I have?
                        You are a separatist from the DNI judging by the name of the nickname. And if I write - the hero of Libya, will we also believe ??
                        Here they lie - they’ll take inexpensively. And the Pope will be called, do not blush.
                        And the truth is that 2-3 people create the appearance of a stormy discussion life, raise a storm in a glass of water.
                        But this is not so, because, as the experience of commenting on other sites, where the comments are ZERO, shows, our people are inert and nobody needs it except the owners.
                        So stop this torrent. Nobody needs it at all. Is that to build views.
                        And I am a peaceful person, if they don’t press on my ears, then I am friendly. For a long time it is time to understand and not waste your and others' health and time.
                      3. -2
                        31 March 2019 07: 52
                        Quote: Brutan
                        And I am a peaceful person, if they don’t press on my ears, then I am friendly. For a long time it is time to understand and not waste your and others' health and time.

                        Two belay my comments, which were also answer on yours:
                        spend someone else’s health and time? belay
                      4. +5
                        31 March 2019 07: 53
                        Two of my comments, which were also the answer to yours:

                        as other
              2. -2
                31 March 2019 08: 44
                Quote: Rodent
                The article does not just set out the real facts - it will become part of one of the Encyclopedias of the Russian Federation.

                Quote: Separ DNR
                And Rodent Volodya will write it ...

                1. +5
                  31 March 2019 12: 34
                  not a premium. In general, already))
                  And you write something in your imaginary trench. Rather - in-shnom laughing
                  1. -2
                    31 March 2019 12: 41
                    Quote: Rodent
                    And you write something in your imaginary trench. Rather - in-shnom

                    My "sham trench" lasts three years. If I undertook to write the history of what is happening, then it would already be a very voluminous work.
                    But is it worth writing books about history when such "alternatives" like you will distort and slander everything in the future?
                    1. +3
                      31 March 2019 12: 51
                      My "sham trench" lasts three years.

                      and my 2 with a little.
                      You yourself are an alternative guy, it's me
                      about the trenches - as they say, lie and know the measure. There must be something sacred. And then such a legend is already - a fighter in the trench and with VO in an embrace.
                      I’m writing to you from a burning tank, as in Gorodok) And the man just dropped the pan.
                      1. +3
                        31 March 2019 13: 27
                        You yourself are an alternative guy

                        I agree. 90% under diff. he fills up the site with names with what is called alternative history, but how he comes across an article where facts, but which he simply does not like, blames others for the alternative. However, what to do, because "Stop the thief" is the loudest shouting of the thief himself.
              3. -1
                31 March 2019 11: 13
                Quote: Rodent
                The article does not just set out the real facts
                The aggravation of relations between the Entente and Soviet Russia began in May 1918, when there was an attempt to intern the troops of the Entente and its allies on Soviet territory. An attempt to fulfill this demand led to an uprising of the Entente military unit - the Czechoslovak Corps.

                And what did the Entente military personnel (the Czech corps 60tys.) On the territory of Russia, well, clearly did not fight with Germany and Austria.
                1. +6
                  31 March 2019 12: 32
                  You do not know what the Czech case did?
                  he was formed as part of the Russian army - when she fought with the Austro-Germans.
                  Well, when the armistice and the approach to the Brest peace of the new government began, during the coup that seized power from another government, which was also established during the coup, the allies considered it good to pull this corps from our front and transfer it to the West. The only route available then (because there are fronts everywhere) is through the Far East. So he reached across Siberia - until they attacked him, they did not try to disarm him.
                  The result is known - willy-nilly, he got involved in the hostilities in Russia, not getting to France on time. The fact is again favorable to the Teutons.
                  1. -1
                    31 March 2019 15: 49
                    On October 28 (November 10), the Czechoslovak corps together with the cadets of the Kiev military schools participated in street battles against workers and soldiers - supporters of the Kiev Council.
                    On March 26, in Penza, representatives of the SNK of the RSFSR (Stalin), the Czechoslovak National Council in Russia and the Czechoslovak Corps signed an agreement: “... Czechoslovakians are promoted not as combat units, but as a group of free citizens who take with them a certain amount of weapons to protect themselves from attempts from outside counterrevolutionaries ...
                    The congress of Czechoslovak military delegates, held in Chelyabinsk on May 16–20, resolutely took a break with the Bolsheviks and decided to stop surrendering arms. With the consent of the Entente, the bulk of the KSK returned to the Volga and the Urals.

                    What is the matter of CSK in Russia if they fought with the Germans, and why they returned from Vladivostok and Siberia, the task was to leave Russia.
                    Until the Czechs were killed, they robbed defenseless Russia and sold their services to anyone who could pay.
                    1. +5
                      31 March 2019 17: 17
                      October ....
                      So already he, the corps, has already drawn into our showdown.
                      The rebellion itself took place in May - after an attempt of disarmament by the Bolsheviks.
                      1. -2
                        31 March 2019 17: 23
                        Quote: XII Legion
                        October ..

                        Yes, October 1917
                        Quote: XII Legion
                        The rebellion itself took place in May

                        Yes, May 1918. See the difference in years?
                      2. +6
                        31 March 2019 17: 28
                        Now show me in a previous post at least one indication of the year.
                        I’m specially copying it now, so as not to get out.
                        On October 28 (November 10), the Czechoslovak corps together with the cadets of the Kiev military schools participated in street battles against workers and soldiers - supporters of the Kiev Council.
                        On March 26, in Penza, representatives of the SNK of the RSFSR (Stalin), the Czechoslovak National Council in Russia and the Czechoslovak Corps signed an agreement: “... Czechoslovakians are promoted not as combat units, but as a group of free citizens who take with them a certain amount of weapons to protect themselves from attempts from outside counterrevolutionaries ...
                        The congress of Czechoslovak military delegates, held in Chelyabinsk on May 16–20, resolutely took a break with the Bolsheviks and decided to stop surrendering arms. With the consent of the Entente, the bulk of the KSK returned to the Volga and the Urals.

                        What is the matter of CSK in Russia if they fought with the Germans, and why they returned from Vladivostok and Siberia, the task was to leave Russia.
                        Until the Czechs were killed, they robbed defenseless Russia and sold their services to anyone who could pay.

                        Show at least one link to the year. Maybe I'm already so blind ...
                      3. 0
                        31 March 2019 17: 32
                        Well, don’t you see, read, this can be understood from the events when the Czechs were in Kiev in 1917 or 1918?
                        Events in my post as everywhere events are from top to bottom, you take the top one and think that it happened after the last one. Why?
                      4. +5
                        31 March 2019 17: 35
                        Why did you write
                        Yes, October 1917

                        and then
                        Yes, May 1918. See the difference in years?

                        and you see the difference in the fact that you don’t indicate at the beginning of the year, then say retrospectively about them - and also blame me for not seeing them where they are not. This is how, huh?
                      5. -2
                        31 March 2019 17: 55
                        I apologize, I just thought that you were in the know about events related to the Czechoslovak corps, and if at least you weren’t aware, then read from above, and not from the bottom.
                        I apologize and close this question off-topic.
                      6. +6
                        31 March 2019 17: 57
                        Yes, I’m aware of this topic, maybe more of yours)
                        you just wrote everything on the heap, without specifying the year, and now you are twisting,
                        I discipline you, nothing more))
            2. +4
              31 March 2019 09: 29
              Quote: solzh
              Iran was in 1941. I am not writing about Iran, but about the division of the territory of Russia by the Entente and the help of the White Guards.

              1. ONCE AGAIN for the tankman: there was no division of the territory. but there was an agreement on RESPONSIBILITY section.
              2. at real history one third of the country FOREVER have given away the German-tour. invaders-only Bolsheviks - we read the agreement of Brest
              Quote: solzh
              I read the article in full, there would be the possibility of minus the article, minusanul with pleasure. Is the truth written in the article? No.

              Pure truth, what have you refuted? No, you don’t .... lol can lol
              Quote: solzh
              I was sure that you would answer that way. You cannot imagine a reference to the document on the "exodus of German troops by the Entente," a document of which never existed, but you argue otherwise.

              documents: texts of the Compiegne truce and the Versailles peace. -in ANY search engine
              " Refusal of the contract in Brest-Litovsk with Russia Evacuation of all German troops on the eastern front to the territory of Germany, at a position as of August 1, 1914,
              Quote: solzh
              You give completely different examples: there is a huge difference between the entry of troops into Iran and the intervention of the Entente in Russia, followed by the division of the Entente of Russia in the colony, which you cannot understand.

              Both operations are interventions. And the Entente’s reasons were one hundred times more significant: 1. Iran of the USSR did not betray, from its front hundreds of thousands of soldiers were not thrown to the front against the USSR, it did not supply Germany with gold, resources, people. Those. all that the Bolsheviks did against the Entente.
              Which colonies? fool WHERE are the documents about .. "colonies"? WHERE are the colonies? Entente SAMA is gone from Russia, but, by the way, the USSR from Iran, had to be asked
            3. 0
              April 2 2019 12: 04
              Quote: solzh
              PS Question to the administration of the portal and to knowledgeable people: I have stopped receiving information on answers to my comments on the mobile version of the site. Do I have one like that?

              The information on messages to comments on the mobile version has earned! Thank!
    3. +12
      30 March 2019 07: 52
      Fatty minus your comment
      Revoked the Brest-Litovsk peace who

      Entente
      "In fact" or legally

      If this rule is present in the document, what do you think?
      1. +13
        30 March 2019 08: 02
        It’s me Separa DNR - someone wrote to Gray. So if that
    4. -5
      30 March 2019 09: 05
      Quote: Separ DNR
      Article - fatty "-". For distorting the historical truth.

      Keep hi
      1. +6
        30 March 2019 09: 15
        The article is a bold plus for competent factology and a balanced nature
        1. -7
          30 March 2019 13: 20
          no need to pretend to be an unbeatable reader. It is perfectly visible. that the author is from your monarch-great-power "chicken coop."
    5. -6
      30 March 2019 13: 30
      And for blatant groveling before "European values"
  2. -6
    30 March 2019 05: 05
    An interesting presentation of the history of our country. Why did Russia need the Dardanelles then. Russia did not fight with anyone, everyone attacked it or fed other countries for this. The USA finances Japan for the war with Russia in 1904 (my grandfather then fought with Japan). Then the United States finances Hitler (his father died on the Leningrad Front in 1941). Therefore, our country must have such a weapon that can wipe any enemy off the face of the earth. There is such a weapon against the USA - this is the eruption of the Yellowstone volcano. True, according to experts on Earth, then a global catastrophe can occur.
    In general, the slogan "Let's live in peace" is the most urgent one.
    1. +10
      30 March 2019 07: 58
      An interesting presentation of the history of our country.

      Absolutely true, encyclopedic representation.
      Why did Russia need the Dardanelles

      But they were not needed, because before the war this issue was not specified. Appearing only on March 1, 1915 - in fact, as a sanction on Turkish aggression.
      The USA finances Japan for the war with Russia in 1904 (my grandfather then fought with Japan). Then the United States finances Hitler (his father died on the Leningrad Front in 1941). Therefore, our country must have such a weapon that can wipe any enemy off the face of the earth. There is such a weapon against the USA - this is the eruption of the Yellowstone volcano.

      Experts however. What does the United States ??? The USA is even the Entente.
      Entente - the Triple Entente, the rest are allies of the Entente.
  3. -10
    30 March 2019 05: 34
    The Entente was created for one purpose. The destruction of the European and Russian monarchies, including French loans and their own weakness in the economy, pushed the king to commit suicide.
    1. +13
      30 March 2019 07: 59
      Entente was created to counter German hegemony in Europe
      1. -9
        30 March 2019 08: 08
        But this, as you say, "the hegemony of Germany" is it good or bad? And what was it? And who exactly is bad? And the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxons is I understand it very well?
        1. +13
          30 March 2019 08: 12
          And why should there be someone else's hegemony, can you tell me?
          1. -12
            30 March 2019 08: 35
            Quote: Albatroz
            And why should there be someone else's hegemony, can you tell me?

            Then why was the Entente created? A scout club?
            1. +13
              30 March 2019 09: 14
              Your level is clear.
              I repeat 25 times: the Entente was created to counter German hegemony in Europe.
              1. -12
                30 March 2019 10: 20
                Quote: Albatroz
                Your level is clear.
                I repeat 25 times: the Entente was created to counter German hegemony in Europe.

                As I understand it, in essence, there is nothing for you to answer. And mantras are not repeated seriously.
                1. +14
                  30 March 2019 11: 08
                  As I understand it, essentially you have nothing to answer

                  How is it nothing ???
                  Can't read Russian?
                  The Entente was created to counter German hegemony in Europe. And not to establish someone’s hegemony. And the agreements between Russia and France did not provide for the division of Europe, but how to reduce mobilization time, how to help each other, on which day — that is, to counteract the German invasion.
                  In my opinion, this is understandable to a normal person.
                  1. -6
                    30 March 2019 11: 31
                    For those who are wearing a helmet and body armor in a tank. What did German hegemony express? A desire to occupy France and Russia? Make everyone speak German? How specifically.
                    Or the high economic growth rates of Germany inspired the French to fear that they would be superfluous on this holiday of life. And they needed the Russians only to expose them to a German blow. Loss of influence in Europe. Loss of profit pushed the Entente to war. Germany confidently pressed the French. the British in the economic confrontation. I don’t know why Russia needed it. The Russian economy was 50% dependent on Germany.
                    1. +12
                      30 March 2019 13: 13
                      Yes, I tell you apro clearly and clearly, and you have a verbal eruption.
                      What does the pace have to do with it? It is about counteracting German aggression - Schlieffen planning, aggressive strategic planning. Yes, speak German. Imagine. Eventually.
                      https://topwar.ru/143141-8-faktov-o-drang-nah-ostene-1914-goda.html
                      However - I did note: this is understandable for a NORMAL person
                      1. -12
                        30 March 2019 13: 39
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        It is about counteracting German aggression - Schlieffen planning, aggressive strategic planning.

                        The French decided that there would be a war following the results of the funko-Prussian war. All their actions were directed against Germany. And no one hid it. All this performance with the Entente was played with only one purpose to drive as many participants as possible into it, and the Russians as the main the cannon mass. Germany had contradictions with the French. did they happen to Russia? definitely not. propaganda following the WWII made a monster from Germany. and that’s not true. Russia showed aggression by declaring the unification of all the Poles under the rule of the Russian tsar. okay. You talk about German aggression. And the French are white and fluffy? And the Angles who joined at the right time?
                      2. +7
                        31 March 2019 09: 44
                        Quote: apro
                        The French decided that there would be a war following the results of the funko-Prussian war. All their actions were directed against Germany. And no one hid it. All this performance with the Entente was played with only one purpose to drive as many participants as possible into it, and the Russians as the main cannon mass

                        Like a spoiled record, one and the same - propaganda water .....
                        and not one specific objections to the cited DOCUMENTS. negative
                        Shame .....
                        ONCE AGAIN: Refute
                        https://topwar.ru / 143141-8-factov-o-drang-nah-ostene-1914-goda.html
                      3. 0
                        April 1 2019 15: 57
                        Nevertheless, RI did have some contradictions with Germany. Active economic penetration of the Germans in Turkey, the construction of railways. RI feared for the straits. It is one thing when they are held by weak Turks, another is Willy's cousin.
                  2. -12
                    30 March 2019 13: 13
                    enough to invent.
                    1. +15
                      30 March 2019 13: 28
                      raise your educational level seeker
                      try to assess by fact, not just repeat hackneyed cliches
                      be friends with the sources, be thoughtful - and everything will work, everything will work out for you))
                      Since Soviet historical science said everything through the mouths of its masters 80 years ago, and you still have
                      enough to invent.
                      and there’s nothing to say laughing
                2. -14
                  30 March 2019 13: 10
                  The local liberalists. Such as everywhere, pretend that they do not notice issues that are not favorable to them. But exaggerate hypertrophically. Beneficial to them.
              2. -10
                30 March 2019 13: 07
                stop writing shit. you put it mildly. not far. if you think that military-political blocs are created for the realization of one narrow-minded goal. The clearest example is NATO. For 30 years already. Warsaw Pact. And what about NATO? Also collapsed? Horseradish. TOTAL ONLY THE GOALS CHANGED. AND FOR THAT. THOSE CHANGED CONDITIONS.
              3. -13
                30 March 2019 16: 52
                Quote: Albatroz
                I repeat 25 times: the Entente was created to counter German hegemony in Europe

                Repeat at least a thousand times, but this Entente will not become fluffier.
                The Entente was created in order to preserve its colonies, which the countries where imperialism also developed, began to infest. The First World War is an imperialist war, the goals of all the participants of which were the same - redivision of the world, redivision of sales markets.
                1. +17
                  30 March 2019 19: 43
                  all of whose participants had the same goals - redistribution of the world, redistribution of markets.

                  already this completely depreciates your opus.
                  1. -10
                    31 March 2019 01: 51
                    Quote: denatured alcohol
                    already this completely depreciates your opus

                    How does it depreciate?
                    1. +10
                      31 March 2019 07: 20
                      How does it depreciate?

                      You I look even this is not able to understand ??
                      Y-yes ...
                      The fact that my friend’s goals were different. Serbia has one, but Germany has completely different)))
                      think what, instead of sculpting cliches about redistributing markets in the colonies.
                      1. -7
                        31 March 2019 13: 10
                        Quote: Brutan
                        You I look even this is not able to understand ??
                        Y-yes ...
                        The fact that my friend’s goals were different. Serbia has one, but Germany has completely different)))
                        think what, instead of sculpting cliches about redistributing markets in the colonies.


                        Before reproaching someone for misunderstanding, figure out for yourself what the Entente is, otherwise you confuse the Entente with the anti-German coalition.

                        Even bourgeois Wikipedia writes:
                        "The creation of the Entente was a reaction to the creation of the Triple Alliance and the strengthening of Germany, an attempt to prevent its hegemony on the continent, initially from Russia (France initially held an anti-German position), and then from Great Britain. The latter, in the face of the threat of German hegemony, was forced to abandon traditional politics. "Brilliant isolation" and move to - by the way, also traditional - the policy of blocking against the strongest power on the continent. Particularly important incentives for such a choice of Great Britain were the German naval program and the colonial claims of Germany.
                      2. +7
                        31 March 2019 13: 23
                        Are you insane? They write one thing to you - and it’s like peas on a wall.
                        There is the Entente, and there are allies of the Entente. So what?
                        Serbia wanted to seize the colonies or fight off aggression?
                        And which colonies did Russia need? To keep his own, fight off the Germans with the Austrians
                      3. -4
                        31 March 2019 23: 22
                        Quote: Black Joe

                        Are you insane? They write one thing to you - and it’s like peas on a wall.
                        There is the Entente, and there are allies of the Entente. So what?
                        Serbia wanted to seize the colonies or fight off aggression?
                        And which colonies did Russia need? To keep his own, fight off the Germans with the Austrians


                        Dear, I have the feeling that I am communicating with the victim of the exam.
                        Surely you have not heard about the program for the future peace that the Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov set out to the ambassadors of the Allied Powers on September 14, 1914.

                        After the defeat of Germany:
                        3) to join the Lower course of the Neman and the Earth of Eastern Galicia to Russia
                        9) Serbia transferred, Herzegovina, Dalmatia and Northern Albania
                        11) annex South Greece to Greece
                        19) Bulgaria to transfer Serbian Macedonia

                        I didn’t list all the positions, because there is no time, I will only add that on September 26, 1914, Sazonov gave additional demands: "Russia should be given a guarantee of free passage of warships through the Black Sea straits," and on March 4, 1915, Sazonov already demanded that The Black Sea straits were transferred from Russia to Turkey.
                      4. +5
                        April 1 2019 00: 04
                        Man, the one is Green.
                        As for the twists, you're the first, take off my hat. Well done. But even here you have nothing to lie to Murza.
                        You understand what business, aggressive or not, we can find out if the state hatched aggressive plans BEFORE THE WAR. Like Germany or Austria-Hungary. What happens during the war is not considered, it may be a payment for aggression. But we do not judge the USSR for having grabbed Koenigsberg, which was very imperialistic. And climbed into Port Arthur. You preach double standards for us, from the color of the flag. It is rotten, but it will become yours. God bless him.
                        What are you telling me about Serbia’s wishes for September 14 or the Straits Agreement of March 15? Opening. Everyone knows this without you. This is a military agreement, sanctions against the aggressor in anticipation of a future victory.
                        And you tell me uncle strategic aggressive plans of Russia and Serbia, worked out before the war. Everything is as it should be, in Shliffen's style, with articles. Pliz
                      5. 0
                        April 1 2019 20: 21
                        Quote: Hunghouse
                        And you tell me uncle strategic aggressive plans of Russia and Serbia, worked out before the war. Everything is as it should be, in Shliffen's style, with articles. Pliz


                        Do you think that these proposals were born during the war? No. they were hatched long before it began, but in Schliffensky you order our historian Shpakovsky, and I really can.

                        About fluffy Serbia and Bulgaria.
                        During the autumn negotiations of 1911, on behalf of the King of Bulgaria Ferdinand, the Prime Ministers of Bulgaria and Geshov and Serbia Milovaniwicz began to delimit Serbian and Bulgarian interests in Macedonia. The Bulgarians demanded the whole of Macedonia, the Serbs insisted on it March 3, 1912 the Serbo-Bulgarian agreement was signed, which was accompanied by a special protocol, in which Art. 2 read;
                        “The whole territory acquired by joint actions in accordance with Art. 1 and 2 of the Treaty and Art. 1 of this secret application will go to the common administration of both allies ... Serbia recognizes the rights of Bulgaria in the territory east of the Rodon and the Struma River, and Bulgaria recognizes the rights of Serbia in the territory north and west of the Shar Planica ”
                        French and British governments were informed of the signing. who approved him.

                        About the Black Sea straits,
                        The question began to rise as far back as 1907, but it either intensified or faded, a new impetus was given by the temporary closure of the straits during the Italo-Turkish war. The tsarist government was actively engaged in this problem, in December 1913, Prime Minister Sazonov presented the tsar with a note in the bark, drew attention to this.
                        To radically solve this issue, it is necessary to seize the coast, on February 21, 1914 there was a meeting at Sazonov, where the program of action was discussed "in case of the occurrence of events that could radically change the situation of the Black Sea straits"
                        Then you already know.
                      6. +4
                        April 1 2019 22: 57
                        Do you think that these proposals were born during the war? No. they hatched long before it began

                        demagogy. where is the specifics?
                        farther.
                        During the autumn negotiations of 1911, on behalf of the King of Bulgaria Ferdinand, the Prime Ministers of Bulgaria and Geshov and Serbia Milovaniwicz began to delimit Serbian and Bulgarian interests in Macedonia. The Bulgarians demanded the whole of Macedonia, the Serbs insisted on it March 3, 1912 the Serbo-Bulgarian agreement was signed, which was accompanied by a special protocol, in which Art. 2 read;
                        “The whole territory acquired by joint actions in accordance with Art. 1 and 2 of the Treaty and Art. 1 of this secret application will go to the common administration of both allies ... Serbia recognizes the rights of Bulgaria in the territory east of the Rodon and the Struma River, and Bulgaria recognizes the rights of Serbia in the territory north and west of the Shar Planica ”
                        French and British governments were informed of the signing. who approved him.

                        so what?? I did not see the aggressive plans of Serbia. Then, in general, it was not known for whom Bulgaria would be fighting, for example. And you brought an awesome example - from the history of the Balkan wars. Why not 1877-78?))
                        About Russia
                        The question began to rise as far back as 1907, but it either intensified or faded, a new impetus was given by the temporary closure of the straits during the Italo-Turkish war. The tsarist government was actively engaged in this problem, in December 1913, Prime Minister Sazonov presented the tsar with a note in the bark, drew attention to this.
                        To radically solve this issue, it is necessary to seize the coast, on February 21, 1914 there was a meeting at Sazonov, where the program of action was discussed "in case of the occurrence of events that could radically change the situation of the Black Sea straits"

                        again no conceretics. which is not surprising. For such OPERATIVE STRATEGIC PLANNING MISSED before the war. What kind of aggression are you mumbling here, pulling a stump on the wattle fence? Some attempts to the mill of Russian spiteful critics.
                        And Hunghouse is absolutely right in saying
                        aggressive or not, we can find out if the state hatched aggressive plans before the war. Like Germany or Austria-Hungary. What happens during the war is not considered, it may be a payment for aggression. But we do not judge the USSR for having grabbed Koenigsberg, which was very imperialistic. And climbed into Port Arthur.

                        The parallels are obvious.
                        Can we analyze Soviet imperialism during the Second World War? What were the allies sharing there at the conferences of 1943–45? How did they even encroach on non-combatant Turkey or undressed Germany? What is it - a pre-planned aggression or is it an attempt already during the war to punish the aggressor (as in March 15 in the case of the Straits)?
                        Or plans for territorial increments in the USSR appeared before the start of the Second World War?))
                      7. 0
                        April 2 2019 16: 40
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        I did not see the aggressive plans of Serbia. Then, in general, it was not known for whom Bulgaria would be fighting, for example. And you brought an awesome example - from the history of the Balkan wars. Why not 1877-78?))
                        About Russia

                        Let the blind see, the deaf hear. I’m sorry, I can’t help the blind and deaf. Without dialectics this cannot be understood. I am writing for normal people.

                        All wars have their own reasons, with which it is associated with cause and effect relationships. So, you can start with 1877, but all the contradictions that swelled up during the First World War in the Balkans escalated precisely during the first and second Balkan wars.

                        Quote: Adjutant
                        again no conceretics. which is not surprising. For such an OPERATIVE STRATEGIC PLANNING was absent before the war. What aggression are you mumbling about here,


                        Adjutant, you don’t be a general, but a general, you don’t even pull on an adjutant, so on a batman ...

                        And here is operational strategic planning? Prime Minister Sazonov determined the political goals of the state, which must be achieved under certain conditions, which were reported to the king. These goals were hatched even before the war. What is incomprehensible here?

                        By September 14, Sazonov had already prepared a draft of the common military objectives of Russia, and only after that they transferred to strategic, and then to operational planning.

                        For Russia, the key topic was the ideas of pan-Slavism, which gained momentum in the 1860s, in the 1870s led to the Russo-Turkish war, in the 1880-1890s this idea remains, and so it goes over into the 1915th century, and is finally being embodied by XNUMX.

                        The main idea was the return of Constantinople, to put an end to Hagia Sophia. In addition, the return of Constantinople was supposed to solve all the problems with the straits, with the transition from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. This was one of the main geopolitical goals of Russia.

                        Quote: Adjutant
                        Can we analyze Soviet imperialism during the Second World War? What were the allies sharing there at the conferences of 1943–45?


                        Soviet imperialism did not exist. Stalin extinguished all the creeps of the USA and England on the redivision of the world. Everywhere he defended the independence of European states, their right to self-determination and the choice of further state structure. He even dismissed the Comintern so that the USSR would not be accused of expanding the revolution.
                      8. +4
                        April 2 2019 19: 36
                        In all your opus - only demagogy.
                        Who do not you be - generally silent. You have no logic, no knowledge ...
                        So, one empty ideology, blinders.
                        THERE WERE NO AGGRESSIVE STRATEGIC PLANS developed before the war, neither in Russia nor in Serbia. You failed to prove this. General conversations do not count - only plans indicating paragraphs and articles.
                        And for them, Russia and Serbia, as well as Belgium and France, WWI is a fight against the aggressor.
                        The Nature of Wartime Agreements 1914-18 (including March 1, 1915) is the same as in the agreements of the period 1941-1945. All of this is equally "imperialistic."
                      9. 0
                        April 2 2019 23: 03
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        The Nature of Wartime Agreements 1914-18 (including March 1, 1915) is the same as in the agreements of the period 1941-1945. All of this is equally "imperialistic"

                        Who would say that? Your next opus is just the best example of demagogy.
                      10. +4
                        April 3 2019 06: 32
                        QED
                        after all
                        essentially nothing to report
                      11. 0
                        April 3 2019 17: 52
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        essentially nothing to report

                        I told you everything - think now.
                      12. +4
                        April 3 2019 20: 36
                        and you think
                        knowledge is zero
              4. Alf
                -8
                30 March 2019 22: 13
                Quote: Albatroz
                Your level is clear.
                I repeat 25 times: the Entente was created to counter German hegemony in Europe.

                And what was Russia from that German hegemony? Nothing, neither hot nor cold. For Germany, the beginning of the 20th century, in Europe there were only two enemies - Britain at sea and France on land. Russia was not an enemy to Germany, for essentially these two empires had nothing to divide. But nikolashka, from a great mind, decided for some reason to support France.
                1. Alf
                  -1
                  31 March 2019 21: 09
                  Quote: Alf
                  And what was Russia from that German hegemony?

                  Maybe one of the minusers will explain why the interests of the Republic of Ingushetia and the 2nd Reich intersected so seriously that a war would begin?
                  1. Alf
                    0
                    April 1 2019 19: 43
                    Quote: Alf
                    Quote: Alf
                    And what was Russia from that German hegemony?

                    Maybe one of the minusers will explain why the interests of the Republic of Ingushetia and the 2nd Reich intersected so seriously that a war would begin?

                    They didn’t explain. The gut is thin.
        2. -6
          31 March 2019 11: 17
          Quote: apro
          German hegemony "is it good or bad?"

          neither good nor bad. Germany was late to the division of the world. Who divided the world and sought to keep the gingerbread for itself, deprived Germany.
  4. -9
    30 March 2019 06: 00
    An article in the classical style of the ideology of the enemies of the Communists, justifying Nicholas II, dragging Russia and the Russian people into the unnecessary World War I, which caused great material damage to Russia, in which 3 million Russian citizens died, and in which at the time of his abdication, the Germans occupied the territories Russia, which was home to more than 20 million Russian citizens.
    The justifying occupiers of both Russia and the USSR are the interventionists and Nazis, their collaborators and collaborators from among the citizens of Russia and the USSR.
  5. -4
    30 March 2019 06: 49
    "October coup in Russia"

    Interestingly, and the February events of the same year, the author also considers a coup? As far as I remember, the revolution is a change in the social system, which took place in February and October 1917.
    1. -8
      30 March 2019 06: 57
      The enemies of the Communists do not care not only about the truth, but also logic and common sense, if only it would be beneficial to them. Here, the October Revolution - as a change in both power and the socio-economic System, they call a coup, and their coups in the territory of the USSR they seized - a change of power without a change in the System, they call revolutions.
    2. +10
      30 March 2019 08: 00
      "October coup in Russia"

      And what is it when an armed crowd storms a government building?
      Military coup
      1. -8
        30 March 2019 12: 55
        maybe the disrespectful liberalist will explain. what then, in his opinion, is the concept of "revolution"?
      2. -12
        30 March 2019 16: 59
        Quote: Albatroz
        And what is it when an armed crowd storms a government building?
        Military coup

        And how would you rate the capture of the Bastille by the armed crowd in 1789?
      3. -6
        31 March 2019 11: 27
        By the autumn of 1917 the Bolsheviks occupied the majority in the local Soviets of large industrial cities, then in the Soviets of smaller cities and in villages, the majority, as a rule, was a Social Revolutionary. The spread of Bolshevik power in Soviet historiography was called the "triumphal march of Soviet power" due to the fact that in 69 of the 84 provincial cities, power was transferred peacefully.
  6. -8
    30 March 2019 07: 34
    After the agreements of Russia and France in the 90s. XIX century major events for the formation of the Entente were the Anglo-French of 1904.

    France is still that "lady" of low social responsibility.
    At a time when Russia is waging a war with the invading Japan, France concludes a "cordial agreement" with England, which incited Japan against Russia, armed, supplied military and food supplies and intelligence.
    So the frog-eaters and the Naglosskians are facing each other. negative angry
  7. -7
    30 March 2019 07: 59
    why France needed the alliance is understandable, but why Russia
    provided that the allies from the paddling pool were still the ones, I don't even want to talk about future "allies"
    1. +11
      30 March 2019 08: 05
      for the same - guarantees against Germany. After all, it’s always better to fight with a verzil not alone
      1. -7
        30 March 2019 08: 06
        Quote: Albatroz
        for the same - guarantees against Germany.

        Germans at that time needed colonies and not Russian lands, and our relations at that time were quite
        1. +12
          30 March 2019 08: 11
          Yes, of course.
          They also needed the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine.
          By the way, any union should look a little at the prospect.
          1. -1
            31 March 2019 19: 57
            Ukraine was needed by Austro-Hungarians, the Germans needed the French, and it was precisely to protect their lands that France fed Russia with debt
      2. -5
        31 March 2019 11: 31
        I suppose that in the event of a German attack on Russia, France and England found reasons not to intervene.
        1. -1
          31 March 2019 20: 00
          apparently minus those who don’t know history, France threw Russia during the Russo-Japanese War and if the Germans had only east, they would have found a squiggle in the contract just like in 4 years and thrown RI a second time
  8. +8
    30 March 2019 08: 04
    All competently and on the shelves. The main thing is that a lot becomes clear.
    And one more thing.
    Having never entered military-political alliances, it is never worth betraying them. History abounds with such examples.
    It is worth remembering.
    1. +1
      April 1 2019 22: 29
      Quote: Albatroz
      All competently and on the shelves.

      And then if you all clearly answer why England and France could have thrown Russia (thrown with weapons, did not help in 1905), but Russia should not be thrown?
      Why was it possible to form a foreign unit in Russia - the Czechoslovak Corps, but not Russia in Ukraine 1991-2014?
      Why did the Czechs return from Vladivostok to the Volga if the task was to evacuate through Vladivostok? What kind of a blow to the back of Russia? Is it like in Ukraine since 2014 everything to fight against Muscovites to the point of victory, and the government washes away pennies with blood?
  9. +11
    30 March 2019 08: 18
    Even in the documents of that era, the Bolshevik government was called "the government of German prisoners of war." But things were much worse.
    And the allies could not understand who managed to jump out of the train half a step before the Victory?)
    The casket really just opened
  10. +7
    30 March 2019 09: 11
    Excellent article, factually verified.
    It is perfectly true that the attempt to disarm the Entente military formation, the Czechoslovak Corps, which at that time was only being transferred to the French Front, served as a catalyst for the Civil War in Russia. Moreover, at the moment when this was done, the failure of even the Spring Offensive of Germany and the collapse of the German bloc was already visible. Stupidity or treason? Most likely - all together, plus working out in front of the curators. This provoked the Entente.
    And I was very amused by the first comment. The Allies, if you knew the separ from the Dnieper, already in the conditions of the Compiegne armistice stipulated the cancellation of the Brest Agreements. And noted them in the Treaty of Versailles. And article 116 of the latter really legally equates Russia with the winners. For only the winners were entitled to reparations.
    And the Entente supported the anti-Bolshevik forces (as anti-German) and only a limited period of time. The so-called intervention is based on the same reasons. Although it depends on what is considered an intervention. Some, for example, speak of the intervention of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine.
    So there are no questions, neither in the paragraph, nor in the article.
    On the contrary, the advice to the first commentators on the list is to do less separatism and go to school more often.
    1. -6
      31 March 2019 11: 35
      Quote: Hunghouse
      Entente military formation, Czechoslovak Corps,

      Those. was it possible in Ukraine from 1991 to 2914 to form Russian troops from Russian speakers?
      There is a treaty of friendship and the CSTO.
  11. -9
    30 March 2019 12: 48
    such "guardians for Russia." as a certain Olgovich & Co should be FORCEDLY sent to the trenches of Donbass. Let them actually show their adherence to the Russian idea. Otherwise, I would not be surprised at all if this Olgovich is a Jew by nationality.
    1. +13
      30 March 2019 13: 16
      this olgovich is Jewish by nationality

      and you yourself can’t be a Jew, the dear liberal seeker who is still looking for? Although - you can replace the first 3 letters with a more harmonious ear of a Russian person))
      Well, what if a person and a Jew do we have discrimination, or are there no heroes among the Jews ??
    2. -10
      30 March 2019 13: 35
      He is an ordinary paid troll. He is paid to falsify the facts. And judging by the pluses to him, there are several of them.
      1. +3
        31 March 2019 10: 03
        Quote: tatra
        He is ordinary paid troll

        I do not understand: WHERE my money?! belay

        you mention so often "paid troll"what I suspect is you — constantly pocketing them!" am lol
    3. -8
      30 March 2019 13: 40
      Quote: Seeker
      such "guardians for Russia." as a certain olgovich & Co should be FORCEDLY sent to the trenches of Donbass.

      See us still fool if so, the geniuses were sent ...
    4. +4
      31 March 2019 09: 58
      Quote: Seeker
      such "guardians for Russia." as a certain olgovich & Co should be FORCEDLY sent to the trenches of Donbass.

      Familiar habits: YOU have committed crimes (violent inclusion Russian Donbass in the so-called. "Ukraine" Ukrainization , warmed the Ukronazists of the Grushevskys, raised powders, timoshenoks and other tiers). and others must follow you ... clean yours, um, yes ... belay lol
      Quote: Seeker
      And then will not surprise me at all.if this olgovich is Jewish by nationality.

      Nope, you just do not know how to be surprised! lol
  12. -4
    30 March 2019 13: 26
    What can I say? Unions of relatives. Got Game
  13. -3
    30 March 2019 13: 34
    Quote: Olgovich
    The Entente drove the invaders from Russia.

    Isn't it time for a psychiatrist?
    1. +17
      30 March 2019 15: 03
      The Entente drove the invaders from Russia.
      Isn't it time for a psychiatrist?

      All right. The Treaty of Versailles provided for the withdrawal of all German and Austrian troops from all territories of the former Russian Empire
      1. -11
        30 March 2019 17: 06
        Quote: denatured alcohol
        The Entente drove the invaders from Russia.
        Isn't it time for a psychiatrist?

        All right. The Treaty of Versailles provided for the withdrawal of all German and Austrian troops from all territories of the former Russian Empire


        You didn’t go too far? See when Germany withdrew troops from Russia and when the Versailles Treaty was concluded.
        1. +18
          30 March 2019 19: 31
          See when Germany withdrew troops from Russia and when the Versailles Treaty was concluded.

          Yeah. Another diploma. How can you talk about what you’re not talking about?
          Okay, the last lesson of educational program.
          The armistice agreement was signed on November 11, 1918 - at 5 a.m. in Compiegne in the carriage of Marshal F. Foch. It included 34 articles and a number of applications. Among them:
          A. Western Front. The cessation of hostile actions on land and in the air (Article 1). Purification of Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Alsace-Lorraine within 15 days (Art. 2). Issuance of military material (Article 4). Purification of the left bank of the Rhine, control on it with the help of local authorities under the supervision of the occupation forces; creation of a neutral zone (Article 5). Transfer of locomotives, wagons and trucks; transfer of Alsace-Lorraine railways (Art. 7). Allied right to requisition; the maintenance of the occupying forces at the expense of Germany (Article 9). The return of all Allied prisoners of war without the simultaneous return of German prisoners of war (art. 10).
          B. The eastern borders of Germany. Immediate withdrawal of German troops from Austria-Hungary, Romania, and, as directed by the Allies, from the former Russian regions (Article 12). Immediate withdrawal of German troops from Russia (Article 13). Prohibition of requisition, etc., in Romania and Russia (Article 14). Refusal of the Bucharest and Brest-Litovsk peace treaties (Article 15). The free passage of the allies to the regions cleared by Germany in the east, "in order to protect the population, I maintain order" (Article 16).
          C. East Africa. The withdrawal of German troops (Art. 17).
          D. General Regulations. Return of all allied (but not German) civilian internees (Art. 18).
          The truce has been extended several times.
          A connoisseur of green has singled out specially for you.
          So no one was waiting for June 1919 and Versailles - the German troops were withdrawn from Russia immediately after November 11, 1918, following the results of the AGREEMENT.
          Go to school too dear
          1. -11
            31 March 2019 01: 48
            Quote: denatured alcohol
            Yeah. Another diploma. How can you talk about what you’re not talking about?
            Okay, the last lesson of educational program.
            The armistice agreement was signed on November 11, 1918 - at 5 a.m. in Compiegne in the carriage of Marshal F. Foch. It included 34 articles and a number of applications.

            Quote: denatured alcohol
            So no one was waiting for June 1919 and Versailles - the German troops were withdrawn from Russia immediately after November 11, 1918, following the results of the AGREEMENT.
            Go to school too dear


            No, dear, you need this to go to school and it would be better to go to the Soviet one, where, unlike the current story, they did not misinterpret it. But I think it’s useless for you to go there, because you are ordinary dvoyochnik and falsifier.

            First, the you confused Armistice Agreement November 11, 1918 and Treaty of Versailles June 1919 The terms of the agreement were worked out at the Prague Peace Conference and entered into force on January 11, 1920.

            Secondly, under the terms of the ceasefire, Germany was obligated to “immediately” (within 15 days) release only the territories occupied by the Western Front. In the East - no deadlines were set; German troops had to remain in Russia until the arrival of the Entente, And for the Baltic states, it was generally established to withdraw troops only after the governments of the allied and associated powers “considered the moment appropriate, in accordance with the internal situation of these territories”. They did not want the Red Army to occupy these territories, and tried to use German troops for this.

            But the German command, fearing a complete revolutionary decomposition of its troops, did not fulfill these requirements, and on November 11, the commander of the Eastern Front von Kirbach ordered the partial withdrawal of troops. The Soviet government took advantage of this, tore the Brest peace and launched the Red Army operations to liberate the Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine.
            1. +9
              31 March 2019 07: 14
              you are an ordinary dvoechnik and falsifier.
              First, you confused the Armistice Agreement on November 11, 1918 and the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.

              Nobody confused anything - it’s you Green, not only a doppelganger and a falsifier, but also a distorter of facts and a mixer of concepts and phenomena. Indeed, no one confuses you except you — and you perfectly understood this, cunningly offering the next passage. This is highlighted in bold to attract (and at the same time distract) attention.
              Let me explain.
              Above you wrote
              See when Germany withdrew troops from Russia and when the Versailles Treaty was concluded.

              were you hinting that the Treaty of Versailles was June 1919, and how did they say - did the German troops stay in Russia for so long?
              When it was explained to you that this was already done as a result of the Compiegne truce in November 1918, you came up with a new move. I quote your trick:
              under the terms of the armistice, Germany was obligated to “immediately” (within a 15-day period) release only the territories occupied by the Western Front. In the East, no deadlines were set, German troops had to remain on Russian territory until the Entente arrived, and for the Baltic states it was generally established to withdraw troops only after the governments of the allied and associated powers “considered the moment appropriate, in accordance with the internal situation of these territories ". They did not want the Red Army to occupy these territories, and tried to use German troops for this.

              So, the German troops on the Eastern Front Compiegne truce in st. immediately And they were immediately withdrawn - from the same Ukraine, from Kiev in November-December 1919. And all the memoirs of eyewitnesses tell us about this. And the Entente troops did not intend to occupy these territories - after all, there was nothing similar to the large-scale Austro-German occupation. Somewhere separate contingents of German troops (for example, in the Baltic states) were left - but with a different sauce and until a special order of the Entente.
              The Germans were especially afraid (naturally a joke) of the Red Army laughing which at that time consisted of the Red Guard gangs and detachments of the veil, which did not even dare to enter into battle with regular German troops, occupying what was left to them. Even the Germans were probably more afraid of corruption than the "troops" of the government of their protege.
              Their only adversary at that time was the Entente armies.
              1. -6
                31 March 2019 13: 43
                Quote: Brutan
                it’s you Green, not only a doppelganger and a falsifier, but also a distorter of facts and a mixer of concepts and phenomena.


                Dear prosecutor, pay attention: your client first stated.
                Quote: denatured alcohol
                All true. The Treaty of Versailles provided for the withdrawal of all German and Austrian troops from all territories of the former Russian Empire

                Then he stated the following:
                Quote: Alexander Green
                Quote: denatured alcohol
                So no one expected June 1919 and Versailles - German troops were withdrawn from Russia immediately after November 11, 1918, following the results of the ceasefire agreement.


                Your client has confused these two completely different documents. For this, he is deuce.

                Further, your client and you say that the German troops from the territory of Russia should have been withdrawn immediately and this is confirmed by memoirs. - This is falsification.

                The agreement of Germany was prescribed do not withdraw troops from the territories of the former Russian Empire before the replacement of the Entente troops. And from the territory of the Baltic do not output until while “the governments of the allied and associated powers find the moment appropriate, in accordance with the internal situation of these territories”

                But The German command, fearing a complete revolutionary decomposition of its troops, did not fulfill these requirements.

                And I emphasize, I, so that you read the texts more carefully.
                1. +5
                  31 March 2019 14: 39
                  But here I am, as an outside observer, I see once again trying to confuse everyone.
                  We all know that the Compiegne Armistice Agreement and the Versailles Peace Treaty are different documents.
                  When you were deliberately surprised: how can the Germans be in Russia to Versailles, and they poked your nose into the Compiegne truce, you get out.
                  Intentionally forgot about one and hide for the second.
                  And you are not a deuce, but a fat count. Aspen Green.
                  German troops from Russia should have been withdrawn immediately and this is confirmed by memoirs. - This is falsification.

                  no it true
                  I quote the norms of Compiegne truce: directly with the articles
                  Immediate withdrawal of German troops from Austria-Hungary, Romania, and, as directed by the Allies, from the former Russian regions (Article 12). Immediate withdrawal of German troops from Russia (Article 13). Prohibition of requisition, etc., in Romania and Russia (Article 14). Refusal of the Bucharest and Brest-Litovsk peace treaties (Article 15). Allied free access to areas cleared by Germany in the east, “in order to protect the population, I maintain order” (Article 16).

                  study the document, nibble the granite of science.
                  and this is your opus green
                  But the German command, fearing a complete revolutionary decomposition of its troops, did not fulfill these requirements.

                  leave on your revolutionary conscience lol
                  1. -3
                    31 March 2019 23: 39
                    Quote: EKZECUTOR
                    And you are not a deuce, but a fat count. Aspen Green


                    It is felt that you are also a victim of the exam. Firstly, you misinterpreted all the texts of the articles. Secondly, you do not know how to think.
                    For example, two articles of the Truce.

                    [b "] XII. All German troops currently in the territories that were part of Austria-Hungary, Romania and Turkey before the war, must immediately return to the borders of Germany, as they were before August 1, 1914.

                    All German troops currently in the territories that were part of Russia before the war must also return to the borders of Germany, as indicated above, at the time indicated by the Allies, taking into account the internal position of these territories. "[/ B]

                    Pay attention to the text, which means "Given the internal situation of these territories"? This means nothing more than to prevent the establishment of Soviet power in these territories. And further.

                    "XVI. The Allies are given free access to the territories evacuated by the Germans on the eastern borders, either through Danzig or through the Vistula, in order to be able to supply the population, and in order to maintain order."

                    And this means to prevent the Red Army from entering this territory.
                    .

                    Quote: EKZECUTOR
                    "But the German command, fearing a complete revolutionary disintegration of its troops, did not fulfill these requirements."
                    - leave on your revolutionary conscience


                    Do you deny it? The German command did not need troops to replenish the ranks of the rebels, but to suppress the revolution in Germany.
                    1. +4
                      April 1 2019 00: 33
                      Just chatted Green. Afraid of the revolutionaries ...
                      Kindergarten
                      Simple
                      Open article 13 of the Compiegne truce and see the word - immediately. Conclusion from the territory of Russia. Everything is clear and clear
                      Do you have text? You can, for example, open the Versailles peace treaty. Ed. Prof. Klyuchnikova. M.1925. S. 6.
                      There is the content of a truce.
                      A communist, damn it, and does not believe in Soviet historical science. Revisionist you uncle
                      1. 0
                        April 1 2019 20: 24
                        Quote: Hunghouse
                        Do you have text? You can, for example, open the Versailles peace treaty. Ed. Prof. Klyuchnikova. M.1925. S. 6.
                        There is the content of a truce.

                        Dear, I have given you the text reproduced from the publication: Turnes Rene. Foch and the victory of the allies of 1918. - M., 1938.
                        The 1926 version is written even more clearly, all encyclopedias, Wikipedia and dictionaries rewrite it, I wrote all my comments to you from there, you just read carefully and ponder over the text.
                      2. +4
                        April 1 2019 22: 44
                        I will help you dear green
                        so you don’t hang noodles here
                        once again. Page from Klyuchnikov. An official source on the topic, the rest is in slag. Edition of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (NKID). Pervod from French texts, comments of our masters - diplomats and professors.

                        I hope you can subtract one of the conditions of the Compiegne truce without outside help - IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF GERMAN TROOPS FROM RUSSIA. ST thirteen.
                      3. 0
                        April 2 2019 16: 59
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        I hope you can subtract one of the conditions of the Compiegne truce without outside help - IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF GERMAN TROOPS FROM RUSSIA. ST thirteen.


                        Enough to swing your source already, you as always failed to master it, you did not even understand that Klyuchnikov cited the agreement in his free statement,

                        Pay attention to the words of Klyuchnikov on the page you provided.
                        .“The armistice agreement, signed on November 11 at 5 am in Compiegne, in the carriage of Marshal Foch., Contained 34 articles and a number of annexes. Basically, its terms were as follows:

                        Keyword PRIMARILY, i.e. the agreement is abridged and not complete ..

                        So you do not have the real text of the agreement, but its free statement by Klyuchnikov.
                        Here is the true text of the truce. Articles in it are numbered in Roman numerals. The text is reproduced from the publication: Turnes Rene. Foch and the victory of the allies of 1918. - M., 1938. 255 - 261.
                        XII. All German troops currently in the territories that were part of Austria-Hungary, Romania and Turkey before the war should immediately return to the borders of Germany, as they were before August 1, 1914.

                        All German troops currently located in the territories that were part of Russia before the war should also return to the borders of Germany, as indicated above, at the time indicated by the Allies, given the internal situation of these territories.

                        Xvi. Allies are given free access to the territories evacuated by the Germans on the eastern borders, either through Danzig or through the Vistula, in order to be able to supply the population, and in order to maintain order.

                        Please note that despite the fact that Germany refuses the Brest Treaty in Art. 12 it is written that “All German troops currently in the territories that were part of Russia before the war should also return to the borders of Germany, as indicated above, at the time indicated by the Allies, given the internal situation of these territories”
                      4. +5
                        April 2 2019 19: 45
                        Klyuchnikov brought TRANSFERS
                        and even his place to be free is a hundred times more valuable than your idle chatter. For it is SOURCE.
                        Okay, look at your quotes.
                        So:
                        “All German troops currently in the territories that were part of Russia before the war should also return to the borders of Germany, as indicated above
                        This is your quote, isn't it? laughing
                        as indicated above and means must immediately return to the borders of Germany, as they were before August 1, 1914
                        because it is indicated above)) read the above yourself) Or look at the book and see the fig?
                        at the time indicated by the allies, given the internal situation of these territories
                        The Allies ordered them to leave immediately - in the Compiegne truce. The Germans were a little delayed in the Baltic states, and then some contingents. All kinds of palliatives such as the Ostsee division or volunteers. After all, the German regular army was subject DEMOBILIZATION.
                        The loaches were later withdrawn from there - again at the request of the Entente.
                      5. +1
                        April 2 2019 23: 10
                        Quote: Adjutant

                        Klyuchnikov cited TRANSLATIONS
                        and even his place to be free is a hundred times more valuable than your idle chatter. For it is SOURCE ..

                        Isn't I a source? What is my bad? Go on the Internet all replicate it and not Klyuchnikova.
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        Okay, look at your quotes.

                        But why didn’t they look at this quote?
                        " Xvi. Allies are given free access to the territories evacuated by the Germans on the eastern borders, either through Danzig or through the Vistula, in order to be able to supply the population, and in order to maintain order.[i] [/ i] "
                      6. +4
                        April 3 2019 06: 44
                        Go on the Internet all replicate it and not Klyuchnikova.

                        good argument laughing
                        why only on this Internet do not replicate. but good, as you know, does not need advertising. and who lives in it - individuals like you? Duplication on the Internet is a bad tone for science)
                        I am far from your knowledge of the Internet, but I will somehow appreciate the hierarchy of sources myself. And the material I have cited is a full translation from the French original with the comments of experts. And the book of your Turnes is just the opinion of one of the generals. With applications where there is a translation but it is not clear whose, it is hardly authentic and official.
                        regarding this
                        Allies are given free access to the territories evacuated by the Germans on the eastern borders, either through Danzig or through the Vistula, in order to be able to supply the population, and in order to maintain order

                        then everything is very simple. The evacuation of the Germans did not take a day or two.
                        and the allies wanted for this period in the zones occupied by their troops - by the way for humanitarian purposes these are the bad ones))
                      7. 0
                        April 3 2019 18: 13
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        Go on the Internet all replicate it and not Klyuchnikova.

                        good argument
                        why only on this Internet do not replicate. but good, as you know, does not need advertising. and who lives in it - individuals like you?


                        You think you can? I do not believe Klyuchnikom.

                        First, he himself stipulated the accuracy of the Armistice Agreement. « Basically his conditions boiled down to the following. ... " Sorry, if you do not understand this, then there is no more reason to communicate with you.

                        Secondly, Klyuchnikov was an enemy of Soviet power. Here are some details from his biography. In 1918, he was a consultant to the Provisional All-Russian Government, since November 18, Admiral Kolchak, managing director of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Then in exile, he participated in the ideological and political current shift shift.

                        In 1922 he returned to the USSR, wrote a little book to which you refer, where he freely set out the text of the Agreement, cutting off the most important thing, namely the anti-Soviet orientation of the Entente.

                        In the year 1934. he was sent to Karelia for three years for anti-Soviet agitation, and in 1938 he was sentenced to the VMN, for participation in the counter-revolutionary Rehabilitation Information.

                        So there are suspicions that he specifically veiled the anti-Soviet orientation of the Compiegne Armistice Agreement.

                        Quote: Adjutant
                        everything is very simple. The evacuation of the Germans did not take a day or two.
                        and the allies wanted for this period in the zones occupied by their troops - by the way for humanitarian purposes these are the bad ones


                        Well, well, blessed is he who believes.
                      8. +4
                        April 3 2019 20: 45
                        You think you can? I do not believe Klyuchnikom.

                        Well, he’s on the drum, believe it or not. Me too. Believe in God.
                        I referred to the official source of NKID

                        Here, for thoughtful readers, not for you. And end up mowing the green under the communist - if you already believe the books of the Western imperialists and do not believe the Soviet ones. But Klyuchnikov is just an editor. Almost the entire book is official texts.
                        this is yours
                        In 1922 he returned to the USSR, wrote a little book to which you refer, where he freely set out the text of the Agreement, cutting off the most important thing, namely the anti-Soviet orientation of the Entente.

                        let readers see that you are lying even with a year. no, 1922. Let them see that they are lying about the green book that they did not hold in their hands, let them see that they are lying about the official publication of the NKID and palm off on us a French book, which is also not related to diplomacy - where it is written, by the way.
                        So there are suspicions that he specifically veiled the anti-Soviet orientation of the Compiegne Armistice Agreement.

                        Well, if only your cheap and not interesting suspicions to anyone.
                        in general, a creature like you - illiterate and stupid - is too insignificant to judge at all about anything, especially about the sources.
                        everything is very simple. The evacuation of the Germans did not take a day or two.
                        and the allies wanted to get to the zones occupied by their troops for this period - by the way, with humanitarian goals, these are bad
                        Well, well, blessed is he who believes.

                        wiped you away with their own, of course - all that remains is to believe.
                      9. +1
                        April 4 2019 00: 26
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        stop mowing green under the communist - if you already believe the books of the Western imperialists and do not believe the Soviet ones. But Klyuchnikov is just an editor. Almost the entire book is official texts.

                        That's it, exactly, here is the keyword "almost". Pay attention to the title page. Which you inserted in your comment. The book is called The Versailles Peace Treaty" , but not "Armistice Agreement." So here is the subtitle “Full translation from the French original” refers to the Versailles Peace Treaty. Take a look at page VI of this book, where Klyuchnikova writes about the Armistice Treaty.

                        First, the note that Klyuchnikov misinterpreted the name of the document Armistice Agreement call Armistice Treaty.
                        Secondlyread on. Klyuchnikov writes “The armistice agreement, signed in the carriage of Marshal Foch on November 11, 1918 at 5 a.m. in Compiegne, included 34 articles and a number of annexes. Basically, his conditions were as follows».
                        And then its contents are retold in a free presentation by Klyuchnikov. This is not the original Armistice Agreement, but his free retelling by Klyuchnikov.

                        Quote: Adjutant
                        let readers see that you are lying even with a year. no, 1922. Let them see - that they are lying green about a book that they did not hold in their hands, let them see - that they are lying about the official publication of the NKID


                        This is a wonderful confirmation of your inability to understand the texts. The year 1922 refers to Klyuchnikov’s arrival in Soviet Russia, and not to writing a book.

                        Quote: Adjutant
                        ... your cheap and uninteresting suspicions.
                        in general, a creature like you - illiterate and stupid - is too insignificant to judge at all about something


                        Well, what do you say, such an assessment only emphasizes your intellectual level.
                      10. +4
                        April 4 2019 07: 30
                        The book is called the Versailles Peace Treaty, not the Armistice Agreement. So the subtitle “Complete translation from the French original” refers to the Versailles Peace Treaty. Take a look at page VI of this book, where Klyuchnikova writes about the Armistice Treaty.

                        Armistice Agreement (Treaty) - set forth on the eve of the Treaty of Versailles.
                        Klyuchnikov misinterpreted the title of the document “Armistice Agreement” and called it “Armistice Agreement”.

                        Or maybe it's the turrets translators screwed up yours?))
                        However, this speaks of your intellectual development. So that you know - the Agreement and the Agreement are synonyms. Even now, in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an agreement is understood as "an agreement between two or more persons." You are rightly suffering from the fact that you did not pass the exam.
                        You are only here
                        This is not the original Armistice Agreement, but his free retelling by Klyuchnikov.

                        No, this statement is the content of the Armistice Agreement - edited by the NKID. Which means it’s completely authentic.
                        So you're lying. And this quote is
                        Well, what do you say, such an assessment only emphasizes your intellectual level.
                        about you
    2. +1
      31 March 2019 10: 22
      Quote: Seeker
      Isn't it time for a psychiatrist?


      you are doing wrong: you cannot offer your experience to others .... negative
      For there is an iron rule of medicine: that which helped one or the other is simply not necessary and even harmful! Yes hi
  14. -16
    30 March 2019 13: 56
    It is interesting to observe the enthusiasm for the "factual verification" of the article on the one hand and criticism like "an article in the classical style of the ideology of the enemies of the communists" on the other. That is, in the article, everyone sees what he wants, and the discussion turns into a classic holivar-srach, when the litigating parties, not only do not know the subject, but also not one of the participants in the discussion is going to listen and think over the arguments of their opponent, the main thing is to voice their own.
    Meanwhile, the article, in general, was written by the author in full accordance with the Soviet historiographical position regarding the First World War.
    Literally the very first paragraph of the article was copied literally by the author from the book by A.A. Strokova "Armed forces and military art in the First World War". Moscow: Military Publishing, 1974.
    As it is written in the annotation: "This book highlights the main provisions of Marxism-Leninism about war and the army, about armed struggle, reveals the patterns of building the armed forces and the development of military art on the experience of the First World War of 1914-1918. The publication is designed for historians, generals and officers, to readers interested in military history. "
    And in the future, the author does not hesitate to follow in line with the above-mentioned book and "the main provisions of Marxism-Leninism", which, nevertheless, arouses the stormy delight of numerous Olgovich-type crystal bakers and well illustrates their knowledge of "factology", the "verification" of which they admire.
    What is surprising is the level of the article that is extremely weak for this author.
    The author immediately starts from the Marxist-Leninist position to create the Entente, without completely lighting up (at least briefly) the historical background on which the Entente was created and how the Russian Empire which, until 1884, consisted of Germany and Austria-Hungary in the Union of Three Emperors and which had a secret Reinsurance Treaty with Germany until 1890, suddenly changes its foreign policy by 180 degrees and literally within a year becomes an adversary of Germany.
    Further, the author writes exclusively in the spirit of Marxist - Leninist positions that the creation of the Entente was dictated solely in opposition to "German hegemony in Europe." The sacramental phrase "Germany was preparing a world war with the aim and with a pre-developed program of conquering Europe and creating the basis for conquering world domination" is missing.
    But from these positions one can explain the anti-German Russian-French alliance, but not the Russian-British one. In general, the position of Britain requires some coverage, since it is necessary to at least briefly highlight why Britain, like Russia, suddenly changes its foreign policy course from "excellent isolation" to looking for allies against Germany.
    Well, about the "German hegemony" and Germany's plans for a world war.
    What did this German hegemony consist of and how did it threaten anyone, including Russia?
    "To take away from Russia - Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states" - this is, again, literally from Strokov's book. But “capture”, “enslavement”, “taking away” are abstract concepts. The historian, especially the level of Oleinikov, must operate with documentary facts.
    And the facts show that before the war, and during the war in Germany, at least five areas were considered:
    1. The expansionist, most closely associated with the idea of ​​Drang nach Osten (cast
    to the East);
    2. The project "Central Europe";
    3. Polish, which in a certain respect was part of the concept of "Central Europe"; 4. 4. Eastern European, oriented to the policy of the so-called border states;
    5. Russian, whose supporters defended the idea of ​​unity and indivisibility of Russia and close cooperation with its great eastern neighbor.
    At the same time, historians still cannot say that any of the plans was preferred.
    In a word, questions, questions ...
    Well, how the allies appreciated the contribution of the All-Russian Emperor to the victory.
    The abdication of Nicholas II was warmly welcomed by British and French politicians. British King George V, who agreed to shelter the king and his family, revoked his consent, "fearing popular outrage." France did not even consider the issue.
    1. -13
      30 March 2019 14: 18
      Judging by the minuses, the first to reach the commentary were the Bulkokhrusty hamsters. Moreover, "factually" these individuals cannot object, and, as they wrote in Soviet newspapers, "in impotent rage" they pass by.
      1. +3
        31 March 2019 08: 22
        Not a week passed, as a man registered ... ?????? ... Opponents scolding, running into ......
        1. 0
          April 1 2019 20: 22
          Dima hi , do not rush to conclusions, and all this minus does not honor those who put them. They don’t fight out of silence - this is the lot of cheaters. Yes
    2. -13
      30 March 2019 14: 22
      The Germans were not going to attack Russia. It was Nicholas II, for the sake of obligations to France and Serbia, that he ordered the mobilization of the Russian army, the Germans demanded that it be stopped, because they took it as a threat to Germany, the Russian authorities refused, and only after that the Germans declared war on Russia.
      1. 0
        30 March 2019 14: 49
        And why did the Germans attack with their power not Russia, but France? Probably - because they had such a plan developed in advance ...
      2. +12
        30 March 2019 15: 01

        tatra (Irina) Today, 14:22
        The Germans were not going to attack Russia. It was Nicholas II, for the sake of obligations to France and Serbia, that he ordered the mobilization of the Russian army, the Germans demanded that it be stopped, because they took it as a threat to Germany, the Russian authorities refused, and only after that the Germans declared war on Russia

        No, not so.
        Chronology of the outbreak of conflict:
        1) On July 23, Austria-Hungary presents an ultimatum to Serbia. Despite the difficult conditions of the latter, Serbia agreed with all its requirements except one - the admission of Austrian troops to its territory.
        2) July 26, Austria-Hungary begins the mobilization and concentration of its troops on the borders Russia and Serbia.
        3) July 28th, Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia and invades the latter.
        4) Nicholas II sends a telegram to the senior partner of the Triple Alliance - Germany - represented by Wilhelm II with a proposal to refer the Austro-Serbian issue for consideration International Arbitration Court in The Hague.
        5) William II to this telegram didn't answer.
        6) Unprotected by the threat of the Austrian forces concentrated in Galicia, Russia also announces mobilization on July 31.
        7) Wilhelm, starting the mobilization of the German army, at the same time requires Nicholas II stop the mobilization of the Russian army. That is, to disarm before the impending aggression.
        8) August 1, Germany declares war on Russia - both in fact and legally becoming an aggressor.
        1. -11
          30 March 2019 16: 11
          The web has a website with pre-revolutionary newspapers, from there:
          "New time"
          How the German ambassador declared to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about declaring war.
          Yesterday after 12 o’clock. nights (on the night from the 18th to the 19th) the German ambassador gr. Purtales came to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and asked to report to S. D. Sazonov that he needed to see him. The German ambassador, adopted by the minister, said on behalf of his government that Germany is concerned about the general mobilization announced in Russia, he is asking the Russian government to suspend this mobilization no later than 12 hours later, otherwise Germany will also be forced to start mobilizing its army.
          Twelve hours were up and the Russian government, of course, did not give any answer to the German proposal.
          Today, at 7 o’clock. In the evening, the German ambassador arrived at the Foreign Minister. When gr. Purtales entered the reception room to S.D.Sazonov, it was evident that he was very excited. Turning to the minister, the ambassador asked whether the Russian government agrees to the German proposal to stop the mobilization. The minister said that, since the Russian government did not give any answer on the date announced the day before, it follows that Russia refuses to fulfill the German proposal. The ambassador reiterated the same question. The Minister again gave a negative answer. Very worried, the ambassador asked for the third time whether the Russian government agreed to suspend the mobilization. The minister answered in the negative for the third time. Then the ambassador stood up, handed the verbal note to the Minister and, bowing, immediately left
          "Events of the day"
          In view of Russia's rejection of Germany’s demands for demobilization, the German ambassador delivered a note verbale to Sazonov declaring war.
          FROM GERMAN NOTE ON THE DECLARATION OF THE WAR OF RUSSIA AUGUST 1, 1914
          “... The German government saw itself compelled to appeal to the e. imp vseros. insisting on the cessation of these military activities. Since Russia refused to satisfy this demand (did not consider it necessary to answer this demand) and showed by this refusal (thus action) that its actions were directed against Germany, I have the honor to tell your Excellency the following:
          E. century imp., my august overlord, on behalf of the empire accepts the challenge and considers himself at war with Russia ”
          1. +15
            30 March 2019 16: 17
            What I'm talking about.
            Conclusion - Austria-Hungary and Germany are aggressors.
            And actually and legally. And they wanted and did
            1. -14
              30 March 2019 16: 24
              Once again, Germany was not going to attack Russia, but she took the fact of mobilization of the Russian army as an act of aggression against Germany.
              1. +13
                30 March 2019 16: 41
                Again.
                Germany was about to. For a long time, even when Schliffen was the chief of the General Staff, there were such plans.
                And Russian mobilization was a reaction to the concentration of Austrian troops - behind which stood Germany's senior partner.
                I repeat. It may come at last.
                Nicholas II, even before the announcement of his mobilization, invited William II (there is a telegram) to submit the Austro-Serbian question to the international arbitration court in The Hague. William II did not answer this telegram.
                How to behave in Russia when the Austrians concentrate in Galicia and Poland? Naturally, Russia on July 31 also announces mobilization.
                And the Germans just used it as an REASON. Moreover, Wilhelm, having begun the mobilization of the German army, at the same time demanded that Nikolai stop the mobilization of the Russian army. Is that how you like it?
                And it was Germany that August 1, Germany declares war on Russia - becoming an aggressor.
                However, what is the use of explaining this to the stubborn euryade ?? One and only one, man and woman, a foreigner and a Russian)) well, you understand dear))
                The whole world already knows these events, they have been known for a long time and received a historical and legal assessment.
    3. +15
      30 March 2019 14: 24
      Undecim
      It is interesting to observe the enthusiasm for the "factual verification" of the article on the one hand and criticism like "an article in the classical style of the ideology of the enemies of the communists" on the other. That is, in the article, everyone sees what he wants, and the discussion turns into a classic holivar-srach, when the litigating parties, not only do not know the subject, but also not one of the participants in the discussion is going to listen and think over the arguments of their opponent, the main thing is to voice their own.

      Another clever man with peremptory judgments got out again. But in the end - all the same Mr. Shpakovsky only under different nicknames. Well, that’s okay.
      Meanwhile, the article, in general, was written by the author in full accordance with the Soviet historiographical position regarding the First World War.

      Two questions.
      The first - what do you prove? In the studio historiographical review. Let's explore. With names, titles of works and pages. The period is known to be multi-stage.
      I'm ready. Are you my friend? In all the topics you cut, and the Schnitz and the Reaper and the dude on the dude?))
      Literally the very first paragraph of the article was copied literally by the author from the book by A.A. Strokova "Armed forces and military art in the First World War". Moscow: Military Publishing, 1974.

      What does it mean decommissioned ?? This is a classic definition. Or do we have author's definitions of even long-established terms? Yeah.
      And in the future, the author does not hesitate to follow in line with the above-mentioned book and "the main provisions of Marxism-Leninism", which, nevertheless, arouses the stormy delight of numerous Olgovich-type crystal bakers and well illustrates their knowledge of "factology", the "verification" of which they admire.

      First question is bad?
      And the second question - prove it. Again, based on historiographic analysis.
      the creation of the Entente was dictated solely to counterbalance the "German hegemony in Europe." The sacramental phrase "Germany was preparing a world war with the aim and with a pre-developed program of conquering Europe and creating the basis for conquering world domination" is missing.

      So this is a proven fact. Soviet historical science. For example, Academician Notovich. Which modern comrades - not a couple)
      The historian, especially the level of Oleinikov, must operate on documentary facts.

      sorry
      and where should they operate - on academic sites or on VO, about which you recently lamented (under a different nickname of course) that he is close to the yellow press? Be consistent Mr. Shpakovsky. Forgive me for saying this, but you are not shy about rinsing the names of other people. About levels - I am silent hi
      sorry
      1. -15
        30 March 2019 14: 47
        Mr. Denaturat. I have no physiological relation to Shpakovsky, so to speak. We have different bodies. This is the first thing I wanted to tell you. Obviously Shpakovsky is the subject of your somnum exterreri solebat and you see it everywhere where there is a different point of view from your (only naturally correct) one.
        About "what you prove". At the beginning of my commentary it is written - A.A. Strokov "The Armed Forces and the Art of War in the First World War". Moscow: Military Publishing, 1974.
        Open and read. The author took from there and literally whole paragraphs and concepts.
        Thirdly. Before you talk about someone peremptory, look at your own.
        Well, in the fourth. Why did you decide that I will prove something to you?
        I set out my point of view, the comment format allows this. As for the discussion, then I can choose whether the opponent is interesting to me or not. You are not interesting for me. Contact Shpakovsky, maybe he will help you.
        1. +12
          30 March 2019 14: 53
          Mr. Denaturat. I have nothing to do with Shpakovsky. This is the first thing I wanted to tell you. Obviously Shpakovsky is the subject of your somnum exterreri solebat and you see it everywhere where there is a different point of view from your (only naturally correct) one.

          leave it without comment
          A.A. Strokov "The Armed Forces and the Art of War in the First World War". Moscow: Military Publishing, 1974. Open and read.

          With pleasure. Just tell me the page.
          And answer my question - the definition of what the Entente is, is that only Strokov has it?
          why did you decide that I will prove something to you?
          I set out my point of view, the comment format allows this. As for the discussion, then I can choose whether the opponent is interesting to me or not.

          that's what they wrote - and into the bushes. They hinted at historiography, which you do not know, but how to analyze it - so immediately into the denial.
          You are not interesting for me. Contact Shpakovsky, maybe he will help you.

          you are a priori uninteresting to me - whether you are Shpakovsky or not
          1. -17
            30 March 2019 14: 56
            Just tell me the page.
            Start with the first. You will be useful. But pay special attention to the third chapter.
            you are a priori uninteresting to me - whether you are Shpakovsky or not
            I am glad that we understood each other. Best wishes to you.
            1. +12
              30 March 2019 14: 57
              Just tell me the page.
              Start with the first. You will be useful. But pay special attention to the third chapter.

              From the first page of which Tom - or do you again judge what you did not hold in your hands?))
              1. -14
                30 March 2019 15: 03
                This book has one volume - the first. he is also the last one. You are obviously confusing this with the three-volume History of Military Art by the same author. different books.
                And you sculpt minus, dear. In "powerless anger." Joke.
                1. +12
                  30 March 2019 15: 08
                  I don’t confuse anything, I have all the options.
                  And Strings, and Strings-Razin. It was interesting if you knew about this.
                  Well, and what is the page in this single volume, with the definition of the Entente?
                  And what about my second question about whether Strokov is the only monopolist on this definition?
                  1. -14
                    30 March 2019 15: 14
                    Listen, you are an ill-mannered person. We kind of said goodbye, you assured me that I’m not interested in you, you are even more so ... It looks like, sorry, on the bath sheet ..
                    I repeat to you, the book is called Strokov, Alexander Alexandrovich
                    Armed forces and military art in the first world war

                    http://militera.lib.ru/science/strokov_aa/index.html
                    Obviously in "factology", you are still rather weak.
                    That's all. To the garden, my friend, to the garden ...
                    1. +11
                      30 March 2019 15: 18
                      So I thought you are an Internet fan, that you will have a tight page number))
                      Yeah. But then keep quiet if you judge a book that you did not hold in your hands.
                      With this
                      Is only Strokov a monopolist on this definition?
                      I understand even more problems. So we brought to the clean water the compiler of the huge comments - which are worthless. Which is a soap bubble.
                      To school - urgently raise the educational level.
                      We kind of said goodbye

                      exactly.
                      you go and learn
                      1. -15
                        30 March 2019 15: 24
                        Yes, such an individual as you is not easy to interfere even in our dynamic time.
                        One must be able to do this, without distinction, two different books by the same author and without even having a clue that this author has several books, having publicly admitted this, immediately accuse the opponent of ignorance.
                        Bravo, honestly. Tell me, you do not accept your nickname inward before the discussion? For enlightenment?
                      2. +11
                        30 March 2019 15: 31
                        Yes, such an individual as you is not easy to interfere even in our dynamic time.
                        One must be able to do this, without distinction, two different books of the same author and without even having a clue that this author has several books, having publicly admitted this, accuse the opponent of ignorance.

                        All these books are in my shelf. But you didn’t see them in your eyes and, unscrupulously using Internet links, talk about something else there.
                        What do you write to me if - I quote you
                        We kind of said goodbye ... It looks like, sorry, on the bath sheet ..

                        then you are now knitting exactly like a bath sheet?)) and then you are not only ignoramus, but also molested)))
                        In general, bye
                        a) do not call me PAGE in the string;
                        b) do not answer the question - is only Strokov a monopolist on the definition of the Entente?
                        c) until we discuss the historiography of the issue (which you yourself hinted at and then wrote about - and jump into the bushes)
                        do not write to me anymore. As for the nickname, this is the true image of our supreme power - Kadyrputia. I can develop this topic, if interested))
                      3. -13
                        30 March 2019 15: 34
                        do not write me anymore
                        And how will I let you know if the story about Kadyrputu is interesting to me or not?
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. +1
                        30 March 2019 16: 53
                        Sergei, why are you so up in arms against a complete stranger to you? And why did they decide that this is my clone, and even one of many? Remember that the site's rules are forbidden to "split" and "get upset". The ban for this is unlimited! Calculating who is who on the Web is easier than ever with the current state of the art. And why do I need it? If you look at the profile, you will see that there are many works. They take time and one nickname to "potryndet" is enough for me.
                      6. +1
                        30 March 2019 18: 53
                        Vyacheslav, good evening! hi
                        Not surprisingly, after an extra glass, it’s not that people with double nicknames fancy, but more strange visions can occur in the inflamed brain. request
                        PS Never drink meth - the effects are incurable. You see for yourself. drinks
                      7. +1
                        30 March 2019 22: 34
                        Good evening to you too, Konstantin, and now nights! I went in, read it, was very surprised ... And why is it my person who haunts so many people? One writes with the indication of my first surname, as if changing the surname in the USSR was a crime, the other writes about nicknames ... of course, I am not a saint, but to break the rules of the site to such an extent ... why, what is the benefit? But no. Apparently, this is difficult for consciousness. And again ... I'm not really hiding. You can always write in a personal. All biography on the Web ... No, what kind of "secrets" people are looking for ... I was a Japanese spy, I was English, I received dozens of grants from the US State Department ... well, what else will happen soon?
                      8. +13
                        30 March 2019 19: 41
                        Nevermind.
                        In general, I looked at this mess - and not surprised that many authors here are under pseudonyms. Who needs arrivals, and even from incompetents?
                        I rarely go myself, but I will be even less likely.
                        About the article.
                        The article sets forth the facts, and their assessment is up to the author, despite the fact that he himself certainly suggested that a discussion be held in the text and that they be evaluated. But we live in Russia, where people are offended by culture. I myself am like that. Therefore, I take my leave hi
                      9. -1
                        31 March 2019 08: 12
                        Quote: kalibr
                        ....... that this is my clone, and one of many? Remember that the site's rules are forbidden to "split" and "get upset". The ban for this is unlimited! Calculating who is who on the Web is easier than ever with the current state of the art. ......
                        still a very strange situation, one way or another ...... somewhere here the dog rummaged .....
      2. 0
        April 21 2019 17: 06
        Quote: denatured alcohol
        Undecim
        It is interesting to observe the enthusiasm for the "factual verification" of the article on the one hand and criticism like "an article in the classical style of the ideology of the enemies of the communists" on the other. That is, in the article, everyone sees what he wants, and the discussion turns into a classic holivar-srach, when the litigating parties, not only do not know the subject, but also not one of the participants in the discussion is going to listen and think over the arguments of their opponent, the main thing is to voice their own.

        Another clever man with peremptory judgments got out again. But in the end - all the same Mr. Shpakovsky only under different nicknames. ................... on VO, regarding which you recently lamented (under a different nickname of course) that he is close to the yellow press? Be consistent Mr. Shpakovsky. Forgive me for saying this, but you are not shy about rinsing the names of other people. About levels - I am silent hi sorry
        For a long time I reflected on these and other thoughts of the respected Denatured alcohol Sure, there is a connection between the characters! But she is completely different in my opinion. It is much more interesting, in my opinion. She, in my opinion, is more mysterious and more ugly. Perhaps I would have forgotten about all this if not for unexpected letters to me in PM. Thanks for the idea.
  15. -15
    30 March 2019 15: 39
    The exclusion of any territories from Austria-Hungary and Germany with their inclusion in Russia before the war was not planned ..... After all, how ... but wasn’t Russia planning to capture the Black Sea Straits and revive Constantinople? And who was the first to declare mobilization and put the two Western districts in martial law, and put the Baltic Fleet on high alert?
    1. +12
      30 March 2019 16: 21
      The exclusion of any territories from Austria-Hungary and Germany with their inclusion in Russia before the war was not planned ..... After all, how ... but wasn’t Russia planning to capture the Black Sea Straits and revive Constantinople?

      laughing laughing laughing
      But is Constantinople the territory of Germany and Austria-Hungary? Clown, just to blurt out something)))
      Well, but on the Straits and Constantinople the agreement was also concluded ONLY on March 1, 1915. There were no pre-war aggressive plans.
      who was the first to declare mobilization and put the two Western districts in martial law, and put the Baltic Fleet on high alert?

      look at the chronology. Is our mobilization a response to the concentration of Austro-Hungarian forces, which began when?
      1. +1
        30 March 2019 18: 49
        Kanin flooded the Baltic Sea with mines long before the announcement of any mobilization in any country.
        Your health, but I prefer to drink vodka. bully
        1. +15
          30 March 2019 19: 51
          Kanin flooded the Baltic Sea with mines long before the announcement of any mobilization in any country

          So what?? Mine weapons were then mainly the defensive weapons of many times weaker than the enemy of the Baltic Fleet. So it was necessary for our sailors to act in 41 years, proactively and quickly.
  16. +12
    30 March 2019 16: 32
    A very interesting and informative article turned out. And this is super.
    The Entente has not forgotten about Russia - despite the new government. And got involved in the Civil War in Russia only when it was provoked. It's right
    1. +14
      30 March 2019 22: 02
      I look at various anonymous experts in quotation marks - gray separas, skeptics, tats and those whom you can’t even pronounce and who have cerebellum instead of the brain, and I understand that they are laughing at themselves like in a crooked mirror.
      Well, the hope of course is that normal people do not read this billiard in the comments - for it is a shame, however, for the level of development of Russians lol
  17. +6
    30 March 2019 16: 41
    Russia did not lose that war: it was not German weapons that crushed it, but a blow delivered to the back of a fighting army.
    1. +2
      30 March 2019 17: 02
      To replace the imperialist war with a civil war is the Leninist slogan. And ... replaced!
      1. +2
        30 March 2019 18: 17
        The Bolsheviks both promised "peace to the peoples" and DALI-led Russia and the Russian people out of the First World War, which they did not need, but the external and internal enemies of the Communists unleashed a Civil War in order to overthrow the power of the Bolsheviks, and dismember Russia, and cowardly and cowardly piled the blame for the war and all the victims of the Civil on the Bolsheviks ..
        1. +3
          30 March 2019 18: 45
          Right, dear Irene. love From the world they brought and plunged into a more bloody fratricidal civilian. How it all turns out that you have red-blooded ones: you didn’t arrange levorussion, you didn’t unleash a civil one, and Pavlik Morozov is a national hero ... It’s useless to argue with you, any dogma doesn’t make sense. hi
          1. 0
            30 March 2019 18: 50
            Well, how much can you lie and slander? Your propaganda, enemies of the Communists, after the capture of the USSR, the responsibility for the capture of which you ALSO cowardly blamed on the Communists, is the libelous accusations of some people of crimes, and the acquittal of real criminals, the justification of the invaders of Russia and the USSR of the invaders and Nazis with whom you unleashed the Civil war, attacked the Soviet people in 1941, destroying more than 30 million Russian / Soviet people in these wars. And the blame for the Great Patriotic War and all the sacrifices of the Soviet people are also meanly and cowardly blamed on the Communists.
            1. +1
              30 March 2019 20: 14
              Ma'am love Why, in fact, did you decide that I am an enemy of the communists? I'll be honest: I don't give a damn about them. In the same way, I don't give a damn about socialists, Nazis, fascists and liberals. The only thing I have an extremely negative attitude to is militant pan-Islamism. In general, I despise all fans of all kinds of "isms", they are too wretched in their dogmatism and limited in their worldview. Don't scold me, don't and ... be healthy. drinks
              1. -2
                30 March 2019 20: 26
                YES, and this is the essence of the enemies of the communists on the territory of the USSR, you are not only always and to everything that you have done both during the Soviet regime and after the capture of the USSR "to do with it", but also "against, and not for anyone." And with this you also climb on discussion historical political sites.
                And you, the enemies of the Communists, always have everything strictly according to your "program", including justifying the Russian enemies of the Bolsheviks who unleashed the Civil War in Russia. and their soyuznichkov-invaders of Russia invaders, because it is beneficial for you to justify the capture of the USSR by you-to slander those from whom you took it away.
                1. +3
                  30 March 2019 21: 24
                  Ma'am love You, in fact, broadcast into space, regardless of what they tell you. Well, if so, why, answering your hypothetical enemies, do you turn directly to me? Nonsense. Write an article on the website and make a keynote speech, otherwise you get some unhealthy impression of your obsession and hackneyed cliches of government reports from the time of "developed socialism". tongue
                  1. 0
                    30 March 2019 21: 48
                    Quote: Sea Cat
                    stamps of official reports of the times of "developed socialism".

                    It’s good that she brought not from the times of Kollontai ... :)
                  2. -7
                    31 March 2019 07: 11
                    That's right, not one of the enemies of the Communists, who climb in droves on debating historical political sites, is a priori capable of discussions, only of malice against something or someone, and of your cowardly whining that you yourself are always and to everything. at what ".
          2. +3
            30 March 2019 18: 54
            Well, man from Russia, why spoil the keyboard? Soviet long ago studied along and across and from the time of dissecting them Bulgakov completely unchanged.
            1. -5
              30 March 2019 20: 27
              What is this nonsense and slander?
          3. -5
            31 March 2019 11: 53
            Quote: Sea Cat
            From the world they brought and plunged into a more bloody fratricidal civilian.

            I completely agree with you, it was necessary to peacefully divide as Austria-Hungary and live happily ever after.
          4. -1
            April 1 2019 17: 31
            There was a request from the soldier masses for a way out of the war. Heavy losses, defeats, deteriorating supply of the army, incomprehensibility for the soldiers of the objectives of this war. And then the king was overthrown. The capitalists decided their questions. The peasants wanted to solve their soldiers - while they are fighting there it is not clear why the houses can divide the land (without them). They had these straits and the Balkans before the lantern. Therefore, in the end, power came to those who promised a way out of the war and a solution to the land issue. If the Provisional Committee of the Duma Rodzianko and Co., or Kerensky did this, then the Bolsheviks would not have a chance. Moreover, if the Bolsheviks were for the continuation of the war, they too would have dared.
            The Civil War, it seems to me, was unleashed by the future whites. All these trips to Petrograd by the Krymov corps, the chieftain of Krasnov, the subsequent activities of the Alekseevskaya organization. Red power in Petrograd has already taken and spread it further, collecting and uniting the sprawling empire. By the way, she began to creep even under Kerensky - the same Ukraine. The same Ukraine, which will independently sign peace with Germany, on its own terms, which will make it impossible to sign peace "without annexations and indemnities" promoted by the Bolshevik delegation.
            What's wrong with Pavlik Morozov? Thugs killed two children, 14 and 9 years old. The "devoted" dad, by the way the chairman of the village council, was safely released after 3 years.
        2. +6
          31 March 2019 11: 23
          Quote: tatra
          but the external and internal enemies of the Communists unleashed the Civil War with the aim of overthrowing the power of the Bolsheviks


          Before the thief and her so-called decrees - there was not a gr. war, no intervention.
          ALL this is after her.

          inadequate perpetrators of it,. never working anywhere and not managing anything , by virtue of its complete inexperience and ignorance just didn't understand that she Inevitably lead :

          -and to Brest, where instead of "a world without annexations and indemnities" they wiped their feet about them and bent down,
          - and to gr. war -
          and to intervention.

          that was how the WORLD and its rules were arranged. in which they did not understand ANYTHING.
          and therefore got into all the puddles that were
    2. -6
      31 March 2019 11: 51
      Quote: Lucky_Bard
      and a blow to the back of a fighting army.

      Who was interested in striking? They laughed at the Bolsheviks who were ready to take power, and not share with the interim government.
  18. -6
    30 March 2019 20: 57
    How a joke is made from history. Those. they put everything upside down and, without blinking an eye, assure that it was so blatant. On the one hand, we insist that we are against rewriting history, on the other, we are doing this no less than in the West. Rather, our pseudo historians simply sing along to them, take the materials prepared there, translate and pass them off as the ultimate truth. However, they do not really lurk, frankly referring to Western sources, believing that such borrowings betray the credibility of their writings. And all would be fine, but it is painfully many of these “historians” have divorced, and their support is not weak. Somehow doubts prevail in our statements that we are against rewriting history. Most likely not against, but even very much for, because all these enumerators are showered with honors and bread places, but so far they are forced to act secretly. So far there are too many who know something and understand something, but the preparatory work is ongoing. Production of galoshes for Africa is growing.
    1. -5
      30 March 2019 21: 26
      Remember the motto of historians? hi

      "The future is beyond our control, but the past depends on us!" laughing
  19. -8
    30 March 2019 21: 40
    How the Entente could annul the Brest peace treaty without being a party to this treaty, the author writes outright nonsense.
    1. +15
      30 March 2019 21: 51
      Do not show your squalor, but study documents better.
      What does the author have to do with it, it was not he who claimed and drew up the Compiegne truce and the Treaty of Versailles)
      The winner canceled the loser's contracts. Is your brain unable to comprehend this? lol
      1. -10
        31 March 2019 01: 58
        Quote: Hunghouse
        The winner canceled the loser's contracts. Is your brain unable to comprehend this?


        You would also want to rethink this.
        Under the terms of the truce Germany was to denounce the Brest-Litovsk treaty with the Russian government of the Bolsheviks, And here Soviet Russia just canceled the Treaty.
        1. +9
          31 March 2019 06: 48
          Germany's waiver of the Brest Treaty, which Green was concluded and actually performed Germans and Bolsheviks occurred as a result of the Compiegne truce of the Entente and Germany.
          Well, then - the cancellation occurred, and Soviet Russia gladly accepted this Entente gift
          1. -6
            31 March 2019 14: 15
            Quote: Brutan
            Well, then - the cancellation occurred, and Soviet Russia gladly accepted this Entente gift


            Annulled The Brest Treaty Soviet Central Executive Committee. Thanks, of course, and Entente for helping me denunciations Brest agreement, but you should know that:
            At first, the leaders of these countries did this not out of love for Soviet Russia, but under pressure from their own: peoples who expressed solidarity with Soviet power and a movement unfolded around the world "Hands off Soviet Russia!"
            Second, the they were not going to return these territories to Soviet Russia. Germany should have left them only after they were replaced by the Allied forces of the Entente.
            1. +4
              31 March 2019 14: 22
              It seems that you yourself do not know the key events Alexander Green
              and we still have to learn a lot
              Having read the correspondence, I have to admit it, alas. Dodge, sculpt a hunchback.
              Zhirnenko only know how to select text
              1. +4
                31 March 2019 14: 25
                ideological husk Green type Hands off I lower
                But this
                [quote] Germany should have left them only after they were replaced by the Allied forces of the Entente. / quote]
                not true as some white leaders did not want this, but the Entente did not go on such a large-scale invasion. And I didn’t intend, from the word at all.
                1. -3
                  31 March 2019 23: 43
                  Quote: EKZECUTOR
                  ideological husk Green type Hands off I lower

                  As for the ideological husk, I understand that you, as a victim of the USE, have not heard that in the fall of 1918, participants in labor rallies and trade union meetings in Great Britain demanded that the government immediately curtail plans to invade Russian territory and suppress the revolutionary movement.

                  Quote: EKZECUTOR
                  the Entente did not go on such a large-scale invasion. And I didn’t intend, from the word at all.

                  The USE program also does not include the landing of the British in Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, Transcaucasia, the French in Odessa, Kherson, Sevastopol, Siberia, and the Americans in Murmansk and the Far East.

                  Dear, at least read Wikipedia, it is just for your level.
                  1. +3
                    April 1 2019 00: 43
                    Yes no buddy
                    Not unions and rallies decide something
                    Well, as for the landings, first examine the scope of these actions on Wikipedia and then compare with the scale of the invasion of the Austro-German armies in 18.
                    Equivalent or not? And whom is the Entente going to replace, eh?
                    1. +1
                      April 1 2019 20: 26
                      Quote: Hunghouse
                      Yes no buddy
                      Not unions and rallies decide something
                      Well, as for the landings, first examine the scope of these actions on Wikipedia and then compare with the scale of the invasion of the Austro-German armies in 18.
                      Equivalent or not? And whom is the Entente going to replace, eh?


                      As for trade unions and rallies.
                      You do not know the situation in 1918. The working people of the whole world were very sympathetic towards Soviet Russia, and they strongly opposed the plans of the Entente and their governments in relation to Soviet Russia. Therefore, the governments of these countries were afraid of the start of revolutions within their countries, and therefore made concessions for the denunciation of the Brest Treaty.
                      Learn dialectics, otherwise you make subjective metaphysical statements, not complying with the historical situation that led to this event. The dialectical method allows you to make a scientific conclusion, because takes into account all causal relationships

                      On the scale of the intervention.
                      German troops in Russian territories were to be replaced by Entente troops, but due to the fact that Germany did not wait for them on the eastern front, a red army came there. The Entente managed to replace German troops in time only in Odessa, Kherson and Sevastopol
                      In the south of Russia. Already on November 15-16, 1918, the Allied fleet came to the Black Sea (battleships: 4 English, 5 French, 1 Italian: cruisers: 5 English, 1 French, 2 Italian, 1 Greek with landing parties)
                      In November-December, the invaders captured Novorossiysk, Sevastopol, Odessa, Kherson. By mid-1919, there were about 69 thousand interventionists in the south of Russia.
                      Transcaucasia.
                      By the end of January 1919, there were 29 thousand English interventionists, and soon there were 30 thousand.
                      Far East: 120 thousand Japanese, 9 thousand British, 1,5-Americans, 1,5 thousand Italians, 1.1 French, 60 thousand Czechs.
                      In the north: 2 British cruisers with landing 1 US cruiser, 5,5 thousand Czechs and Serbs. 8 thousand British, 7 thousand French.

                      The scale, in my opinion, is impressive
                      1. +3
                        April 1 2019 22: 38
                        The scale, in my opinion, is impressive

                        On the contrary
                        Compare 1 million. Austro-Germans with how many troops of the Entente?))
                      2. 0
                        April 2 2019 17: 03
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        The scale, in my opinion, is impressive

                        On the contrary
                        Compare 1 million. Austro-Germans with how many troops of the Entente?))


                        Is this not enough for you? No matter how many there were, they seized our territories and plundered and killed Soviet people there.
                      3. +4
                        April 2 2019 19: 38
                        Is this not enough for you? No matter how many there were, they seized our territories and plundered and killed Soviet people there.

                        Uh-huh.
                        Only you and not I said that the Entente replaced the German troops.
                        And they themselves confirmed that there wasn’t - neither quantitatively nor qualitatively, it went to any comparison.
                        Soviet people robbed and killed Russian people. Can they?))
                      4. 0
                        April 2 2019 23: 32
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        Only you and not I said that the Entente replaced the German troops.
                        And they themselves confirmed that there wasn’t - neither quantitatively nor qualitatively, it went to any comparison

                        Your strongest quality is the ability to misinterpret what is written and to shift it from a sick mind to a healthy one. You absolutely do not understand the text ..
                        I repeat, for those who are not particularly understanding.

                        According to the Armistice Agreement, the Entente forces were to replace the German troops in the territory that they liberate (Russian territories). But the Germans withdrew the troops faster than agreed and the Red Army managed to come in their place. The Entente managed to fulfill the plan only in the south of Russia .. In the North, in the Far East, in Transcaucasia, if you know, there were no German troops
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        Soviet people robbed and killed Russian people. Can they?))

                        It feels like your head is out of order.
                      5. +4
                        April 3 2019 06: 52
                        Your strongest quality is the ability to misinterpret what is written and to shift it from a sick mind to a healthy one. You do not understand the text at all

                        it is you unconditionally about yourself. probably mixed up, unsuccessfully looked in the mirror
                        According to the Armistice Agreement, the Entente forces were to replace the German troops in the territory that they liberate (Russian territories). But the Germans withdrew the troops faster than agreed and the Red Army managed to come in their place. The Entente managed to fulfill the plan only in the south of Russia

                        No not like this
                        The Entente did not plan to replace the Austro-German troops, and was planning to carry out any large-scale invasions. Landings, point zones of presence and so on, of course, neither quantitatively nor qualitatively came to any comparison with the Austro-German occupation. Through this, specific tasks were solved, but the semblance of a whole front, like the Germans, did not hold.
                        Let's not pull the boot on the globe and compare incomparable things.
                        Soviet people robbed and killed Russian people. Can they?)

                        of course. Learn the history of the Civil War. The Red Army robbed and killed no less than everyone else, and often more. Especially at its first semi-partisan stage.
                        It feels like your head is out of order.

                        I dare to suggest that it is not like yours. In any case - bye
                      6. +1
                        April 4 2019 00: 33
                        Quote: Adjutant
                        Let's not pull the boot on the globe and compare incomparable things.

                        Nobody compares anything. I write what it was: The military intervention caused enormous damage to our country, at the conference Chicherin announced the numbers, after which all representatives of the Entente shut up.
                      7. +4
                        April 4 2019 07: 36
                        Military intervention has caused enormous damage to our country.

                        but not like the Austro-German occupation, which the Entente saved Russia from, forcing Germany to cleanse the occupied regions of Russia.
                        And much more harm was done to our country by the Civil War, unleashed by one of the parties that seized power during the military coup.
                        This she attacked the Czechoslovak Corps, which was only being thrown to another front.
                        It was she who dispersed the Constituent Assembly, to which Russia had such great hopes.
                        It was she who, in the course of a process later called "The Triumphal Procession of Soviet Power," smashed the authorities in the regions. And seized the property of individuals and organizations. Even then, mass and non-mass repressions became the best means.
            2. 0
              April 1 2019 17: 33
              Rather, Germany would not have intensified its resources due to the lands chopped off from RI.
      2. 0
        April 1 2019 22: 54
        I don’t know how the brain is, but the documents say:
        One of the conditions of the Compiegne truce between the Entente and Germany of November 11, 1918 was the refusal of the latter from all the conditions of the Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest peace treaties. (There is nothing about Russia or the USSR)
        On November 13, against the backdrop of revolutionary events in Germany, the Brest Peace was annulled by a decision of the Soviet Central Executive Committee.
        The German troops were supposed to remain on the territory of Russia until the arrival of the Entente, however, the territory from which the German troops were withdrawn began to occupy the Red Army. Only at some points (Sevastopol, Odessa) were the German troops replaced by the Entente.
  20. +14
    30 March 2019 22: 36
    Russia violated allied obligations by concluding separate agreements with the powers of the Fourth Union (the most important of which is Brest-Litovsk), despite the fact that it undertook obligations not to conclude a separate peace. She took it during the formation of the Entente, and (confirming) in September 1914. This is not only the betrayal of their (good or bad is not important) allies, but also the blood of all (it turned out now so pointless) the dead Russian soldiers. And the enemy is on Russian soil.
    But the Entente did not react very badly to the violator of Russia's obligations. Naturally, she did not give territorial acquisitions. But - the enslaving Brest agreements were canceled and the right to reparations from Germany was agreed.
    These are legal facts. To see them even without literary articles, it is enough to familiarize yourself with 3 documents: the Brest Peace Treaty, the Compiegne Armistice Agreement and the Versailles Peace Treaty.
    Everything else - insinuations, a verbal smoke curtain in the desire to cover Brest shame, and - conversations in favor of the poor.
    1. -8
      31 March 2019 07: 07
      Well, yes, the Bolsheviks had to continue what the bourgeois began, but you, the enemies of the Communists, who claim this, do not think that after you captured the USSR, you should have continued what the Communists began, including the participation of the USSR in the Afghan one, which, based on the USSR's entry into the war, was analogous to Russia's entry into the First World War - not for the sake of its own interests, but for the sake of "friendly regimes", to continue waging the "cold war" with the West. You brought the USSR out of Afghanistan, you surrendered the USSR to the West, you dismembered your, de facto, centuries-old country under the spell of "freedom and independence".
      Yes, yes, I know, - how, swelling with hypertrophied conceit, to proceed with criticism and "righteous anger" of what the Bolshevik-Communists have done - you have everything to do with it, but how to bear responsibility for what you have done, so you everything has nothing to do with it.
    2. -6
      31 March 2019 12: 17
      Quote: Dalton
      Russia violated allied obligations

      In conversation with the German ambassador on July 9, 1914 Gray argued that England had no obligations to France and Russia in the event of a "European war." On August 26, the English king repeated in a confidential conversation with the brother of the German Kaiser: "We will do our best to remain neutral." On July 28, Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia, on August 1, Germany declared war on Russia, even this field in negotiations with the German ambassador Gray made it clear that neutrality of England is not excluded, if the matter is limited to the war of the central powers against Russia and Serbia.

      England, through the hands of France, weakened Germany and together used Russia as cannon fodder.
    3. 0
      April 1 2019 18: 30
      RI simply could not stand the war of attrition, as it was weaker than France, Germany and Britain both economically and politically. It's like a flu - a healthy body will suffer, complications will climb from a problematic one. The rest, too, were running out. The same Germany, who fought on foreign territory, still lost the war. The country has overstrained. The soldiers in the end simply refused to fight, and the German generals had to curtail the shop. Although, it would seem, no one else is going to take Berlin. Apparently the Germans had their own Lenin, but who paid him?
      Austria-Hungary and Turkey collapsed. The Austrians completely, the Ottomans squeezed to their present state, and they both managed without the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks, by the way, unlike the Austrians and Ottomans, collected the land back, except for Poland and the Finns. but as a result, the Poles were included in the sphere of influence of the USSR, and the Finns did not join NATO.
      The Entente solved its tasks. Leave Ukraine, the Baltic states and other lands of Germany? This is a powerful resource base in future wars. Naturally for them it was unacceptable.
      Well, calling for the signing of the Bolshevik world was really stupid. But why didn’t they call white representatives? For Alekseev, Denikin, Kornilov, Kolchak and other white leaders, the war with the Reds was a continuation of the WWII. Well, it’s just being done - the government in exile is based and doing business with it. Somewhere in the papers they mentioned, but as a party, the participant was not invited.
      And the reasons for the cataclysms that have occurred are often very deep. And then, reading many of the opinions of respected authors, it seems that everything was fine, and then the evil German (American, Zionist - I heard so many versions that the scribe) hired-shpigun-syphilitic Lenin whispered something to the soldiers (from Switzerland), and they abruptly got sick to fight for their beloved king-priest.
      And this despite the fact that the Bolshevik Party was defeated by February 17th, all the leaders on the run. How they could decompose the army is a mystery to me. And the supporters of the war to the bitter end all the resources, all the media, free access to the ears of soldiers. Advocate-reluctantly.
  21. -1
    31 March 2019 11: 08
    the author forgot to mention how the troops of the interventionists from the Entente, "guarding the peace of the citizens", plundered Russia and killed the Russian people ...
  22. -6
    31 March 2019 12: 10
    Entente did not forget about the contribution of Russia

    It would be better if I forgot and left alone, or acted as with Germany.
    And so the loss of territory and robbed well.
  23. +5
    31 March 2019 17: 26
    Great discussion article. Wow, what a debate!)
    Indeed, the Civil War has been going on for hundreds of years.
    And 100 years ago ...
    All that was needed was a little patience and wait for the general victory of the Entente.
    Thank you!
    1. -2
      31 March 2019 21: 17
      Quote: XII Legion
      All that was needed was a little patience and wait for the general victory of the Entente. Thank you!

      And split into small zones of influence of the countries of the winners? No thanks.
      I am for those for whom the tsar and faith were no longer there, but the Fatherland remained and the independence of Russia was defended on my shoulders.
      1. +2
        April 1 2019 00: 07
        What are the zones of the dreamer?
        One indivisible Russia, the owner of the largest army in eastern Europe. Russia without revolutions.
        Then the krasnyuki arranged these zones for us. As you say - IMHO
        1. 0
          April 1 2019 22: 23
          Quote: Hunghouse
          United indivisible Russia

          March 16 (29), 1917 The Provisional Government of Russia recognized the right of Poland to independence
          At the height of the July crisis of 1917, the Finnish Parliament proclaimed the independence of the Grand Duchy of Finland from Russia
          dated August 4 (17). Ukraine decree on the establishment of the Central Council, “ignore” the appointment by the Provisional Government of the commissioner of Kiev and consider any appointments to posts in the Kiev military district unbeknownst to the Central Council unacceptable, and it was forbidden to carry out the orders of any official appointed without coordination with the Central Council.
          Since July 1917, the Central Council was formed in Belarus.
          On March 9 (22), the Estonian Tallinn Union was organized in Revel [15], which demanded that the Provisional Government join the northern districts of Livonia in the Estonian province
          On October 8, 1917, Siberian oblasts created the first Siberian government led by Potanin, which was subsequently dispersed by the Bolsheviks.
          This is so offhand and there was Tatarstan, Bashkiria, the government of the Don Army, etc.

          And who stood up except for the Bolsheviks for the Fatherland?
          Some words from you dreamer.
          1. +3
            April 1 2019 22: 36
            Territories they are very litter, Bolsheviks
            What there
            1. 0
              April 1 2019 23: 31
              Quote: Adjutant
              Territories they are very litter, Bolsheviks

              And what territories did the Bolsheviks give up without a fight?
              1. +3
                April 2 2019 08: 32
                You are so advanced.
                Learn for yourself. Although you probably know.
                Let's see the Brest Peace.
                Significant territories were torn away from Russia in the Brest Peace (Poland, Lithuania, part of Belarus and Latvia). At the same time, Soviet Russia was to withdraw troops from Latvia and Estonia, where German troops were introduced. Germany retained the Gulf of Riga, the Moonsund Islands.
                Soviet troops were to leave Ukraine, Finland, the Aland Islands, as well as the districts of Ardagan, Kars and Batum, which were transferred to Turkey. In total, Soviet Russia lost about 1 million km² (including Ukraine).
                Yes, you’ll say it now - you returned part later. But this then и часть, albeit a big one.
                For example, on March 3, 1918, previously Polish lands belonging to Russia were withdrawn from its sovereignty, and on August 29 of that year, the SNK of the RSFSR annulled the treaties of the Russian Empire on the division of Poland, finally formalizing Poland’s independence from Russia, both politically and legally. Poland forever gone.
                How likely forever Kars and Ardogan will remain Turkish - territories long conquered and repeatedly watered with Russian blood. From which the USSR, having given them across Brest, beaten in WWI of Turkey, later completely I refuse.
                Of course, you say that Poland was supposed to be independent, but in union with the Romanovs' house and certainly not with the occupiers, this issue should have been resolved - the winners, including Russia, had to decide it. Kars and Ardogan, raped by the Turks, are generally beyond reality. Well, the "independent" status of a number of former regions of the empire (the Baltic states, for example) in the period 1918-1940 largely contributed to the fact that they remained semi-alien and then were among the first to jump out of the Union.
                1. -1
                  April 3 2019 15: 08
                  The independence of Poland and Finland is to the Provisional Government, while the wars with Poland of 1920 and Finland of 1918 clearly didn’t win. So, we’ll omit your nonsense about these territories, dictating the conditions of those who won the war.
                  Events in the Baltic states were considered at the VO:
                  Baltic tent 1919 of the year
                  March 12 2014
                  ... On November 18, 1918, the People’s Council of Latvia declared the independence of the Latvian state. After 4 days, the Council of People's Commissars recognized the new state. The Bolsheviks politically outplayed the whites. Distributing sovereignty to the right and left, they secured the neutrality of the national outskirts of the Russian Empire. (At the same time, they managed to conduct revolutionary propaganda in these states and contributed to the emergence of alternative Soviet governments.) ...
                  Well, did not your Bolsheviks have to intervene, but on the side of whom are the Germans and their people, or on the side of the Entente, or against both of them?
                  I would do like the Bolsheviks: “A wise monkey sits on a mountain and watches two tigers fight in the valley.” And at the same time it creates Soviet governments, which was shot 20 years later.
                  About the loss of territories in Ukraine, Belarus in the conditions of defeat from Poland, well, not without a fight.
                  September 20, that is, in less than two months before the complete cancellation of the Brest Peace, the RSFSR canceled the treaty in terms of the Ottoman Empire.
                  In 1945, the USSR filed territorial claims against Turkey, according to which the territory of the former Kars region was to be divided between the Georgian and Armenian SSR. However, based on the changed geopolitical realities and the beginning of the Cold War, in 1953 the Soviet Union abandoned them.
                  Do you propose to fight in 1920 also with Turkey or after 1945 as a bonus to fight?
                  About the Romanovs after February 1917, complete nonsense.

                  Quote: Adjutant
                  Well, the "independent" status of a number of former regions of the empire (the Baltic states, for example) in the period 1918-1940 largely contributed to the fact that they remained semi-alien and then were among the first to jump out of the Union.

                  This is for you to Yeltsin and the pro-Western liberals - with his Kremlin policy for the Crimea, take as much sovereignty as you want, and you have to pay for everything. And you have to do it like the EU - you want to go out, pay with money and return the territories received.

                  So, I don’t see what lands to fight with, without a fight, well, if only Armenian lands, and then in a destroyed country there is a war with Turkey, my proposal is somehow not very good (I’ll assume many countries will support Turkey).
                  1. +4
                    April 3 2019 16: 45
                    Do you even read what they write to you?
                    On March 3, 1918, previously Polish lands belonging to Russia were withdrawn from its sovereign authority., On August 29 of the same year, the SNK of the RSFSR annulled the treaties of the Russian Empire on the partition of Poland, finalizing Poland’s independence from Russia

                    it is in Poland.
                    That is, all the same - the Bolsheviks.
                    In 1945, the USSR filed territorial claims against Turkey, according to which the territory of the former Kars region was to be divided between the Georgian and Armenian SSR. However, based on the changed geopolitical realities and the beginning of the Cold War, in 1953 the Soviet Union abandoned them.

                    that’s exactly what I’ve talked about - profaned Russian lands.
                    Do you propose to fight in 1920 also with Turkey or after 1945 as a bonus to fight?

                    I'm not suggesting anything. Earlier it was necessary to think. Especially in the period 1943-45, when there were opportunities to "strip" Turkey.
                    About the Romanovs after February 1917, complete nonsense.

                    so this is you raving. I did not write about the Romanovs after February 17. They were already overthrown, albeit unfortunately.
                    Were they bad? Well
                    They were replaced by a flock of predatory hungry dogs - visionaries and spotlights on the blood of the people.
                    This is for you to Yeltsin and the pro-Western liberals - with his Kremlin policy for the Crimea, take as much sovereignty as you want, and you have to pay for everything. And you have to do it like the EU - you want to go out, pay with money and return the territories received.

                    The Baltic States jumped off one of the first, and what does Yeltsin have to do with it. This is the late Gorbachev, USSR.
                    1. 0
                      April 3 2019 18: 53
                      In general, the question was what lands the Bolsheviks gave up without a fight:
                      Quote: Adjutant
                      March 3, 1918 previously owned by Polish

                      1915: Supreme Commander of the Russian Imperial Army Nicholas II:
                      "The time for the onset of peace has not yet come ... Russia has not yet fulfilled the tasks assigned to it by the war ... the restoration of free Poland ...".
                      The program of Lavr Georgievich p. 14 point:
                      “General Kornilov recognizes the right to broad local autonomy for certain nationalities that are part of Russia, provided, however, that state unity is maintained. "Poland, Ukraine and Finland, formed into separate national-state units, should be widely supported by the Russian government in their efforts to revive the state, in order to further consolidate the eternal and indestructible union of fraternal peoples."
                      So everyone spoke words about independent Poland. And only the Bolsheviks fought with Poland over the territory and lost the war.
                      Quote: Adjutant
                      that’s exactly what I’m talking about - profan Russian lands

                      Well, that's why Turkey jumped into NATO, prefer conflict with NATO from the beginning of the 50s.

                      Quote: Adjutant
                      Poland was supposed to be independent, but in a union with the Romanovs’s house and not with the invaders to solve this issue - it should have been decided by the winners, including Russia.
                      all were for the separation of Poland from Russia and the Entente and Germany.
                      Quote: Adjutant
                      The Baltic States jumped off one of the first, and what does Yeltsin have to do with it. This is the late Gorbachev, USSR.

                      Well, Gorbachev with a policy of embedding in the West, where does the Bolsheviks?
                      Quote: Adjutant
                      I do not offer anything.

                      Well, since you can’t offer anything, unlike the Bolsheviks, it’s clearly not for you to talk about the distribution of land by the Bolsheviks.
                      At that time, everything was offered, and who did not offer anything, an empty place (i.e. a chatterbox)
                      1. +4
                        April 3 2019 20: 33
                        Do you even understand what you wrote not on the subject of which we spoke?
                        Nicholas 2, Laurel Kornilov.
                        Turkey to NATO in 1943 - 45 years ???????????
                        Probably overheated. Look when you entered.
                        Well, in these years there was a chance to resolve the issue. During 2mv
                        Gorbachev may not be a Bolshevik. But ... The era of the USSR
  24. -4
    31 March 2019 17: 35
    "M" - minus article. Strongly justifies those who climbed on our lands in the 18th ... poor liberal view of history. IMHO
  25. +6
    31 March 2019 19: 22
    I liked the article. I learned a lot.
    Once so violently attacked red-brown, like yard curs
    So clearly failed good
    1. -2
      April 1 2019 00: 08
      That you are right! Yes, here they are not hoarse from their barking at all, the benefit is not a muzzle. laughing

      Go ahead, minus signs, that is - face! tongue
      1. 0
        April 1 2019 20: 34
        Quote: Grandpa Barsik
        Once so violently attacked red-brown, like yard curs

        Quote: Sea Cat

        That you are right! Yes, here they are not hoarse from their barking at all, the benefit is not a muzzle.
        Go ahead, minus signs, that is - face!

        And you pay attention to the minuses to my comments, how many of them you and others like you have put.
        So decide, as your anticommunist colleague Gorbachov said, "Who is Who."
        1. -1
          April 2 2019 03: 25
          Sasha, I do not put cons at all. From the principle. I prefer to express my attitude with words, rather than mathematical signs. The backing tracks symbolize the lack of arguments and elementary malice. Especially if they are not argued. They will quietly put minus and silence. It’s like a petty punks: to shit at a neighbor in front of the door, call and immediately pull it out.
    2. 0
      April 1 2019 23: 39
      Everything was successful, only one trouble these red-brown asked questions, and in response they red-browned, they bit the tongue and essentially couldn’t answer anything. So you have made red-brown, go soak the separs until victory, such as Gunpowder will make pennies on you. Then it even reached the Ukrainians for 5 years, and when it comes to yours?
      1. 0
        April 2 2019 17: 06
        Quote: naidas

        Everything was successful, only one trouble these red-brown asked questions, and in response, the red-brown were minuscule, and essentially the tongues bit and can not answer anything to these questions.


        Dear, do not flatter yourself, the fact is that many understood: to discuss with the trochles is useless. that you don’t write, you perceive everything at the kindergarten level, and just have fun, minus the disliked answers.

        For example, my even innocent question is, “And how would you rate the capture of the Bastille by the armed crowd in 1789?” zamususuyutsya 17th cons! This is not from a great mind.

        “Make” me, as you put it, it won’t succeed, I’m too tough for you, because it’s the TRUTH for me, that’s why I continue to write, and I write it not for victims of the USE, but for thinking readers, and you are just an excuse thanks to which I expand the range of issues covered. Thanks for the help.
        1. +4
          April 3 2019 06: 57
          You traditionally have a very high opinion of green about yourself.
          But every word is foul propaganda and a lie. Those who capitalize the word truth as a rule ... Well, you understand me.
          This is so for thinking readers.
          For example, I don’t know what the USE is. And you about the exam have noticed all the time repeating. Probably failed recently laughing
          1. +1
            April 3 2019 18: 31
            Quote: Adjutant
            You traditionally have a very high opinion of green about yourself.

            You know, your comrades-in-arms were so happy that they killed the truth of the Bolsheviks with minuses, that I could not resist in order not to tease them.

            Yes, and what is the exam.
            I wrote about the victims of the unified state exam (USE), i.e. modern education.
            The fact is that in the exam they focus on tests that are checked by a computer, and not in a live conversation with the examiner ..
            .
            Therefore, nowadays schools do not teach history, but train, train according to the tests of the Unified State Examination, from which knowledge is acquired fragmentary, historical events are considered in isolation from time to time without cause and effect relationships. We are no longer talking about the thought process.

            1. +4
              April 3 2019 20: 48
              My companions? The Lord is with you.
              When I studied, there were no examinations.
              But here you are talking about him all the time.
              I thought it was that you recently failed the exam - and now you can only talk about that))
              1. +1
                April 4 2019 00: 38
                Quote: Adjutant
                I thought it was that you recently failed the exam - and now you can only talk about that)

                I didn't think so of you, but ... they just used to say "abortion victim", but now they say "Unified State Exam victim".
                1. +4
                  April 4 2019 07: 38
                  Well, I do not understand, when you say "the victim of the exam" you mean who?
        2. 0
          April 3 2019 14: 15
          Quote: Alexander Green
          “And how would you rate the capture of the Bastille by the armed crowd in 1789?

          my post is under yours, there a little added to you.
          But you must admit, what a buzz when Ukrainians around the pygmies, guppies and young people feel Great, the minuses are explosions of farts that are audible and visible, but in essence there is nothing to say by this pygmy:
          Here is an example: my discussion with the XII Legion (Caesar) March 31, 2019 17:17, the person who knows the story better than mine does not know when the Czechs were in Kiev, and when the rebellion began, it doesn’t know the date and month.
          Or here are the unanswered questions:
          Quote: Albatroz
          All competently and on the shelves.

          1.And then, if you all clearly answer why England and France could have thrown Russia (thrown with weapons, did not help in 1905), but Russia should not be thrown?
          2. Why in Russia it was possible to form a foreign unit - the Czechoslovak Corps, but Russia in Ukraine 1991-2014 is impossible?
          3. Why did the Czechs return from Vladivostok to the Volga, if the task was to be evacuated through Vladivostok? What kind of a blow to the back of Russia? Is it like in Ukraine since 2014 everything to fight against Muscovites to the point of victory, and the government washes away pennies with blood?

          Let as much as they want to tear their fifth points of the salag, knowledge of history will not replace them.
          1. +3
            April 3 2019 16: 56
            I see that you are talking half-crazy nonsense, naidas (naidas), but I will answer immediately to you and the green.
            I have repeatedly read questions here - then what is the take of the Bastille? So, for example, green writes
            my even innocent question is, “And how would you rate the capture of the Bastille by the armed crowd in 1789?” zamususuyutsya 17th cons! This is not from a great mind.

            And that’s why they blundered that he not only writes stupidity, he also confuses concepts and phenomena, so to speak, a stick with a finger.
            Revolution is a process of transformation, a radical breakdown of previous relations. Sometimes quite long in time. And you will not always immediately understand that the revolution has begun. This retroactively assigns such a high status to such a process.
            And this must be distinguished from the process of transition (seizure) of power - as a prerequisite for this revolution. The seizure of power can take many forms.
            Is the February revolution a revolution? Of course. And the form of seizing power is a coup. The coup, organized by the environment of the head of state.
            Is the October revolution a revolution? Of course. And the form of seizing power (needed as the primary prerequisite for transformation) is a military coup. Moreover, pre-planned and centrally managed. If you like, a coup that led to revolutionary change. By and large - half a century.
            1. 0
              April 3 2019 18: 19
              When Louis XVI was informed of the events in Paris and the capture of the Bastille, he exclaimed: “But this is a riot!” The duke of Liancourt, who was right there, objected: “No, sovereign, this is a revolution!”
              And so you are from the pygmies of type XII legion (Caesar).
              Of course you know better than eyewitnesses. Stupid were these kings and dukes of rebellion, revolution.
            2. 0
              April 3 2019 18: 37
              Quote: Adjutant
              And that’s why they blundered that he not only writes stupidity, he also confuses concepts and phenomena, so to speak, a stick with a finger.
              Revolution is a process of transformation, a radical breakdown of previous relations. Sometimes quite long in time. And you will not always immediately understand that the revolution has begun. This retroactively assigns such a high status to such a process.

              This is all a vivid example of your demagogy and stupidity.
              1. +4
                April 3 2019 20: 35
                You are both acrobat brothers, and the green and naidas essentially cannot object, so you write the line that.
                natural pygmies, demagogues and ignoramuses))
                1. +1
                  April 4 2019 00: 41
                  Quote: Adjutant
                  You are both acrobat brothers, and the green and naidas essentially cannot object, so you write the line that.
                  natural pygmies, demagogues and ignoramuses))

                  Well, dear, I'm just uncomfortable for you, you just make people think about you that you are a "victim of the exam," sorry.
                  1. +4
                    April 4 2019 07: 39
                    Well, dear, I'm just uncomfortable for you, you just make people think about you that you are a "victim of the exam," sorry.

                    I understood. Your last argument
                    1. +1
                      April 5 2019 00: 09
                      This is true because you do not understand others.
                      1. +3
                        April 5 2019 08: 46
                        And you hear only yourself and deafs, even to iron arguments, facts - if they do not fit into your point of view. I understood it for a long time