About Russia and the Russian front of the First World War. On the threshold of thunderstorms

67
We will talk about the Russian front and Russia in the First World War as a whole, taking a general look at the picture of the war. So, to form about this epoch-making event even the unprepared reader has a holistic and maximally objective impression.

History in brief


7 — 10 in July 1914. Nikolai II received at his summer residence in Peterhof the French President R. Poincaré who arrived by sea.




R. Poincare


The political situation in Europe has already been tense - after all, Serbian nationalist G. Principle shot the heir to the throne of Vienna, Franz Ferdinand and his spouse, on 15 in June in the city of Sarajevo.


Franz Ferdinand and his wife




And it was on the day of departure of Poincare from Peterhof, July 10, that Austria-Hungary sent an ultimatum to Serbia demanding to investigate this murder, to purge the state apparatus, the army, as well as other claims. The document was drafted in harsh colors with the expectation that it would not be accepted. Moreover, the response time to it was only 48 hours, which had already expired by the time the French president arrived.

Russian Foreign Minister S. D. Sazonov noted that the time of delivery of the ultimatum was specifically tailored by the Austrian government at the time of departure of the French president from Russia. By this, they wanted to prevent the Russian and French governments, using the presence of French President and Foreign Minister in Russia, to coordinate their actions.

About Russia and the Russian front of the First World War. On the threshold of thunderstorms
S.D. Sazonov.


So began the First World War. Recall that it was conducted between the Entente (Russia, France, England) and its allies and the Fourth Union, or the German Bloc (Germany, Austria-Hungary, later Turkey and Bulgaria). All in all, 38 states were involved in the confrontation, and hostilities, in addition to Europe, took place in the Middle and Far East, in Africa, in the waters of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. Germany claimed the redivision of the world and fought with Russia in the field of trade (high duties on Russian grain) and industry (competition of German industrial goods), for influence in Turkey. In particular, the Germans built the Baghdad railway there. The knot of contradictions between Russia and Austria-Hungary was the Balkan question (especially intensified after the annexation of the last Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908).

The Sarajevo murder agitated the whole of Europe, and exactly one month after it, on July 15, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, launching hostilities the very next day. The Russian government responded to aggression against a friendly fraternal country by mobilizing frontier European districts. Germany, having started in advance the secret mobilization and concentration of troops on its borders, demanded that Russia stop mobilization, which was a gross interference in the internal affairs of a great country. The last and, alas, futile attempt to stop the approaching catastrophe was the telegraph correspondence of Nicholas II, who was trying to prevent the slide into war, with the German emperor Wilhelm II.

Almost 400 million people were drawn into the war during the first days. And over the next four years, 30 states with a population over 1,5 billion people were involved in its orbit, 70 million of which were mobilized into the armed forces of the warring parties.

Germany sought to defeat France, England and Russia (after tearing away the Russian Poland, the Baltic States and Ukraine from the latter), and together with Austria-Hungary to gain a foothold in the Balkans. The main land fronts are Western (French) and Eastern (Russian). Thus, Russia was becoming one of the main participants in the war.

The Russian authorities, who did not expect such a development of events, began to work out the ideological justification for participation in an armed conflict after Germany declared war on Russia. In the manifestos of 20 and 26 in July, Nikolay II defined the causes and nature of Russia's entry into the war - the defense of the territory of the Fatherland, the honor and dignity of the latter, as well as the position among the great powers and Slavic peoples.


Nicholas II


Nationwide rise


The military historian, Professor Lieutenant-General N. N. Golovin, describing the patriotic upsurge that so brightly flared up in the July days of 1914, noted a huge difference in the popular mood in 1904 and 1914.

The first stimulus that pushed the population of Russia into a swearing feat was the realization that Germany attacked us. The peace-loving tone of the Russian government towards the Germans was widely known. The German threat awakened in the Russian people the social instinct of self-preservation.

Another impetus for the struggle, understandable to everyone, is that the struggle began as a result of the need to protect the right to the existence of a single-believer and one-blood Serbian people. Moreover, this feeling had nothing to do with “Pan-Slavism”, which Wilhelm liked to talk about, pushing the Austrians to absorb the Serbs - this was sympathy for the offended younger brother. After all, for centuries this feeling was brought up in the Russian people - who led a number of wars with the Turks for the liberation of the Slavs. And the stories of the participants in this age-old struggle, handed down from generation to generation, were one of the favorite topics of "village politicians." This taught the Russian people to a kind of national chivalry. And now the Germans threatened the Serbs with destruction instead of the Turks - and the same Germans attacked us. The connection of both acts was clear to the common sense of the Russian people. (Golovin N. N. Russia's military efforts in the World War. M., 2001. C. 292 - 293.).

Prayer services were held in the country “on the gift of victory over the treacherous and insidious enemy,” demonstrations and processions — especially large-scale in Moscow and St. Petersburg. On the day after the Germans declared war on Russia, thousands of people of different classes gathered on Palace Square of the capital, and together they knelt in front of the emperor and empress on the balcony of the Winter Palace. The Emperor declared the Manifesto of entering the war and solemnly took the oath on the Gospel.



State Duma Chairman M.V. Rodzianko recalled how a huge crowd had gathered in front of the Winter Palace on the day of the Manifesto on the war with Germany. And the thundering "Hurray" flew up after a prayer for the gift of victory and the words of the Emperor not to end the war, while at least one inch of Russian land is occupied by the enemy. Flags and posters bowed to the ground - and the crowd, like one person, fell to the Emperor on his knees. He wanted to say something, raising his hand: the front rows subsided, but the noise of the crowd and the never-ending “Hurray!” Did not allow him to speak. Head down, the Emperor stood for some time, seized by the solemnity of unity with his people, and then turned and went into the chambers. When, mingling with the crowd of workers, M. V. Rodzyanko asked what they were doing here - after all, shortly before that, they were on strike and were making economic and political demands. To which he received the answer: it was our internal affair, we just thought that reforms through the Duma were going slowly, but now the business of all Russia - and we came to our Tsar and follow him in the name of victory over the Germans (M. Rodzianko. The collapse of the empire // Archive of the Russian Revolution. T. 17. M., 1993. S. 57.). That is how, contrary to the later assurances of the Bolsheviks, the workers reacted to the outbreak of the war.



On the same days, the enraged crowd, which included workers, defeated the building of the German embassy in St. Petersburg. 4 August The Emperor and his family arrived in Moscow - and he was enthusiastically greeted by at least 500 thousand Muscovites and Moscow region peasants. And then, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, a prayer service was held “for the glory of the Russian weapons».



The prominent figure of the State Duma A.F. Kerensky described these fateful days for Russia as the beginning of the second war for national survival and a unique opportunity for the monarchy, having come closer to the people, to ensure victory and consolidation of the dynasty for many years. (Kerensky A.F. Russia at the historical turning point. Memoirs. M., 1993. C. 88 - 89.).

Officially, this war, met in a society with a unanimous patriotic impulse, began to be called Great, and among the people - German. But since it started with all-around support and the danger hung over the Fatherland, another official name, “Second Patriotic War”, took root (the press often drew a parallel with the Patriotic War 1812, whose anniversary was recently celebrated on a large scale). Already 5 August 1914 St. Petersburg was renamed Petrograd, symbolically disowning all “German” even in names. At the time of mobilization, and then for the entire period of the war, a dry law was declared in the country, which at first everyone accepted with understanding.

The surge of patriotism was expressed in the fact that the 1 of 19 of wartime mobilization was not only fast and successful (the turnout of draftees was almost 100%), but also led to a powerful volunteer movement. The latter covered the youth who had a deferment from the draft and workers who had armor in defense factories, as well as students and intellectuals. They left the army as volunteers A. I. Kuprin, S. A. Yesenin, V. V. Veresaev, N. S. Gumilev, and others. Even revolutionaries who were in exile petitioned for the desire to join the Army in action (such as the future hero Civil War J.F. Fabricius, who was in exile on Sakhalin).

A. F. Kerensky recalled that everyone instinctively felt that the war with Germany would determine the political fate of Russia. The results of the mobilization were impressive. And to the surprise and indignation of the Marxists and other socialists, the Russian workers proved themselves to be the same patriots as their "class enemies".

The women's volunteer movement began. From different parts of the country, young women rushed to the front. Siberian Peasant Woman M. L. Bochkareva later recalled that the very heart called for help from the country (Bochkareva, M. L. Yashka: My life is a peasant woman, an officer and an exile. M., 2001. C. 110.). As you know, she went through the whole war, 4 was wounded several times, became a lieutenant, George Knight and organizer of the women's shock battalions in 1917. Vyatskaya peasant A. T. Palshina repeated the feat of the heroine of the Patriotic War 1812 of the year N. A. Durova - bravely fought 1914 under the guise of a man, becoming the George Knight and junior noncommissioned officer.

The members of the royal family regarded the war as their vital work, considering themselves not only masters, but also defenders of the country. With the outbreak of hostilities, the Grand Dukes joined the army: Nikolai Nikolayevich was appointed Supreme Commander-in-Chief, his brother Petr Nikolayevich served with him at Headquarters, and Nikolay Mikhailovich served at the headquarters of the Southwestern Front; Boris Vladimirovich became the marching chieftain of the Cossack troops, Alexander Mikhailovich - the organizer and leader of the domestic aviation.

The younger generation of the Romanovs, the sons of Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich (President of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, a famous poet who published his poems under the pseudonym "Kr.") - Gabriel, Konstantin, Igor, Ivan, Oleg - served as officers in the Guards regiments. The latter was seriously wounded in battles in East Prussia and died in hospital. The female half of the family — spouse, mother, daughters, sisters, nieces of Nicholas II — took care of the wounded: they established hospitals, supervised sanitary trains, and worked themselves as sisters of mercy. Many high-society ladies followed their patriotic example.

The All-Russian Union of Assistance to the Wounded (Head - Prince G. Ye. Lvov) and the All-Russian City Union (Head of Moscow Mayor M. V. Chelnokov) are being created. In July, 1915, both organizations merged into one - the Union of Zemstvos and Cities (Zemgor). The leader of the Octobrist Party, A. I. Guchkov, as a special representative of the ROKK (Russian Red Cross Society), organized field hospitals in the active army. The deputy of the State Duma V.M. Purishkevich. At first, he entered the sanitary squad created by Guchkov and arrived with him in the Army, and then organized his own sanitary train and headed it before 1917.



The voluntary Society of Assistance to the Victims of War, the Union of St. George Cavaliers, the Committee for Assistance to the Families of Persons Called to War, the Moscow Committee for the Supply of Tobacco to Soldiers of Front Positions, the Book for a Soldier Committee, and others.

Charity events were carried out by artists and postal workers, firefighters and telegraph workers, artists and other members of the public. I must say that the Russian creative intelligentsia has always honored to be honored to participate in such a noble cause. During the war years, the greatest painters and graphic artists (AM and V.M. Vasnetsov, L.O. Pasternak, K.A. Korovin) tried to help their neighbors, instill confidence in victory over the enemy. And even the song that called the people to fight: “Get up, the country is huge” was written by A. Bode during the First World Teacher from Rybinsk (only a few words were different: “With the Teutonic dark force, with the damned horde” ). Being a “Russian German” and not having a chance at that moment to bring the song to the audience, the author presented it to the famous poet V. I. Lebedev-Kumach (Shambarov VE For the faith, the king and the Fatherland! M., 1993. C. 639.).

V. A. Gilyarovsky - the famous “Uncle Gilyay” - at the very beginning of the war wrote the song “Siberian arrows in 1914 year”, beginning with the words: “From the taiga, taiga dense from Amur from the river ...”. Soon it became a favorite march of all soldiers-front-line soldiers. During the Civil War, this text was “reworked” by S. Alymov (several years ago authorship was attributed to Parfenov, but this does not change the essence), and in Soviet times it became known as the song of the Siberian partisans “In the valleys and hills ...” , and the original text has been forgotten for many decades.

Thus, all strata of Russian society with due understanding and willingness to self-sacrifice reacted to the outbreak of war. As for our armed forces, the sad experience of the Russo-Japanese War forced the tsarist government to take a series of measures to strengthen them. The implementation of these reforms can be divided into two periods: 1905 - 1909 and 1909 - 1912. The first was characterized by measures to enhance the combat readiness of the troops, which, to a certain extent, was implemented, the second by quite successful actions to centralize the highest military command, reorganize the army and improve its technical equipment. In 1912, a new law on military service was enacted (instead of the outdated “milyutinsky” 1874), which provided for a reduction in family benefits and an increase in education benefits, a reduction in the draft age.

Reforms 1905 — 1912 led to positive changes in the military sphere, but much was not possible to accomplish - and Russia, according to the calculations of the General Staff, was ready for a big war only for 1917 — 1919. The Great Military Program was designed for the appropriate period. But the war overthrew all the calculations. And Russian soldiers and officers had to fill in their heroism with the flaws and remaining negative remnants in the sphere of military organization and administration.

To be continued ...
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    April 26 2019 19: 02
    Thus, all layers of Russian society with due understanding and readiness for self-sacrifice reacted to the outbreak of war.

    The bourgeois-patriotic frenzy swept mainly the intelligentsia and the kulak strata of the peasantry, touched a small part of the workers, but these were mainly members of the Black-Hundred monarchist organization “Union of the Russian people”, which did not reflect the mood of the whole society, and even more so the working class. These are the elements and turned out to be participants in the chauvinistic demonstrations of the bourgeoisie, about which the author writes. But this waste very soon passed, sobering came as soon as the funeral went from the front and trains arrived with crippled soldiers.

    The biggest contradictions between the groups of capitalist countries led to the war. Hiding the true goals of the war, its aggressive nature, all governments deceived their people, declaring that the war was being fought to protect their homeland. With the help of the war, the Russian bourgeoisie hoped to improve its affairs, conquer new markets, profit from military orders and supplies and at the same time suppress the revolutionary movement, taking advantage of the military situation.
    1. -1
      April 26 2019 19: 20
      It’s much clearer and more balanced.
      The author is absolutely right, and the green is trying to build himself a scientist, but in reality he only repeats the stamps of 70 years ago. Diluted by their own understanding of the current moment.
      1. +2
        April 26 2019 19: 29
        Here's an example of your opus green:
        With the help of the war, the Russian bourgeoisie hoped to improve its affairs, conquer new markets, profit from military orders and supplies and at the same time suppress the revolutionary movement, taking advantage of the military situation.

        things were going well for the Russian bourgeoisie. Although the provincial, but the contingent city of Mogilev had in 1913 an income (in gold rubles) per capita such as never before in its history.
        And ice cream, asphalt and soda, attributed to the Soviet period, were known with might and main.
        to conquer new markets? to master the existing ones. And - what are the operational and strategic plans aimed at conquering the relevant markets.
        and in order to suppress the revolutionary movement, war is not needed. This is a kindergarten of the senior group.
        So it turned out that the war was a disaster for Russia when it fought aggression. She would have had more peace, according to Stolypin. But no, no luck ...
        1. +3
          April 26 2019 20: 04
          Quote: Adjutant
          green is trying to make himself a scientist, but in reality he only repeats the stamps of 70 years ago

          These are not stamps. This is a class assessment of the causes of imperialist war by the working class.

          Quote: Adjutant
          things were going well for the Russian bourgeoisie.

          Except that before 1914 the most important sectors of Russia were in the hands of foreign capital by almost three quarters.
          1. -1
            April 26 2019 20: 12
            Well, stay captive to your fantasies and class blinders
        2. -1
          April 27 2019 11: 14
          to conquer new markets? to master the existing ones.

          Rather hold on. The USA kicked out Russia from the UK food grain market, Austria-Hungary kicked out Russian suppliers from the food grain market of the Grand Duchy of Finland. Germany's less and less dependence on Russian supplies, more and more price scissors.
          And - what are the operational and strategic plans aimed at conquering the relevant markets.

          Ah, what familiar words) Quite recently, the user "XII Legion" wrote the same word for word.
          I’ll also remind your recent phrase to one of my opponents
          You don’t even understand what you’re talking about. The first sign of an amateur is a mix of categories

          Everything is like in a fairy tale - go there I don’t know where, bring that, I don’t know what.
          1. +7
            April 27 2019 17: 32
            And - what are the operational and strategic plans aimed at conquering the relevant markets.
            Ah, what familiar words) Quite recently, the user "XII Legion" wrote the same word for word.
            I’ll also remind your recent phrase to one of my opponents

            And nevertheless, there is NOTHING to object. laughing
            1. 0
              April 27 2019 18: 48
              It is useless to object in such cases. You will not try to convince a person who is delusional in reality. So I see no reason to explain that foreign policy issues are not the competence of the military, that the result of any military planning is the victory of the enemy. And that the victor's politicians then dictate their will to the vanquished. Therefore, all 20 "mobilization" schedules, all staff war games, all plans of the GUGS are plans to defeat the Triple Alliance, and not to "divide markets or do anything else." First, victory by the military, then - carve-up by politicians. And you, having mixed the immiscible, act either not cleverly or dishonestly. Which option do you like best?
              1. +6
                April 27 2019 19: 37
                It is useless to object in such cases. You will not try to convince a person who is delusional in reality. So I see no reason to explain that foreign policy issues are not the competence of the military, that the result of any military planning is the victory of the enemy. And that the victor's politicians then dictate their will to the vanquished. Therefore, all 20 "mobilization" schedules, all staff war games, all plans of the GUGS are plans to defeat the Triple Alliance, and not to "divide markets or do anything else." First, victory by the military, then - carve-up by politicians. And you, having mixed the immiscible, act either not cleverly or dishonestly. Which option do you like best?

                I bring this torment of yours as extra evidence that telling you on the merits of the issue, as I noted above, is nothing to the vile skeptic, green and who else))
                NET
                1. 0
                  April 29 2019 09: 07
                  There is no substance to the matter. Or as you say - NOT.
                  To show the absurdity of your Wishlist is simple:
                  If you think that all the desires of the belligerent parties should have "operational-strategic plans", then show me such "plans" of France before WWI to Togo and Cameroon, Britain to Tanganyika, Belgium to Rwanda. Where, in the same French "XVII" plan, are the plans for the Saar coal basin? So what? Does this mean that there is no plan "XVII", or that France did not want and did not receive coal, temporarily undermining German industry? Neither one nor the other.
                  1. +6
                    April 29 2019 10: 18
                    There is no substance to the matter. Or as you say - NOT.
                    To show the absurdity of your Wishlist is simple:
                    If you think that all the desires of the belligerent parties should have "operational-strategic plans", then show me such "plans" of France before WWI to Togo and Cameroon, Britain to Tanganyika, Belgium to Rwanda. Where, in the same French "XVII" plan, are the plans for the Saar coal basin? So what? Does this mean that there is no plan "XVII", or that France did not want and did not receive coal, temporarily undermining German industry? Neither one nor the other.

                    that you just traditionally get out.
                    There was a Franco-Russian defense convention. And there was a Schlieffen plan.
                    everything is very simple. do not try to compensate the factology by logic (by the way perverted). You are obsessive (in all your guises) and terribly tired. With this, of course, something needs to be done, of course
                    1. 0
                      April 29 2019 12: 37
                      There was a Franco-Russian defense convention. And there was a Schlieffen plan.
                      everything is very simple.

                      Is that all? If, as you say, "just" to look at things, then the primitive of reasoning is understandable.
                      First of all, with what fright do you refer the convention to "operational and strategic planning"? By dip. classifications are a document of intent. The document is in the public domain - tell me where in this convention it is written about
                      a set of coordinated and interrelated in purpose, tasks, place, time of military operations (strikes, maneuvers, etc.), which are carried out simultaneously and sequentially in accordance with a single plan and plan for solving problems at the theater of war or theater of war, strategic or operational direction (in a specific area, area) in a specified period of time

                      This is the definition of military planning if that. What you demand from others.
                      In the content of the Franco-Russian defensive convention, nothing of the above is not and cannot be. This is in the French "plan XVII" (and 16 before it), it is in the "plans A and D" 20 mobile schedules (and 19 before it). Which were drawn up taking into account, of course, the agreements concluded (namely, paragraph 4 of the convention).
                      Therefore, the confusion in one sentence of this convention and of Schlieffen’s plan is Moveton. Right either
                      There was a Franco-Russian defensive alliance. And there was the Austro-German Treaty (Dual Union). everything is very simple.

                      or
                      There was "plan XVII". And there was von Moltke-Schlieffen's plan. everything is very simple.

                      And what you wrote is rubbish.
                      do not try with logic ... compensate for the factology

                      There is a fact - the French military "plan XVII". There is a fact - in the "plan XVII" there is not a word about the receipt of colonies of Germany ("buns" for the winner). There is a fact - as a result of the war, in which the French followed the "plan XVII", they received the colonies of Germany. Conclusion - the post-war political "redistribution" is not connected with the pre-war military (pun intended) plans. Contradicting the facts? No.
                      And you say the opposite (meaning the conclusion) when you request
                      And - what are the operational and strategic plans aimed at conquering the relevant markets.

                      What is your logic?
                      in all their guises

                      And under what "disguises" am I still here on the site?
                      1. +7
                        April 29 2019 23: 30
                        confusion in one sentence and this convention, and the Schlieffen plan - Moveton

                        designed for your level sorry
                        all the more so because you don’t know the editors of the Schlieffen plan, and they are naturally unfamiliar with the contents of it. the source is the Internet, what else do you want.
                        the rest is your reasoning about the same property
                        the fact is the defensive nature of the Franco-Russian military alliance (entered into force at the hostile initiative of Germany, and not vice versa)
                        And under what "disguises" am I still here on the site?

                        know better than me, therefore no comment
                        end of communication buddy
                      2. -2
                        April 30 2019 08: 58
                        know better than me

                        I know that this is called balabolstvo. Words must be answered.
                        designed for your level sorry

                        I don’t know who you were counting on, but I pointed out errors to you, which means that you didn’t have a chance to assess the level.
                        all the more so because you don’t know the editors of the Schlieffen plan, and they are naturally unfamiliar with the contents of it.

                        we did not have a discussion of this issue. Baseless and unsubstantiated accusation. Uplifting.
                        the fact is the defensive nature of the Franco-Russian military alliance

                        Who is arguing?
                        (entered into force with the hostile initiative of Germany, and not vice versa)

                        Not a hostile initiative, but direct aggression or mobilization. Hostile initiative is not the right word, it covers much broader cases. In this case, this very "hostile initiative" on the part of France and the World Bank in relation to Germany can be counted so much that the fingers will not be enough.
                      3. +7
                        April 30 2019 11: 49
                        I know that this is called balabolstvo. Words must be answered.

                        look at yourself, at your behavior. This is primarily for you.
                        I don’t know who you were counting on, but I pointed out the mistakes

                        did you point out errors to me ??? You are nobody and there is no way to call you. especially to indicate alleged errors.
                        you have no opus - that pearl. or direct lies, or sophistry.
                        In short, you are engaged in direct sabotage, both in the article plan and in the comments.
                        we did not have a discussion of this issue. Baseless and unsubstantiated accusation. Uplifting.

                        completely forgot - you admitted it with a different sauce.
                        Not a hostile initiative, but direct aggression or mobilization. Hostile initiative is the wrong word to cover much wider cases.

                        they, the compilers of the documents of those years, did not ask you. You can dodge, interpret as you want and bend your fingers. not interested
                      4. +7
                        April 30 2019 12: 02
                        The Convention is a document of intent))
                        That's the pearl of the vile skeptic. everything else fades.
                        First, learn what an international treaty is. and then typology. at least.
                      5. 0
                        April 30 2019 16: 02
                        look at yourself, at your behavior.

                        Look. And I am waiting for an answer - under what "disguises" am I still here on the site? Since you have already decided to get personal, because there is nothing to answer on the case, then be responsible for your words. Otherwise - balabol.
                        You are nobody and there is no way to call you.

                        Doesn't foam come out of your mouth? Do not hysteria.
                        In short, you are engaged in direct sabotage, both in the article plan and in the comments.

                        And to whom or what did I hurt? What is the constant empty chatter? Communicate on the topic.
                        completely forgot - you admitted it with a different sauce.

                        Indicate in my correspondence where this "other sauce" is. More jabbering?
                        they, the compilers of the documents of those years, did not ask you.

                        Of course they didn't. There are no complaints about them. They wrote as expected - about direct aggression (attack) and reciprocal mobilization. They did not use the "hostile initiative" that was incorrect due to its vastness. You used. If you find such an interpretation in the text of the Franco-Russian alliance - show me, I will be grateful.
                        Convention is a document of intent

                        Yes, the Franco-Russian Convention is a document of intent. What bothers you? The word document, not a contract? The contract is also a document. Or embarrassed, what about intentions?
                        And what else? This is made by paragraph 4, which does not prescribe specific actions of the parties, but indicates the intention of cooperation between the parties to implement the remaining paragraphs of the convention - "The general staffs of the armies of the two countries should always cooperate with each other in preparing and promoting the implementation of the above measures."
                      6. +7
                        April 30 2019 22: 35
                        Look. And I am waiting for an answer - under what "disguises" am I still here on the site? Since you have already decided to get personal, because there is nothing to answer on the case, then be responsible for your words. Otherwise - balabol.

                        working under different profiles, are you trying to create the appearance of an active forum? Well, your business. Moreover, almost no one reads these comments. I will not list them, masks. This is Uncle Murzik, and Seal, and many others.
                        Doesn't foam come out of your mouth? Do not hysteria.

                        yes, I am absolutely calm. hysteria is a character trait inherent in your "God's chosen" race. So do not blame your sore head on a healthy one.
                        Yes, the Franco-Russian Convention is a document of intent. What bothers you? The word document, not a contract? The contract is also a document. Or embarrassed, what about intentions?

                        I repeat - study the legal content of what you are talking about. and understand the difference between the agreement of INTENTS and the agreement clearly establishing the RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS of the parties. You don’t even seem to understand what you’re talking about.
                      7. 0
                        11 May 2019 12: 41
                        "This is Uncle Murzik, and Seal, and many others."
                        "a character trait of your" God's chosen "race
                        "you can't reach out of your america"

                        Wow, how you suffered. This one even has a medical term. Paranoia.
                        I do not see any evidence of your words. Balabol.
                        "working under different profiles, you are trying to create the appearance of an active forum"

                        I do not see any evidence of your words. Balabol.
                        Somehow, I create activity only - for 5 years of registration on the forum, I have 9% less messages than you have for 1,5 years of registration.
                        And even more interesting is the situation when in an abandoned topic that everyone has forgotten about and no one is looking at, two weeks after the last message not from the two of us, your messages have advantages.
                        "Understand the difference between an agreement of INTENT and an agreement that clearly states the RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS of the parties."

                        Are you talking about 12 sentences, occupying 31 lines? Seriously?
                        1) Since there are obligations, there must be responsibility for their failure to fulfill. Show me it in these 12 sentences. No? It’s just that there is no liability in the agreement of intent.
                        2) If, as you say, the obligations of the parties were clearly spelled out, then paragraph 4 of the convention would not exist and 9 meetings of the General Staffs after signing the convention would not exist.

                        "These forces will take decisive action as soon as possible."
                        "These forces" are what? "Perhaps sooner" is when? Everything is spelled out more clearly)))

                        "§ 4. The General Staffs (les Etats-Majors des Armees) of both states must be in constant communication with each other in order to prepare and facilitate the implementation of the above measures."
                        Paragraph 4 clearly says that at the time of signing the convention there are no specifics on how to implement what was written in paragraph 3, and specifics will appear in the course of further cooperation. But the intention to such cooperation is already registered.
                        "The ways and means of intercourse during the war must be studied and mapped out in advance."
                        It is clearly stated that at the time of signing the convention, ways and means of intercourse during the war are not spelled out and should be developed in the future. There is no essence, but there is an intention.
                        3) Well, in addition, maybe tell us where in your "clear" contract there is even a word about such a trifle as the construction of railways, which turned out to be necessary in fact so that you could meet the mobilization deadlines (which were also not specified in the convention , although the fact of mobilization is spelled out in paragraphs 1-2))))?
              2. The comment was deleted.
        3. 0
          April 27 2019 14: 50
          Quote: Adjutant
          And - what are the operational and strategic plans aimed at conquering the relevant markets.

          Bosporus and Dardanelles. And hoisting of the Orthodox cross over the scolded Sofia. And for the uninitiated, duty-free way to BV.
          1. +5
            April 27 2019 17: 37
            Bosporus and Dardanelles. And hoisting of the Orthodox cross over the scolded Sofia. And for the uninitiated, duty-free way to BV.

            again empty talk. Everyone is brandishing this Bosphorus, and it’s just bogeyman.
            since here they remembered a colleague of the 12th legion - I will give one of his posts.
            We dream or think a lot. But this does not always translate into operational-strategic planning.
            And now we are talking all the more not about the shaggy 19th century, but about the beginning of the 20th century.
            If you ask me, I will tell you the following. He worked at the RGVIA, studied the affairs of the preparation of the Bosphorus expedition - F. 2003.Op.1. D.D. 501, 502. So, all Russian planning (starting from the elaboration of general issues) dates back to 1915 (not even to 1914). No matter how I tried, there was nothing concrete for an earlier period, I did not find.
            It’s just like that.
            And indirect evidence of this fact is how chaotically jerked or formed the landing for the planned operations in 1915-16, there was no transport fleet and so on. There would be pre-war systematic training - this would not be. These are two.
            Well, one of the main actors on the topic, the head of the Stavka naval administration, Rear Admiral Bubnov blames the country's leadership and Stavka for the lack of pre-war planning for the Bosphorus expedition. After all, the presence of such planning would have made it possible to prepare for it systematically and efficiently, and the operation itself would not have looked in the eyes of the high command impromptu - although perhaps it would have become the key to withdrawing Turkey from the war with the ensuing consequences for the entire war.

            good
            1. -1
              April 27 2019 19: 10
              Found someone to bring
              So, all Russian planning (starting from the study of general issues) refers to 1915 (not even to 1914). No matter how I tried, there was nothing concrete for an earlier period, I did not find.

              The planning of gaining control over the straits is the planning of a war with Turkey, according to the results of which, control passes to the winner, as a condition set for the defeated! The plan of the war with Turkey by forces of 9 infantry divisions, 211 squadrons and 600 guns of the Caucasian military district was set out in Mobilization Schedule No. 19. This is the pre-war period.
              And indirect evidence of this fact is how chaotically jerked or formed the landing for the planned operations in 1915-16, there was no transport fleet and so on. There would be pre-war systematic training - this would not be. These are two.

              This is only proof of how everything was started, the "projects" for the most part were only "thought according to the tree" and had little to do with reality.
              1. +7
                April 27 2019 19: 35
                I brought a researcher.
                You have nothing to bring
                The planning of gaining control over the straits is the planning of a war with Turkey, according to the results of which, control passes to the winner, as a condition set for the defeated!

                Look how they spoke))
                according to the results)) flogging the aggressor of Turkey as I understand it))
                Oh really))
                The plan of the war with Turkey by forces of 9 infantry divisions, 211 squadrons and 600 guns of the Caucasian military district was set out in Mobilization Schedule No. 19. This is the pre-war period.

                And what does it say about the Straits?)
                This is only proof of how everything was started, the "projects" for the most part were only "thought according to the tree" and had little to do with reality.

                that’s exactly what such planning was missing.
                project opus - a perfect reflection of tricks in your comments. Especially when trying to pull an owl on a globe))
                1. 0
                  April 28 2019 14: 01
                  Quote: Adjutant
                  And what does it say about the Straits?
                  In 1914, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Bazili, vice-director of the Foreign Ministry’s chancellery, compiled a secret note “On our goals in the Straits”. It said:

                  "The strategic importance of the Straits is to control the passage of ships from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea and back ... The Straits are an excellent operational base for fleet operations in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea ...

                  ... A complete resolution of the issue of the Straits is possible only by directly affirming our authority on the Bosphorus and Dardanelles with a part of the Aegean Islands and sufficient Hinterland (adjacent areas) to ensure their possession is strong. Only such a decision ... - one is in line with our great power, giving us a new way to expand the global significance of our country. ”
                  Quote: Adjutant
                  I brought the researcher

                  And I'm the representative of the Foreign Ministry.
                  1. +4
                    April 28 2019 14: 55
                    You brought good wishes and general reasoning.
                    No more)
                    And with good wishes, as you know, the road to hell is paved))
                    You know how many opinions and arguments were inside the Foreign Ministry and the Stavka (sometimes diametrically opposed), but some opinions did not spill over into the STATE PLANNING.
                    You can’t get down to business)
                    1. 0
                      April 28 2019 15: 53
                      Quote: Adjutant
                      but in the STATE PLANNING any opinions there did not spill over.
                      But what about a military convention?
                      1) The Agreement refers solely to a defensive war caused by an attack by the forces of the Triple Alliance on one or the other of the two powers, or both together. 2) France and Russia are obligated in this case to render each other mutual assistance with the totality of their free forces. 3) Mobilization should begin simultaneously in France and Russia, as soon as the mobilization of the forces of the Triple Alliance begins. 4) Germany is the main enemy, in view of which the main forces are directed against it, but against the secondary opponents, Italy and Austria-Hungary, only the necessary number of troops is left. 5) Accordingly, France sends 5/6 of its armed forces against Germany, i.e., about 1.300.000 troops. Russia sends 700.000 to 800.000 troops against Germany.

                      Meetings of the Russian and French chiefs of the general staffs of 1911, 1912 and 1913?
                      1911-Therefore, our plan for Germany is to take a wait-and-see position, which will pass a) into an immediate offensive when the Germans send a smaller part of their forces against us and b) move towards a temporary defense when the Germans send the main blow against us. In relation to Austria, our plan provides for an offensive from the Kiev military district, attributing the latter perhaps to the east, to Brest, Kholm, Kovel.
                      1912 - according to Art. 3 it will be necessary to decisively move the center of gravity of the existing Russian armies to the south and give the main forces a location that allows: 1) to go on the offensive in the general direction to Allenstein if the enemy is located in East Prussia or is trying to move from it to Warsaw, 2) or to maneuver on the left bank of the Vistula, to go to Berlin, if the enemy performs his concentration in the area of ​​Thorn-Posen, if he tries to attack Warsaw or Ivangorod from this initial position.
                      1913-The opinion expressed earlier was still confirmed. An addendum was added according to which the allies are obliged to mobilize their forces, except for the case of German mobilization, even in the event of any military action by the German army against any of the allies. This provided for a sudden attack by the troops that make up the veil, prior to mobilization and aimed at capturing a military strategic point.
                      1. +5
                        April 29 2019 10: 11
                        In the Franco-Russian military convention (incidentally defensive), something was said about the Straits, did I understand you correctly?
                        Or do you traditionally wander through the tree?
                    2. 0
                      April 28 2019 16: 42
                      In 1912, the "Plan of Operations of the Baltic Sea Naval Forces", according to which the Baltic Fleet was deployed at the beginning of the Great War, provided for the solution of the most important operational and strategic task - preventing the enemy fleet from entering the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland.
                      1. +5
                        April 29 2019 10: 11
                        In 1912, the "Plan of Operations of the Baltic Sea Naval Forces", according to which the Baltic Fleet was deployed at the beginning of the Great War, provided for the solution of the most important operational and strategic task -the admission of the enemy fleet to the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland.

                        Yes, a striking example of the defensive nature of Russia's military preparations
                      2. -1
                        April 29 2019 12: 58
                        Yes, a striking example of the defensive nature of Russia's military preparations

                        The April 1914 military staff games in Kiev "confirmation" of your words.
                        You are confusing military-political doctrine and purely military planning.
                      3. +7
                        April 29 2019 23: 33
                        I'm not confusing anything
                        you are a lover of mixes.
                        And the defensive nature of naval planning in the Baltic Sea (based on at least a balance of forces) will not cease to be defensive, even if you stand on your ears)
                      4. -1
                        April 30 2019 08: 27
                        defensive nature naval planning in the Baltic

                        This is private.
                        And this
                        defensive nature military preparations of Russia

                        common.
                        And the fact that part is defensive in nature (and I do not deny it anywhere) does not make general planning a game from defense.
                      5. +6
                        April 30 2019 11: 51
                        The private is subordinate to the general
                        if not in the know
                      6. 0
                        April 30 2019 16: 06
                        The private is subordinate to the general

                        Yes, private defense planning in the Baltic is subordinate to general offensive planning. There is no contradiction.
                      7. +7
                        April 30 2019 22: 25
                        You confuse the form with the content. Defense can also be carried out as part of offensive operations. Active defense, sometimes even related to the invasion of enemy territory. For example, in accordance with the directive of the Supreme Command of the Supreme Command of June 1941 on the transfer of the database to the territory of Poland and Romania.
                        So in this case too, general defensive planning is connected with private
                      8. 0
                        11 May 2019 12: 37
                        "So in this case, general defense planning is associated with private"

                        Tricky question. You say that planning is defensive. And how is this possible within the framework of the Franco-Russian Union and its convention? Point one thereof reads:
                        "§ 1. If France is attacked by Germany or Italy, supported by Germany, Russia will use all the forces at its disposal (toutes les forces disponibles) to attack Germany."

                        Moreover, at the eighth meeting, so that no one was confused by the phrase "defensive war", the following was noted in the minutes:
                        “First of all, it was decided that the words“ defensive war ”in the introductory paragraph of the 1892 Convention should not be understood in the sense that“ the war should be fought defensively. ”On the contrary, in the resolution of the 1911 Conference, it was definitely stated that it is absolutely necessary to immediately undertake energetic and possibly simultaneous offensives. "
                        Well, in the appendage





                        All plans have a common initial task in the army - the capture of East Prussia and East Galicia, after which to develop an offensive on the territory of the enemy, forcing the latter to surrender (according to Golovin).
                2. 0
                  April 29 2019 12: 48
                  I brought a researcher.

                  Who is this? belay "XII Legion"? Which the
                  If you ask me, I will tell you the following. He worked at the RGVIA, studied the affairs of the preparation of the Bosphorus expedition - F. 2003.Op.1. D.D. 501, 502. So, all Russian planning (starting from the elaboration of general issues) dates back to 1915 (not even to 1914). No matter how hard I try, nothing concrete no earlier period, Have not found.

                  Let me ask ... The documents from the period of the war of 2003-1 were entered into the 1914 inventory of the Foundation for the WGFIA. How can one search in this fund anything of an earlier period??
                  And what does it say about the Straits?)

                  And why should it be said about the straits?
                  Where do France's plans say about Togo and Cameroon? What are Britain's plans for Tanganyika?
                  1. +6
                    April 29 2019 23: 36
                    In the RGVIA, the 2003 inventory 1 contains documents from the period of the war of 1914-1918. How can one look for something from an earlier period in this fund ???

                    Have you ever been to RGVIA?))) Maybe we will discuss the funds, do you mind?))
                    Or read the list on the Internet and now a connoisseur?))
                    There is no planning for the Straits until 1915. At least 20 Cameroon cites as an example)))
                    1. +6
                      April 29 2019 23: 42
                      again with logic you try to replace knowledge with a vile skeptic
                      and the stupidest things come out. The above materials do not start from scratch, believe me, but with a review)
                      this time.
                      and even if there is nothing for 1914, this already says a lot. More precisely - about everything.
                      About planning operations from scratch since 1915
                      these are two.
                      1. -1
                        April 30 2019 08: 44
                        Can we discuss the funds, do you mind?))

                        I do not mind.
                        stupid things

                        Are you talking about the search for plans before 1914 in the materials after 1914? I agree.
                        In general, it is very amusing that you quoted the words of the 12th legion, and here you are already starting to speak on your behalf
                        The above materials do not start from scratch, believe me, but with a review

                        I do not believe.
                        Review of what?

                        Do you think the army or navy was planning airborne operations? When you understand, then decide not to search in the RGVIA, but in the RGAMF. And you will be happy.
                      2. +6
                        April 30 2019 11: 58
                        I do not mind.

                        Did you hold materials from the 2003 fund?
                        Are you talking about the search for plans before 1914 in the materials after 1914? I agree.

                        Well, it's wonderful that they agree.
                        I do not believe.
                        Review of what?

                        I don’t care about your faith. go - take a look at what.
                        Do you think the army or navy was planning airborne operations? When you understand, then decide not to search in the RGVIA, but in the RGAMF. And you will be happy.

                        YEAH.
                        The planning of the strategic operation to capture the Straits (one of the elements of which was the landing operation) is the prerogative of the Stavka, that is, the 2003 RGVIA fund.
                        and if you go small, not knowing or not understanding elementary things, once again replacing knowledge with your "profound" conclusions, then you will not be happy for sure.
                      3. -1
                        April 30 2019 16: 37
                        Did you hold materials from the 2003 fund?

                        No. What for? The issue we are discussing is not related to the contents of the 2003 fund.
                        Start telling what they were holding? )))
                        I don’t care about your faith. go - take a look at what.

                        How not, if you ask to believe? Would not ask then ..)
                        I'll go. But since you are aware, then tell us "not about an empty space, but about a review." What's in the way? Please. And then I'll check))
                        YEAH.
                        The planning of the strategic operation to capture the Straits (one of the elements of which was the landing operation) is the prerogative of the Stavka, that is, the 2003 RGVIA fund.
                        and if you’re getting smaller, not knowing or not understanding basic things,


                        Prerogative Betting? Do you remember yourself ?!
                        So, all Russian planning (starting from the study of general issues) refers to 1915 (not even to 1914). No matter how hard I try, nothing concrete for an earlier period No, I didn’t find it.

                        No Straits planning to 1915 year

                        and if for 1914 there is nothing

                        What could be the prerogative of the Bet until 1914 ?! There was NO such apparatus as the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief until 1914! This is a WAR machine. Naturally, you cannot find anything in the 2003 fund until 1914!
                        It's flying, adjutant laughing
                        In peacetime, the planning of the landing was handled by the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet (which is logical). I didn’t just send you to the RGAVMF - it’s easier to search there. You can only go to the RGVIA after this, then an understanding of the time periods and persons responsible for the search will appear.

                        This is only one of the occurring. Just the times of polarization of Europe into 2 groups.
                      4. +7
                        April 30 2019 22: 16
                        No. What for? The issue we are discussing is not related to the contents of the 2003 fund.
                        Start telling what they were holding? )))

                        Connected.
                        He kept and worked.
                        I'll go. But since you are aware, then tell us "not about an empty space, but about a review." What's in the way? Please. And then I will check

                        here you go - then we’ll check it. Yes, just unlikely - do not reach out from your America))
                        So what to talk about ??
                        Prerogative Betting? Do you remember yourself ?! What could be the prerogative of the Bet until 1914 ?! There was NO such apparatus as the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief until 1914! This is a WAR machine. Naturally, you cannot find anything in the 2003 fund until 1914!
                        It's flying, adjutant

                        And I don’t know without you when the Headquarters was formed.
                        This is not my flight, but your cunning twist. The operation was planned in wartime - ONLY in 1915 - and accordingly by the Headquarters. So your twist confirms my words, nothing more.
                        And what, having inserted a piece of anything (work programs, etc.) - you want to make us believe in the preparation of a full-fledged OPERATIONS BEFORE WAR?
                        At the beginning of the 20th century, as we said earlier.
                        If there was an appropriate operational-strategic planning at the beginning of the 20th century (by analogy with the Schlieffen plan, Plan 1912 or Plan 17) - I am waiting for a link to the fund and inventory. Pliz)
                      5. 0
                        11 May 2019 12: 25
                        At the beginning of the 20th century, as we said earlier.

                        No, it was not about the beginning of the 20th century, but about the period until 1915. These are two big differences. The inventories recorded in the photographs of the dates of the 80-90s of the 19th century are also up to 1915.
                        And what, inserting a piece of anything (work programs, etc.)

                        Call things in full - programs, regulations, reports on the preparation of hostilities on the Bosphorus. And below on the preparation of landing craft for this.
                        Why doesn't this suit you? So "1) correspondence on the case, 2) a note and 3) some considerations about the landing operation" (documents in the inventory 501, 502) are suitable for you, but "programs, instructions, reports, correspondence", but 80-90s 19th century - not suitable. The standards are not double, are they?
                        You want to make us believe in preparing a full-fledged OPERATION BEFORE THE WAR

                        No need to ascribe to me too much. I was not talking about preparing the operation (preparation for the operation begins after giving an order to carry out the operation according to the approved plan), but that plans for such an operation were prepared. These are two big differences. There is a plan, and when they decide to resort to it, it’s the tenth thing.
                        And I don’t know without you when the Headquarters was formed.
                        The operation was planned in wartime - ONLY in 1915 - and accordingly by the Headquarters.

                        Well, now they know.
                        The photo above from the inventory of the Navy's archive suggests otherwise.
                        Well, and once again the question, the answer to which you avoid - why in the archive with documents of 1914-1918 there should be information about the events before 1914? It's like taking the last volume of TSB and looking for words with the letter "A" there - exactly the same "logic". And then, using the same "logic", to declare that there are simply no words with the letter "A", since they are not in this last volume.
                        If there was an appropriate operational-strategic planning at the beginning of the 20th century (by analogy with the Schlieffen plan, Plan 1912 or Plan 17) - I am waiting for a link to the fund and inventory.

                        The photo above is from inventory 1 of fund 3 of the Navy archive. Even that is enough. And if you really believe that if something cannot be recorded in the archive, then this was not, then it is very good that you are "fixated" on the Schlieffen plan and do not deny its existence. So I will ask you about reciprocity - to provide a link to the archive with the Schlieffen plan. Why is there an archive, I will simplify your task - a photocopy of any sheet of this document or at least something that confirms its existence in documentary form, and not in the form of references in the literature, will go. You look, but I will tell you right away - there are no such documents. And Schlieffen's plan exists and has not been particularly challenged by anyone.
                        Pliz)

                        Everything fell into place. Being determines consciousness.
                        The lexicon gives suspicions to believe that you are not so many years old.
            2. 0
              April 28 2019 17: 29
              Quote: Adjutant
              lack of pre-war planning for the Bosphorus expedition.

              well, no one planned the Brusilovsky breakthrough until 1914.
              1. +5
                April 29 2019 10: 13
                well, no one planned the Brusilovsky breakthrough until 1914.

                Yes, but they planned the Galician operation) Even before the war.
                and here you are talking about pre-war aggression against the Straits.
                Well, it’s good that they recognized that it wasn’t
                1. -1
                  1 May 2019 13: 41
                  The plans for the landing operation in the Bosphorus were considered at a ministerial meeting on November 23 (December 5), 1896, chaired by Nicholas II.
                  At a meeting of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on July 21, 1908, once again
                  1915 for the last time.
                  Quote: Adjutant
                  Yes, but they planned the Galician operation) Even before the war.
                  Quote: Adjutant
                  Yes, a striking example of the defensive nature of Russia's military preparations
                  1. +6
                    1 May 2019 13: 49
                    The plans for the landing operation in the Bosphorus were considered at a ministerial meeting on November 23 (December 5), 1896, chaired by Nicholas II.

                    And was a full operational and strategic plan adopted? You can’t get down to business.
                    And if the plan was adopted - send a link to the archive source.
                    At a meeting of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on July 21, 1908, once again

                    At a meeting of the Foreign Ministry adopted a plan of combat operation? Kindergarten of the senior group)
      2. -5
        April 26 2019 19: 31
        The enemies of the communists on the territory of the USSR do not live according to conscience, but according to their BENEFIT, and they always evaluate all the facts depending on how it is profitable for them. And you can already predict in advance how they will react to which facts. The entry of Russia into the First World War was an analogue of the entry of the USSR into the Afghan war, which the enemies of the communists put forward almost for the crime of the communists, not for their own interests, but for the sake of "friendly regimes"
        From the "book of memoirs" by Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich
        About the beginning of the war: "In a conversation with me, he escaped a confession that he could have avoided war if he had decided to change France and Serbia, but that he did not want this. No matter how fatal and one-sided the Franco-Russian alliance was, Russia wanted to comply with the accepted commitments ".
        For the sake of justifying their seizure of the USSR, they, without a conspiracy, only in accordance with their identical essence, made those from whom they took the country bad, and automatically made those who were good before those from whom they took the country. So they assess the same facts from the Soviet communists and Nicholas II in the opposite way, "stigmatize", expose the communists for a crime, the same facts that they justify in Nicholas II and the bourgeoisie.
        1. +1
          April 26 2019 19: 37
          Enemies of the communists
          So she needed power, these communists. What passed in 91m and then did not even try to return.
          The status of lured official opposition is much sweeter than people's fate)
          1. -4
            April 26 2019 19: 43
            And one more quality of the identical essence of the enemies of the Communists in the territory of the USSR — they themselves do not have them, they only have OTHER. So when you write about the enemies of the Communists, they rush to rave against OTHER Communists, with EVERY comparison of them with the Soviet Communists and their supporters, not one of them is able to Defend them, everyone equally rushes to rave against OTHER-Soviet Communists and their supporters. OTHER was guilty and responsible of what they did under the Soviet regime, and after the capture of the USSR, and in the capture of the USSR. .
          2. +4
            April 26 2019 20: 46
            Quote: Hunghouse
            So she needed power, these communists. What passed in 91m and then did not even try to return.

            And who passed power to whom in 1991? Nobody handed over anything to anyone. By 1991, in the USSR, power was no longer with the working class and not with the Communists, but with the degenerated Soviet bureaucracy - the top of the CPSU, as well as representative and executive authorities.

            The bureaucracy that managed the state-owned state property really wanted this property to be inheritable. Therefore, in 1991 it only changed its flag over the Kremlin and carried out a privatization scam in the country. It was she or their relatives who became the first owners of "newspapers, factories, and steamboats."

            About returning power to the Communists,
            Unfortunately, then this was not possible, the Soviet people by that time too had degenerated, was infected with petty-bourgeois consciousness and did not share socialist ideas. He would not support the struggle for power of the real Communists, and therefore there was no point in seizing power, because without the support of the people, power cannot be held.
            1. +1
              April 26 2019 23: 01
              All the time the thought does not leave that the Communists are such ethereal spirits. And the people who are reborn are they who? And who is the top of the CPSU? You write some kind of cliches about war. Some markets. Some kind of bourgeois. The empire was not supposed to go to war? You still say that we then arranged it.
              1. +1
                April 26 2019 23: 42
                Quote: Bull Terrier
                All the time the thought does not leave that the Communists are such ethereal spirits. And the people who are reborn are they who? And who is the top of the CPSU?

                The fact is that the communist and the party card holder of the CPSU are two big differences. Only one who recognizes the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat can be called a communist. And in 1961, the Khrushchev leadership of the CPSU refused both.
                Quote: Bull Terrier
                You write some kind of cliches about war. Some markets. Some bourgeois

                These are not cliches - this is science, to understand this - it is necessary to study Marxism.
                1. -3
                  April 26 2019 23: 54
                  Ahhh. There it is. Is this something like religion?) Orthodoxy in essence?) And what does Marxism have to do with it?) Does it show historical facts in its own way?)
                  1. +1
                    April 27 2019 01: 04
                    Quote: Bull Terrier
                    Is this something like religion?)

                    Science is not a religion.
                    Quote: Bull Terrier
                    what does Marxism have to do with it?) It somehow shows historical facts in its own way

                    This is true, Marxism evaluates historical facts in its own way. from the standpoint of historical materialism.

                    Who is to blame and who first started? - These are “children's” questions,
                    Istmat analyzes the behind-the-scenes fuss of the war veterans; he examines these issues in conjunction with colonial rivalry, the class struggle and other factors of world politics and economics. But bourgeois historians replace the concept of the origin of war, treating it only as a outbreak of war. Instead of the root causes of the war, they explore the cause for it; while exaggerating the role of individuals - participants in the events of 1914

                    In 1919, the victorious powers declared Germany and its allies responsible for the world carnage. However, ismatism shows that the problem of liability is more complex. Most historians began to feel that all its main participants were to some extent guilty of unleashing the First World War.
                    1. 0
                      April 27 2019 01: 09
                      I’m even afraid to ask how your science explains the Second World War ...
                      1. 0
                        April 27 2019 11: 03
                        Quote: Bull Terrier

                        I’m even afraid to ask how your science explains the Second World War ...

                        This is from your ignorance.
        2. +3
          April 27 2019 05: 04
          You are right, let them think that self-interest and propaganda only appeared yesterday.
        3. -1
          April 27 2019 13: 03
          Irina, can't you fail to use the cliché "enemies of the communists" in every message?
          1. 0
            April 27 2019 14: 58
            And I really like how the enemies of the communists, because I call them "enemies of the communists", go into hysterics.
            1. -1
              April 28 2019 14: 05
              I, as the enemy of the Communists, only laugh.
              1. +1
                April 29 2019 14: 03
                But I’m wondering ... You say that you are an enemy of the Communists. Moreover, in love for the monarchy, too, are not seen. So who are you?
                1. 0
                  April 30 2019 17: 41
                  Quote: Trapper7
                  But I’m interested.

                  I am for expediency, dignity and honor. Clinging labels is not mine and I am very negative about this. Consider shortcuts as my enemies.
  2. +5
    April 26 2019 19: 21
    Very interesting, objective and well written.
    And this is super!
    1. +5
      April 26 2019 19: 35
      Keep
      We look forward to continuing!
  3. +2
    April 27 2019 11: 48
    "If the world war lasted another year or more, Germany, and then the Entente powers, would probably have survived their national version of the Russian catastrophe." HG Wells Russia in the Dark. 1920
  4. The comment was deleted.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"