Battle of the Straits. Allied Gallipoli operation

70
В stories of all countries and peoples there are peculiar fatal or bifurcation points, which largely determine the course of history. Sometimes these points are visible to the naked eye, for example, the notorious “choice of faith” by the Kiev Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich. Some of them go unnoticed by many. For example, what can you say about 8 January 1894? Meanwhile, on this day the Russian Emperor Alexander III and French President Sadi Carnot ratified the military convention signed earlier (August 27 1892) by the chiefs of the general staffs of Russia and France (N. Obruchev and R. Buadefrom).

Battle of the Straits. Allied Gallipoli operation

Alexander III and Sadi Carnot. Postcard




Friends and Enemies


The traditional vector of Russian politics by the unexpected decision of the emperor suddenly changed to 180 degrees. Now the nearest neighbors — Germany and Austria-Hungary — were inevitably becoming enemies of Russia, who for many years had been hers, though not too good and reliable, but, nevertheless, friends and allies. Austria-Hungary, as we remember, in alliance with Russia many times fought against the Ottoman Empire, and remained neutral during the tragic Crimean War for Russia. In Prussia, which became the “core” of the united Germany, there was a kind of cult of Russia since the Napoleonic wars, and the tradition of kissing the hands of the Russian emperor was observed by German generals until the beginning of World War I. Prussia was the only relatively friendly Russian state during the Crimean War, Germany - during the Russian-Japanese.

To make matters worse, the British Empire was now becoming the hypocritical ally of Russia - its most terrible and irreconcilable enemy for centuries. British politicians have always viewed Russia as a barbaric country, the only purpose of which was the supply of cheap raw materials and the war for British interests. Pavel I, who dared to challenge London, was killed for British money by Russian aristocrats, corrupted by the rule of Catherine II. His eldest son, Alexander I, no longer left London’s will, and, contrary to the interests of Russia, obediently shed Russian blood on the fields of Europe. Another son of the murdered emperor, Nicholas I, who dared to allow himself some independence, was punished by the Crimean war and humiliating defeat - and then the fear literally paralyzed the rulers of Russia for many years: Bismarck openly called Alexander II and A.M. foreign policy actions. Gorchakov "scared politics."

The paradox was that, despite the continuous foreign policy pressure of Great Britain, it was always more profitable for Russia to have its enemy, who constantly, but not very seriously, harms on the outskirts (let us remember the famous saying of those years - “Englishwoman shits”) than “friend” ready to drink all of her blood under the pretext of fulfilling “allied obligations” to London.

I world in Russia: a war without tasks and goals


Nicholas II, a weak and mediocre son of the “peacemaker” Alexander III, who ascended the throne of November 1 1894 (October 20 old style), continued his father’s international policy.

Russia was sick, her society was split, the country was torn by social contradictions, and P. Stolypin was absolutely right when he spoke about the destruction of any upheavals and the need for decades of peace. The defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (the main cause of which was the stupidity and greed of the emperor's closest relatives) was one of the reasons for two revolutions, and it seemed that it was also a warning about the inadmissibility of such adventures in the future. Alas, Nicholas II did not understand and learned nothing. In August, 1914 of the year he allowed the Russian empire to be drawn into a big and fatal war for the interests of Britain, which was always hostile to Russia, which openly counted on the Russian "cannon fodder" of France and Serbia, a state that almost then practiced terrorism at the state level.

We often hear that the war with Germany was inevitable, because, having dealt with France, Wilhelm would have certainly crushed the rest of Russia without allies. In my opinion, this thesis is very doubtful. In those years, Russia and Germany simply did not have any irreconcilable contradictions and real reasons for war. Schlieffen’s plan envisaged a quick defeat of France with the subsequent regrouping of troops to repel the offensive, which completed its mobilization of the Russian army — but did not at all imply a mandatory offensive into the territory of Russia. The main adversary of the German politicians of those years was not even considered France, but Great Britain, Russia was considered as a natural ally, and already in November 1914, the ruling circles of Germany began to consider options for a separate peace with our country - according to the Bolshevik scenario: without annexations and contributions . Proponents of rapprochement with Russia were the chief of the German General Staff E. von Falkenhain, Grand Admiral A. von Tirpitz, Chancellor Ch. Von Betman-Golweg, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Gottlieb von Yagov, and Hindenburg and Ludendorf. But a country dependent on foreign creditors does not have its own interests, and there is no independent foreign policy - Nicholas II refused to negotiate both in 1915 and in 1916. And thus he signed the verdict on himself and the Russian Empire.

The most surprising thing was that Russia in World War I, in essence, did not have any intelligible goals and objectives, apart from the desire to fulfill the notorious "allied obligations" and protect the weak, but cocky Balkan "brothers." But 29-30 in October 1914, the Turkish-German squadron shelled Odessa, Sevastopol, Feodosia and Novorossiysk.


German battleship "Goeben". Under the name "Sultan Selim Yavuz" on October 29 1914, Sevastopol attacked, sinking the Prut mine transport and the destroyer Lieutenant Pushchin


Strait Dreams


Now, after the entry of the Ottoman Empire into the war, Russian unfortunate patriots could indulge themselves with futile dreams of the Black Sea straits, which were so desirable. These dreams were fruitless because there was no reason to believe that here the British would not repeat the successful trick with Malta, which they captured from Napoleon, but did not give to either the "rightful owners" - Knights-Johannits, or his ally, Paul I, who became the master of this order. And in this case, the stakes were much higher: it was not a question of a Mediterranean island, but of strategic straits, controlling which could be held by the throat of Russia. Such regions are not presented, and they don’t voluntarily leave (the Strait of Gibraltar, despite constant protests from the “allied” London of Spain, is still under British control).

W. Churchill and the "Dardanelles Question"


Plans for an operation to capture the Dardanelles were considered by the British Defense Committee back in 1906 year. Now, with the start of World War I, the British had a real opportunity for such an operation - under the pretext of helping Russia. And already 1 of September 1914 of the year (before the Ottoman Empire entered the war) First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill held a meeting at which the “Dardanelles Question” was considered.


First Lord of the Admiralty Churchill inspects the Royal Navy Cadets, 1912 year


3 November of the same year, the Anglo-French squadron fired on the external fortifications of the Dardanelles. The French ships attacked the forts of Orkan and Kum-Kale, the British battle cruisers Indomitable and Indefatigable struck the forts Helles and Sedd el-Bar. One of the British shells hit the main powder cellar of Fort Sedd el-Bar, as a result of which a powerful explosion occurred.

It was simply impossible for the Allies to act more stupidly: without having either a military plan or the necessary forces to carry out further operations, they clearly stated their intentions, giving Turkey time to prepare for defense. The Turks understood everything correctly: by the end of 1914, they managed to carry out significant work to strengthen their positions in the Gallipoli area, placing Essad Pasha’s 3rd Army Corps there. They received significant assistance from German officers sent as instructors. Stationary coastal forts were modernized, torpedo stations and mobile artillery batteries, 10 rows of minefields and anti-submarine nets were installed in the sea. Turkish ships in the Sea of ​​Marmara were ready to support the defense of the straits with their artillery, and in the event of a breakthrough by enemy ships, to attack them in the central part of the strait.

Meanwhile, the British were very worried about the possibility of an attack on Egypt and the Suez Canal. The traditional hopes of the British laid on the palace coup, which they planned to organize in Constantinople. But William Churchill, believing that the preemptive operation on the coast of Turkey itself would be the best defense of Egypt, proposed to attack Gallipoli. In addition, the Russian command itself gave the British a reason to seize the Dardanelles, which were so much desired by Russia: the British and French in early January 1915 asked Russia to step up the actions of their army on the Eastern Front. The Russian headquarters agreed on the condition that the Allies would hold a large demonstration in the area of ​​the Straits - in order to divert the attention of the Turks from the Caucasian front. Instead of a "demonstration", the British decided to conduct a large-scale operation to seize the Straits - under the specious pretext of "helping the Russian allies." When the Russian pseudo-strategists realized it was already too late, the British stubbornly shied away from discussing the future status of the Straits. Only when it finally became clear that the Dardanelles operation had failed, in London “generously” they agreed on the future accession of Constantinople to Russia. They did not intend to fulfill this promise under any circumstances, and no doubt it would have been very easy to find a reason for this. As a last resort, a “color revolution” of the February type would be organized:
“The February revolution was due to the conspiracy of the British and the liberal bourgeoisie. The inspiration was Ambassador Buchanan, the technical performer is Guchkov. ”
,
- without the slightest embarrassment, the representative of the French General Staff Captain de Maleici wrote about those events.

What a twist of fate: now we should be grateful to the dedicated soldiers and officers of Turkey (the country that was at war with us then) for the courage with which they repelled the attack of the “allies” on the Dardanelles. Otherwise, the British naval base would now be located in the straits, which would block them for Russia at any convenient (and even not very convenient) occasion.


Turkish soldiers of World War I


A bit of geography


The Dardanelles are a long (about 70 km) strait between the Gallipoli peninsula and the coast of Asia Minor. In three places it narrows significantly, sometimes to 1200 meters. The terrain on the shores of the strait is strongly crossed, there are hills. Thus, the Dardanelles by nature itself are ideally prepared to protect against the enemy from the sea.



On the other hand, in the immediate vicinity of the entrance there are three islands (Imbros, Tenedos and Lemnos), which can be used as a base for amphibious units.

First phase of the Allied operations in the Dardanelles


The operation in the Dardanelles began on February 19 1915 (a little later than the scheduled date).

Fleet The Allied force consisted of 80 ships, including the battleship Queen Elisabeth, 16 battleships, the battlecruiser Inflexible, 5 light cruisers, 22 destroyers, 24 minesweepers, 9 submarines, an aircraft carrier, and a hospital ship. If auxiliary ships are included, the total number of ships participating in the operation rises to 119.


The battleship Queen Elisabeth, picture 1924



Hospital ship "Aquitania"


The Russian cruiser Askold, which had previously acted against German raiders in the Indian Ocean, was also part of the French squadron.


Cruiser 1 Rank "Askold"


The result of the shelling of the Turkish forts was unsatisfactory. Admiral Sekvil Cardin was forced to admit:
“The result of the 19 February actions showed with my own eyes that the effect of bombardment from long positions on modern earth forts is insignificant. There were a lot of hits in the forts with ordinary 12-inch shells, but when the ships approached, they opened fire from all four forts. ”


But February 25 seemed to change things for the better. Long-range large-caliber ship artillery still crushed the stationary Turkish forts, and minesweepers began to work with minefields. Admiral Cardin sent a message to London that in two weeks he would be able to occupy Constantinople. As a result, grain prices in Chicago even decreased (a large amount of it was expected to arrive from southern Russia). However, when attempting to enter the Allied ships of the strait, the mortars and field howitzers of the Turks, hidden behind the hills, entered into action. An unpleasant surprise was the mobile batteries put forward by the bank, which quickly changed their positions. Having lost several ships from artillery fire and in minefields, the Anglo-French ships were forced to depart.

The next attempt to break through was made on March 18, 1915. At that time, the ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet fired at other Turkish ports to distract the enemy. The results were disappointing for the allies: three ships sank (the French battleship "Bouvet", the English "Ocean" and "Irresistible"), and several were seriously damaged.


Dardanelles operation, 18 March 2015



The French battleship Bouvet, which sank during the Allied Dardanelles operation



British cruiser "Irresistible" sinks, receiving critical damage


On this day, Turkish corporal Koca Seyit, who became a national hero in Turkey, accomplished his feat. He alone managed to bring three 240-mm shells, which destroyed the British battleship Ocean.


British battleship "Ocean"


After the war, Seyit did not even succeed in raising such a projectile: “When they (the British) break through again, I will raise it,” he told reporters.


Kodzha Seyit, posed photo with shell



Gallipoli peninsula, Eceabat city, Military historical park: in the foreground a sculptural composition - Kocja Seyit


British admiral John Fisher commented on the outcome of the fight with the phrase:
“Our fleet in the Dardanelles reminds of a defrocked monk intending to rape a virgin ... One long ago forgot how to do it, and the other one also had a dagger for a corsage!”


A little obscene, but very self-critical, isn't it?

Admiral Cardin, who was declared responsible for the failure of this operation, was removed from office. He was replaced by John de Robek.

Gallipol operation of Great Britain and France


Having failed at sea, the Allied command began to prepare the ground operation. The island of Limnos (located in 70 km from the entrance to the Dardanelles) was selected as a base for the airborne troops, to which the 80 soldiers were quickly taken to 000.


Lemnos Island on the map


The French (who were represented mainly by parts from Senegal) decided to attack the forts of Kum-Kale and Orkanie on the Asian side of the strait. They were disembarked (25 on April 1915) by the Russian cruiser Askold and the French Jeanne d'Arc. "Askold", in contrast to the French ship that received a shell in the bow artillery tower, was not harmed by enemy fire. However, the Russian sailors who ruled the landing boats suffered losses: four were killed, nine were injured. Senegalese (about 3000 people) initially managed to capture two villages, taking prisoners near 500, but after the approach of the Turkish reserves were forced to go on the defensive, and then - to evacuate. In this case, one of the mouth was captured.

The British chose the European coast of the strait - the Gallipoli Peninsula (the length of 90 km, width - 17 kilometers, located in the European part of Turkey between the Dardanelles and the Saros Gulf in the Aegean Sea) as a landing site for land units. In addition to the British units proper, the Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and Indian military units also had to storm the Turkish positions.


Australians and New Zealanders on the deck of the SS Lutzow transport ship



Indian soldiers of the British army


They were joined by volunteers from Greece and even the “Zion squad of mule drivers” (Jews, many of whom were emigrants from Russia). In the area chosen for the landing of troops there were few roads (moreover, bad ones), but many hills and ravines, moreover, the heights dominating the terrain were occupied by Turks. But the British self-confidently believed that the “wild natives” would not stand up to the onslaught of their well-armed and disciplined troops.

The brunt of the British was aimed at Cape Gelles (tip of the Gallipoli peninsula).


At Cape Gelles, 25 April 1915


Australians and New Zealanders (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps - ANZAC) were to attack from the west, their goal was Cape Gaba-Tepe.

The offensive of the British was preceded by a half-hour bombardment of the coast and attacks by planes located on the island of Tenedos. Then the landing operation began. Three battalions of the 29 Infantry Division were planted on the converted coal mine River Clyde. The other units, consisting of three infantry companies and a platoon of marines, were to reach the shore in large boats that led the tugs (eight tugboats, each of which led four boats). These tugs and boats Turks very successfully covered with fire from field guns and machine guns. Almost all of them were destroyed. The position of the units following on the coal miner turned out to be a little better: the ship managed to land on the shore and over the bridges imposed on the boats it had taken with them, the landing began.


Turkish soldiers against enemy landing


The first two companies of the attackers were literally “mowed down” by enemy fire, but the soldiers of the third, who also suffered losses, managed to dig in. The paratroopers, who had already entered the footbridge, but did not have time to land on the shore, were carried off by them to the Gelles peninsula and killed by fire from Turkish machine guns. As a result, at the cost of losing 17 thousands of people, the Allies were able to take two bridgeheads (depths up to 5 kilometers), which were called ANZAC and Helles.

This date - 25 April, is now a national holiday in Australia and New Zealand. Previously, it was called “ANZAC Day”, now, after World War II, it is Memorial Day.


Soldiers of the Anzac Corps in Gallipoli


It was not possible to develop success, the Turks pulled up reserves, and the airborne units were forced to go on the defensive. Their situation became especially difficult after the German U-21 25 submarine in May 1915 sank the British battleship Triumph, and the 26 battleship Majestic. As a result, the ships were withdrawn to the Bay of Mudros, and the troops on the coast were left without artillery support. Both the British and the Turks increased the number of their armies, but neither one nor the other could achieve a decisive advantage.


Gallipoli peninsula, Eceabat city, Military historical park: positions of Turkish and British troops


It was in the battles for the Gallipoli peninsula that the star of the army officer Mustafa Kemal Pasha, who will go down in history, rose under the name of Kemal Ataturk. Throughout Turkey, then his words were addressed to the soldiers before the next attack on the Australians: “I do not order you to attack, I order you to die!”

As a result, the 57 th regiment of the 19 Turkish division was killed almost completely, but held the position.


Mustafa Kemal Pasha - on the left


In August, 1915, north of the ANZAC bridgehead, another was captured - Suvla.

August 7 Day 1915, when they were thrown into a hopeless attack on Turkish positions and suffered huge losses 8-th and 10-th Australian cavalry regiments (their soldiers were involved, as the infantrymen) became a landmark for this country. On the one hand, this is the black date of the calendar, but, on the other, it is said that the Australian nation was born on that day. The losses of hundreds (and in the total, thousands) of young men for a sparsely populated Australia were shocking, and the image of an arrogant English officer sending Australians to die, entered the national consciousness as a stamp.


Shot from the film "Gallipoli", 1981 year: Turkish machine gunner shoots the advancing Australians


Field Marshal Herbert Kitchener, who visited Gallipoli in November 1915, called the Maxim machine guns "the devil's tool" (the Germans used the MG.08 by the Turks).


Machine gun "Maxim MG.08"


A total of stubborn but fruitless battles on these bridgeheads went on for 259 days. The British troops could not advance deep into the peninsula.


A shot from the Australian film “Gallipoli”, 1981 year


Completion of the Gallipoli operation and evacuation of troops


As a result, it was decided to terminate the Gallipoli operation. 18-19 December 1915 British troops were evacuated from the ANZAC and Suvla bridgeheads.


Evacuation of guns and soldiers from the Gulf of Suvla, December 1915


Unlike combat operations, the evacuation was well organized, and there were almost no losses. And on January 9 1916, the last soldiers left the southernmost bridgehead, Gelles.

The initiator of the Dardanelles (Gallipoli) operation, Winston Churchill, was forced to resign from the post of first lord of the Admiralty. This plunged him into a state of deepest depression: “I am a complete man,” he said then.

Disappointing results


The total losses of the allies were enormous: about 252 of thousands of people killed and wounded (in all, 489 of thousands of soldiers and officers took part in the battles). Actually, British losses amounted to about half of them, the losses of the ANZAC corps - about 30 thousand people. 6 armadillos were also lost by the allies. The Turkish army lost about 186 thousand killed, wounded and dead from disease.

The defeat in the Dardanelles operation was a heavy blow to the military reputation of the British army and navy. In many ways, precisely because of the failure of the allies in this adventure, Bulgaria entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers.
70 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    1 July 2019 06: 03
    Thanks to the author. Very informative.
    At the same time, the army of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE in Transcaucasia fought very successfully against the Turks. Apparently because everything there was considered *secondary* and therefore the management of both the army and the civil administration were in the same hands. Although there was plenty of evidence of theft under the protection of these *hands*.
    It would be nice to consider without concealing the actions of the RUSSIAN army in the Caucasus, including the role of Armenian nationalists in unleashing genocide against the Turks. Very similar events then occurred in N Karabakh at the end of the century.
    1. +2
      1 July 2019 19: 37
      "..including the role of Armenian nationalists in unleashing genocide against the Turks. Very similar events later took place in N-Karabakh already at the end of the century." Thanks for your knowledge.
  2. +1
    1 July 2019 08: 13
    Thanks to the author for a very interesting article!
  3. +2
    1 July 2019 08: 13
    When I watched the film "Gallipoli" at one time, I was surprised how the command of the Entente threw corpses over the Turks.
    1. +11
      1 July 2019 10: 52
      Do not be surprised. You just need to know the history of WWI. There probably before the end of the 1917 year such a picture was. Moreover, all countries.
      1. +4
        1 July 2019 12: 00
        I can roughly imagine the picture of the First World War, not without reason the French after it made a bet on defense and went on huge costs for the construction of the Maginot Line.
    2. +7
      1 July 2019 15: 22
      Tact, after all, stories about "corpses filled up" are not about the Red Army in WWII, but about the British in WWI - they also fought on the western front
  4. +1
    1 July 2019 10: 16
    But how cunningly the British acted. If history had turned out differently and coups in the Russian Empire had not been accomplished, with the simultaneous successful capture of Constantinople by the Russian troops, the retention of Gallipoli by the British would simply have reduced this success to "zero"
  5. +4
    1 July 2019 10: 59
    The defeat in the Dardanelles operation was a severe blow to the military reputation of the British army and navy.

    I hope this phrase will be read by the apologists of the idea "The Russian army fought with difficulty against secondary troops" and it will come to them that there were no weak opponents in that war.
    1. +3
      1 July 2019 23: 18
      It will also reach them that they will seize the straits from Turkey and take Constantinople.
      the Russian army did not have the slightest chance.
      1. 0
        2 July 2019 08: 29
        Quote: voyaka uh
        It will also reach them that they will seize the straits from Turkey and take Constantinople.
        the Russian army did not have the slightest chance.

        Well, this we will never know.
      2. 0
        10 July 2019 13: 05
        The monarchies will not reach laughing
  6. +11
    1 July 2019 11: 07
    German battleship "Goeben". Under the name "Sultan Selim Yavuz" on October 29 1914, Sevastopol attacked, sinking the Prut mine transport and the destroyer Lieutenant Pushchin

    Hmm ... actually, MM "Lieutenant Pushchin" died only on 09.03.1916/XNUMX/XNUMX, blown up by a mine near Varna.
    British cruiser "Irresistible" sinks, receiving critical damage

    And when did this fourth Formideble-class EBR become a battlecruiser? wink
    Russia and Germany in those years simply did not have any irreconcilable contradictions and real reasons for the war.

    Now Olgovich will come and talk about the tariff confrontation before WWI ("rye" and "flour expansion" of Germany), and about the concept drang nah osten и lebensraum the beginning of the last century. smile
    1. +5
      1 July 2019 14: 38
      Russia and Germany in those years simply did not have any irreconcilable contradictions and real reasons for the war.

      This does not mean that by 1914 the prerequisites for such contradictions no longer appeared. And not only with Germany, but also with Austria-Hungary. And no geopolitics, clean trade balance issues.
  7. +8
    1 July 2019 11: 15
    Here the author begins his article with the section "W. Churchill and the" Dardanelles question "" a fat plus from me would be guaranteed. But the introduction just spoiled the whole mood. Everything has passed already, enough grieving and lamenting both about the unions and about the leadership.
    And in the union, by the way, Wilhelm himself is to blame. I would like to be friends with Russia, I could be friends. But there were such gigantic ambitions of a person that they cannot even be described. He and so with his advice "how to plant rutabagas, how to marry a guy and how to cook porridge" climbed wherever possible.
    1. +2
      3 July 2019 16: 34
      Loved to be in the spotlight. No wonder they said about the Kaiser that he: "wants to be a baby at every christening, at every wedding - a groom, at every funeral - a dead man."
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. +2
    1 July 2019 11: 22
    destroyer "Lieutenant Pushchin" blew up a mine. The crew was saved, the flag can be seen in the Military Museum-Sofia.
    1. VLR
      +6
      1 July 2019 11: 51
      Yes, sorry, inaccuracy. The destroyer "Lieutenant Pushchin" was attacked, but did not drown:
      "On the very first day of the war, being in the patrol battalion (" Tenacious "and" Hot "), he received serious damage (the bow of the hull and the bridge were destroyed), while trying to attack the German-Turkish battle cruiser" Goeben "with torpedoes.
  10. +4
    1 July 2019 12: 01
    Having started reading, I did not recognize the author's style. I even went to the end of the article to see if I was reading Samsonov. Again, the Anglo-Saxon enemies, tormenting us for centuries. It seems to me that the author, like some commentators, is still in captivity of incomprehensible illusions, where both Russia and other states have some "friends", "enemies", "allies" when in reality there are only interests and nothing more.
    During the entire existence of our state, the "Englishwoman" has not drunk even a tenth of the blood that the Germans, Turks, Poles, Swedes drank from us, and, each individually, not to mention our eastern neighbors. If we look at the history of our relations with Britain, without ideology and bias, we will see that it is she who is our most consistent and loyal ally. With her, hand in hand, we went through all the major wars of the last three hundred years, and only in alliance with her did we win these wars.
    And why? Because we are at different ends of Europe, as a result of which our enemies are often the same.
    Now on the planet is a relative world and the Englishwoman (already in the form of the USA) is again crap. And it will take another twenty or thirty years, and we will again hand in hand with concentration and enthusiasm to hammer in China, for in the form in which it wants to see itself, we need it no more than Napoleonic France or Hitlerite Germany. As well as the British (USA).
    1. -1
      1 July 2019 16: 52
      You voiced all my thoughts (starting from the author and ending with unions). Thanks you! It was too lazy to write so much)
    2. +2
      1 July 2019 20: 35
      This is not so. The British were enemies like everyone else.
    3. +2
      1 July 2019 23: 23
      I was also surprised that the author was in an "anti-English frenzy" ( smile )
      so clearly sympathizes with Turkey, with which Russia has long-standing historical graters.
      It's unusual.
      The Turkish army, of course, defended its country courageously, but from the historian
      A more neutral stance is required.
      1. +2
        3 July 2019 16: 52
        apparently, it means that the straits in the hands of a relatively weak Turkey are much better for Russia than in the hands of the British. Or Germanic. When the Kaiser suddenly became friends with the Turks, laid a railway branch through its territory, etc., there was also cause for concern.
    4. +2
      1 July 2019 23: 35
      Britain, being a world empire, was not limited to Europe, so the argument about being located at the “other end of Europe,” as an argument in favor of “does not shit,” does not look convincing. If before the era of the Napoleonic Wars, England was both a situational enemy and an ally, then after that it was an exclusively ill-wisher, and even specifically an enemy. As if not with the death of Griboyedov. Then there was the Crimean War, the Great Game, etc. Another thing is that to justify all the miscalculations and failures by the machinations of the British is a very naive interpretation of history. What I absolutely agree with is the following:
      It seems to me that the author, like some commentators, is still in captivity of incomprehensible illusions, where, both in Russia and in other homudarties, there are some "friends", "enemies", "allies" when in reality there are only interests and nothing more.

      However, in the following phrase:
      If you look at the history of our relations with Britain, without ideology and bias, we will see that it is precisely this that is our most consistent and faithful ally.

      Do you see a contradiction? Once again, the British themselves have never been held captive by illusions. Their policy has always been based on their own interests and nothing else. They had no "loyal allies". By the way, the same goes for the United States and China. I also cannot agree with the argument about "hammering China" and how China "wants to see itself", but this is completely offtopic.

      As for the author's theses, there is a serious inaccuracy in this passage:
      Austria-Hungary, as we recall, in an alliance with Russia, fought against the Ottoman Empire many times, and remained neutral during the Crimean war, tragic for Russia.

      It was not just neutrality, but "armed neutrality." It was the Austrian threat that forced Paskevich (by direct order of the sovereign, of course) to passively mark time on the Turkish front.
      The following statement is also very controversial:
      What a twist of fate: now we should be grateful to the dedicated soldiers and officers of Turkey (the country that was at war with us then) for the courage with which they repelled the attack of the “allies” on the Dardanelles. Otherwise, the British naval base would now be located in the straits, which would block them for Russia at any convenient (and even not very convenient) occasion.

      What prevented the establishment of a naval base in the straits after the defeat of the "central powers"? Just think, there was a whole occupation corps of the Entente in Constantinople! Obviously, other political circumstances prevented this, and not the dedication of Turkish soldiers and officers.
      Well, and, of course, the term “color revolution” is already an anachronism for the realities of the early twentieth century.
      1. VLR
        +1
        2 July 2019 08: 50
        What prevented the establishment of a naval base in the straits after the defeat of the "central powers"?

        The same thing that prevented, after the surrender of Japan, to judge the emperor as a war criminal. The real danger of an uprising of the entire population of the country. The victory in the Gallipoli campaign was (and is) significant for Turkey. An attempt "on the sly" to appropriate what they could not take by military means would literally lead to the massacre of the entire contingent of the occupying forces. The Entente and its citizens of its countries, mortally tired of the war, were not ready for this.
        1. 0
          3 July 2019 00: 15
          There is no doubt that there is a rational grain in it, but I still see that the main reason is not this, but because after the war the straits did not represent any strategic value for either England or France, since they remained in the hands of Turkey . Turkey was not considered as an independent geopolitical player. The operation in Gallipoli was a wartime operation to defeat Turkey and strip the straits of Russia (here I completely agree with you). Turkey is defeated, Russia is not up to the straits. Why are they Entente?
      2. -2
        2 July 2019 13: 07
        Quote: Captainvp
        Do not see a contradiction?

        Perhaps expressed not clear enough. There are certainly no enemies, allies and friends in politics, there are only interests. But if these terms are used to designate colleagues in a dangerous political business, it is the United Kingdom that will objectively assume the role of the most consistent and loyal ally and friend.
        1. +1
          2 July 2019 23: 59
          Sorry, but still not convinced. What sequence can we talk about if in every century of modern time England was alternately an enemy and an ally? In the era of Napoleon alone, relations between Russia and England twice changed to the exact opposite.
  11. -2
    1 July 2019 12: 22
    One often hears that war with Germany was inevitable, because, having dealt with France, William would certainly have crushed Russia left without allies.


    In general, Germany was the first to condemn Russia, it was France that understood that after Russia it would be the next.
    Watch three episodes of the 37 days before the war https://ok.ru/video/319310596852
    [media = https: //ok.ru/video/319310596852]
    In detail, the documents show who was the initiator of the First World War and at what point everything slipped into the war.
    Germany gave guarantees to Austria-Hungary, which provoked a world war.
    1. VLR
      +6
      1 July 2019 12: 31
      You are wrong. Having declared war on Russia on August 1 (after a series of hysterical telegrams from the Kaiser to "Nikki" with requests not to start, and then to stop mobilization), Germany attacked... Belgium and France! Because the Germans had clearly written plans for a war with France that were sent out to military units in advance, but they had no plans for a war with Russia. According to the Schlieffen Plan, it was supposed to defend against the advancing mobilized Russian army. And, ideally, not to start military operations against Russia at all - explaining to it that France had already been defeated and "there's no use waving your fists after the fight." And only on August 6 Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia - it was fulfilling its allied obligations to Germany, and not vice versa.
      1. 0
        1 July 2019 12: 47
        Quote: VlR
        Because the Germans had clearly defined and pre-sent to the military units war plans, but no war plans with Russia. According to Schlieffen's plan, it was supposed to defend against the advancing mobilized Russian army.


        Watch the series. All questions are sorted out by day, all contacts, agreements and at what point everything went wrong - what to guess, a very informative series, is sufficiently documented.
        For 37 days no one thought that everything would slide into war :) Nobody.
        The Kaiser’s political games have slipped into uncontrollable developments.
        The role of the German General Staff there is very well shown - why France was the first to appear - a really prepared strategic plan that corresponded to the situation - a military alliance between Russia and France.
      2. +1
        1 July 2019 13: 15
        Quote: VlR
        And only on August 6, Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia - it fulfilled allied obligations to Germany, and not vice versa.


        You will study carefully - when did Austria-Hungary begin partial mobilization?
        July 26, Austria-Hungary began a partial mobilization. The German government insisted that Austria’s military action against Serbia begin urgently, since any delay in the start of operations was considered a great danger because of the risk of interference by other states

        2 days before, Russia began a partial mobilization of the four western military districts.

        On July 30, William II declared that in order for the Serbs to fulfill their promise, the Austrians needed to occupy Belgrade
        - So who is the instigator of the war and acted as the instigator of the WWII?
        Moreover, the threats to Russia from Germany sounded quite concrete.
        I’m not going to retell the July crisis in stages - you don’t want to, don’t look.
        This series brought together the facts that led to WWI - a good guide.
        1. VLR
          +1
          1 July 2019 13: 34
          Yes, Germany did not want a big war. Ideal for her would be this development:
          Austria-Hungary quickly "before other countries intervene" defeats Serbia, forever ridding the Serbs of great-power fantasies about Yugoslavia (which never happened, despite everything). Germany quickly defeats France. Britain does not have time to transport its troops to the mainland, and those that it did have, it evacuates in a hurry, anticipating Dunkirk in 1940. Russia (which, by all rights, should have carried out a full mobilization - and not rush headlong into East Prussia with unprepared armies) does not have time to start a war. And Germany proposes to hold a peace conference and resolve all matters amicably, perhaps even with some, not very significant, concessions on its part and on the part of Austria-Hungary.
          1. +1
            1 July 2019 14: 32
            Quote: VlR
            And Germany suggests holding a peace conference and resolving all matters amicably, perhaps even with some, not very significant, concessions on its part and on the part of Austria-Hungary.


            I agree - an acceptable option from the point of view of afterglow, when we are aware of many crucial factors. But at that time, a lot was based on bluffing, reassessing one’s capabilities (imperial ambitions if you want), intimidation.
            But in real history, no one could have imagined from the politicians that the assassination of Gavrilo the Principle would become a detonator for a big war and 4 empires would fall ...
            Quote: VlR
            Britain does not have time to transfer its troops to the mainland, and those that have succeeded in evacuating hastily, anticipating Dunkirk in 1940


            This is a fantasy - only on August 6, the British cabinet agreed to send British expeditionary forces to France.
            Great Britain would not fight for France - it was determined literally in the last days - they did not have a military agreement :)
            Before that, the United Kingdom categorically refused to fight.
            On July 27, Gray first raised the question of Britain joining the war if Germany began military operations against France.
            So what is Dunkirk there :)
            What was the reason for joining the war of Great Britain?
            A naval agreement was concluded between Great Britain and France, according to which France in the Mediterranean ensures the safety of British ports, and Great Britain ensures the safety of French ports on the Atlantic coast (the entrance of the German fleet to the English Channel), which was noted by French diplomats. And guarantees to Belgium.

            In fact, the film is an investigative piece: it was shot by British historians with the participation of the Russian Historical Society, Germany and Austria, and much is devoted to why and how Great Britain was drawn into the continental conflict - the film is largely devoted to this episode.
    2. +1
      3 July 2019 17: 08
      this is just a version of the English. They are such paws in the film, they only managed to pull away arrogant Russians and pouting Germans. Although the fleet was beaten off so that Mama Do not Cry
  12. +2
    1 July 2019 13: 00
    Thanks to the author for a thoughtful and competent article, it was read with great interest. hi

    Along the way, one small question arose, the photo with the caption "British battle cruiser Irresistible is sinking ...." shows a battleship (battleship). All dreadnought-type ships, as far as I remember, carried three-legged masts, and I don't even remember a battle cruiser with that name. Surely it's still a typo, a trifle, but it's a shame, a great article. good
    1. +6
      1 July 2019 18: 18
      Pictured is HMS Irresistible, a pre-dreadnought battleship of the Formidable class.

      So he looks today.
  13. +6
    1 July 2019 13: 02
    By the way - why in the annotation it is written that thanks to the brave Turkish soldiers who repelled the attack in the straits, there is no British naval base in the straits? - It's just funny!
    Given the fact that Turkey lost the war and was occupied (well, separate ports). Great Britain and France, as they wanted, cut the occupied territory of the Ottoman Empire, cutting off Messopotamia from it, thoughtlessly creating the future Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan - which still hangs in the Middle East!
    Rather, the merit of Kemal Ataturk and the Turkish Revolution, which restored the sovereignty of Turkey - no matter how things turn out in Gallipolia, were not decisive here;)
    1. VLR
      +3
      1 July 2019 13: 25
      I think that if the British seized the Straits, they would not have gone from there.
      1. +2
        1 July 2019 16: 05
        Quote: VlR
        I think that if the British seized the Straits, they would not have gone from there.


        They even left India.
        After WWII, imperial ambitions diminished, and after WWII, the empire crumbled.
        It is significant how Argentina defeated the worthless Falklands ...
        Well, to what extent it was necessary to go down - let them say thanks to the iron lady, the only British politician with "eggs".
        Now look at these May clowns with Bouris Joneson ...
        "... Don't poison the former shpiens on our territory ..." a pitiful sight.
        1. VLR
          +3
          1 July 2019 19: 47
          India is big, and the straits are a special region. Small in size, but strategically extremely important. The Spanish can't drive the British out of Gibraltar - although they tried very hard. And they are NATO allies.
  14. -1
    1 July 2019 15: 26
    I wonder for how many centuries Britain was hostile to Russia? Intro of the author’s fantasy in its purest form, now we have two Samsonovs
    1. +3
      1 July 2019 15: 49
      Yes, this is Samson, as well as almost everything else too.
      I don’t even go far from sin into the text,
      and there’s nothing to talk about)
    2. +4
      1 July 2019 16: 36
      Quote: Cartalon
      Now we have two Samsonov

      I would not be so categorical. Valery has many excellent materials that compare favorably with the general background of publications on this resource, in particular, from the same Samsonov. Actually, this material, in its essence and main idea, is not so bad, although it contains several errors, which the author has already pointed out to commentators.
      I suggest not to hang tags, but calmly relive this publication and prepare for the discussion of the next one. smile
      The author, thank God, is still very far from Samsonov, but I don’t think that Valery aspires to this kind of laurels.
    3. VLR
      +1
      1 July 2019 20: 05
      Britain has always been hostile to Russia. This is negative complementarity, to use L. Gumilev's terms. But at the same time, it often used Russia as an unequal and inferior partner. And this has always been worse than open hostility.
      1. +2
        1 July 2019 22: 20
        "Britain has always been hostile to Russia."
        This mantra is now especially popular.
        But its popularizers always avoid the question of why Russia was "used" as an inferior, unequal partner? Who or what forced it? Or was England so powerful that there was no way to resist it?
      2. +3
        1 July 2019 23: 34
        "Britain has always been hostile to Russia." ////
        ----
        Stamp caused by momentary policy.
        They were friends during the times of Ivan the Terrible and during the time of Peter the Great.
        Together they fought against Napoleon and against Hitler.
        All of the above does not mean that we must quarrel with Turkey
        or Germany. Everything flows, everything changes. drinks
      3. -1
        2 July 2019 08: 32
        It’s always when you name Britain’s actions hostile to Russia in the 15th century, 16th century, 17th century, in 18 except for the end of the Northern War and the second Turkish war of Catherine the Great.
      4. -1
        2 July 2019 10: 38
        Quote: VlR
        Britain has always been hostile to Russia.

        * looks thoughtfully at the First Archipelago Expedition, which without British help would have ended without beginning. For the bases, ship repairs and medical assistance on the transition were provided by Britain. Not out of kindness, of course - for Limey it was another "war through intermediaries" with France, in which the Russians played for the British and the Turks for the French.
      5. +1
        2 July 2019 13: 00
        Quote: VlR
        negative complementarity, if you use the terms of L. Gumilev

        Valery, you know my attitude to the passionary theory of ethnogenesis.
        But even if you use Gumilyov's terminology (I personally think it is meaningless, but let's try), how do you determine the presence of "complementarity" and its sign? What facts do you use as the basis for your conclusions of this kind in general and with regard to contacts between Russians and British in particular?
        I, as I do not try, I cannot discern any innate hatred, any rejection between the Russians and the British, who would exist outside the specific material interests of the parties at the time of contact. Both sides tried to always and in all benefit. This is normal. Periodically, interests come into conflict - this is also normal. And only once did this conflict escalate into a real war, which, by the way, could well not be, show Russia a little more than political art and foresight.
        But if you remember how many times the Russians and the British fought on the same side - each for their own interests, of course, but against a common enemy, the Crimean War will seem to be an insignificant episode, just a round of the "Great Game", which grew into a "hot" stage due to a series of a government that “set itself up” and allowed itself to be “spanked” like a baby, without much risk of hitting back on the part of the coalition.
        Why such a conviction in the eternal hostility of the British to the Russians?
        1. +1
          2 July 2019 17: 15
          According to Gumilyov, Russians and Protestants have just positive complementarity
          1. VLR
            0
            2 July 2019 17: 53
            The British are an exception, and their Protestantism is strange - "state", subordinate to the secular authorities (practically, like Orthodoxy in Tsarist Russia). The Russians have a positive complementarity with the Germans. Even now, after two world wars, the Germans are the best in Europe for Russia and the Russians (both at the state and at the personal level). But the "allies" -
            the British, who managed the Russians with the Germans, initially quarreled, and then brought Hitler to power - especially for the war with Russia (but the beast broke the chain) Russians almost openly hate the Russians. Yes, and the French do not complain too much.
            1. +1
              2 July 2019 20: 25
              Are you examples of centuries-old hostility of the British come, or what?
              1. VLR
                0
                2 July 2019 21: 18
                From the moment of the establishment of diplomatic relations by the Chensler expedition, Britain used Russia either as an unequal and inadequate partner both in trade and in the military: the 7-summer war, in which Elizabeth climbed for some reason and for what purpose, the Napoleonic wars. Either she often fought with her with other people's hands (the same Highlanders of the Caucasus, or the Central Asian khans and Beks), always and everywhere supported the opponents of Russia.
                Or it was playing that very notorious "Great Game". London has always been, and is still today, a favorite place for all sorts of "regime fighters", subversive elements, the Fifth Column. The assassination of the sovereign Emperor Paul I, organized by the British ambassador. The February Revolution, which began the fall of the Russian Empire, was also organized by the British - this is a proven fact. The only exception was several years of forced alliance with the USSR during World War II. But then our country was led by Stalin, in whose presence Churchill, by his own admission, wanted to stand up, holding his hands at his sides.
                1. +1
                  2 July 2019 21: 36
                  What does it mean not an equal partner, what exactly was not an equal partner? Is the British to blame for the fact that Russia exported raw materials and only Britain was able to buy it, why did not anyone in Russia suspect this was not equal?
                  If some agreements concluded with Britain were not beneficial for Russia, why are you not outraged by the unfavorable agreements between Germany or Napoleon? The British merely defended their interests and did not bring any particular suffering to the Russian state.
                  The confrontation between Britain and Russia took place and the transition from 1815 to 1907 was intermittent and in Russia they did not immediately notice it because they simply did not consider it significant, since Britain did not particularly climb the Polish question, and the problems of the Eastern question were secondary since no one in Russia was not seriously going to erect a cross on Hagia Sophia.
                  And the whole game in the eastern question was just a game on trade - financial relations didn’t influence the game, Britain was the main trading partner, and they didn’t refuse loans to technology from Russia.
                  If Britain pursued a truly hostile policy, it could simply strangle Russian trade and finance.
  15. +3
    1 July 2019 15: 38
    “Heroes who shed their blood and fell here! Now you are lying in the earth that takes you in peace. Rest in peace. You rest with our Mehmed - side by side, in each other's arms. You mothers in faraway lands that spent their sons - wipe away the tears. They now rest in peace in the bosom of our homeland. They have lost their lives on this earth - now they are our sons. " Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, 1934.
    1. +3
      2 July 2019 00: 51
      "You, mothers, in distant lands, who saw off your sons - wipe away your tears. They now rest in peace in the bosom of our Motherland. They lost their lives on this earth - now they are our sons" Only great people can say this. War is the most vile thing on earth, and you can't be at odds forever, people need peace and quiet. Peace is needed, PEACE. People are tired of negativity.
  16. +2
    1 July 2019 15: 45
    Do not like it - do not listen, but lie - do not bother wink
  17. +3
    1 July 2019 15: 45
    Thanks to the author. I would like to remind you that Mustafa Kemal was a lieutenant colonel during this battle, not a pasha.
  18. +5
    1 July 2019 19: 49
    I am writing for some nicknames, all the time maliciously saying that the Turks are not warriors. After reading this good article (a lot of things are not disclosed in connection with the limited volume, since this is not a book), can it come to mind that the Turks are not good warriors?
    1. 0
      1 July 2019 20: 38
      They were good warriors of the century until 19 and then began to lag behind in the art of war and technology.
    2. +5
      2 July 2019 08: 39
      If we approach the matter with an open mind and without "chants", then all the memories of our officers highly assess the Turkish soldier as a hardy, staunch and strong warrior. The weak point of the Turkish army was the officer corps and the strong backlog in weapons. With competent leadership and a good material base, we get such Dardanelles.
  19. +3
    2 July 2019 17: 13
    For history buffs who may not be aware of this page of history, I will put in an interesting fact.
    How the Ottoman sultan helped Ireland during the great famine.
    The great famine in Ireland in the mid-19th century was one of the most devastating events in the history of this country. In the period from 1845 to 1849 he became the cause of fatal epidemics and mass emigration. During this time, the population of Ireland decreased by a quarter. Starvation killed more than one million people and about the same number of Irish people were forced to emigrate from the island in search of a better life.

    At that time, no country extended a helping hand to the Irish except the 23-year-old Ottoman Sultan Abdul Majid, who did everything to ease the suffering of the people of Ireland.

    Abdul-Majid was famous for his generosity, but this time it had to be cut. When the Sultan offered to provide assistance in the amount of £ 10, British diplomats advised reducing this figure to ₤ 000 so as not to offend Queen Victoria, who donated only ₤ ​​1.

    Meanwhile, Sultan Abdul-Majid found another way to help starving people. Today, the port and coat of arms of the Irish city of Drogheda consists of a crescent and a star, which, as a rule, is associated with Muslim symbols in the world. The logo of the local Drogheda football club is exactly the same symbol.

    Residents of this small town say that these characters in a non-Muslim country were accepted as a sign of gratitude after the Ottoman Sultan secretly sent five ships loaded with food for the starving Irish in May 1847.

    The British did not like this gesture and they sent warships to prevent the entry of Turkish ships into the Irish ports - Cork and Belfast. Then the sultan gave the order to find another port in order to deliver food to local residents. Turkish ships headed to the small port of Drogheda, where they were able to unload humanitarian aid.

    The help of the Sultan was appreciated by the public in Great Britain and Ireland. And also one of the English religious magazines published an article entitled “The Good Sultan”, in which the author points out “For the first time, the Muslim ruler, representing a large Islamic population, showed a warm attitude towards the Christian people. Maybe such relationships will become a tradition in all areas of the followers of the crescent and the cross! ”

    Although, probably, Abdul-Majid did not expect any return from his noble deed. Some Irish took his side in 1854, just two years after the famine ended.

    In 1995, a memorial plaque was opened in the city of Drogheda, on which the following words were stamped: “Great famine in Ireland in 1847. In memory and recognition of the generosity shown by the people of Turkey in relation to the people of Ireland. "
  20. +1
    2 July 2019 17: 24
    Austria-Hungary, as we recall, in an alliance with Russia, fought against the Ottoman Empire many times, and remained neutral during the Crimean war, tragic for Russia.
    Three wars from 12 Russian-Turkish wars - is this many times?
    Neutrality was somehow wrong. Franz Joseph in the autumn of 1854 gave the French guarantees that he would not attack France, so Napoleon III safely removed all troops from the Franco-Austrian border and sent them to Crimea. That our intelligence completely missed.
    Throughout the Crimean War, Russia was forced to keep a strong army on the borders with Austria. And ultimately accept the conditions of the Austrian ultimatum in 1856, which nullified Russian influence in the Balkans and Romania, and also forbade Petersburg to have a fleet in the Black Sea. In principle, the same thing that England and France sought from Russia.
    However, a reason to take revenge on Petersburg was presented pretty soon. Two years after the end of the Crimean War, two former opponents of Russia - France and the Sardinian kingdom - entered into an alliance and attacked the Austrians. And ours stood on the borders of the Austrian empire. She has not been taken anywhere since the end of the Crimean War. But the hint for Vienna was understandable. Instead of participating in the war with the French and Sardinians, a significant part of the Austrian table army is near the Russian border. Austria lost that war.
    True, the Emperor of France Napoleon III deceived Russia as well, without hitting one finger in order to soften the conditions of the Paris Treaty, which was concluded after the Crimean War, and according to which Russia lost the right to have a fleet in the Black Sea.
    But this is not the end of the story. In 1860, the Austrian emperor Franz Joseph decided to take revenge from Sardinia. The Italians were saved by the Russian emperor Alexander II. Without much ceremony, he made it clear at a meeting with his Austrian colleague in Warsaw that he would not be able to recoup. The Prussian monarch was also present there, but Franz Joseph failed to secure his support. In such conditions, he did not dare to start a war against Sardinia.
  21. +1
    2 July 2019 17: 31
    Quote: Alexey RA
    For the base, ship repair and medical assistance at the transition provided Britain. Not out of kindness
    “It is most important that the Mediterranean Expedition does not feel a lack of money ...” - wrote Catherine.
    And with a prescript of April 2, 1769, Catherine informed that “the Amsterdam bankers de Smet sent a letter of readiness to give us a loan of several millions. Finding their proposal useful in the current circumstances and the conditions presented are similar, ”she instructs to negotiate with them seven and a half million Dutch guilders and,“ so as to quickly dispel capital, ”proceed to it immediately.
    Following the Amsterdam loan, the Genoese one followed, and then things went and external loans became a necessary component of the state financial policy. About 1770 rubles were allocated to Orlov from the Genoese loan in 200, and 000 rubles to Spiridov from the Dutch loan, and besides, bills of exchange for 278 rubles. In 753, Orlov received 201 rubles from the borrowed money for the fleet. In 246 - 1771 719 p. In 504 - 1772 p. In 985 - 019 p. And this is far from all expenses! For the supply of squadrons and landings, provisions and ammunition, weapons and ammunition were purchased, then dozens of transport vessels for transporting all this to a distant theater of operations - and so on for five years in a row.
    Five squadrons, equipped one after another with borrowed money and circling the whole of Europe, formed a fleet that destroyed the Turkish line forces near Chesmoy and interrupted the supply of food and reinforcements to Istanbul. And although it was not possible to raise a wide uprising in Greece, much larger landing parties were required for this, yet the Archipelago expedition is a great example of the influence of sea power on history!
    The victory over the Turks was marked by the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi peace treaty, one of the secret articles of which provided for the payment by Turkey of 4,5 million rubles in compensation for Russian military costs. To the Empress’s honor, it must be said that this money was used to repay the Genoese and part of the Dutch debt, and the remaining amount in 1779 (upon the expiration of the loan repayment term) was delayed for another 10 years - and with a conversion from a 4% loan to XNUMX% - th!
    As a result, by 1787 there were 6,9 million rubles worth of debts left, they were going to pay them back, but wars started again, and the fleet grew, and old age came and lovers became more and more expensive, so loans went one after another - in Prussia , Genoa, but mainly in Holland. As a result, by the end of Catherine’s reign, external debt reached 33 million rubles.
  22. 0
    2 July 2019 23: 55
    By the way, about the non-exit (non-return, appearance of bases) of the British in the event of the capture of the straits: - From 1918 to 1923 the straits were in the hands of the British and the French, and Constantinople was entirely in the hands of the British...
  23. 0
    3 July 2019 00: 06
    I also didn't mention the occupying forces of the Greeks and Italians in the West, the battles with Georgia and Armenia in the East, and the Kurds in the South...
  24. 0
    30 August 2019 03: 09
    Quote: Trilobite Master
    Having started reading, I did not recognize the author's style. I even went to the end of the article to see if I was reading Samsonov. Again, the Anglo-Saxon enemies, tormenting us for centuries. It seems to me that the author, like some commentators, is still in captivity of incomprehensible illusions, where both Russia and other states have some "friends", "enemies", "allies" when in reality there are only interests and nothing more.
    During the entire existence of our state, the "Englishwoman" has not drunk even a tenth of the blood that the Germans, Turks, Poles, Swedes drank from us, and, each individually, not to mention our eastern neighbors. If we look at the history of our relations with Britain, without ideology and bias, we will see that it is she who is our most consistent and loyal ally. With her, hand in hand, we went through all the major wars of the last three hundred years, and only in alliance with her did we win these wars.
    And why? Because we are at different ends of Europe, as a result of which our enemies are often the same.
    Now on the planet is a relative world and the Englishwoman (already in the form of the USA) is again crap. And it will take another twenty or thirty years, and we will again hand in hand with concentration and enthusiasm to hammer in China, for in the form in which it wants to see itself, we need it no more than Napoleonic France or Hitlerite Germany. As well as the British (USA).

    This porridge is so porridge. Tin.

    1 - Everyone drank blood, the problem is that RI was not white and fluffy, 1/6 of the land was not taken from the air, but during constant expansion both in imperial times and during the time of the Moscow principality / kingdom. Including without declaring war and suddenly, like diarrhea. Surprise.

    2 - more often they simply agreed with British, although, as soon as the Republic of Ingushetia was dug in Central Asia, the contradictions immediately climbed up, because India is nearby and in general. Not so simple.

    3 - there will be no hand with an Englishwoman, an ordinary Englishwoman - a smelly island on the edge of the world, a shadow of former greatness and a vassal of an Englishwoman 2.0, who in the current form will never go to alliances with other strong players, they will not recognize others but themselves. You can be their vassal, but not a partner.
  25. 0
    30 August 2019 03: 16
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    By the way - why in the annotation it is written that thanks to the brave Turkish soldiers who repelled the attack in the straits, there is no British naval base in the straits? - It's just funny!
    Given the fact that Turkey lost the war and was occupied (well, separate ports). Great Britain and France, as they wanted, cut the occupied territory of the Ottoman Empire, cutting off Messopotamia from it, thoughtlessly creating the future Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan - which still hangs in the Middle East!
    Rather, the merit of Kemal Ataturk and the Turkish Revolution, which restored the sovereignty of Turkey - no matter how things turn out in Gallipolia, were not decisive here;)

    maybe thoughtlessly, or maybe "dumno" - it is still festering, for I am sure they cut it like that with a specialist for future conflicts. It turned out the same.

    and Gallipoli, of course, did not influence the war, but there is something to be proud of for the Ottomans.
  26. 0
    30 August 2019 03: 17
    Quote: VlR
    Britain has always been hostile to Russia. This is negative complementarity, to use L. Gumilev's terms. But at the same time, it often used Russia as an unequal and inferior partner. And this has always been worse than open hostility.

    Gumilyov is an ignoramus and never a historian; you cannot use his terms.