Military Review

The real national treachery is the Belovezhsky conspiracy, not the Brest peace.

119
The real national treachery is the Belovezhsky conspiracy, not the Brest peace.Vladimir Putin, speaking last week in the Federation Council and answering questions, said that the cause of Russia's defeat in the First World War was “national betrayal” and imputed him to the “then leadership of the country”, i.e. the Bolsheviks who went to the conclusion Brest Peace. True, he immediately clarified to balance: “They carried this cross upon themselves. They have redeemed their guilt before the country during the Second World War, the Great Patriotic War - this is true. ”

At the same time, he expressed the thesis that as a result Russia lost the war to the already losing side, as a result of which “huge territories, huge interests of the country were given, put incomprehensibly for what interests, for the sake of party interests of only one group that wanted to stabilize its position in power” . “How the Second World War differs from the First, in fact, is not clear. There is really no difference, ”“ it was primarily about the geopolitical interests of the countries involved in the conflict ”- here are a few quotes from his speech in the Federation Council.

Putin vain said all this. In vain he accused the then leadership of betrayal. If only because the territorial losses of Russia as a result of the Brest peace were much less than its territorial losses as a result of Belovezhya. And the government accused of national betrayal returned most of its losses within 9 months after the conclusion of peace, which itself honestly described as “bawdy”, and this world denounced. And the governments of Russia that destroyed the union state to usurp power in their republics, and after two decades have returned almost nothing, even while Putin himself was in power.

In vain, he declared that there was no difference between the First and Second World Wars, if only because during the first one, no one ever talked about the enslavement of the peoples of Russia and the destruction of its statehood. And in the course of the second, it was about this, and also about the physical destruction of its population.

And in vain he reduced the essence of the war in the justifying intonation to the geopolitical interests of the warring powers. If only because the mere existence of geopolitical interests, which are always there, does not justify war. The United States in Vietnam also fought for their "geopolitical interests." And Iraq has been invaded in the name of its "geopolitical interests." And Yugoslavia was bombed in the name of their own. And Libya. And they killed Hussein, Milosevic and Gaddafi just for the sake of their "geopolitical interests." But it seems that neither Putin nor any other sane person on this basis justifies them. And the United States is creating its missile defense system against Russia in order to protect its “geopolitical interests” ...

Geopolitical interests can be very different. And, for that matter, some of them turn out to be the geopolitical interests of some classes and other classes of the same country.

The interests in the name of which Russia fought in World War I were different and very controversial, and most of the country was not inspired. And even the most attractive of them — the establishment of control over the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles — was by no means worth the losses incurred by Russia during the war itself. There is still a dispute over the loss figures, but the minimum known estimate (General Directorate General Staff of the Russian Army from October 3 1917) is 750 000 killed and missing, 3,2 million wounded, 2 million prisoners. According to modern data, the demographic losses of Russia are 2,2544 million, the sanitary losses are 3,749 million and the losses of prisoners are 3,3439 million people.

The Serbian question, which has become a formal pretext for war, is also rather ambiguous, both with respect to stories and the objectives of the Sarajevo assassination (the murdered Ferdinand was considered one of the most illustrious political leaders of Austria-Hungary), and on the main point of discrepancy: Austria demanded from Serbia a controversial thing - to participate in the investigation of the murder on the territory of Serbia itself (which, by the way, today's Russia regarding the participation of Polish investigators in the investigation after the death of Kaczynski near Smolensk). Moreover, in response to Russia's demand, Austria agreed to give it guarantees of respect for Serbian sovereignty.

If we talk about national treachery, then under it you should rather understand how the Russian government then embroiled in a world war (all more or less responsible leaders of the empire, beginning with Stolypin, were categorically against it) and the way it was conducted. The Russian army in combat training was at that time the best army in the world, but it was absolutely adventuristly sent into battle and condemned to defeat either by thoughtless and mostly illiterate decisions of the high command, or by constant undersupply. The army sometimes fought heroically, but it was constantly betrayed by the then royal power. As a result, by the winter of 1916-17. in the army there were one and a half million deserters, the officers were unsafe to appear in the trenches, and the troops did not rise to the attack on any orders. It would be possible to talk about many things here, but in 1917, the Bolsheviks only expressed the general desire of the people to get out of the war, and national betrayal was to keep Russia in the war, not out of it. The army did not want to fight and, most likely, would not have sold out in February 1918, but by the fall of 1917, if the same Bolsheviks did not hold it in positions with the promise of an early peace and thesis “Fight for peace, keep the front!” .

By February, the choice was simple: either withdraw from the war at any cost, or remain in the war, but with a spontaneously diverging army. By the way, calling for the defeat of their own government during the war, the Bolsheviks never called for the victory of Germany and the defeat of Russia. Their call suggested that armies should turn weapon both against the Russian government and against the governments of Germany and other countries. And having gone to the Treaty of Brest, it was they who, in fact, predicted the defeat of Germany. On the one hand, they refused to fight for the interests of France and England, who many times had previously exploited the military prowess of Russia, but always tried to steal the victory from her. On the other hand, they forced the warring parties to fight among themselves, providing Russia with a respite. On the third, they showed Germany and her army that the war could be ended, they let in the "smell of peace", after which she could not fight.

The Brest Peace was in fact a national salvation.

Peace conditions could be less severe. And the main thing that was lost on them is Ukraine. But if Putin’s advisors were more erudite, they would know that the nationalist Central Rada seized power, declaring independence in the summer of 1917, made peace with Germany before Russia concluded it, which at the time caused Ukraine’s loss. The Bolsheviks tried to overthrow her in January 1918, but then they did not have the strength. And on January 27 (February 9) 1918, a separate agreement was signed with Germany and Austria-Hungary, which assumed the occupation of Ukraine. Soviet Russia signed the Brest World only 3 March 1918 of the year, being largely in a stalemate. The Brest negotiations themselves are a separate and more than dramatic story. But the agreement to the demands of Germany was a brilliant political gambit: the Bolsheviks clearly understood that this world would be short-lived, that by giving Germany peace in the East, they actually deprive her army of the will to fight in the West.

It is not true that by the beginning of 1918, Germany was already the losing party. Her troops were on the territory of the countries that fought with her, and they were unable to force them to retreat. The German army was much closer to Petrograd, Paris and London than the Russian army (as well as the French and English) to Berlin.

Germany began to turn into a losing side, precisely being in a situation of half-world-half-war after Brest. And having placed the army in Ukraine and other occupied territories, it condemned itself to the torment and burden of supporting unpopular and incapable regimes.

The unwillingness of the German soldiers to fight led to the success of the last offensive of the Entente, the uprising did not want to fight fleet in Kiel, to the fall of the monarchy, the fall of the monarchy to the end of the war.

Having concluded the Brest Peace gambit with Germany, Soviet Russia deprived Germany of its army.

Here is the assessment of Richard Pipes, hardly attributable to anyone among the followers of the Bolsheviks: “Having shrewdly went to the humiliating world that gave him time to win, and then collapsed under the weight of his own weight, Lenin deserved wide confidence of the Bolsheviks. When 13 November 1918, they broke the Brest Peace, after which Germany capitulated to the Western allies, Lenin's authority was lifted up in the Bolshevik movement to an unprecedented height. Nothing better served his reputation as a person who did not make political mistakes; never again did he have to threaten to resign in order to insist on his own. "

Virtually everything that Russia lost in the Brest Peace, she returned six months later and by the end of the civil war. Yes, she did not return Poland, but she would have returned her in 1920 if all her former allies had not opposed her, preventing her from doing so.

Yes, national betrayal was. They were drawing Russia into the war. They were her incompetent knowledge. They were the recent destruction of the USSR. They were President Medvedev’s refusal from the results of the victory of the Russian army over Saakashvili’s militants in 2008. This should be called a national betrayal.

Indeed, Russia was not at Versailles among the winning countries. Only it is hardly worth upsetting that she did not become an accomplice of the robbery and a robber country.

And before making such categorical assessments to the government, which signed the Brest peace, but immediately eliminated the losses caused by it, it is necessary to begin with to at least eliminate the consequences of the Belovezhsky treachery and restore the territorial integrity of Russia.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru
119 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. volcano
    volcano 10 July 2012 07: 24
    +30
    Well, I do not know.
    The author in my opinion is distorting something. I can’t say that Putin is really a fan, but he was the one who spoke about the collapse of the USSR as a catastrophic mistake. Therefore, he doesn’t need to blame Belovezhye.
    As for the First World War, of course it was different from the Second World War, but still it was our war, in which our soldiers died.
    And to be honest, I personally still respect the fallen soldiers and officers of the Russian army.
    WWII and WWII do not need to be opposed, they must be accepted and the heroes remembered.
    During the Soviet era, WWI (and its heroes) were forgotten.
    I think this is wrong.
    We remember the grandfathers who fought in WWII and absolutely do not want to remember the great-grandfathers who went on the attack in WWII.
    It’s as if we broke the connection between generations of Russian soldiers. In vain.
    Well, the author’s indignation is somehow not very clear to me. How did he get indignant?
    Apparently a collision with the Bolshevik government.
    Well, he does not like the GDP of the Bolsheviks (maybe). That is his right. So what

    PS By the way, the collapse of the USSR can be attributed precisely to the Bolsheviks (EBN and comrades are not from their ranks, and didn’t they come to power under the Bolsheviks?)
    1. valokordin
      valokordin 10 July 2012 08: 00
      +5
      who understands how, if a causal relationship is made between the vulgar and the present, then one should not evaluate and conceive whoever he thinks, as they say in united Russia. Yes, they forgot their defenders in the political surroundings of 1914-1918, but the people did not forget. But to the sounds of promises by all the participants in the Second World War by 10 years for housing, again the misfire is just noise. Well, if the GDP does not like the Bolsheviks, why does he recall the participants in the war who fought under the leadership of the Bolsheviks. And his military oath of the USSR.
      1. volcano
        volcano 10 July 2012 08: 09
        +11
        valokordin
        So maybe it’s right. I always said that it is not necessary to say that the Bolsheviks won the war. The war was won by the people. But a veteran, he is a veteran, and what difference does it make, he was a Bolshevik or, so to speak, non-partisan
        1. Facturin
          Facturin 10 July 2012 12: 05
          +7
          The First World War and the Second World War are one and the same war with a break for redeployment and rearmament! Only here, due to revolutionary events, an ideological partition was formed between them, and throughout the Soviet era this partition was only carefully studded.
          1. vadimN
            vadimN 10 July 2012 12: 38
            +3
            Absolutely fair thought! The history of World War I is skewed purely for ideological reasons by the Bolsheviks. In fact, this is far from an open layer of the heroic history of the Russian army. To speak of the defeat of Russia in World War I is absurd. The Bolsheviks removed Russia from the war in order to preserve their still weak power. And the Russian army, until it was decomposed by the same Bolsheviks, showed vivid examples of courage and military professionalism. By the way, a small fact: the Germans did not reach the Volga World War I, but stamped around the border zone. So what kind of defeat can we talk about ??
            1. Facturin
              Facturin 10 July 2012 12: 52
              +6
              vadimN,
              So I say, you must first restore the whole picture of history, and then look for parallels. But no, pull the facts for yourself, and let's preach! Or simply to slander.
            2. Brother Sarych
              Brother Sarych 10 July 2012 13: 22
              +6
              How much can one prove to the "talents" that the Bolsheviks have nothing to do with it! Everything fell down much earlier, when no one perceived the Bolsheviks as how little force!
              They didn’t get to the Volga just because they started a lot to the west, and they didn’t take the Eastern Front seriously - for the Germans, the main struggle was in the West!
              1. recitatorus
                recitatorus 10 July 2012 13: 56
                +10
                The Bolsheviks, if they are guilty in the Brest Peace, are only in the third place! Somehow the tsar, with his impotent politics, and the Provisional Government, which started the country peddling, are forgotten!
            3. aleks
              aleks 10 July 2012 14: 35
              +5
              Look at the history textbooks in the USSR — they contain about 1 times more about World War I than in modern ones about the Second World War.
          2. Gur
            Gur 10 July 2012 12: 38
            +8
            But now you don’t have any partitions, but what’s there, then there’s no conscience left. Not only were they turned upside down, quickly changed their shoes from red to white, and who didn’t ask all the pedigrees, where could I understand the rednecks of the peasant? About the war and the same veterans can now be removed to the elbows in the blood, raping German children, and what kind of veterans, prisoners are our saviors !! Ugh three times on such a story.
            1. Brother Sarych
              Brother Sarych 10 July 2012 13: 23
              +2
              I fully agree with you!
            2. recitatorus
              recitatorus 10 July 2012 14: 01
              +7
              Quote: GUR
              But now you don’t have any partitions,

              Now much worse! I always want to look behind the partition, and when the field is endless, plowed or, on the contrary, plowed before my eyes, my eyes look anywhere! Hence the confusion and ugliness!
              But the cattle’s populace - it hasn’t gone anywhere, on the contrary, it has become more noticeable, because only pedigrees need pedigrees!
              1. Gur
                Gur 10 July 2012 15: 44
                +3
                In, in, such as the forbidden fruit, it is tempting, and moves to read and study, and then to analysis and comparison. You are beautiful about the field, only our field is not plowed and not plowed, it is occupied, and everyone is shitting on this field, and it’s okay if it’s a warrior from behind a hill, there aren’t truth bearers of their homegrown historians. I have one friend. So, until recently, the Soviet regime abused it, with its censorship, and with a lack of publicity, that its ears were sluggish. Now the poor fellow swears in the opposite direction. Now he has nowhere to put this freedom of speech and publicity. There are so many lies, permissiveness, vulgarity and all kinds of muck that it is simply not possible to separate the grains from the chaff. Not for the older generation, who have still received Soviet education, but for children who sometimes scratch such nonsense, moreover, the nonsense brought out of school and on television, which sometimes breaks down.
        2. Gur
          Gur 10 July 2012 12: 33
          +10
          The Bolsheviks won the civil, in the Second World War the Soviet people defeated, under the leadership of the Communist Party, whether you want it or not.
        3. Insurgent
          Insurgent 10 July 2012 19: 13
          +2
          The people themselves won the saiba, but who led this people, inspirer, Zhukov, Stalin
      2. military
        military 10 July 2012 11: 26
        +1
        Quote: valokordin
        And his military oath of the USSR

        and he remembers about her ...? No.
        1. Gur
          Gur 10 July 2012 12: 40
          +1
          And how many people remember ??
    2. Goga
      Goga 10 July 2012 09: 42
      +6
      Volkan - Andrei, the author is just lying and distorting - quote - "the government has returned most of the losses after 9 months" - what have they returned? The whole Baltic states, Moldova, Western Belarus? All this was returned after the IS passed over all these Judeo-Bolsheviks, and the most dashing of them was "awarded" with an ice pick.
      The Bialowieza Agreement and the Brest "World" are phenomena of the same order and were executed at the direction of the same customers. And if anything, in this respect, can be blamed on the GDP, it is an obvious lack of ice axes in domestic politics. angry
      1. volcano
        volcano 10 July 2012 10: 34
        +7
        I agree with you Igor, that the Brest Peace and Belovezhskaya Pushcha are phenomena of the same order.
        I’ll add from myself that for Russia such errors were catastrophic.
        1. Facturin
          Facturin 10 July 2012 12: 14
          +8
          Quote: volkan
          The Brest Peace and Belovezhskaya Pushcha are phenomena of the same order.

          The Brest Peace is the result of a long exhausting war, Belovezhskaya Pushcha is the result of a long exhausting peace called "perestroika". It's like comparing the explosion of a front-line mine with an explosion of domestic gas, the result seems to be the same, but the reasons are different! And therefore you need to understand it personally, and not build opportunistic ideologemes!
          This is the same manipulation hook on which cunning guys catch simpletons. Vigilance and vigilance again !!!
        2. Gur
          Gur 10 July 2012 12: 41
          +1
          What is the catastrophe of the Brest Peace?
          1. Azzzwer
            Azzzwer 10 July 2012 14: 52
            +3
            Gur,
            The contract consisted of 14 articles and various applications. Article 1 established the cessation of the state of war between the Soviet Republic and the countries of the Fourth Union. Significant territories were torn away from Russia (Poland, Lithuania, part of Belarus and Latvia). At the same time, Soviet Russia was to withdraw troops from Latvia and Estonia, where German troops were introduced. Germany retained the Gulf of Riga, the Moonsund Islands. Soviet troops were to leave Ukraine, Finland, the Aland Islands, as well as the districts of Ardagan, Kars and Batum, which were transferred to Turkey. In total, Soviet Russia lost about 1 million km2 (including Ukraine). Under article 5, Russia pledged to fully demobilize the army and navy, including units of the Red Army; under article 6, it recognized the peace treaty of the Central Rada with Germany and its allies and, in turn, concluded a peace treaty with the Rada and determined the border between Russia and Ukraine. B. m. Restored 1904 customs tariffs extremely disadvantageous for Soviet Russia in favor of Germany. On 27 on August 1918 in Berlin, a Russian-German financial agreement was signed, under which Soviet Russia was obliged to pay Germany in various forms an indemnity in the amount of 6 billion marks. (based on BES materials) plus ships add export of strategic food supplies from the occupied territory this is not enough?
            1. Gur
              Gur 10 July 2012 15: 36
              +3
              I know this without yours, but let's face it. If this "peace treaty" had not been concluded, what would have happened next ?? Take a look at the situation in the country at that time, and at the time when the Bolsheviks were not yet in power. We would have pissed away this war outright, and even with great losses. Or do you think that in that situation, Russia will win this war.
              1. Sanches
                Sanches 10 July 2012 15: 54
                +1
                GUR June 10, 15:36 p.m.
                I know this without yours, but let's face it. If this "peace treaty" had not been concluded, what would have happened next ?? Take a look at the situation in the country at that time, and at the time when the Bolsheviks were not yet in power. We would have pissed away this war outright, and even with great losses. Or do you think that in that situation, Russia will win this war.

                October 1917 - the revolution that destroyed the Russian Empire, November 1918 - Novemberrevolution, which destroyed the German Empire. A year and 1 month after our Oktoberrevolution, Germany collapsed by itself, in the absence of any attacks on it, only due to the corruption of red propaganda, at the very moment when the happy German government was able to finally pull all forces from east to west and become the full owner of Western Europe !!! There were no promises for the German Revolution, and they were not necessary for the revolution purchased by the monopolists !! And now just imagine that the Brest peace has not been concluded and the Russian troops are advancing - yes, ours would have reached Berlin in a couple of months, crushing the army dispersed along endless fronts! The template of the revolution is painfully familiar, these revolutions are happening right before our eyes, and their only goal is to destroy the country from the inside, no matter how strong it is. Then the hidden or direct seizure of industry and resources by Western monopolists - and the thing is in the hat!
                1. Insurgent
                  Insurgent 10 July 2012 19: 16
                  +3
                  Well, what about the February Revolution that you thought it wasn’t. And the king of mediocrity, he destroyed everything, because of his miscalculations
                2. Ustas
                  Ustas 11 July 2012 08: 23
                  0
                  And now just imagine that the Brest peace has not been concluded and the Russian troops are advancing - yes, ours would have reached Berlin in a couple of months, crushing the army dispersed along endless fronts!

                  Do not forget that the Russian people were exhausted at that time by this war. Having come to power, the Provisional Government did nothing to rectify the situation, but, on the contrary, called for the continuation of the unnecessary war.
                  The Bolsheviks, however, called for an end to the war. The people once again believed the revolutionaries. And imagine, if the Bolsheviks, having taken power, began to call for war. Nooo. The Bolsheviks simply had no choice but to end the war at any cost. And, the Brest Peace, is also an advertising campaign that raised the authority of the Bolsheviks among the poorest people in Russia.
                  If the Russian army, by then demoralized, didn’t go to Berlin, do not be fooled.
                3. Gur
                  Gur 11 July 2012 14: 12
                  +1
                  Child, you need to read more, not fantasize. It's about the October revolution, of course, but you still need to read about the February one in order to get stronger in your head. What are "your" troops ?? Damn, I'm not a history teacher, take the trouble, dear man, to read history yourself, just not those authors who write science fiction. You will learn what "sitting in trenches", "fraternization", "mass desertion" and many other interesting things are. And then, with a strong head, conduct an analysis (you will find the word in the dictionary) And then everything will become clear to you that at that moment the other alternative was much more terrible.
            2. Insurgent
              Insurgent 10 July 2012 19: 14
              +3
              Well did Stalin return everything, but did the dermocrats return it?
            3. Brother Sarych
              Brother Sarych 10 July 2012 22: 55
              +1
              And there were a lot of Russian troops at that time in the Baltic states? The Germans were already under Peter! And who really controlled Ukraine and didn’t it already make peace with the Germans? Continue?
      2. The centurion
        The centurion 10 July 2012 11: 57
        +7
        Quote: Gogh
        The Bialowieza Agreement and the Brest "World" are phenomena of the same order and were executed at the direction of the same customers.

        I want to draw the attention of the patriotic assembly to some surprising coincidences in these events. When Prince Svyatoslav and his allies defeated Khazaria, he gathered in a Khazar fortress Sarkel on the Don (in Russian, White Vezha) a peace conference where, together with the allied khans, he determined the fate of Khazaria and its people. Subsequently, the Jewish hierarchs gathered the Sanhedrin in Constantinople and cursed all the peoples participating in the defeat of Khazaria. There are protocols of the Zionian wise men (it’s not for me to judge their authenticity) that lists all the cursed peoples who were sentenced to destruction by the Sanhedrin and ordered each Jew to work to bring these sentences to life. And this should happen in the place where Khazaria was sentenced. Sarkel has long been at the bottom of the Tsimlyansk Sea, but an amazing thing. Twice in the 20 century, Russia is on the brink of an abyss, and each time the Sanhedrin signs a protocol on its death in a surprisingly similar place by name, Bialowieza. Mystery and only.
        1. Goga
          Goga 12 July 2012 08: 25
          0
          Sotnik - Sergei, - quote - "some amazing coincidences in these events" - absolutely true "+", only there is nothing surprising in these coincidences - in both cases, the "customers" were the same banking houses (from the same "Khazar" kind) - so the results are similar - for the first time at the beginning of the 20th century, not everything went according to plan, so they repeated the same number to us at the end of the 20th century, and again apparently not everything is "smooth" for them - hence all sorts of anal-bulk and oral-daring - trying to arrange the collapse of the country for the third time. angry
      3. Facturin
        Facturin 10 July 2012 12: 00
        +8
        Quote: Gogh
        Andrey, the author is just lying and distorting -

        I agree, Goga! And distorted arrogantly, considering all soft-headed ignoramuses! Having twisted all the intricacies of that period to the size of a joke!
        1. Machaon
          Machaon 10 July 2012 17: 44
          +5
          Demagogy is now the best seller! The level of education under the baseboard, the ground, your week!
      4. Kite
        Kite 10 July 2012 13: 12
        +2
        The same impression from what you read, the facts are true, but not all! First of all, the vile slogan of the leaders who tried to turn the imperialist war into a civil war is silent. There were mistakes, betrayal and venality, rottenness of the intellectual elites, and all these "useful idiots" were used by "internationalists" with a cannibalistic ideology specially bred as a sworn ally. As then, now there is enough crap to build the fifth column. The strength of the patriots is still not sustainable.
        And I already wrote on this site: "They betrayed the country and ancestors, and washed themselves with their blood, atoning for this sin."
      5. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 10 July 2012 13: 24
        +1
        The author is not lying, but almost completely and completely right!
        Not Putin, the betrayed oath, to talk about the Brest Peace ...
      6. Azzzwer
        Azzzwer 10 July 2012 14: 40
        +3
        Goga,
        about ice axes - this is at the very point
      7. Ilyich
        Ilyich 10 July 2012 14: 45
        +8
        Definitely: lying and distorting. Take at least a paragraph on the Slavic issue
        The Serbian issue, which became a formal reason for the war, is also rather ambiguous, both with regard to the history and objectives of the Sarajevo murder (the murdered Ferdinand was considered one of the most Slavic political leaders of Austria-Hungary) and the main point of discrepancy: Austria demanded a controversial thing from Serbia - participation in the investigation of the murder on the territory of Serbia itself (which, incidentally, today's Russia went to regarding the participation of Polish investigators in the investigation after the death of Kaczynski near Smolensk). Moreover, in response to Russia's demand, Austria agreed to give her guarantees of observance of Serbian sovereignty.


        Lies from beginning to end
        1.
        (killed Ferdinand was considered one of the most Slavic political leaders of Austria-Hungary)

        This is a lie and distortion. Archduke Ferdinand was a strong Russophobe. Perhaps, in comparison with the rest of the representatives of the top of Austria-Hungary, it could be called "Slavic", but in fact - no.

        2.
        on the main point of discrepancy: Austria demanded from Serbia a controversial thing - to participate in the investigation of the murder on the territory of Serbia

        Again a lie by allegory. Austria, spurred by Kaiser Wilhelm, demanded from Serbia as much as the entry of troops into its territory. An ultimatum was issued for a period of one day. Serbia accepted all (!) Points of the ultimatum, except for the introduction of troops.

        3.
        (which, incidentally, today's Russia went to regarding the participation of Polish investigators in the investigation after the death of Kachinsky near Smolensk)

        Poland did not require the introduction of troops to "restore order." And between Russia and Poland and Austria and Serbia the difference is huge. What Russia could afford without any problems would have been a doom for the then Serbia. Those. jerking again.

        4.
        Moreover, in response to Russia's demand, Austria agreed to give her guarantees of observance of Serbian sovereignty.

        It's a lie. Austria-Hungary brewed this mess precisely for the sake of the annexation of Serbia. Serbia accepted all (!) Points of the ultimatum, except for the introduction of troops. (for the sake of which everything was actually started). Seeing one single unaccepted point, Austria immediately declared war and began shelling Belgrade.
        Nobody guaranteed anything to Russia. Foreign Minister Sazonov, in response to a note from the Austrian ambassador, then said something like the following: "Look, then! The first blood is ours, Slavic."

        This is a custom article.
        1. Machaon
          Machaon 10 July 2012 16: 53
          +5
          Quote: Ilyich
          This is a custom article.

          Most likely - this is the brain! Custom !!! yes
    3. FREGATENKAPITAN
      FREGATENKAPITAN 10 July 2012 11: 05
      0
      ...... EBN was expelled from the party when he posted a membership card to the Congress of People's Deputies ..........
      1. Facturin
        Facturin 10 July 2012 12: 17
        +7
        Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
        EBN was expelled from the party when a party card was posted on the Congress of People's Deputies

        Borya was from the peasants, but why did the peasant need a half-dead horse!
        The party died back in 1989, when the hunchbacked decided to change the sign of the secretary general to the sign of the president!
        1. Machaon
          Machaon 10 July 2012 16: 58
          +7
          Quote: Facturin
          The party died back in 1989

          The party did not die, it went into business and it was no longer a class struggle! bully
          Mercedes, yachts, casinos did not leave time already for the painstaking study of Marxism-Leninism. No.
    4. Gur
      Gur 10 July 2012 12: 31
      +6
      What only the Bolsheviks are not accused of, it remains only the death of seven kids on them still to hang. If you’re so interested, read Gorbi’s statement to the students of the American University in Istanbul, how and why he was eager for power, taught in bed by his clear-sighted wife, and also about EBNya, where you find out that wearing a party card he turns out to hate the Communists, and as soon as the opportunity presented itself (weakening the top leadership of the CPSU), he handed over a party membership card and refused everything, including the oath of this party.
      1. recitatorus
        recitatorus 10 July 2012 13: 50
        +11
        Gur,
        The late-spill communists were basically opportunists. From here, and speeches in the post-communist era. But I can not believe that Gorbachev and Yeltsin are capable of such a long feeling! And they always lived one day. They didn’t think about the future. And everything happened as they happened, because of their stupidity, unexpected for them like the arrival of winter in Russia, and not according to strategic calculations. And this idiot talks about his original hatred of totalitarianism only because that there is a demand, they pay well ...
        It's like a boob, he crashed a car while drunk, and then started a song about hatred of motorization, gasoline fumes, and love of undeservedly forgotten cabmen!
        1. Machaon
          Machaon 10 July 2012 17: 09
          +4
          recitatorus,
          Who wants to go down in history as a booby! .. But a reformer, an ideological fighter, from the young nails hatched plans to overthrow the evil empire, is another matter! And then there was a giant of thought with a sweetheart! On gray totalitarian nights, after scanty socialist sex, she inspired him to fight uncompromisingly with the regime. And only the faded moon witnessed their feelings! Well this is a completely different style. Brothers Dumas and Daria Akunin !!!
    5. Azzzwer
      Azzzwer 10 July 2012 14: 26
      -1
      volcano,
      "I think this is wrong.
      We remember the grandfathers who fought in WWII and absolutely do not want to remember the great-grandfathers who went on the attack in WWII.
      We kind of broke the bond between generations of Russian soldiers. "That's right! And who broke this bond between generations? Bolsheviks who renounced the old world!
      "PS By the way, the collapse of the USSR can be attributed precisely to the Bolsheviks (EBN and comrades are not among their ranks, and did they not come to power under the Bolsheviks?)" - And those communists who were in power at that moment? About ... whether your country in three days. And the so-called "whites" fought for five years for their principles
    6. aleks
      aleks 10 July 2012 14: 30
      +2
      EBN and comrades threw their party tickets, i.e. betrayed everyone.
    7. Vlaleks48
      Vlaleks48 10 July 2012 15: 07
      0
      How is the question unclearly worth it !?
      If there were no Bolsheviks, then there would be neither a shameful Brest, nor a drunk Bialowieza!
      And history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood!
    8. an-sar
      an-sar 10 July 2012 17: 57
      0
      Treason was committed in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, In the Second World War we put 27 million lives on the altar of victory, managed to restore it all, from the time of the collapse of the USSR from Afghan drugs we lost 1 mile 354 thousand young people aged 15 to 30 - this is a betrayal to the MOTHERLAND! !!
    9. Insurgent
      Insurgent 10 July 2012 19: 11
      +2
      You are not right, the real ideological Bolsheviks had already died out by this time, And on the account of the First World War, why did Russia get into it, if we couldn’t participate in it, then Germany might not have fought, let’s fight with the Entente before
    10. starshina78
      starshina78 10 July 2012 21: 30
      +4
      Firstly: the heroes of WWI were honored in the Kremlin along with the heroes of Port Arthur at a reception at Stalin (I don’t remember exactly what year it was, I think in 1935). Many participants of the WWII served in the Red Army and rose to the rank of marshals, for example: Zhukov, Budyonny, Vasilevsky, Egorov, Eremenko, and many others. If you studied in a Soviet school, then studied WWII and quite meticulously: reasons, waging war (for example : Brusilovsky breakthrough), and of course the Brest Peace. As for the agreement in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, here none of our rulers has yet given an assessment, some streamlined phrases. And how can they say something bad. it means bad to say about Yeltsin, but he fed them with his hands and gave them power. The Communists could not participate in the collapse of the USSR. You do not know the story well. Before the signing of the Bialowieza Treaty, a referendum was held and the majority of the population of the USSR was in favor of preserving the USSR. Yeltsin, even before the well-known events, was almost on the verge of exclusion from the party, but at the 19th party conference from the rostrum he swore allegiance to communist ideals, apologized for his statements, and asked the conference to leave him in the ranks of the CPSU. Chameleon - quickly repainted, then against the Communist Party, then immediately back. The signing of the agreement was supposed to happen in Moscow, but Yeltsin and his accomplices went against the wishes of the people, if the USSR was preserved, he could lose power and therefore this trio signed an agreement on the creation of the CIS and withdrawal from the USSR. One word - traitors! Our government, instead of condemning the actions of Yeltsin and accomplices, glorifies Yeltsin, calls him after the streets, libraries, etc. .They, GDP and DAM, if you paid attention, in your speeches in honor of the Victory, began to emphasize that the coalition won the war, saying that along with the armies of the USA, England and France, Soviet troops won the war. They began to belittle the participation of the USSR in the war. They are all sick of the Soviet, especially Medvedev. For them, the Soviet Union, the USSR is the worst. what was in the world. Although both and the rest of the USSR denigrants studied, received education, held relevant posts. Putin even served in the KGB, an organization that defended the interests of the USSR. And if a person who defended one state quickly spills over to the other side and starts to blame this state, then I think it does not add honor to him.
    11. Yura
      Yura 11 July 2012 01: 20
      0
      Quote: volkan
      The author in my opinion is distorting something. I can’t say that Putin is really a fan, but he was the one who spoke about the collapse of the USSR as a catastrophic mistake. Therefore, he doesn’t need to blame Belovezhye.

      Good, fair comment.
    12. MDesant
      MDesant 11 July 2012 04: 46
      0
      I totally agree with you. Honor and praise to our grandfathers and great-grandfathers!
  2. Enjoy
    Enjoy 10 July 2012 07: 54
    0
    Minus from me. I do not agree with the author, he is clearly barring the Communists. Despite the fact that I’m never a fan of Putin.

    And the last paragraphs ... It sounds beautiful, but how does the author imagine this in today's realities? Because of the keyboard it's easy to rally for anything
    1. Gur
      Gur 10 July 2012 12: 52
      +6
      You know, I'm not a fan either, but I think that people of this rank should weigh their bazaar, and not carry what the secretary wrote, he doesn’t poison tales, but he voices and evaluates the history of the state that he rules. And then the previous one, without asking the people, without asking the specialists, and other "respected people", took and repented for the whole country, for what this people did not do, the people are in shit, the story is in shit, he stands in all white so beautiful. And what about the communists, and the hell to shield them, there were communists and there were homosexuals under the communists, some vie ... b .. whether others went to power over the corpses, some died "in the struggle for this", others decided to come to power that it should be passed on to children by inheritance, which means that it should not be popular, and at the same time there should not be public education, medicine, production, etc. Well, yes, just like that, because of the keyboard, we screw up the state. Only here dumb..who have not received their jackpot, or who have received only from the State Department go out to publicly fight now on the Bolotnaya, then on some other thread area.
  3. pribolt
    pribolt 10 July 2012 08: 26
    +2
    I read the article and did not give ratings. I think everyone has the right to their opinion.
  4. patriot2
    patriot2 10 July 2012 08: 31
    +8
    It just so happened that the most terrible betrayal is committed at the top, when the fate and life of entire nations are decided by one squiggle of the ruler. Remember the famous phrase of the false tsar: "Kemsky volost - take away." The collapse of the USSR plunged the peoples of all republics into a swamp of independence, independence from life and work in the Great country, but made it possible to snatch (as far as possible) a part of that total wealth created in the USSR. For this, it (the USSR) was destroyed by the tops in order to grab more and are still grabbing - the Soviet legacy is great. But any "freebie" comes to an end, for some countries of the former Union it has already come.
    Well, "glueing broken dishes" is a disastrous business, as well as to argue on this topic.
  5. Igarr
    Igarr 10 July 2012 08: 32
    +6
    An ambiguous article.
    A lot of distortion.
    And Putin's theses are taken out of context, it is not entirely clear where and how to "sew" them.
    Or to quote his speech completely.
    Nobody forgot the heroes of the First World War. But no one ever entered the pedestal.
    Zhukov, Malinovsky, Karbyshev, Tukhachevsky, Apanasenko - all of them come from the First World War. And - there are St. George gentlemen, there are simply awarded.
    Bialowieza agreement .... there is such a question. Well, bone breaker.
    Can a man seriously and responsibly say - the traitor gave me power! And I’ll try to make a thread.
    So who and how ... will try on such a ... opportunity for himself?
    Then and .... you can talk. Subject.
    ...
    An article ... written with youthful maximalism.
    But useful.
    1. military
      military 10 July 2012 11: 45
      +4
      Quote: Igarr
      Bialowieza agreement .... there is such a question. Well, bone breaker.

      Yeah, well, straight "bone breaker" ... No.
      Three freaks sat down, looked at each other with oily piggy eyes and divided the country into personal estates ... and they * were deeply into the union Constitution ...
      Trivial state CHANGE am and all "excuses" are from the evil one ...
      Quote: Igarr
      Can a man seriously and responsibly say - the traitor gave me power!

      someone is a traitor, and the "heir" is a benefactor ... how can he open his mouth ...? laughing
    2. Facturin
      Facturin 10 July 2012 12: 21
      +7
      Igarr,
      Remember when, at the end of Yeltsin’s life, they asked if he would be on Gorbachev’s place, would he let the Soviet Union fall apart? - Never! - answered Yeltsin.
      1. Gur
        Gur 10 July 2012 13: 15
        +4
        Well, epa mother, and the words of Gorby EBNyu at the congress: "Boris you are not right" why did you sound not in the know ?? When EBN condemned the leading role of the party, and the right to self-determination of the republics, in particular the Baltic states. Of course not when !! Yes you!! Take as much independence as you want, and in Belovezhskaya not he sat drunk.
        1. recitatorus
          recitatorus 10 July 2012 13: 38
          +10
          Gur,
          In the place of Gorbachev Yeltsin, the USSR might not have allowed to disintegrate, but in the place of Yeltsin Yeltsin the Union collapsed! Politics, her maman.
          1. Gur
            Gur 10 July 2012 15: 58
            +3
            recitatorus Something in such people is common, they will spoil, and then they look in this for a grain of rationality and justification for their work.
            1. Machaon
              Machaon 10 July 2012 17: 18
              +3
              Gur,
              Grains of rationality in feces - no! Well, if only seeds from tomatoes! good good good
  6. amateur.
    amateur. 10 July 2012 08: 38
    +2
    Yeah yeah .... Like it or not, I do not agree with the author by 90%. My point of view coincides completely with volkan.
  7. Yoshkin Kot
    Yoshkin Kot 10 July 2012 08: 39
    -4
    what is the difference between the Brest peace, which became the final chord of betrayal of the Judeo-Bolsheviks who paid reparations to the defeated Germany? from the Bialowieza conspiracy? from both, only a democratic nationality benefited from the MINUS article!
  8. NICK
    NICK 10 July 2012 08: 53
    0
    Nasty little article
  9. dark_sp
    dark_sp 10 July 2012 08: 54
    +1
    The Bolsheviks then redeemed !!! And what the hell are you doing here you are really traitors, worse than the Bolsheviks !!
    1. volcano
      volcano 10 July 2012 09: 22
      +5
      dark_sp
      Why are you cursing? And who do you mean by calling traitors?
      Do not clarify the position?
      1. FREGATENKAPITAN
        FREGATENKAPITAN 10 July 2012 11: 13
        +6
        Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev and associates ....... GDP as a direct receiver of the VBN could fix a lot ... but it is bound by the promise - not to touch the family, not to review the results of privatization, etc., etc., .... .
        Well, it seems to have already "worked" for the first presidency ....
        Now, what prevents him from putting things in order in the country ..........
        Never a communist .......
        1. military
          military 10 July 2012 11: 48
          -3
          Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
          Now, what prevents him from putting things in order in the country ..........

          he has already "bent" the country under him ... so, for him, and so - "complete order" ...
        2. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 10 July 2012 13: 29
          -4
          He brought his "order" almost immediately and he doesn't need anything else, and he will hold onto it with his teeth ...
  10. patriot2
    patriot2 10 July 2012 09: 15
    -1
    dark_spcool said, sitting in Kazakhstan. Apparently everything in Kazakhstan is very good for you. Apparently therefore, in Russia, especially in Moscow and St. Petersburg, there are many people who come to work from Kazakhstan. Well, whom did the Russians betray, giving jobs to the Kazakhs?
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 10 July 2012 13: 30
      +2
      There are no Kazakhs among migrant workers, wise guy!
    2. Sanches
      Sanches 10 July 2012 16: 25
      +2
      when I went to the father of Kazakhs there in Kazakhstan to educate Kazakhs about Kazakhstan, they were born in the Russian Federation, they have never been to Kazakhstan, and they don’t know anything about him !! Yes, and Russian employers who do not come from the Republic of Kazakhstan to work, if only for big bribes, the corruption system has been established. Only Turks, Azerbaijanis, Dagestanis and Chechens are hired, they don’t participate in this system, but you have such expensive food in Russia that all the money goes only for food and nothing remains of the cents that they pay! There is no sense to Kazakhstanis to go to the Russian Federation for the sake of earnings! The only thing is that when a Russian company officially conducts recruitment in Kazakhstan, yes, they travel for a couple of months, live in barracks for free and return quickly, it’s not a big deal to work
      1. marshes
        marshes 10 July 2012 17: 36
        +2
        In Russia, Kyrgyz under the Kazakhs mow. smile
        On Dordoi, the local flea market in Bishkek, the most bought clothes with Kazakhstani symbols, are mainly bought by Kyrgyz people.
  11. Kaa
    Kaa 10 July 2012 09: 21
    +6
    According to the interpretation of the times of World War 1, its causes, the assessment of the imperial army, the Brest Peace, this is nonsense from a history textbook for schoolchildren of the Soviet era. If it were not for the betrayal of the conspirator generals in February 1917, sponsored primarily by the United States and Britain, which benefited from the weakening and collapse of the Empire, the war would end in 1917, Russia would be among the victorious countries, the Bolsheviks would not come to power in principle.
    Regarding "atonement during the Great Patriotic War" - I agree, in general, the period between the 1st and 2nd world wars is, in fact, a long Versailles armistice in one GENERAL world war. By the way, in the 1st World War it was called "2nd Patriotic War" in Russia, meaning the First Patriotic War of 1812.
    1. Goga
      Goga 10 July 2012 09: 50
      +6
      Kaa - Colleagues, the Jewish Bolsheviks who organized the "Brest Peace" redeemed their guilt not in the war, but in the camps they deserved, and the most prominent of them received a turnip ice ax as a reward, so our country had the opportunity to win the Second World War.
      I have already written above, I will repeat - the Belovezhskiy conspiracy and the Brest "world" are phenomena of the same order and were executed at the direction of the same customers. And if anything, in this respect, can be blamed on the GDP, it is an obvious lack of ice axes in domestic politics. angry
      1. recitatorus
        recitatorus 10 July 2012 13: 39
        +8
        Quote: Gogh
        can blame GDP - this is a clear lack of ice axes in domestic politics

        Entirely in solidarity! I would add - in the inside too.
  12. Pacifist
    Pacifist 10 July 2012 09: 39
    +3
    Natural attempt to juggle. The Brest peace is the result of betrayal documented. Both that and another betrayal in my opinion.
  13. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2012 09: 43
    +10
    Too much juggling with the author. The Bolsheviks have great services to Russia, but there was a lot of evil from them. You can neither whiten nor blacken the times of the USSR - you need to remember EVERYTHING - both good and bad.
    And the government accused them of national treason returned most of the losses already after 9 months after the conclusion of peace, which itself honestly described as “obscene”, and this world denounced.

    In fact, it was possible to talk about the return of the bulk of the squandered around 1940 about the year after Western Ukraine joined the USSR and so on and so forth.
    And having gone to the Treaty of Brest, it was they who, in fact, predicted the defeat of Germany.

    That's bullshit. As a result of the Brest Peace, Germany had the hope of solving its food problems at the expense of Ukraine. The transfer of parts of the German army to the western front allowed the Germans to launch their last offensive and delayed Germany’s surrender.
    But if Putin’s advisors were more erudite, they would know that the nationalist Central Rada seized power, declaring independence in the summer of 1917, made peace with Germany before Russia concluded it, which at the time caused Ukraine’s loss

    If the author didn’t want to hit on GDP like that, he would know that everything was just the opposite - the Central Council did not enjoy broad support from the masses and had almost no armed forces - so even those small Bolshevik detachments that could be allocated to she was defeated by decisive victories over the troops of the Central Rada. The German bayonets saved the Central Rada.
    The Brest Peace was in fact a national salvation.

    Brest Peace was a national disgrace. It was he who did not allow Russia to become one of the victorious powers. I doubt that if Soviet Russia fulfilled its allied obligations to the end, we would get international isolation.
    By February, the choice was simple: either withdraw from the war at any cost, or remain in the war, but with a spontaneously diverging army.

    And who was to thank the Bolsheviks for this? Themselves !
    Germany began to turn into a losing side, precisely being in a situation of half-world-half-war after Brest.

    Another nonsense. Germany at the time of the conclusion of the Brest Peace was already corny choking with hunger. Her martial law was hopeless.
    And having placed the army in Ukraine and other occupied territories, it condemned itself to the torment and burden of supporting unpopular and incapable regimes.

    Yeah, that's just the Russian-German front, while Russia was still at war with Germany forging at least 1 a million Germans. And for the whole of Ukraine enough 300 thousand soldiers - and EMNIP, and this number was reduced
    Indeed, Russia was not at Versailles among the winning countries. Only it is hardly worth upsetting that she did not become an accomplice of the robbery and a robber country.

    If there was once a unanimous desire of European countries to equip Europe in honor and conscience - it was at Versailles. If the author did some work on rebuilding the world after the PRI, then he would know if it was done with the best of intentions.
    In general, I repeat - I have no desire to run into the Bolsheviks. It was thanks to them that the USSR little by little got out of the pit (into which they stuck it) - but to a height that had never dreamed of Tsarist Russia. It is thanks to the Bolsheviks that our science, education, etc., has developed to the full extent etc. But ... as I wrote above - you need to remember everything.
    1. Sanches
      Sanches 10 July 2012 16: 50
      +1
      Tsarist Russia would have easily reached this height, just everything in its time. The simplest example - before the revolution, the auto industry was developing in RI and even its own racing cars were created (although it is almost impossible to find their descriptions on the internet, only in pre-revolutionary magazines and books), and after the revolution - as it was cut off, and the owner of all cars and tractors in Russia actually became Mr. Ford. Next, compare the history of FIAT and the history of VAZ. It seems that they started with the same car, FIAT also produced ugly toy tractors, but then suddenly they turned into beautiful swans, and nobody developed the VAZ and it still produces ugly ducklings. So - RI is like a ruined FIAT, we would only remember these cars ridiculous in design, if someone destroyed it, say, in the mid-80s. And Marxist Russia is a VAZ, which has huge production capacities, but with a complete lack of taste and imagination, according to the principle "it will do just that", and say that, one example, - supposedly Tsarist Russia would never have its own Gagarin - yes you that, dragging Russian aviation before the revolution was the first, one word "barrel" is enough to remind a lot, and from aviation to astronautics is one step!
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2012 17: 23
        +3
        Quote: Sanches
        Tsarist Russia would easily reach this height, just everything has its time.

        Excuse me, but how many years did Tsarist Russia have to attain those very heights? If I am not mistaken, Ivan the Terrible EMNIP 1547 is considered the first tsar in our country. Before 1917 - 370 years, however. Bolsheviks coped for 37 :)))
        Quote: Sanches
        The simplest example was that the auto industry developed before the revolution in RI and even created its own race cars (although it’s almost impossible to find their descriptions in the internet, only in pre-revolutionary journals and books), and after the revolution how it cut off

        And what's the point, I'm sorry? Well, yes, they made cars. They only did something on imported machines, for Tsarist Russia did not have its own machine tool industry. Do not bother to start.
        In general, just think for yourself when secondary education becomes compulsory under tsarism, by which year the level of medicine of the USSR could be reached, when regular hunger could be overcome and the level of fundamental scientific and applied research is still interesting ...
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 10 July 2012 17: 42
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          grow up Well, yes, they did cars. They only did something on imported machines, for tsarist Russia did not have its own machine-tool industry. Do not bother to make.
          But in general - just estimate when under tsarism secondary education became compulsory, by what year would you be able to achieve the level of medicine of the USSR, when you could overcome regular hunger

          Very much "would" interfere. The dispute is about nothing. History knows no subjunctive mood. Nobody knows whether it would have been better or worse, but the fact that after the 17th a great many engineers left, that many production secrets were lost - this fact takes place.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2012 18: 11
            +3
            Quote: Trapper7
            Very much "would" interfere.

            And for me - it does not interfere with anything.
            Quote: Trapper7
            The dispute is about nothing. History does not know the subjunctive mood.

            So what? Man is not a story
            Quote: Trapper7
            It would be better or worse nobody would know

            from which it does not follow that it is not necessary to assume. Abstract thinking is not given to man for nothing
            Quote: Trapper7
            but the fact that a great many engineers left after 17, that many production secrets were lost - this fact is the place to be.

            It has. But is this fact important in the context of the question raised, I have some doubts, and quite large ones.
            1. Sanches
              Sanches 10 July 2012 18: 46
              0
              Russo-Balt in the 1913 version (C 24/58 "Cucumber" with and without a front fairing) and 1914 (C 24/60):
              [img] http://www.forum.mdiecast.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=atta
              ch & attach_rel_module = post & attach_id = 15655 [/ img]

              [img] http://www.forum.mdiecast.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=atta
              ch & attach_rel_module = post & attach_id = 15651 [/ img]


              The list of cars of production and assembly of the Russian Empire, including electric and steam but excluding locomobiles and tractors:
              Aksai. Nakhchivan. 1903-1904, 1917
              AMO. Moscow. 1916-1919
              Bogatyr, (Chelyshev). Mytishchi. 1915-1917
              Sides. Taganrog. 1910
              Bromley. Moscow. 1901-1917
              Bulakov. S. Petersburg. 1898
              Dux, (Dux). Moscow. 1901-1910
              Jaundice and price. Moscow. 1912
              Izhora. Petrograd. 1914-1918
              Ilyin, (Russo-Buire). Moscow. 1904, 1909-1912
              International, (International). Warsaw 1903-1904
              Case, (Case). Odessa. 1912
              KZVS, (Becos). Mytishchi. 1917
              Fist. Smolensk. 1910
              Kuzmin. S. Petersburg. 1900
              Swan, (Lebedev). Yaroslavl 1917
              Leitner, (Russia, Leutner, Russia). Riga. 1901-1907, 1909
              Lessner, (Daimler-Lessner). S. Petersburg. 1904-1909
              Lidtke, (Union, Richard-Union). S. Petersburg. 1901-1902
              Lindström, (Lindström, Korvensuu). Helsingfors. 1913
              Sheet. Moscow. 1907-1910
              Lundberg-Vasiliev. Moscow. 1902
              Lucas, (Lucas). Petrograd. 1916-1917
              Materikin, (Scooter). S. Petersburg. 1909-1910
              MME. Moscow. 1914
              Nobel, (Russian Diesel). S. Petersburg. 1910
              Eagle. Eagle. 1909-1910
              SNR, (MSSH). Oranienbaum. 1915-1916
              Parviainen. S. Petersburg. 1911
              Petunin. Upper Tour. 1914
              Victory. S. Petersburg. 1902-1905
              Polytechnic. S. Petersburg. 1903-1905
              Puzanov. S. Petersburg. 1901
              Bubble S. Petersburg. 1912-1914
              Putilov. Petrograd. 1917-1919
              Romanov, (Romanov and Frese). S. Petersburg. 1899-1901
              RUPO, (Oldenburg). S. Petersburg. 1902
              Russian Renault, (Renault Russe). Rybinsk. 1916
              Russian-Baltic, (Russo-Balt, Russo-Balt, Russo-Baltique). Riga, Petrograd.

              1909-1918
              Self-propelled guns. Saratov. 1903
              Sverdlov. S. Petersburg. 1911
              Semevsky and Goh. Eagle. 1909
              Strength and Light. S. Petersburg. 1885
              Skavronsky. S. Petersburg. 1903
              Scania-Vabis, (Truck, Scania-Vabis). S. Petersburg. 1914-1916
              Starley Psycho. S. Pererburg. 1898-1901
              Stasyulevich. Odessa. 1909
              Tikhonov. S. Petersburg. 1910
              Feitelberg, (Feitelberg). Riga. 1904-1909
              Phoenix. S. Petersburg. 1914
              Filippov. Moscow. 1913
              Frese. S. Petersburg. 1896-1907
              Chepurin. Blagoveshchensk. 1914
              Schuckert, (Schuckert). S. Petersburg. 1903-1907
              Yushkov. 1903-1907. Moscow. 1915
              Yakovlev, (Yakovlev and Frese, Yakovlev and Lidtke). S. Petersburg. 1896-1898, 1902
              Yakovlev, (Yakovlev P.D.) S. Petersburg. 1907-1910

              Oktoberrevolution killed us.
            2. Sanches
              Sanches 10 July 2012 19: 34
              0
              Russo-Balt in the 1913 version (C 24/58 "Cucumber" with and without a front fairing) and 1914 (C 24/60):


              In 1938, the USSR nevertheless appeared the first (and it seems the last) racing car - GAZ-GL1:

              In my opinion, the similarity is obvious. For 21 years in the USSR, Russo-Balt was invented! Congratulations !! Well, then we only had such racing cars -

              The first armored-tank-automobile plant (BTAZ No. 1) of the Prombron association was established in 1916 on the basis of the evacuation of Russo-Balt from Riga. There were also three Russian factories producing tires - "Provodnik" (Riga), "Triangle" (Petrograd), "Bogatyr" (Moscow) and its branch in Helsingfors (Helsinki) - Suomen Gummitehdas. Their tires were successful all over the world.
              The list of cars of production and assembly of the Russian Empire, including electric and steam but excluding locomobiles and tractors:
              Aksai. Nakhchivan. 1903-1904, 1917
              AMO. Moscow. 1916-1919
              Bogatyr, (Chelyshev). Mytishchi. 1915-1917
              Sides. Taganrog. 1910
              Bromley. Moscow. 1901-1917
              Bulakov. S. Petersburg. 1898
              Dux, (Dux). Moscow. 1901-1910
              Jaundice and price. Moscow. 1912
              Izhora. Petrograd. 1914-1918
              Ilyin, (Russo-Buire). Moscow. 1904, 1909-1912
              International, (International). Warsaw 1903-1904
              Case, (Case). Odessa. 1912
              KZVS, (Becos). Mytishchi. 1917
              Fist. Smolensk. 1910
              Kuzmin. S. Petersburg. 1900
              Swan, (Lebedev). Yaroslavl 1917
              Leitner, (Russia, Leutner, Russia). Riga. 1901-1907, 1909
              Lessner, (Daimler-Lessner). S. Petersburg. 1904-1909
              Lidtke, (Union, Richard-Union). S. Petersburg. 1901-1902
              Lindstrom, (Lindstrom, Korvensuu). Helsingfors. 1913
              Sheet. Moscow. 1907-1910
              Lundberg-Vasiliev. Moscow. 1902
              Lucas, (Lucas). Petrograd. 1916-1917
              Materikin, (Scooter). S. Petersburg. 1909-1910
              MME. Moscow. 1914
              Nobel, (Russian Diesel). S. Petersburg. 1910
              Eagle. Eagle. 1909-1910
              SNR, (MSSH). Oranienbaum. 1915-1916
              Parviainen. S. Petersburg. 1911
              Petunin. Upper Tour. 1914
              Victory. S. Petersburg. 1902-1905
              Polytechnic. S. Petersburg. 1903-1905
              Puzanov. S. Petersburg. 1901
              Bubble S. Petersburg. 1912-1914
              Putilov. Petrograd. 1917-1919
              Romanov, (Romanov and Frese). S. Petersburg. 1899-1901
              RUPO, (Oldenburg). S. Petersburg. 1902
              Russian Renault, (Renault Russe). Rybinsk. 1916
              Russian-Baltic, (Russo-Balt, Russo-Balt, Russo-Baltique). Riga, Petrograd. 1909-1918
              Self-propelled guns. Saratov. 1903
              Sverdlov. S. Petersburg. 1911
              Semevsky and Goh. Eagle. 1909
              Strength and Light. S. Petersburg. 1885
              Skavronsky. S. Petersburg. 1903
              Scania-Vabis, (Truck, Scania-Vabis). S. Petersburg. 1914-1916
              Starley Psycho. S. Pererburg. 1898-1901
              Stasyulevich. Odessa. 1909
              Tikhonov. S. Petersburg. 1910
              Feitelberg, (Feitelberg). Riga. 1904-1909
              Phoenix. S. Petersburg. 1914
              Filippov. Moscow. 1913
              Frese. S. Petersburg. 1896-1907
              Chepurin. Blagoveshchensk. 1914
              Schuckert, (Schuckert). S. Petersburg. 1903-1907
              Yushkov. 1903-1907. Moscow. 1915
              Yakovlev, (Yakovlev and Frese, Yakovlev and Lidtke). S. Petersburg. 1896-1898, 1902
              Yakovlev, (Yakovlev P.D.) S. Petersburg. 1907-1910

              These cars were quite modern for their era, and the fact that they were partially made from foreign spare parts - well, then everyone started from there. Some companies that are now enjoying huge success in the West generally started with bicycles! And these are only cars, not to mention the deep lag of the USSR in terms of household appliances, television, cinematography, literature, computer technology and so on. The potential of our people was artificially directed into the narrow channel of militarism and distracted from other processes. It is noteworthy that the Marxists who seized power there were also trying to discredit the German Empire, to force the people to forget everything - EVERYTHING! - her achievements
              1. Sanches
                Sanches 19 September 2012 08: 23
                0
                advertisement of the Pobeda factory from the booklet of Slovolitni O. Leman JSC:
  14. dmb
    dmb 10 July 2012 09: 44
    +2
    Well, if the previous ruler blurted out, I would not be surprised. But Putin as a whole always spoke out of place. One could disagree with him, but his speeches were convincing. But here it’s not clear who the blunder is for. Can someone explain to me who apart from the big grain traders needed the Bosphorus? Why did our Russian brigades lay their heads in France? Not near Smolensk, Riga and Pskov. But in France? At the same time, lovers of war and admirers of allied debt should be interested in how these allies did with these brigades after the revolution. Anyway, what results of WWI for Russia would help our people find happiness. Our President did not say this, and I am afraid because he has nothing to say.
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 10 July 2012 11: 33
      0
      dmb, about the Bosphorus.
      Give all the keys to the door of the apartment to a neighbor (it is better to those with whom relations are bad), and then re-read the history of the Crimean War and think again.
      1. dmb
        dmb 10 July 2012 12: 33
        +3
        Why not think. Especially after reading the history of the Crimean War. Remind me, please, who is there and why is pinned to the Crimea? Weren't they in the WWI included in the "allies"? Have their interests changed, and were they meekly ready to let Russia into the Mediterranean? They needed Russia like cannon fodder to weaken Germany. And if on the eve of Our victory they tried to come to an agreement with the Nazis, then with Wilhelm they would quickly find a common language. Well, who would remain our allies in this case, Serbia? At the same time (if desired) compare the state of the army in 1917 and 1945. If your comment is not akin to Zhirik, about boots in the Indian Ocean, then perhaps your thoughts will lead to something sensible.
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 10 July 2012 15: 26
          0
          dmb,
          Let's not indulge in lengthy arguments. The topic is simple and clear - the need for the Bosphorus (straits). They (IMHO) are really necessary for Russia both in the military (to close the adversary's access to its southern shores and at the same time to ensure the free exit of its fleet to southern Europe and northern Africa), and in the economic (free passage of merchant ships without regard for the opinion of "someone else's uncle ") attitude. And you have reduced everything to the banal "benefit of grain merchants." I'm not going to argue with you about the behavior of the so-called. "soyuznichkov" because I support this conclusion. But it was worth trying to get the straits. The RI plans constantly included the "straits" point. For this purpose, "Elpidifors" were specially built - practically universal amphibious assault ships. The Black Sea Fleet was the ONLY one of all the belligerents who really successfully landed and supported the landing on the coast. So we had absolutely ALL chances to take the straits before the Britofran women wake up and push their troughs there. Moreover, the entire British Grand Fleet dug in the Metropolis and was on guard for the Germans. And after the occupation of the straits - who is there and what will do? The British wouldn't go there again.
          And to bring everything together "with whom we fought in the Crimean region and with whom in WWI" - at such a pace we only need to be offended at all smile
          And by the way, I'm not looking at "who and why", but "how and on what." It was this war that showed. how necessary control over the Bosphorus is.
          1. Machaon
            Machaon 10 July 2012 17: 29
            +5
            Quote: Trapper7
            how much control over the Bosphorus is needed

            The Bosphorus is still sitting like a nail in our ass! Take the South Stream oil pipeline around what it goes around and why!
          2. dmb
            dmb 11 July 2012 11: 39
            +1
            Let's not. But: "He will eat it, but who will give it to him." As you rightly noted, there were plans. but their real embodiment was not. This is despite the fact that neither in 1829 nor in 1878 did anything prevent (according to your logic) the Russian troops from taking Istanbul, because they were actually in its outskirts, and Turkey, especially in 1878, did not have any forces for defense. To reduce victory in a war to an amphibious operation, even if successful, is more than primitive. Well let's go further. And what exactly did our navy need in Southern Europe or North Africa. I don’t remember that we had colonies there, or we intended to have them there. Duty-free passage for merchant ships is certainly not bad. But this time, let's be honest. We. The Russian Empire intended to seize part of the territory of a neighboring state together with its capital. In principle, according to the logic of that time. nothing wrong. Apparently, the Entente countries (Winners), who occupied Istanbul in 1919, reasoned in the same way. They lasted three years there. And then Ataturk (the loser) threw them out of there despite all their economic power. Well, in conclusion. Your passage about resentment is completely incomprehensible.
            1. Trapperxnumx
              Trapperxnumx 11 July 2012 17: 11
              +1
              Well, why didn't anything get in the way? In 1878, the lack of political will and unwillingness to fight the British were very hindered. During WWI there was such a will, there were strength and the possibility of their implementation. No one reduces victory in the war to one landing operation, but it was quite possible to capture the Bosphorus. And there, and the Dardanelles side by side. The fact that Ataturk kicked the Entente out of Istanbul is not surprising - the Turks beat our "allies" several times during that war.
              Quote: dmb
              And what exactly was needed for our navy in southern Europe or northern Africa. I don’t remember that we had colonies there,

              And what is our fleet to do in the Mediterranean now? Why are our ships from the Northern Fleet, Baltic Fleet and Black Sea Fleet going there now?
              1. dmb
                dmb 11 July 2012 18: 52
                0
                You want to say that in 1915 there was an ardent desire to fight the British, and it was they and the French who for a long time and stubbornly prevented our appearance in Middle-earth "Well, right, this is too hussar." At the same time, explain from what sources do you know about the lack of will in 1878 and its presence in 1914, who had this will, and what prevented its real embodiment before the Brest Peace? (I am not asking about the reasons for 18219. If you modestly kept silent about it). You yourself say there was strength and will. To add the present day to the assessment of the situation at the beginning of the last century, in my opinion, is ridiculous, and out of place. I will only note that the lack of ownership of the straits, as it turns out, does not interfere with the voyage of our ships, although I cannot understand why they gathered there from all fleets. Demonstration of military presence is a good thing when there is something and there is someone to demonstrate. During the years so unloved, as it turned out now, our President of the USSR had to demonstrate what and who was, because the overwhelming majority of Arab countries were our allies, and this sobered their leaders and Israel and the United States with Europe, even more of them, however, sober groupings in the countries of "people's democracy".
  15. alebor
    alebor 10 July 2012 11: 08
    +3
    I don’t agree too much with the author’s assessments regarding the First World War, I’m not at all sure that Russia would have been able to evade participation in it, even if it really wanted to, so everything was then ready for war, a small "spark" was enough to everything flared up. It is quite possible that in those conditions of complete collapse of everything and the whole Brest Peace, or better to say "Brest capitulation" was necessary. But these are all "legends of deep antiquity." But "Belovezhskaya Pushcha" is in the memory of most of us. And here I completely disagree with the author's assessments. In essence, the Soviet Union collapsed before the BP. It was not Yeltsin who destroyed the USSR, but Gorbachev. This was well demonstrated by the events with the Emergency Committee, which tried to make a desperate attempt to save the unity of the country, but the country was no longer there, all power long ago passed to the local republican governments. As a matter of fact, the agreement signed in the BP was a legal statement of an already accomplished fact - the death of the "patient". What would happen if Yeltsin did not sign the agreement? A war between Russia (which itself was on the verge of disintegration at that time) with the 14 former Soviet republics? Yugoslavian variant?
    1. FREGATENKAPITAN
      FREGATENKAPITAN 10 July 2012 11: 31
      +3
      I agree with the assessment of the results of the First World War and the Brest Peace .... we look from the height of our past, and then .... ????
      But with the conclusions on the Bialowieza bunch, not really, why do you think the country was no longer there? ...... Only-just passed a referendum on preserving the USSR .... everyone remembers the results .... Bialowieza just became actual a signal for decay, here the people were presented with the de facto decay ......
      Chechnya wanted independence, but they didn’t meet, they were not afraid of a war threatening to expand according to the Yugoslav version .... and then one could find a way out by creating, for example, a confederation or something like that ......
      The thing is that the will and desire were needed ....... unfortunately the republican kings and khans did not have one!
      1. Machaon
        Machaon 10 July 2012 17: 34
        +4
        Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
        about the fact that the will and desire were needed ....... unfortunately the republican kings and khans did not have one!

        Dumb power struggle !!! Old as the world, as the world is not new!
        The collapse of the union was de facto accepted with the independence of the RSFSR. And for the sake of power, only Gorbachev prevented Yeltsin. And in Belovezhskaya Pushcha he removed him from his accomplices!
    2. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 10 July 2012 13: 35
      0
      Yes, there would be no Yugoslav option ...
      Russia has betrayed the USSR, no one denies the blame for the labeled, but Russia began to make the main split under the guidance of a feverless - besides the Balts, who were allowed to get out at the highest level, nobody wanted to go anywhere ...
  16. Roman Dmitriev
    Roman Dmitriev 10 July 2012 11: 14
    +2
    The article, of course, is not unambiguous, I did not put an assessment on this. A lot of distortion. Regarding the defeats of the Russian army in the WWI and the coming to power of the Bolsheviks, I really liked the arguments of the historian Mukhin in Asa’s book and propaganda: If the people lived well in the country, if the army was supplied properly, if they fought with little blood, saving soldiers' lives and pi the people would conquer (this is the main task of any general) of the Bolsheviks and the people themselves would strangle them in the bud. And about Belovezhie and the current rulers, as the communists were in power, they remained, they only repainted.
  17. Vadim-ragalevich
    Vadim-ragalevich 10 July 2012 11: 17
    +1
    There is nothing to add to the above. In fact, the author is right. Not in the eyebrow, but in the eye!
  18. Z.A.M.
    Z.A.M. 10 July 2012 11: 18
    +3
    Yes, there was a national betrayal. He was drawing Russia into the war. He was her incompetent knowledge. He was the recent destruction of the USSR.

    How to disagree with the conclusions? ...
    To the author +.
  19. atos_kin
    atos_kin 10 July 2012 11: 44
    +3
    In fact, you need to introduce a rule for any rulers: do not publicly evaluate history until at least 100 years have passed (and preferably 200) from the day of the event.
  20. Pedro
    Pedro 10 July 2012 12: 47
    -3
    The Bolsheviks are to blame for everything, that's for sure. Both the Brest peace and the Bialowieza conspiracy are the result of their filthy deeds.
  21. sonovlad
    sonovlad 10 July 2012 12: 49
    +1
    The Bolsheviks played with the cards that they had, and in the Bialowieza Forest stupidly merged the game with all the trump cards in hand
  22. Curculum
    Curculum 10 July 2012 12: 52
    +3
    The topic is interesting, but I do not understand why the author does not indicate or determine the actual events at the beginning of the article, and then analyzes them.
    The facts are as follows: until 1917 there was a Republic of Ingushetia (abbreviated as Russia) with all protectorates, provinces, regions, and governor generals. Due to inefficient management and as a result of the events of 1917-1922, the state structure was changed with the loss of protectorates and some areas (with the latter joining) with the creation of the Soviet Union, which included republics, which can be safely called as the beginning of a new stage in history of Russia.
    The ineffective command and administrative system of the USSR (read - Russia) of the 70-80s put an end to the further development of the country by the end of the 80s, which ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union (read - Russia) and the formation on its territory of 15 independent states.
    The entire burden of relations between the USSR was assumed by the Russian Federation, in fact - the largest fragment of Russia, which gives the right of the Russian Federation to be called Russia.
    These are brief facts, the awareness of which leads to a further analysis of what has happened and is happening.
  23. Alexander 1958
    Alexander 1958 10 July 2012 14: 25
    +3
    Good afternoon! Article "+", despite some bloopers .. For example, the statement that RI had the best army in the world! Maybe the biggest, but hardly the best .. And the defeat in the war of 1905-1907 is a confirmation of this, and the course of WWI, despite the heroism of soldiers and officers (defense of Osovets, Brusilovsky breakthrough, etc.) the confirmation.
    The Brest peace concluded by the Bolsheviks is indeed a predatory, humiliating, but only possible then step. And time showed them right six months later. And the fact that they lost Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, maybe not bad. There are black sheep in any herd.
    Putin's passages about "lost to the vanquished" or that "Russia could have won the war without Ukraine" are perplexing ...
    I think Putin is quite an adequate politician and he hardly believes in the nonsense that he says .... His words are regrettable, but the fact of such statements is even more alarming. It means that he is not so independent in evaluations and statements as we, and probably he would like to ..
    With uv. Alexander 1958
    1. Machaon
      Machaon 10 July 2012 17: 41
      +3
      Alexander 1958,
      It seems that Putin, as the current ruler, was not talking about the past, his message is more likely into the future, and the future is quite tangible! This is a metaphor! What did he mean? To whom did he turn his maxim? That is the question!
      1. Alexander 1958
        Alexander 1958 10 July 2012 22: 07
        +1
        Machaon,
        Yeah, cool! I said, and you sort it out. what did I mean ...
        And this is the first person of the state ....!
  24. patriot2
    patriot2 10 July 2012 15: 38
    -2
    Brother Sarych,
    There are no Kazakhs among migrant workers, wise guy!
    CERTAINLY THERE IS NOT IN MASTERBUSTERS, THEY WORK FOR US ON THE LABOR BOOK AND AGREEMENT - EVERYTHING AS THE RUSSIANS DO. WORK TELL HONESTLY - GOOD! But in their homeland, for them, work is either absent or paid several times less.
    And thanks for the wise guy, all the same I have the highest.
    1. marshes
      marshes 10 July 2012 17: 43
      +1
      Quote: patriot2
      There are no Kazakhs among migrant workers, wise guy!
      CERTAINLY THERE IS NOT IN MASTERBUSTERS, THEY WORK FOR US ON THE LABOR BOOK AND AGREEMENT - EVERYTHING AS THE RUSSIANS DO. WORK TELL HONESTLY - GOOD! But in their homeland, for them, work is either absent or paid several times less.

      Mostly citizens of Kazakhstan of Slavic appearance go to Russia to work. Kazakh, if not Timur Bekmambetov, figs goes smile .And we have citizens of the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
    2. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 10 July 2012 23: 03
      +1
      Actually, in Kazakhstan there are not such big problems with finding a job and not so small salaries, as you think, especially for indigenous people! Therefore, neighbors are traveling to Kazakhstan ...
      There are few Kazakhs, and the country is huge for so many, only in akimats and cops you can feed yourself without any problems ....
  25. Krilion
    Krilion 10 July 2012 15: 59
    +1
    author - a complete idiot or skillfully pretends to be ....
    1. Alex63
      Alex63 11 July 2012 03: 24
      0
      He just knows how to lick Putin.
  26. Jeglov
    Jeglov 10 July 2012 17: 40
    +2
    author - a complete idiot or skillfully pretends to be ....

    Are you a complete idiot or pretending to be?
    The author is absolutely right! And a couple of such statements, the GDP will issue and lose respect. While people still believe him, I hope he does not waste confidence in such visits.
  27. darkman70
    darkman70 10 July 2012 17: 44
    +4
    As a result of the Bialowieza conspiracy, Russia (USSR) lost much more territories than after the Brest peace, and in peacetime, which is much more shameful. In addition, the Bolsheviks quickly returned most of the territories. Losses in the economy and human life in Russia as a result of the Bialowieza agreements in percentage terms are much greater than as a result of the Brest peace and this again in peacetime. In fact, Yeltsin and the company did what Hitler could not do. Therefore, for me, national betrayal is primarily a Bialowieza conspiracy, but the situation with the Brest Peace is quite controversial.
  28. Jeglov
    Jeglov 10 July 2012 18: 15
    +3
    The defeat in the 1st World Russia was due to the country's general economic and industrial weakness before the war, poorly developed communications (railway network), and poor training of senior officers. This is among other things ....
  29. Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 10 July 2012 18: 24
    -5
    The Krasnoperes were the first Russian traitors, and their granddaughters followed in the footsteps of their grandfathers and fathers.
    1. Curculum
      Curculum 10 July 2012 23: 19
      0
      Quote: Tambov Wolf
      The Krasnoperes were the first Russian traitors, and their granddaughters followed in the footsteps of their grandfathers and fathers.

      Che, in kind? Brother, merge the bazaar, not growling in a suit. laughing
  30. Jeglov
    Jeglov 10 July 2012 18: 33
    +5
    The Krasnoperes were the first Russian traitors, and their granddaughters followed in the footsteps of their grandfathers and fathers.

    Chock ... You, if you are already expressing yourself in a hair dryer, then at least learn what it means. Krasnopery is a policeman, a representative of law enforcement agencies, and not a communist.
  31. nnz226
    nnz226 10 July 2012 19: 38
    0
    The result of the Brest peace was the emergence of countries-miscarriages into the world - the new Baltic, which, breaking away from herding pigs and transporting shit by goldsmiths (and they could not count on more, until they became part of Russia) suddenly felt like "nations" and the stench from these nations to so far it’s worth not breathing: for a pig's dermetso has spilled out of barrels of goldsmiths, which gives rise to all “shitty countries” to yelp about the “Soviet occupation of the Baltic states”. So we clean up the consequences of the "obscene world". Who, before 1918, had heard at least something about some type of country: Eeeeestoooniiiiiya, Laaatfffiya, Liitva ????
  32. Oleg Rosskiyy
    Oleg Rosskiyy 10 July 2012 19: 40
    -2
    Russia is an Orthodox, benevolent country, and this is its strength, and here it is unfortunately its Achilles' heel. One cannot be complacent to the enemy, it must be crushed to the end, which we did not unfortunately with Sookashvili and his accomplices.
  33. jokes
    jokes 10 July 2012 19: 42
    +6
    Of course, there was simply treason in the forest. Selling politicians betrayed their people.
    1. serge
      serge 10 July 2012 21: 12
      +3
      jokes
      Of course, there was simply treason in the forest. Selling politicians betrayed their people.
      ----------------------
      They did not betray their people. Their people live in Israel. These are not traitors, these are enemies.
  34. Alexander 1958
    Alexander 1958 10 July 2012 22: 00
    0
    For SANCHES
    ... It is noteworthy that the Marxists who seized power there were also trying to discredit the German Empire, to force the people to forget everything - EVERYTHING! - her achievements ..
    But I would like to ask in more detail when the Marxists captured Germany?
    With uv. Alexander 1958
    1. Sanches
      Sanches 12 July 2012 16: 44
      0
      the world is trying not to advertise the fact that Hitler created his Nazi party not just in Germany, but in Bavarian Soviet Republic. And the fact that since 1918 Germany has been almost all Soviet (except Prussia, which subsequently overthrew the Marxists) is generally covered with a curtain of impenetrable darkness
  35. MI-AS-72
    MI-AS-72 10 July 2012 22: 01
    +2
    About who destroyed the army, we will answer with the words of A. Denikin. In the summer of 1917, at a meeting in Stavka in Mogilev, in the presence of Kerensky, General Denikin declared: [M. Denikin General Denikin. M .: AST-PRESS. 2005, 302 pp.]: “When they repeat at every step that the Bolsheviks served as the cause of the collapse of the army, I protest. This is not true. The army was destroyed by others, and the Bolsheviks were just filthy worms that wound up in the abscesses of the army’s body. ” So it doesn’t work out, prosperous Russia in the absence of the Bolsheviks in 17 g, remember the Crimean War, the Balkan, Japanese and 1st World War, the reason for these warriors and defeats is not in the Bolsheviks, but in the competitiveness of Russia and naturally its people, as it is now no matter how bitter it sounds.
  36. Jeglov
    Jeglov 10 July 2012 22: 34
    +1
    The reasons for the defeat in the 1st World War of the Russian Empire are obvious. They are connected primarily in the economic and industrial backwardness from the leading European powers of that time.
    In addition, despite significant steps to reform the army after the Russo-Japanese disaster, decisive steps were not taken. While the training of the lower and middle command personnel improved, the level of the higher command personnel was very low. Here are the words of A.M. Zayochkovsky: "
    Paying great attention to the training of troops and the improvement of junior command personnel, the Russian General Staff completely ignored the selection and training of senior command personnel: it was not uncommon to appoint persons who had spent their entire life after graduating from the academy in the administrative chair immediately to the position of division chief and corps commander. The General Staff was cut off from the troops, in most cases limiting its acquaintance with them to a short qualifying command. The implementation of the idea of ​​maneuver in the troops was limited only by regulations and small military formations, but in practice, large military commanders and large military formations did not practice its application. As a result, the Russian impulse forward was groundless and inept, the divisions and corps slowly walked in the theater of operations, did not know how to perform maneuver marches in large masses, and at a time when the German corps easily walked 30 km in such an environment for many days in a row, Russians barely made 20 km each. Defense issues were neglected. The oncoming battle began to be studied by the entire army only with its appearance in the field regulations of 1912. "

    And here's another wonderful quote: "In general, the Russian army went to war with good regiments, with mediocre divisions and corps and with bad armies and fronts, understanding this assessment in the broad sense of training, but not personal qualities."
  37. Mite27
    Mite27 10 July 2012 23: 27
    +1
    The victory of the Russian army over Saakashvili’s fighters is and is independent of the statements of such an ambiguous iPhone.
  38. Magadan
    Magadan 11 July 2012 00: 37
    +2
    Quote: valokordin
    Well, if the GDP does not like the Bolsheviks, why does he recall the participants in the war who fought under the leadership of the Bolsheviks.

    I also do not like the 1917 Bolsheviks. They, like the dermokrats in the 90s, were brought to power by foreign owners with the aim of the collapse of Russia. Proof - read the "Domes of St. Isaac's Cathedral" by the great writer Kuprin. He fought for Yudenich, and when they had almost entered St. Petersburg, they began to receive shells from England without fuses and guns without bolts. The same thing happened with Kolchak, when he almost connected with Denikin.
    Stalin began to clean up these "Bolsheviks" afterwards, which the world community still cannot forgive him. Stalin also dispersed the commissars during the war, and also returned the good name of Suvorov and Kutuzov to the people, and began to wear the Tsar's shoulder straps instead of Bolshevik buttonholes.
    In general, in fact, the USSR was returning from international Bolshevism to an imperial type national state. That's why we won the war, because the people fought for their homeland, and not for the ideas of Bolshevism.
    1. mind1954
      mind1954 11 July 2012 05: 05
      +1
      But I wonder where the Bolsheviks took shells?
      And it never crossed your mind that this is the English proletariat
      helped the Russian revolution, how could ??? !!!
      You know that the Communist International existed -
      - The Comintern, created by V.I. Lenin!
      Which I.V. Stalin dismissed, only in 1943,
      at the request of the west ?!
      But it’s interesting, and now the people will go, as in 1941, to defend their homeland
      ruled by the fascist regime of traitorous thieves, from aggression
      TransNational Capital, claiming to seize our country
      and, the destruction of our people! Hitler’s dreams were essentially
      inspired by the west !!!
  39. Alex63
    Alex63 11 July 2012 03: 23
    0
    Putinoids, and what is your Fuhrer did not remember the False Dmitry the first and second. They also betrayed the country. At the very snout in g.ne, and blames others.
  40. Alex63
    Alex63 11 July 2012 03: 59
    0
    Ghoul-Putin completely lost his scent! Compared the First World War and the Great Patriotic War. And about the genocide of the Russian people does not want to remember what the Nazis did? Or working in Germany, he sold himself to the Germans and forgot HISTORY? In a good way - let him phone with Merkel and ride her ass to lick, until his face on the German flag is torn here in Russia.
  41. mind1954
    mind1954 11 July 2012 04: 44
    +1
    By the way, when the February Revolution took place,
    then F.E. Dzerzhinsky was in Tagansk prison and
    after her release was categorically
    against granting independence to Poland,
    for which I received the full program from V.I. Lenin!
    A breakthrough to Poland was due to an attempt
    come to the aid of the revolution in Germany!
    In Hamburg, a revolutionary uprising of sailors was raised
    led by Ernst Thalmann!
    The revolution was conceived as a union of the Russian peasantry and the German
    proletariat !!! Read "Sukhanov's Notes ..."! It is interesting !