Why didn’t Russia take possession of the Bosphorus in the First World War?

We wrote about the issue of the Black Sea straits, analyzed the genesis of the Bosphorus operation during the First World War, studied the chances of success of this operation (Oleinikov A.V. Turkish trap 100 years later. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2016.).



Panorama of the Turkish Straits

More recently, we have come across an extremely interesting and instructive material published in an expatriate periodical, authored by Rear Admiral A.D. Bubnov, the hero of the Russo-Japanese War, head of the Stavka Naval Directorate (since October 1917). First-hand information, on behalf of one of the most competent in the matter we are interested in, will allow us to finally put dots over the “i” in this problem - starting from the question whether Russia was preparing to master the straits before the First World War, and ending with the prospects for an appropriate combat operations during the latter. Rear Admiral introduces us to extremely interesting facts.

Why didn’t Russia take possession of the Bosphorus in the First World War?
Alexander Dmitrievich Bubnov

And we want to introduce the reader to the authoritative opinion of Alexander Dmitrievich.

An object of exceptional strategic importance
There is no doubt, the admiral notes, that one of the main reasons for the collapse of Russia is the fact that during the First World War it was not able to restore its sea communications with the Allies through the straits, in other words, failed to solve its national sea problem. And professors stories naval art cited this circumstance in their textbooks as a classic example of the influence of maritime communications on the course of the war and the political and economic existence of great states.

So, one of the post-war textbooks contained the following lines:

“All military and political writers claim that if the Entente had taken possession of at least one of the straits, the war would have ended at least a year earlier and that disaster would have erupted over Russia that threw it from the Entente and, later, from ranks of great states. "


In a letter dated August 8, 1915, Admiral Tirpitz wrote that "the Dardanelles are fighting fiercely: if they are taken, we will inevitably lose the war."


A. von Tirpitz

And the American ambassador to Turkey during the war G. Morgento wrote the following in his memoirs:

“There is no doubt that if the Allies had mastered at least one of the straits, the war would have ended much sooner and Bolshevism would not have taken possession of Russia.”



G. Morgento

These and many other outstanding military and political authorities, as noted by A. D. Bubnov, are absolutely right. The occupation of at least one of the Straits inevitably caused the following two consequences, which had a decisive influence on the outcome of the war: the surrender of Turkey and a significant increase in the military strength of the Entente (and especially the Russian army). If, after capturing the Straits, the Russian or English fleet appeared under the walls of Constantinople, the Turkish army, which fought the Russian army in the Caucasus and the English army in the Suez Canal area, would be forced to lay down weaponbecause it was cut off from its main base, which was located on the banks of the Bosphorus.

In turn, the surrender of Turkey caused a whole range of consequences of paramount strategic importance:

1) the entire Russian Caucasian army (about 250000 soldiers) and the entire British army from Egypt (up to 50000 soldiers) were immediately transferred to the main theater of war, and this is not counting the forces involved in the operation to seize the straits;

2) Bulgaria, whose entry into the war depended directly on the military-political situation of the Ottoman Empire and the resolution of the issue of the Straits, did not join Germany, and due to this circumstance the whole Serbian army remained in the Entente (which, in reality, after Bulgaria joined The German bloc was forced (more precisely, its remnants) to leave its homeland).

For all these reasons, after the surrender of Turkey, the military strength of the German bloc was reduced by 700000 fighters (500000 Turks and 200000 Bulgarians), and the fighting strength of the Entente would increase by 300000 fighters (250000 soldiers and officers of the Russian Caucasian army and 50000 British from Egypt) and, in addition , in the ranks of the Entente would remain 200000 soldiers of the Serbian army.

After taking the straits, the blockade of Russia (formed after Turkey entered the war) would have been broken and the shortest and most convenient connection between Russia and the allies would be restored - and as a result, the combat capability of the Russian army would increase significantly, which, starting in 1915, there was a huge shortage of military reserves .

Thus, the occupation of the straits caused, in the general strategic situation of the First World War, a difference of one million soldiers (- 700000 Turks and Bulgarians + 300000 Russians and British), not counting such factors as a significant increase in the combat readiness and firepower of the Russian army and the preservation of the Serbian coalition in the ranks of the anti-German coalition army. It is possible to add to this the assumption that Bulgaria in this case would join the Entente or (at least) remain neutral, and the Romanian speech would follow much sooner.

All this convincingly proves that after occupying the straits the war would end with the Entente’s quick victory. As for Russia, instead of Bolshevism, an era of prosperity and unprecedented greatness awaited her.

These postulates (among other things formulated in the textbook of military art) show, as the admiral notes, what crucial role was rightly attributed to the strategic role of the straits during the First World War.

When starting to answer the question stated in the title of the article, it is necessary to pay special attention to the following circumstances (depending on which this answer is).

First, this answer must, first of all, be sought in the sphere of activity of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (Headquarters), for the decision to seize the Bosphorus depended solely on the Headquarters - since this operation should have been mixed, that is, it should have been to participate in the Black Sea Fleet and troops, which could only be appointed by the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander. Secondly, when answering the question “Why didn’t they take possession of the Bosphorus”, one will inevitably have to give the names of high-ranking officials in the Russian military hierarchy on whom this decision depended. Thirdly, as A.D. Bubnov noted, he has the right to consider this issue because the marine component of the latter was concentrated in his jurisdiction - as the Head of the Operational Unit, the flag captain of the Black Sea Theater of the Naval Headquarters of the Supreme Commander. The admiral was responsible precisely for this at Headquarters - the issue of the straits was the main one for his post during the war, and, of course, all the nuances were deeply embedded in his memory. But the matter is not only in memory, but also in unique documents, for, as the admiral, recognizing the enormous historical importance of this issue and the associated serious personal responsibility, he took steps before the Headquarters collapse to send all his affairs to a safe place Management - and these materials formed the basis of his analysis and subsequent conclusions.

Before the First World War, Russia did not have a sight at the straits.
In order to get an accurate picture of the military-political situation in which the question of the Bosphorus mastery was being decided, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with how this issue stood before the war.

From the point of view of state policy, the question of mastering the Bosphorus disappeared from the field of view of Russian statesmen at the end of the 19th century - when Russia's foreign policy was directed to the Far East. Therefore, the formulation of the question of interest to us in all its breadth after the outbreak of the war by Minister of Foreign Affairs S. D. Sazonov came as a complete surprise to military circles, because right up to the war itself it was not among those military-political tasks that the Russian armed forces were called upon to solve in case of war.


S. D. Sazonov

On the other hand, during the war, the Russian government could not help raising this question, for its resolution guaranteed the provision of communications with the Mediterranean basin, which was extremely important both for military and economic purposes, to some extent compensating for those victims. which the Russian people carried to the altar of the common Victory. As a result of this, the leaders of the Russian armed forces during the war, no matter how unexpected this question was posed for them, would undoubtedly have to reckon with this decision of the government without fail and should make every effort to actually achieve this goal.

Considering this question from the point of view of the Russian public opinion, one cannot help but conclude that after the end of the 19th century, the Slavophil circles, for whom the issue of the straits was the cornerstone of Russian politics, lost their influence, this issue was significantly obscured Russian public consciousness. In addition, under the influence of disillusionment with Russian military power after the Russo-Japanese War, Russian political aspirations were significantly reduced and the conviction that Russia was incapable of resolving such broad military-political problems as the issue of the Straits was introduced.

Question of the straits before the war
Turning to consideration of how the issue of straits in the leading military circles of Russia faced the war, it is necessary, first of all, to note that, as indicated above, neither state policy nor public opinion required its resolution from the armed forces. The leading circles of the army, represented by the General Directorate of the General Staff, were not inclined in themselves to pose the question of resolving the problem by armed force. And, if this question was raised in one form or another in government circles, it invariably ran into a definitely negative attitude on the part of the General Directorate General Headquarters. As a result, as the admiral notes, it would be more correct to conclude that the issue of the Straits "could not be posed by the policy for resolution by the armed force and because of the negative attitude towards it from the latter."

The main reason for the negative attitude of the leading military circles towards the capture of the Bosphorus was that after the Russo-Japanese War, their attention was completely absorbed in preparing for war with the formidable western neighbor. Moreover, the possibility of success in this impending future war was thought only in an environment of extreme power saving, that is, provided that the maximum of fighters was concentrated on the main theater of the war. This was insistently requested from the General Directorate of the General Staff and the ally - France. In this regard, the Main Directorate definitely negatively related to any secondary operations, including the Bosphorus one, considering that such operations weakened Russian forces in the main theater. At the same time, the Main Directorate did not see any direct assistance for operations in the main theater of war from the capture of the Bosphorus - the issue of ensuring sea communications with the outside world was not considered so important, because they firmly held the common opinion about the short duration of a future war. It was believed that the latter should be realized with those combat stocks that would be available at the time the conflict began, and, as a result, the supply of military supplies by sea from abroad was not so necessary.

As regards resolving the issue of the straits as such, the General Directorate General of the General Staff was of the opinion at that time in military circles that "the keys to the straits are in Berlin" and believed that the concentration of all forces against Germany and Austria-Hungary, bringing closer to victory over them, at the same time brings closer to resolution the issue of the Straits.

In addition, the following circumstance played an important role in the negative attitude of the General Directorate of the General Staff towards the Bosphorus operation: in essence, this operation had to be mixed and the fleet had to play the main role in it. At the same time, as noted, after the Russo-Japanese War, confidence in sailors disappeared in military circles - and they did not consider it possible to entrust the fate of the landing troops to the naval command, whose operational ability was considered very low (especially since the material part fleet after the Russo-Japanese War came into significant frustration).

For all of the above reasons, the Bosphorus operation was not only not included in the land war plan, but even the so-called. Odessa airborne battalion, which until the beginning of the 20th century was listed in the combat schedule of the Russian army (and in which the technical means were concentrated for the production of a landing in the case of the capture of the Bosphorus). Thus, from the point of view of the land plan for the upcoming war, Russia entered into it not only without any preparation, but even without any intention to carry out the Bosphorus operation.

To be continued ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

170 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 18: 05 New
    • 20
    • 4
    +16
    This is extremely interesting.
    And more than competent)
    1. Adjutant 25 December 2019 18: 17 New
      • 23
      • 4
      +19
      This is extremely interesting.
      And more than competent)

      Absolutely.
      And he answers the question - did Russia plan to tear off the Straits from the Turks before Turkey entered the war.
      And the definite answer is no.
      So the legend of the mythical reason for Russia's participation in WWI crumbled
      1. Hunghuz 25 December 2019 18: 25 New
        • 17
        • 2
        +15
        The aggressors attacked
        What is Germany, what is Turkey
        1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 26 December 2019 12: 16 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          But we had to stay awake in 1914! I see that 1914 is somewhat similar to 1941 ... Unless, in essence, the countries were different: the agrarian Republic of Ingushetia and the reviving USSR, the internal unrest of the Bolsheviks and the internal repressions of the NKVD, the attempt to build the Stolypin “socialism” and real socialism according to Stalin . And so there is some kind of similarity.
      2. Kronos 25 December 2019 19: 31 New
        • 6
        • 12
        -6
        No, it did not crumble before the war; such plans were more than once remembered the Crimean War or the aspirations of Catherine 2
        1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 20: 44 New
          • 13
          • 2
          +11
          No, it did not crumble before the war; such plans were more than once remembered the Crimean War or the aspirations of Catherine 2

          Even as it crumbled. You still remember the king of peas.
          We are talking about the situation at the beginning of the 20th century and (especially) the First World War.
          When the question was not even on the theoretical plane. Not to mention practical
      3. antivirus 26 December 2019 13: 14 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        A. D. Bubnov, absolutely right. The occupation of at least one of the Straits inevitably caused the following two consequences, which had a decisive influence on the outcome of the war: the surrender of Turkey and a significant increase in the combat strength of the Entente troops (and especially the Russian army). If, after the capture of the Straits, the Russian or English fleet appeared under the walls of Constantinople, the Turkish army, which fought the Russian army in the Caucasus and the English army in the Suez Canal, would be forced to lay down their arms, because it would be cut off from its main base, which was located on the banks The Bosphorus.

        “where is the money, Zin?” - can the military be captured, and then what to do with the Turks? 700 tons of former soldiers get lost in the air? —Germans of 18 g kept on the former east front in the Western part of the Russian Empire?

        STRENGTH NEEDED AGAINST ALLIES - England reduced its losses (and RI too).
        - would we be able to own Western Turkey on terms favorable to us ????
        It’s advantageous to the west — caravans pass into the Black Sea (equipment for war with Germany) —it’s not profitable — they lock up the Black Sea Fleet and Russia's exports (as phytosanitary requirements now) on the islands of the Aegean Sea.
        There was no prospect of feeding from the straits after the WWI!
  2. Keyser soze 25 December 2019 18: 14 New
    • 16
    • 16
    0
    the military strength of the German bloc was reduced by 700000 fighters (500000 Turks and 200000 Bulgarians),


    In WWI, Bulgaria mobilized 685K people, and the army reached 950K. This is the first or second place in the world in terms of army size, directly to the population.

    And so ... well, the Kingdom of Bulgaria offered RI, back in 1913 to take Constantinople with their own hands and give it to the Russians. But the Russians preferred to take the side of Austria-Hungary and give us a joint ultimatum by war, if we take the city. And with two Empires at the same time you can’t make jokes ...

    And then you ask why they fought in World War I on the side of Germany? And here the dog is buried.
    1. knn54 25 December 2019 19: 31 New
      • 3
      • 6
      -3
      Yes, Sazanov was against it, but for the following reason: France’s “allies” in the Entente, on the contrary, pushed Bulgaria to take the Ottoman capital, and Great Britain wanted to turn Istanbul-Constantinople into a free port under the so-called “international control”. And through the Straits was walking
      almost the entire export of Russian wheat.
    2. Kronos 25 December 2019 19: 33 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      They could offer anything, but what about England and France who were against it?
      1. Keyser soze 26 December 2019 09: 18 New
        • 6
        • 9
        -3
        But what about England and France who were against it?


        Nuuuu ..... There was nothing fighting in the European part of Turkey, and our army was 40 km away. from Constantinople. England has always performed in the country of the Turks (in this period). And who would ask them? If there were no ultimatum from AB and RI, we would have taken Constantinople in half a day. And they would give you without a drop of spilled Russian blood - board the ship, sail and take it.

        And with the obvious collapse of Turkey in that war, they could take a piece from Constantinople to the Lebanese province .... laughing

        Happily bargain with the pseudo sultan and endure his antics.
    3. alebor 26 December 2019 11: 00 New
      • 0
      • 4
      -4
      Well, the Kingdom of Bulgaria offered RI, back in 1913 to take Constantinople with their own hands and give it to the Russians.
      A generous gift! But since the gamble did not succeed, in 1915 Bulgaria decided to take Belgrade with its own hands and "give it to the Russians." And then in addition to Bucharest and Athens, give to the Russians.
      1. Keyser soze 26 December 2019 15: 47 New
        • 3
        • 10
        -7
        then in 1915 Bulgaria decided to take Belgrade with its own hands


        Nah ... laughing Bulgaria immediately decided to take Odessa and Moscow. Or not? Ahhh UTB 47 Zayonchkovsky building entered Dobrudja ... remembered. And I thought that the Bulgarian army invaded Russia, but no, it turned out exactly the opposite - 40 Russians, 000 of your Romanian friends and a division of Serbs entered Dobrudja. And there they disappeared and the Romanians and completely lost the capital ....

        The commander of the 35 Bulgarian corps covering Dobrudja addressed the troops: "Soldiers! We are all grateful and love the Russians. But what are they doing on our land today?"
        1. alatanas 1 January 2020 14: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Kolev_(general) !
    4. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 26 December 2019 12: 19 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Keyser Soze
      And then you ask why they fought in World War I on the side of Germany? And here the dog is buried.

      Totally agree with you! I also thought about this question for a long time and for a long time, and, it seems to me, this is a reasonable logical answer.
      1. antivirus 26 December 2019 13: 20 New
        • 2
        • 7
        -5
        against Avst Veng needed Serbia. from the contradictions, Serbs and Bulgaria chose the Serbs (after WWII, Yugoslavia was formed - a more solid piece of influence in the Center of Europe would have been received)
        -The key is to understanding the foreign policy of the Republic of Ingushetia, apparently in the Carpathians and the Danube. and as long as possible do not quarrel with Germany (and this without taking into account the contradictions with the "union" of England)
        it didn’t go as it was.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. antivirus 27 December 2019 12: 37 New
            • 0
            • 4
            -4
            To the Bulgarians of the Straits, who would give?
            in addition to victory in the war, we also need to sign a peace treaty and we need money to secure the territories,
            + what are the economic prospects (10-30 years)?
            RI has never been sovereign in Europe, and now there are the interests of Britain + France or Britain minus France, and they played on such contradictions, sometimes successfully sometimes - flying past the box office.
            "Cashier" is to return money for a military campaign and to give profit to merchants-industrialists.
            Do you like with farming in the Straits?
    5. alatanas 1 January 2020 14: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In addition, the headquarters of the Russian army was planning a landing in Burgas, as a base for the capture of the Bosphorus and, moreover, at the time when Bulgaria was neutral.
  3. Adjutant 25 December 2019 18: 19 New
    • 14
    • 1
    +13
    Russia joined it not only without any preparation, but even without any intention to carry out the Bosphorus operation.

    So exactly
    And exactly like that
    1. Saxahorse 25 December 2019 22: 07 New
      • 7
      • 13
      -6
      Quote: Adjutant
      So exactly
      And exactly like that

      Sure sure. And the program for the construction of the Black Sea battleships Stolypin purely out of love for the project budget pushed through. Turkey and the straits are not there at all, of course.
      1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 22: 13 New
        • 13
        • 5
        +8
        And the program for the construction of the Black Sea battleships Stolypin purely out of love for the project budget pushed through. Turkey and the straits are not there at all, of course.

        They were needed, these battleships, as an additional guarantee - after all, straits are in the hands of the enemy.
        For the defense of the southern underbelly of Russia, and not for the storming of coastal fortifications. The weapon of gaining dominance at sea.
        No more
  4. Hunghuz 25 December 2019 18: 26 New
    • 14
    • 2
    +12
    Very informative and interesting.
    Other with pleasure, waiting for the next part
  5. strannik1985 25 December 2019 18: 36 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    We had a chance to try to avoid Turkey’s entry into the war altogether, without any capture of the Tides.
    1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 18: 49 New
      • 12
      • 3
      +9
      There are always chances (theoretical).
      Yes, the Germans were ahead. Assigned to the Turks.
      And long before the start of the WWII
      1. strannik1985 25 December 2019 19: 18 New
        • 2
        • 5
        -3
        Enver Pasha tried to get off, from July 23 (August 5), 1914, he was negotiating with a Russian military agent, he even offered an army against any of the Balkan countries.
        Of course, it burned, the French and the British had already broken off, but during the war, under Russian guarantees, the Turks would have been sitting like mice under a broom.
        1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 19: 20 New
          • 14
          • 3
          +11
          Enver Pasha was just flirting. The military-political and economic component of Germany’s participation in Turkey was too serious. So it is unlikely.
          The Turks wanted too much. Including a bite from Russia.
          1. strannik1985 25 December 2019 19: 26 New
            • 2
            • 6
            -4
            Enver Pasha just flirted

            Maybe yes, maybe not. Italy also promised a lot of things to the Germans, it didn’t stop them from jumping off.
            Any benefits are offset by military spending, a theater of operations is difficult, without options in the SzM to fight the British and possibly the French, and on Black with the Russians. The reason is exactly one - the Entente defeats and shreds Turkey into pieces.
            1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 19: 27 New
              • 14
              • 3
              +11
              Well, didn’t they shred it?)
              1. strannik1985 25 December 2019 19: 28 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                Well, Enver Pasha is not an Oracle laughing
    2. Star Destroyer 25 December 2019 19: 21 New
      • 8
      • 20
      -12
      Yes there was no chance. After the Russo-Japanese war, the country actually lost its fleet, a new one was only under construction (but even in the future it would be inferior to Turkish-German forces in this region).
      The Allies also simply could not transfer significant forces to the Black Sea.
      The rate soberly assessed the near-zero chances of capturing irrigation in the foreseeable future, and had no illusions about this.
      1. Dart2027 25 December 2019 19: 53 New
        • 6
        • 6
        0
        Quote: Star Destroyer
        but even in the future he would be inferior to the Turkish-German forces in this region

        I remember here there were several disputes with one ardent Communist (in the worst sense), in whom any hint of any successes of the Republic of Ingushetia caused a rage. In particular, he tried to prove that the Black Sea Fleet supposedly could not do anything against the Turks and Germans, but could not give any facts.
      2. Albatroz 25 December 2019 20: 45 New
        • 13
        • 4
        +9
        Yes there was no chance.

        Let's see what the professionals say)
    3. 5-9
      5-9 26 December 2019 15: 14 New
      • 3
      • 12
      -9
      These Straits did not interest anyone except us. The Germans and the British tore Turkey because of oil in the Gulf, each to himself, the Germans began to build a piece of iron
  6. Rurikovich 25 December 2019 18: 39 New
    • 15
    • 15
    0
    From the point of view of state policy, the question of mastering the Bosphorus disappeared from the field of view of Russian statesmen at the end of the 19th century - when Russia's foreign policy was directed to the Far East

    The question, of course, is interesting. lol
    Let's look at a slightly different angle.
    Strange as it may seem, a series of EDBs of the Sinop type were designed for warfare in the narrowness of the Bosphorus, therefore they had to have a strong frontal fire. The result was a very outstanding ship with bow fire of 4 305 mm guns (with a total of 6 guns). Which was tantamount to an airborne volley of any standard battleship of the time.
    We look further. Designed at the beginning of the century, the battleship "Prince Potemkin-Tauride" received tower installations with a vertical guidance angle of +35 degrees with the standard 15 for the rest of the fleet. This was done to shell the fortifications of the Bosphorus.
    Morality. Whatever professor A said in their versions, the construction of the necessary weapons indicated that Russia ALWAYS looked at the Bosphorus.
    smile
    1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 18: 44 New
      • 15
      • 7
      +8
      They say not the professors, but the admirals in the subject. And this is not a version, but a historical fact.
      It's first
      And you can look at a lot of things, but when there are no plans, then there’s nothing to talk about.
      Morality.
      Pulling angles and degrees under idle efforts, once again we see that facts are a stubborn thing wink
      1. Rurikovich 25 December 2019 18: 52 New
        • 10
        • 13
        -3
        Quote: Albatroz
        Pulling angles and degrees under idle efforts, once again we see that facts are a stubborn thing

        Yes, I’m on the drum. I just said that when building ships for battles in the straits, Russia always thought of the straits. wink
        1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 19: 23 New
          • 14
          • 4
          +10
          Russia has built a lot of things.
          And the ocean fleet also, with no intention of fighting in these oceans.
          ships for fighting in the straits

          too much said. However, there are different opportunities.
          By attacking Russia, the Turks themselves contributed to the resuscitation of the idea of ​​the Straits
          1. Serg65 26 December 2019 14: 38 New
            • 10
            • 13
            -3
            Quote: Albatroz
            too much said

            1885 year. Chairman of the Black Sea Coast Defense Commission, Head of the Odessa Military District, Lieutenant General Roop H.Kh. presents to the Minister of War a landing operation plan.
            Troops and their reserves. In an effort to immediately throw maximum combat forces onto the enemy’s shore and in accordance with the presence of a transport fleet, almost all the unmobilized field forces of the Odessa Military District located in coastal cities, namely, the 13th and 15th Infantry Divisions, 4- I am a rifle brigade, 11, 12, 13 combat engineer battalions, a pontoon battalion, a railway fleet, 6 field batteries and two hundred Don Cossacks.
            In place of those who left on the expedition, other parts of the Odessa military district (the 14th, 34th infantry divisions, the 14th and 34th artillery brigades) were supposed to go to deployment points on the coast
            Transport squadron. For the transportation of troops, the commission outlined the following number of ships of the Voluntary Fleet and the Russian Society:
            12 steamboats lifting 1.500–2.000 people
            5 steamboats lifting 1.200–1.300 people
            42 steamships lifting 600–400 people
            Landing was scheduled in Odessa, Sevastopol, Nikolaev, Feodosia and Kerch.
            To cover the transport detachment, the Black Sea Fleet had a very small number of combat vessels: two floating batteries (“Popovka” - round vessels built in the 1870s according to the design of Admiral Popov), not very suitable for naval operations, two dilapidated corvettes and relatively good ships - one schooner and the cruiser Memory of Mercury.

            In 1908, various notes and proposals from naval sailors, in particular, from Vice Admiral L.A., arrived at the Naval General Staff of the Navy. Brusilova. In the summer of 1908, a Special Meeting was held, which received the highest approval. Based on it, operational developments were compiled under the heading "Top Secret" to organize the landing operation on the Bosphorus.
            The opinion of the historian K.F. Chacillo.
            The inability to maintain statuquo in the straits and their extreme importance for the normal functioning of the country's economy again gradually led, from the end of 1911, tsarism to the idea that the only way to guarantee its vital interests and to prevent the straits from becoming “foreign hands” was to seize them

            In 1913, Sukhomliov reported to the tsar his personal point of view regarding the riskiness of the operation itself to occupy the straits from the technical side. After listening to the report, Emperor Nicholas II, apparently optimistic, not denying the difficulties of the operation from a military point of view, made it clear that in this matter the idea and purpose of the whole issue is so dominant that the technical details are fading into the background.
            what And this is your way.
            Quote: Albatroz
            We are talking about the situation at the beginning of the 20th century and (especially) the First World War.
            When the question was not even on the theoretical plane. Not to mention practical
            1. Albatroz 26 December 2019 15: 01 New
              • 13
              • 11
              +2
              Yes.
              I confirm.
              There was no actual planning.
              Well, searchlights and insinuations, as always, was enough)
              In general, an attempt to cast a shadow on the fence failed Serg65 (Sergey)
              Where are you against Bubnov))
              1. Serg65 27 December 2019 12: 56 New
                • 10
                • 13
                -3
                Quote: Albatroz
                I confirm.
                There was no actual planning.

                what My dear and arrogant friend, I hope that you, as a great specialist in the plans of the General Staff of the Russian Imperial Army, are well aware of what exactly, Captain 2nd Rank Stepan Osipovich Makarov received his next officer rank of Captain 1st Rank? Based on your knowledge of the plans of the Entente regarding the Black Sea Straits, I have no doubt that you don’t have to explain what the term “Special Reserve” means and where weapons and ammunition intended for this very “Special Reserve” were stored! And I’m also pretty sure that you are of course aware of the contents of the memorandum of the Russian ambassador to Constantinople A.I. Nelidov in the name of Emperor Alexander III, after the British capture of Egypt and Cyprus in 1882, and what consequences this note led to! Hoping for your vast knowledge about the history of the plans of the Russian Empire on the problem of the Black Sea Straits, I would really like to know your deep scientific opinion about the significance of the battle on the Kushka River on March 18 (naturally, according to the old style) of 1885 in Anglo-Russian relations and military-political views the tsarist government and the king personally on the Bosphorus problem? Well, I apologize, the last question eager to fall to the beautiful source of your vast knowledge. Could you tell me why, in the middle of 1890, 15 9-inch light mortars with a barrel length of 6 calibers and a firing range of 3 kilometers began to arrive in Odessa?
                Quote: Albatroz
                Where are you against Bubnov

                Dear Albatross, the whole point is that during the most of the events mentioned above, Alexander Dmitrievich was only planning to conceive in the womb of his mother, and as a result of the fact that most of the documents of that time related to at least the Special Reserve had a signature stamp "over secret" and did not extend below the Minister of the Sea! what Miles sorry, Mr. Albatross, I was sure that you were aware of this!
                For sim let me take my leave hi
                1. Albatroz 27 December 2019 14: 34 New
                  • 12
                  • 8
                  +4
                  Dear sworn friend!
                  This verbiage only proves your fake))
                  Namely, that you simply have nothing to contrast the data of the father of the Bosphorus operation, Admiral A. Bubnov))
                  all attracted (by the ears and not only) "data" (and all sorts of "technical" attempts) only work for him))
                  I accept the bow)))
                  1. Svarog51 27 December 2019 15: 22 New
                    • 13
                    • 11
                    +2
                    Well and manfred you manners?
                    father of the Bosphorus operation, Admiral A. Bubnov

                    And what, such an operation was carried out? Or "the baby is stillborn"? Something I did not hear about carrying out such.
                    There are no references to documents in the article, and besides a photograph of the admiral, there is only a retelling of his opinion and the opinions of some historical figures. The only hope is that the promised continuation will contain documents from the archive of Admiral Bubnov, but so far this has not happened.
                    And here's another interesting point: why is A. Oleinikov himself silent? Does he have a VO account, which prevents him from personally accompanying the article rather than delegating authority to you? What is your interest here?
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. Svarog51 27 December 2019 19: 56 New
                        • 11
                        • 9
                        +2
                        I’m actually a commentator, if anything, take an interest on the site at the authorities. I have the same rights as you, no more and no less.
                        To cook is not to spend. I hope you understand?
                        I don’t give a damn what you wrote for the admiral, provide the documents in the photo or video materials. Your admiral - maybe the hero of the Japanese war, but in relation to Russia in WWI - he is a coward, a traitor and a thief, in addition. In WWI, he did nothing to carry out the operation, washed off abroad from the Revolution and, among other things, stole documents of national importance and hid it until “better times”. "Would" prevent you from elevating him to the rank of a hero - he did not do anything significant, and there are a lot of people to say after the events. You would have to figure out the opposition, and you are crawling with history. Sergey explained everything to you correctly, but it’s not interesting for you, you switched to personalities, you were rude, but you didn’t say anything significant. You have nothing for your soul except grants from "partners". And the flock of you supporting on VO is easily miscalculated. If there are serious documents - provide. Otherwise - I turn to the site administration for your fake. Your website was calculated by our website author Volodin. My opinion-here you do not shine rubbing get on the forum users. We are not such stupid people as you think.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. Svarog51 27 December 2019 21: 00 New
                        • 10
                        • 9
                        +1
                        Your extreme phrase completely characterizes you. If I am a foreign agent living in Central Russia, then you are broadcasting from Belarus in the first person. It's funny Regarding crap - you did not answer what is your interest, and why Oleynikov himself does not answer. Well, which of us is a liar? Forum users themselves will draw conclusions, regardless of your pressure. I repeat - in VO they are not children, you simply won’t be fooled. And all your efforts to put me off balance and to be rude in response to your rudeness will not lead to anything.
                        P.S. And you’ve been great at leaking into VO undercover. But then you slept to the fullest. It wasn’t worth pushing like that, maybe it’s rolled b, and maybe not.
                        P.S. Very negative attitude towards those who are hiding behind a nickname. You are one of those. An honest person has a name, not a nickname.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. The comment was deleted.
                      8. The comment was deleted.
                      9. The comment was deleted.
                      10. The comment was deleted.
                      11. The comment was deleted.
                      12. The comment was deleted.
                      13. The comment was deleted.
                      14. The comment was deleted.
                      15. The comment was deleted.
                      16. The comment was deleted.
                      17. The comment was deleted.
                      18. The comment was deleted.
                      19. The comment was deleted.
                      20. The comment was deleted.
                      21. The comment was deleted.
                      22. The comment was deleted.
                      23. The comment was deleted.
                      24. The comment was deleted.
                      25. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. The comment was deleted.
    8. The comment was deleted.
    9. The comment was deleted.
    10. The comment was deleted.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Serg65 28 December 2019 10: 07 New
    • 5
    • 8
    -3
    Quote: Albatroz
    father of the Bosphorus operation, Admiral A. Bubnov

    laughing laughing laughing Vasne is childishly rushing, Albatroz !!!
    a true liberal who has betrayed two oaths and has dangled his father from the homeland?
    Quote: Albatroz
    This verbiage only proves your fake

    Exactly, your verbiage, as I understand it, from the "size" of your mind?
    Quote: Albatroz
    you simply have nothing to counter the data of the father of the Bosphorus operation, Admiral A. Bubnov

    laughing Contrast with what data, are you our historian? The operation began to be planned at the beginning of 1915, at which time your Bubnov went as a senior officer on Diana! By the end of 1916, the planning was completed, and Bubnov received initiation into the plans of the operation in September 1917, becoming the head of the Naval Administration, the operation had already been canceled by that time! But you, narcissistic youth, do not care! Hearing someone's whistle, you rushed to the barricades, without even bothering to find out at least a little bit about why you are fighting the throat!
    Quote: Albatroz
    the comrade above (Serg65 (Sergey)) cited (as they like to say in VO) "intellectual highs"

    But this once again proves that you are a dear, ordinary illiterate throat who has read only two ABC books and one more blue one in his whole life! It’s easier for you to prove something, it’s easier to go to the moon on foot, because there is a complete vacuum in your favorite head!
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • prapor55 25 December 2019 18: 41 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    We will wait for the continuation, the topic is very deep and mixed. hi
  • pogis 25 December 2019 18: 46 New
    • 8
    • 11
    -3
    Quote: Keyser Soze
    And so ... well, the Kingdom of Bulgaria offered RI, back in 1913 to take Constantinople with their own hands and give it to the Russians. But the Russians preferred to take the side of Austria-Hungary and give us a joint ultimatum by war, if we take the city. And with two Empires at the same time you can’t make jokes ...

    And then you ask why they fought in World War I on the side of Germany? And here the dog is buried.

    I give you an answer, not RI, but Nikolai 2, made decisions then his clone Gorbachev appeared in the USSR, both destroyed the Empire.
    1. Keyser soze 26 December 2019 09: 42 New
      • 1
      • 10
      -9
      I give you the answer, not RI, And Nikolai 2 ...


      Even so, I agree. Yes, then everything went running and drowned in the blood of the First World War, but we already knew that we should not count on Russians. What is not a new year - or an ultimatum or a bombing, or even confuse Dobrudja with Constantinople .... laughing
  • Alf
    Alf 25 December 2019 19: 09 New
    • 4
    • 6
    -2
    And the American ambassador to Turkey during the war G. Morgento

    Is it not the Henry Morgenthau who proposed his plan for the post-war murder of Germany and, in particular, the transformation of Germany into an agricultural appendage of Europe and the total castration of Germans?
    1. Earth 25 December 2019 22: 12 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: Alf
      Is it not the Henry Morgenthau who proposed his plan for the post-war murder of Germany and, in particular, the transformation of Germany into an agricultural appendage of Europe and the total castration of Germans?

      "Morgenthau Plan" (Eng. Morgenthau Plan), "Program to Prevent Unleashing Germany of World War 3" - a program of post-war transformation of Germany, proposed by US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau. The Morgenthau Plan called for the dismemberment of Germany, the transfer of important industrial areas under international control, the elimination of heavy industry, demilitarization and the transformation of Germany into an agricultural country.
      So he was proposed by Henry the Younger. And his father was just the ambassador to Turkey
      Henry Morgentho (English Hans Henry Morgenthau, April 26, 1856 - November 25, 1946) - US ambassador to Turkey during the First World War.
      There is not a word about castration. This is stupid.
      Goebbels propaganda immediately conveyed this plan as a Jewish plan. In general, added to the bitterness of the Germans.
  • K-50 25 December 2019 19: 18 New
    • 5
    • 21
    -16
    Why didn’t Russia take possession of the Bosphorus in the First World War?

    Who would let her? The straits for Russia were like carrots for a donkey.
    For this, they dragged into the war, and then they organized it from every scum to weaken, and not to receive “dividends” in the form of straits at the end.
    England and France did not need Russia with an independent ice-free access to the sea. request
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. K-50 25 December 2019 20: 05 New
        • 5
        • 15
        -10
        Quote: Albatroz
        the consent of the allies, and not only to the straits, but also to Constantinople, was obtained in March - April 15.

        You forget the English expression of those years, and of the present too: "The gentleman gave his word, he can take it." we ALWAYS were not ours for them, therefore their responsibility for this did not extend to us. NEVER!!!
        How many times has Russia tried to take the straits and Constantinople? Read the story, remember the middle of the 19th century and the seventies at the same time. As soon as the situation arises that Russia will take the straits, a coalition immediately arises against England, France, Austria, Italy, Turkey itself. With whom only then did not have to fight, or under the threat of a new war.
        Therefore, no one would ever allow this to Russia.
        There are no pluses or minuses, this is an objective situation, because otherwise Russia would have increased its sea trade and income from it too, and this is an English “cow”, they cut it and nobody would see the Russians there. request
        1. Kronos 25 December 2019 20: 46 New
          • 2
          • 6
          -4
          There was a time when real allies were during Catherine 2 and the Napoleonic Wars
          1. K-50 26 December 2019 10: 01 New
            • 1
            • 4
            -3
            Quote: Kronos
            There was a time when real allies were during Catherine 2 and the Napoleonic Wars

            Well, if you discard the very idea that Napoleon’s campaign was provoked again by the Naglossaks. lol
        2. The comment was deleted.
      3. smaug78 25 December 2019 21: 15 New
        • 2
        • 6
        -4
        Before entering the composition of the fleet of battleships - "Gebenophobia". Later they began to cook, but did not have time ...
    2. strannik1985 25 December 2019 19: 32 New
      • 4
      • 5
      -1
      For this, they dragged into the war

      Which pulled in? H2 covered the Serbs in a very delicate situation, and when it spun, fulfilled its obligations to France.
      The Straits were not even discussed.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Star Destroyer 25 December 2019 19: 32 New
    • 9
    • 18
    -9
    I’m probably stupid, but I still don’t understand how the presence of maritime communications between the Entente would bring the end of the war closer, and even for a year? What would the German-Turkish fleet and the army do while Russia and its allies were trying to capture the straits far from the main theaters of operations? Straits such as the Bosphorus cannot be taken only by Wishlist, at the same time, any assessments of forces and risks in the analytics are simply absent. In its current form, the material is of dubious value for mentioning it in textbooks, IMHO.
    1. DimanC 25 December 2019 19: 53 New
      • 9
      • 11
      -2
      Because the key phrase of the article
      As for Russia, instead of Bolshevism, an era of prosperity and unprecedented greatness awaited her.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. Kronos 25 December 2019 21: 28 New
        • 12
        • 12
        0
        Nothing is painted except the Bolsheviks are bad and without them we would have turned around
        1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 30 New
          • 14
          • 14
          0
          Strategic layouts are given. Even with numbers.
          And the Bolsheviks-yes, bad. For they ruined Russia.
          In the end.
          1. Kronos 25 December 2019 21: 31 New
            • 12
            • 11
            +1
            Lol monarchists in the front ranks including the royal family did the February Revolution
          2. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 26 December 2019 12: 32 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            Yes, the Bolsheviks themselves then drove over the straits. Now they say that Turkey’s entry into WWII during the Battle of Moscow or later during the Battle of Stalingrad was possible, but ... look with a pencil carefully at the alignment of the Red Army in Transcaucasia and Iran, plus allies nearby (Middle East plus Iran again). Count the strengths of the parties. See grouping configurations. And it turns out that Turkey had dubious chances of some kind of victory in general. The Turks really saw this and realized that there was no need to get in touch with Adolf - it was better to wait! And they were not mistaken. PMV lessons have benefited. And they saved their straits.
            1. alatanas 1 January 2020 14: 25 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              If Hitler took Stalingrad, the Turks would have attacked without hesitation. They had 900 mobilized on the border with the USSR.
              1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 2 January 2020 10: 01 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                This is debatable, colleague, very controversial! The Turks in the past had more than a dozen large wars with Russia and the Republic of Ingushetia, so they knew the Russian soldier firsthand. Add to this that we would defend ourselves in a previously prepared mountainous area on OWN land. Plus - the Turks did not have superiority in aviation, and our air defense (especially the Baku junction) was good, and radar stations were deployed from the spring of 1940 in the Caucasus. And, again, our Angles and I could inflict a chopping blow on the flank of the Turks from northern Iran. So, at least 900, at least 000 Turks would go on the attack, everyone would have successfully died and fertilized the mountains of the Caucasus! And ours, if there was a stable, well-coordinated defense, could defend there even until 1! PS Remember the vaunted German gamekeepers - they managed to hang the flag on the mountain, but they could not help the Wehrmacht colleagues to capture the passes and mountain roads. But the Turks were weak for the Germans, even as carriers of shells ... The Germans saw this and understood it from the WWII.
          3. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 2 January 2020 10: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The stubborn and wrong Bolsheviks from the RSDLP (b) ruined Russia, and the more correct Stalinists raised Russia and then turned it into a leading world power, providing the first guys with time and place in the camps to think and improve, and the stubborn - a bullet in the back of the head in the cellars of one not so fun places ...
    3. Ekzutor 29 December 2019 09: 54 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      I guess I'm stupid

      Probably
  • 3vs
    3vs 25 December 2019 20: 12 New
    • 16
    • 15
    +1
    As for Russia, instead of Bolshevism, an era of prosperity and unprecedented greatness awaited her.

    What greatness ?!
    Who would give Russia greatness?
    Everything has already gone from the 19th century to revolution, a rotten aristocracy, clergy and intelligentsia, everything led to a revolutionary denouement.
    1. DimanC 25 December 2019 20: 15 New
      • 16
      • 14
      +2
      Shhhhhh! You drown out the crunch of french loaf laughing
      1. Dart2027 25 December 2019 21: 22 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        Quote: DimanC
        crunch french rolls

        Could you give examples of the extensive use of French rolls in RI?
        1. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 2 January 2020 13: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Why did we need French - there were plenty of ours!
          1. Dart2027 2 January 2020 14: 15 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko
            Why did we need French

            This is what I would like to know.
    2. Inspector 25 December 2019 20: 33 New
      • 1
      • 10
      -9
      Do not read Soviet newspapers before dinner.
    3. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 22 New
      • 16
      • 21
      -5
      rotten aristocracy, clergy and intelligentsia, all led to a revolutionary denouement.

      Bolshevism is death for Russia.
      He crawled out of the underground and began to distribute its territory (Brest) and destroy people.
      And it ends up dragging Russia into the grave with the hands of its fosterlings.
      In these very minutes.
      Hands of pets your party.
      Here they are, the grave diggers - the Communists.
    4. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 26 December 2019 12: 35 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      That RI, that the USSR — both of our powers were doomed to global domination and prosperity, but ... it turned out the way it did. However, it is not yet evening!
    5. Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 2 January 2020 10: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Reforms sometimes nullify revolutions. However, in the Republic of Ingushetia by 1916-17. there was a systemic crisis. He crawled into a similar USSR in the mid-1980s, ending with the so-called "perestroika" and self-liquidation of the country in 1991.
  • 27091965 25 December 2019 20: 25 New
    • 6
    • 13
    -7
    More recently, we have come across an extremely interesting and instructive material published in an emigrant periodical, authored by Rear Admiral A.D. Bubnov, the hero of the Russo-Japanese War, head of the Stavka Naval Directorate (since October 1917).


    It will allow us to finally put dots over the “i” in this problem - starting from the question whether Russia was preparing to take control of the straits before the outbreak of the First World War, and ending with the prospects for a corresponding military operation during the latter. Rear Admiral introduces us to extremely interesting facts.


    No offense to the respected author, but were the arguments presented in the article not known before?

    " The real purpose they had in mind was Constantinople and the Bosphorus, especially the latter. Because they realized that the conduct of this operation by the British, French and Russian naval and military forces would provide Russia with funds both for the export of agricultural products, which she had in abundance, and for the import of military material, which she urgently needed "1922

    "The capture of the straits and the fall of Constantinople would have had a tremendous moral impact on all of Turkey and the entire Mohammedan world. Such a bold and decisive blow inflicted by the forces of the Entente could, in addition, ensure benevolent neutrality towards the allies by the Balkan states, and it could well induce all these countries to definitely unite with the warring parties, which have so convincingly demonstrated their combat capabilities and your ability to wage war"1922

    Perhaps the main thing in this matter "published in emigrant periodical".
    1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 20: 52 New
      • 15
      • 8
      +7
      But were the arguments presented in the article previously not known

      Do not remind where?
      So I will remind. In the work of a respected author.
      Oleinikov A.V. Turkish trap 100 years later. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2016.
      Now he has discovered the most interesting material on the subject, first hand, and introduces him to the reader.
      What's the problem?
      published in emigrant periodical

      Naturally, where else. Not in the newspaper True))
      Bubnov emigrated abroad.
      1. 27091965 25 December 2019 21: 15 New
        • 7
        • 11
        -4
        Do not remind where?
        So I will remind. In the work of a respected author.
        Oleinikov A.V. Turkish trap 100 years later. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2016.


        Unfortunately you were mistaken. I used excerpts from the work of Major General Callwell CE "Dardanelles" 1922

        Now he has discovered the most interesting material on the subject, first hand, and introduces him to the reader.
        What's the problem?

        You probably can’t imagine how many works on this topic have been published from 1918 to our time.
        In addition, it is strange why the material is not indicated;
        " A combined British and French squadron bombarded batteries at the mouth of the Dardanelles on November 3"

        " On January 2, 1915, Russia asked England to hold any demonstration against Turkey in order to ease the very serious pressure that was exerted. to the Russian troops in Transcaucasia by the superior Ottoman army at the moment. "

        Naturally, where else. Not in the newspaper Pravda)) Bubnov emigrated abroad.


        It turns out on the topic of the Dardanelles, besides Bubnov, no one else wrote in the world.
        1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 18 New
          • 13
          • 11
          +2
          I was not going to guess dear. Just reported the facts.
          And what does the Dardanelles have to do with it?
          You probably can’t imagine how many works on this topic have been published from 1918 to our time.

          Yes, I know better than yours
          It turns out on the topic of the Dardanelles, besides Bubnov, no one else wrote in the world.

          Bubnov did not write on the Dardanelles) but on the preparations for the Bosphorus expedition)
          These are different straits))
          But Bubnov, unlike the others, was preparing the operation and headed the naval department of the Headquarters
          1. 27091965 25 December 2019 21: 35 New
            • 3
            • 10
            -7
            Quote: Albatroz
            Yes, I know better than yours


            Very well. The minus is not mine. I respect the opinions of others.
            1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 36 New
              • 14
              • 8
              +6
              Well
              Happy for you
          2. 27091965 25 December 2019 21: 42 New
            • 3
            • 11
            -8
            Quote: Albatroz
            And what does the Dardanelles have to do with it?


            The book considers not only military operations, but also the political and economic issues of the Entente countries.
            1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 43 New
              • 13
              • 6
              +7
              Bosphorus expedition too?
              If not, what does this have to do with the subject under discussion?
              1. 27091965 25 December 2019 22: 26 New
                • 4
                • 11
                -7
                Quote: Albatroz
                Bosphorus expedition too?


                I tried to compose the opinion of the British on this issue;

                " Here we should mention another circumstance that worsened the chances of Antana. At an early stage of preparation for this enterprise, the Russians undertook to cooperate in the planned operations to capture the Bosphorus and occupy Constantinople, and for this purpose they concentrated troops in the Odessa region that were supposed to assist in the operation. But during April and May, the course of the war in other theaters of operations, in Galicia and Poland, forced the Russian commander-in-chief to withdraw these forces from the Black Sea coast, and since then there has never been a question about the Russian troops acting together with English and French soldiers trying to advance to the Golden Horn from the Aegean Sea.

                It was never supposed that Russia could directly assist in the struggle if the operations against the Bosphorus and Istanbul really took place. But the recall of the considerable forces of the allies from the vicinity of Odessa had a noticeable effect on the struggle. As long as the German and Turkish military authorities were worried that hostile weapons from the far shore of the Black Sea could threaten the capital, they were forced to maintain an extensive garrison in the heart of the empire. The elimination of the Russian threat freed a number of battalions and batteries to serve in other places
                . "
                1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 22: 28 New
                  • 12
                  • 8
                  +4
                  What is your opinion?
                  These are well-known facts.
                  1. 27091965 25 December 2019 22: 40 New
                    • 5
                    • 13
                    -8
                    Quote: Albatroz
                    These are well-known facts.


                    That's just the point, and referring to the fact that A.D. Bubnov discovered something new in this issue does not make sense.
                    1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 22: 48 New
                      • 13
                      • 12
                      +1
                      With a clear conscience I put a minus)
                      For guile.
                      For
                      drag here (traditionally twisted) Dardanelles. What does not relate to the subject of the article. Moreover, you dare to put on one board the miserable mention in an indirect book and the most detailed study of the Bosphorus operation from her actually father.
                      Incomparable things. And pretend that you do not understand this))
                      Bubnov did not open - he gave all the alignments. His infa - No. 1 in every sense.
                      The rest - somewhere heralded. Edge of the ear)
                      1. 27091965 25 December 2019 23: 16 New
                        • 6
                        • 12
                        -6
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        With a clear conscience I put a minus)
                        For guile.
                        For
                        drag here (traditionally twisted) Dardanelles. What does not relate to the subject of the article. Moreover, you dare to put on one board the miserable mention in an indirect book and the most detailed study of the Bosphorus operation from her actually father.
                        Incomparable things. And pretend that you do not understand this))


                        Thanks for the answer. At the expense of cunning I do not agree, I am interested in comparing different points of view on the issue voiced in different countries. "Dardanelles", as I wrote above, is the name of one of the books in which the topic discussed in the article is partially considered. In my opinion, the article still does not have a great political subtext, but each has its own priorities.

                        The rest - somewhere heralded. Edge of the ear)


                        I also do not agree with this. . Yours faithfully
                      2. Albatroz 25 December 2019 23: 21 New
                        • 13
                        • 9
                        +4
                        Yes, I do not care what you agree with))
                        If the authoritative opinion of the one who prepared the Bosphorus operation is compared with a mention in passing in an indirect book.
                        This is at least incorrect) Do not you understand?
                      3. 27091965 25 December 2019 23: 40 New
                        • 5
                        • 12
                        -7
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        If the authoritative opinion of the one who prepared the Bosphorus operation is compared with a mention in passing in an indirect book.
                        This is at least incorrect)


                        What does this have to do with correctness, there are a lot of books on this subject.

                        "The success of the naval attack on the outer forts of the Dardanelles and the first penetration of the Straits caused very serious consequences. The Turkish headquarters in late February expected the breakthrough of the enemy fleet to be successful. Measures were taken to the Sultan, the court and took refuge in the depths of Asia Minor. "Estuary von Sanders, military adviser to the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

                        No wonder Russia asked for a public declaration on Constantinople.
                      4. Albatroz 26 December 2019 07: 44 New
                        • 12
                        • 7
                        +5
                        And what does the "book" have to do with it, especially not related to the Bosphorus expedition?
                        However, this is not surprising, because traditionally you do not understand the hierarchy.
                        You cannot distinguish a source (Bubnov) from Western books (written on the basis of rumors).
                        And in general, what does the Dardanelles have to do with it?))
                      5. 27091965 26 December 2019 12: 16 New
                        • 4
                        • 11
                        -7
                        Quote: Albatroz
                        You cannot distinguish a source (Bubnov) from Western books (written on the basis of rumors).


                        On January 23-25, a review of a memorandum received from Grand Duke Nicholas in response to a proposal to consider a joint operation in the Bosphorus and Dardanelles took place in England;

                        " The most effective aid that could be provided to the Union Fleet would be for Russia to land the troops. However, this was not possible, since at least two army corps had to be withdrawn from the main theater of operations. "

                        However, later opinion has changed;

                        " Landing of Russian troops is possible in case of successful development Dardanelles operation"

                        One of the factors that influenced this was the discussion of the possible outcome, in cases of success, of the Dardanelles operation. For us, the item under No. 4 is interesting;

                        "...... Establishment of complete control by England over Constantinople.. "

                        Documents on this topic, and not "books", can be found in the English National Archive. True, this will require material costs, they are not involved in charity.

                        For you drag here (traditionally twisted) Dardanelles. What does not relate to the subject of the article


                        I hope I was able to answer your question about the relationship between the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus operations. Where to find a more complete answer, I indicated above.

                        Thanks for the interesting discussion.


                        .
                      6. Albatroz 26 December 2019 13: 03 New
                        • 12
                        • 8
                        +4
                        You confuse the problem of interaction between the Russians and the British in the framework of the Dardanelles operation (All-Union) and the project of the independent Russian Bosphorus operation (which survived the Dardanelles for 2 years).
                        As I understand it, everything is the same))
                        And that is why, mixing the categories, they did not answer anything. True, they quoted several quotes from a book about the Dardanelles operation). The benefit is in the internet)
                        Thanks for the interesting discussion.

                        More than)
                        And very indicative))
                      7. Albatroz 26 December 2019 13: 06 New
                        • 12
                        • 9
                        +3
                        As for Constantinople, this is a separate issue.
                        Although the Allies agreed to his Russian status, naturally each of them nurtured his hopes and was the first to break. As is the case with Berlin on the 45th.
                        That is why it was necessary to take (the same Bosphorus), confronting allies with a fait accompli.
  • Inspector 25 December 2019 20: 32 New
    • 6
    • 12
    -6
    straits are secondary. The restoration of the original Russia is urgent - with the outskirts, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Without which, Russia would remain a regional power.
    The restoration of the Warsaw Pact is also critical.
    And the straits ... and without them were a superpower. Gibraltar is still closed. Blue-blooded again divert attention from continental issues to marine.
    1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 20: 54 New
      • 13
      • 9
      +4
      Straits are important: a) in the economic and b) in the defense sense.
      It's about the events of 100 years ago, when it is especially important.
      "kazakstany" and "belarus" were then and so were Russian
      1. Kronos 25 December 2019 21: 30 New
        • 8
        • 12
        -4
        Yes, monarchists are always willing to grab more so that their masters have something to feed on
        1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 31 New
          • 15
          • 13
          +2
          And the red feathers did not grab?
    2. Bagatur 27 December 2019 00: 51 New
      • 0
      • 8
      -8
      Warsaw Pact? Are there any candidates for restoration?
  • smaug78 25 December 2019 21: 10 New
    • 6
    • 12
    -6
    But the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet, unlike the author, thought differently and built and updated plans for the landing operation to capture the Bosphorus regularly. This activity was official. So I think that at the Highest Level this idea was never abandoned and "the sight was." But a reason was needed, as it is written in the article, and he introduced himself. But for various reasons it did not grow together. Alas...
    1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 15 New
      • 13
      • 9
      +4
      But the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet, unlike the author

      From the author of what?))
      Do you throw this rebuke to Admiral Bubnov?))
      1. smaug78 25 December 2019 21: 22 New
        • 7
        • 12
        -5
        And where does Bubnov and the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet?))) Or the plans of 1885, 1896–97, and the comrade of the Minister of the Sea since 1911?
        1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 25 New
          • 14
          • 9
          +5
          Do you know how to express coherent thoughts?))
          Bubnov worked in conjunction with the Black Sea Fleet command. Since 16, for sure.
          1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 26 New
            • 12
            • 11
            +1
            It is his sector of responsibility. Well informed much better than smaug.
            So, by the way)
            Comrade))
            1. smaug78 25 December 2019 21: 28 New
              • 8
              • 13
              -5
              And where does Bubnov and the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet?))) Or plans 1885, 1896–97 GG, and comrade Minister of the Sea since 1911?
              PS Precisely what did you disagree with initially, why mentioning Admiral Bubnov?
              1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 29 New
                • 13
                • 12
                +1
                Yes, all the same
                That is, nothing to do with it.
                Like your inadequate cues
                1. smaug78 25 December 2019 21: 31 New
                  • 8
                  • 13
                  -5
                  An example of an inadequate cue? To the question "where does Bubnov and the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet?))) Or plans of 1885, 1896–97." Are you unable to answer?
                  1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 32 New
                    • 13
                    • 12
                    +1
                    It is this replica - and there is an example
                    what is the problem?
  • smaug78 25 December 2019 21: 34 New
    • 8
    • 11
    -3
    Quote: Albatroz
    From the author of what?))
    Do you throw this rebuke to Admiral Bubnov?))

    And where does Bubnov and the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet?))) Or what does he have to do with the plans of 1885, 1896–97? So arrange?
    1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 35 New
      • 12
      • 9
      +3
      Is the roof going?)))
      Bubnov worked in conjunction with the Black Sea Fleet command. Since 16, for sure.
      It is his sector of responsibility. Well informed much better than smaug.
      So arrange?)
      1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 39 New
        • 12
        • 8
        +4
        And where does Bubnov and the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet?

        so arrange?)
        flag captain of the Black Sea Theater of the Naval Headquarters of the Supreme Commander
      2. smaug78 25 December 2019 21: 46 New
        • 8
        • 13
        -5
        Where Bubnov writes that the military leadership did not have plans or refutes the existence of plans of 1885, 1896–97?))) In general, the three-man, do not argue with me:
        http://militera.lib.ru/h/petrov_ma/03.html. Петров М. А. Подготовка России к мировой войне на море. — М-Л.: Госвоениздат, 1926. Штаб РККА. Управление по исследованию и использованию опыта войн.
        Or more than this article did not study anything on this issue?
        1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 49 New
          • 13
          • 10
          +3
          Don’t argue with you.
          The most informed person in this matter, namely Bubnov, writes that at the beginning of the 20th century there were no such plans. DID NOT HAVE. Some later ranting, nothing more.
          That is why during WWI it was necessary to begin preparations for the Bosphorus operation from scratch.
          That is why buddy)
  • smaug78 25 December 2019 21: 52 New
    • 7
    • 11
    -4
    Quote: Albatroz
    The most informed person in this matter, namely Bubnov, writes that at the beginning of the 20th century there were no such plans.

    Sources of information, this article and the puffed cheeks of the trie? laughing
    1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 21: 58 New
      • 13
      • 9
      +4
      Source of information - face data
      one of the most competent in the matter of interest to us

      Well, as for the troechniks, is it not the triplet players in the 7th dozen who remain Candidates?)) wink
      But the lights) In my eyes)
      1. smaug78 26 December 2019 05: 39 New
        • 6
        • 13
        -7
        So the usual three-piece balabol laughing Keep making people laugh more ...
        1. Albatroz 26 December 2019 07: 46 New
          • 13
          • 9
          +4
          isn’t it that the three-thirds on the 7th ten remain candidate mi?))

          And one more such "shone" at first dragged bags, and now asks for glasses laughing
          Let's see what will happen on January 8
  • Avior 25 December 2019 21: 56 New
    • 8
    • 10
    -2
    . before the collapse of the Headquarters he took measures to send all the affairs of his Office to a safe place - and these materials formed the basis of his analysis and subsequent conclusions.

    And where is this reliable place, so that it was available to the emigre tsarist officer?
  • Black joe 25 December 2019 22: 02 New
    • 12
    • 5
    +7
    Very important and interesting questions were raised.
    We see that in the beginning XX century, no one thought about the capture of the Straits, there was no planning, as well as the material and technical base of a possible operation.
    And that's why
    raising the question of interest to us in all its breadth after the outbreak of war by Minister of Foreign Affairs S. D. Sazonov came as a complete surprise to military circles, because right up to the war itself, it was not among those military-political tasks that the Russian armed forces were called upon to solve in case of war.

    This is clear.
    And what's next?
    We look forward to continuing
    1. Kronos 25 December 2019 22: 04 New
      • 10
      • 13
      -3
      And then there will be alternative fantasies on the theme of crystal bricks
      1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 22: 10 New
        • 12
        • 15
        -3
        And then there will be alternative fantasies on the theme of crystal bricks

        Well, you're an alternative history specialist))
        Unlike you grandfather, some people do not do this))
        1. Kronos 25 December 2019 22: 28 New
          • 8
          • 10
          -2
          I’m 27 years old, I’m not a grandfather.
          1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 22: 29 New
            • 11
            • 12
            -1
            Poltos forgot to add 27 atheist you kind of
          2. Albatroz 25 December 2019 22: 32 New
            • 11
            • 11
            0
            Slavik, do not fool your head. I have long known who you are and where you are wink
            1. Kronos 25 December 2019 22: 45 New
              • 7
              • 11
              -4
              What is nafik Slavik? Have you gone hallucinations yet?
              1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 22: 49 New
                • 11
                • 12
                -1
                which olgovich (olegovich)
                1. Kronos 25 December 2019 23: 00 New
                  • 10
                  • 10
                  0
                  Olgovich monarchist and I am a communist
                  1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 23: 04 New
                    • 10
                    • 12
                    -2
                    Exfoliate even ideologically?))
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Avior 25 December 2019 22: 24 New
    • 10
    • 13
    -3
    All this resembles the slightly phantom pains of emigrants about the lost world in the style of “and happiness was so close.” With a discussion of who supposedly could have prevented all this, they did not listen to him and now they will regret it.
    The realism of what was conceived is in great doubt, from the Bosphorus to the Dardanelles 450 km along the coast, to ensure the possibility of passage, you need to capture both coasts at a sufficient distance from the water to exclude fire on passing ships.
    That is, to capture far from their own bases and keep, providing supplies, 900 km, and taking into account the lack of time of the front, more than a thousand kilometers of the front, and not to allow its tourists to break through in any place.
    Were available forces capable of providing this?
    Some were not there ....
    Yes, and the means of disembarkation and provision of supplies across the sea ....
    1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 22: 31 New
      • 12
      • 11
      +1
      The realism of the conceived is in great doubt

      And we have not yet managed to read about our plan))
      from the Bosphorus to the Dardanelles 450 km along the coast

      And why ???
      Well, the rest - reasoning "expert" lol
      1. Avior 25 December 2019 22: 34 New
        • 8
        • 13
        -5
        Then, that we are talking about the alleged capture of the straits to the state of their own passage through them and the transfer of troops
        Or a connoisseur like you knows another way?
        1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 22: 37 New
          • 12
          • 13
          -1
          On the technology of implementation were articles on.
          Now let's see what Bubnov will say.
          Well, why go 450 km along the coast ?? And one strait is enough. To start)
          Can we still wait for the continuation?))
          1. Avior 25 December 2019 22: 52 New
            • 11
            • 13
            -2
            Bubnov was among the losers of the country, and in hindsight he can tell anything, take this into account, but to consider this as the main truth is very naive, since he is clearly not an outside indifferent observer, which means that he is biased by definition.
            Moreover, history does not know the subjunctive mood.
            It is strange that these common truths need to be explained.
            In the first paragraphs of the article, the goal is precisely to ensure your navigation through the straits, that is, they must be completely captured by cutting a corridor in Turkey.
            This would be if the task was to stop the navigation of the Turks through the straits, it would be enough to capture a relatively small area on the shore, but the question is, after all, quite different.
            Yes, even one section far from the bases would have been able to capture and hold on to the problem, and even the Turks would not have forced it out of the war, the message across the straits would not have interrupted, which is emphasized at the beginning of the article
            And you minus further if you do not understand this hi
            1. Albatroz 25 December 2019 23: 00 New
              • 12
              • 13
              -1
              Bubnov is the "father of the operation", a participant in events and the holder of important documents.
              And his opinion is crucial.
              It is time.
              By the way. Since history does not have a subjunctive mood, then why do you constantly mourn the union, huh?)
              But
              It's not about mood, but about finally answering the most important questions.
              Which site, which base ...?
              It was about the capture of one of the Straits - the Bosphorus. Already this would bring huge dividends. And not only in terms of communications, but also in relation to other issues.
              I propose to wait for other articles on the topic. Or do not you understand? hi
              1. Avior 25 December 2019 23: 27 New
                • 8
                • 14
                -6
                I do not mourn anyone.
                The opinion of the participant is important, but just because the participant personally reflects his point of view and his opinion is personal and biased by definition, as the opinion of any interested witness is a classic attitude to any memoirs.
                At the very beginning of the article I read in black and white
                "There is no doubt, the admiral notes, that one of the main reasons for the collapse of Russia is the fact that during the First World War it was not able to restore its sea communications with the allies through the straits"
                That is, it’s not a matter of cutting the message to the Turks along the straits, but to get the opportunity to have such a message ourselves, for which you need to capture and hold both banks of all the straits, or the Turks will simply drown Alien ships from the shore.
                Yes, in the article this is interspersed with statements about the possession of one strait, but the author himself emphasizes that
                If, after the capture of the Straits, the Russian or English fleet appeared under the walls of Constantinople, the Turkish army, which fought the Russian army in the Caucasus and the English army in the Suez Canal, would be forced to lay down their arms, because it would be cut off from its main base, which was located on the banks The Bosphorus.

                That is, it is obvious that in order to cut the message of the Turks across the straits, And to achieve the intended author, it is not enough to master one of them.
                1. Albatroz 26 December 2019 07: 41 New
                  • 13
                  • 11
                  +2
                  Member opinion is important

                  The opinion of the participant (in this case, the forum) is yours. Just an opinion))
                  The alignment given by Bubnov is more than a “participant’s opinion”. This is the data of the most competent and most informed person on the topic, the holder of unique documents.
                  The person preparing the operation.
                  That is, it is obvious that in order to cut the message of the Turks across the straits, And to achieve the intended author, it is not enough to master one of them.

                  One strait is dominated by Russia, the other by allies. Or both Russia, but in stages.
                  I don’t see a particular problem here
                2. Brutan 26 December 2019 10: 29 New
                  • 12
                  • 4
                  +8
                  Avior (Sergey)
                  "There is no doubt, the admiral notes, that one of the main reasons for the collapse of Russia is the fact that during the First World War it was not able to restore its sea communications with the allies through the straits"
                  That is, it’s not a matter of cutting the message to the Turks along the straits, but to get the opportunity to have such a message ourselves, for which you need to capture and hold both banks of all the straits, or the Turks will simply drown Alien ships from the shore.
                  Yes, in the article this is interspersed with statements about the possession of one strait, but the author himself emphasizes that
                  If, after the capture of the Straits, the Russian or English fleet appeared under the walls of Constantinople, the Turkish army, which fought the Russian army in the Caucasus and the English army in the Suez Canal, would be forced to lay down their arms, because it would be cut off from its main base, which was located on the banks The Bosphorus.
                  That is, it is obvious that in order to cut the message of the Turks across the straits, And to achieve the intended author, it is not enough to master one of them.

                  Your very narrow-minded view of the problem is very funny.
                  Look wider.
                  Mastery at least one Strait led led Turkey out of the war.
                  What and provided maritime communications with allies across the straits
                  Albatroz (Manfred)
                  One strait is dominated by Russia, the other by allies. Or both Russia, but in stages.

                  and the assault on the second strait was therefore not required. One was enough
  • BAI
    BAI 25 December 2019 22: 37 New
    • 6
    • 13
    -7
    1.
    All military and political writers claim that if the Entente had taken possession of at least one of the straits, the war would have ended at least a year earlier.

    History does not know the subjunctive moods.
    2. The General Staff of Russia could plan anything. No one was going to give the straits to Russia. Russia simply did not know about it.
    The British did not consider their promise to Russia to transfer the Straits to be serious. Lord Bertie, the British ambassador in Paris, wrote about these agreements in his diary:

    “December 17. I also talked with Gray about the situation in France, about American mediation, about the future of Belgium, about Italy, etc. I pointed to the Russian claims regarding Constantinople and the straits. Gray said that we should fulfill the promises made by us, namely, Russia should get the right of free passage of its military vessels from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and back in peacetime, while in wartime the participants of the war will enjoy equal rights. I noticed that in the case of the withdrawal of the Turks from Constantinople, a situation is created that is completely different from that in which all these promises were made; that the rights and privileges granted to Russia cannot be denied to Romania, which has a border on the Black Sea, or Bulgaria. The correct solution would be the following: Constantinople is transformed into a free city, all the forts on the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus are being destroyed, to the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus the Suez Canal regime is applied under the European guarantee. Gray doubts Russia's agreement to such conditions. In general, the question of the disposal of Constantinople and the straits will be a stumbling block when the time comes to discuss such subjects.

    February 22 ... I hope that public opinion in England and abroad will force the powers to reject, in principle, the Russian point of view on the rights of Muscovites regarding Constantinople and the straits between the Black and Mediterranean seas. I am afraid that Gray is not in such a firm position as I would like in this matter; I mean internationalization according to the principles of the Suez Canal regime; this would not satisfy Izvolsky (Russia's ambassador to France - BT) and his host. Our newest and largest vessel, the Queen Elizabeth, in the Dardanelles; we have very large forces there.

    February 26 ... Here, suspicion about Russia's intentions towards Constantinople is growing more and more. They consider it expedient that England and France (in this matter England is placed outside of France) occupied Constantinople before Russia, so that Muscovite would not be able to completely independently decide the question of the future of this city and the straits - the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. ”

    Moreover, we see that the British did not doubt Russia's plans for the account of the straits.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • DPN
    DPN 25 December 2019 23: 36 New
    • 2
    • 6
    -4
    It has long been known that the West did not allow, then Nicholas-2 did not want to save.
  • Sapsan136 26 December 2019 06: 23 New
    • 8
    • 10
    -2
    Nobody was going to give the Bosphorus of Russia, and first of all, the pseudo-ally of Russia, as England has always been
  • The comment was deleted.
  • mammadov teymur 26 December 2019 08: 03 New
    • 2
    • 9
    -7
    Yes, if only, if we assume, but God disposes, and indeed these deeds of bygone years
    1. Albatroz 26 December 2019 08: 05 New
      • 10
      • 10
      0
      God has, and indeed the deeds of these bygone years

      then why do we need history at all?
      let's close Military Review. Is it logical)?
      1. mammadov teymur 27 December 2019 07: 52 New
        • 3
        • 10
        -7
        then why do we need history at all?
        let's close Military Review. Is it logical)? close
        1. Albatroz 27 December 2019 14: 35 New
          • 10
          • 7
          +3
          are you king and god
          said - close))
          I just continued your phrase
          1. mammadov teymur 6 January 2020 09: 24 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            following you I continued your phrase, and I know that I will not be king in yours here
  • Rakovor 26 December 2019 08: 51 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Yeah, the self-conceit of the Bulgarians just rolls over. "Take Constantinople and give it to the Russians," but who would let you do it. Yes, as soon as your troops appeared hypothetically under the city, an English squadron (as it was in 1878) would enter the Dardanelles and quickly explain who is in charge. And your whole army, having tucked up its tails and put it on its pants, would have run back to Sofia, curtsying on the go and apologizing nonstop, saying that the devil had beguiled. laughing
    Political dwarfs are simply unaware that all the great things in the world are done without them and at the expense of them. The fate of the straits was also decided in the offices of London, Paris and St. Petersburg, but not in Sofia, Belgrade and Bucharest (well, who else fought against Turkey).
    Well, about the almost millionth Bulgarian army, this is generally an epic feil.))
  • Brutan 26 December 2019 10: 35 New
    • 13
    • 4
    +9
    It is always very interesting to get an opinion and hear first-person information on a problem.
    Head of the Administration of Headquarters Bubnov.
    True, as I see it, there is (which is not surprising, though) someone who considers himself more competent in this matter than the admiral.
    But this is only a clinic)
    We are optimistic about the future and look forward to continuing the important cycle)
  • Victor Leningradets 26 December 2019 12: 30 New
    • 5
    • 12
    -7
    All the Black Sea Fleet development programs after the Berlin Congress of 1878 were aimed at capturing the Black Sea Straits by landing 50 - 80 thousand people.
    It was assumed that after the capture of Constantinople, the Ottoman Empire would fall apart, and its northern part, Byzantium, would withdraw to RI.
    After the conclusion of the "cordial consent", plans had to be abandoned, but only until a favorable situation arose.
  • Andrey Zhdanov-Nedilko 26 December 2019 12: 49 New
    • 7
    • 4
    +3
    Excellent and extremely interesting article! Thank!!!
  • 5-9
    5-9 26 December 2019 15: 07 New
    • 4
    • 14
    -10
    RI licked the Straits for a century and a half, but at the right time I was always afraid to take them to the knees trembling ... after Chesma it was quite possible (but went to half measures and got the war against the “whole tsyzylizirovannogo world”), then developed plans for a sudden capture, but when everything was ready by 1896 (in Shirokorad) they were again afraid ... moreover, as usual, they were timid from the Englishwoman ... who were parallel to the Straits and Turkey, but the Eastern politicians were driven by immigrants from the OIC who were terribly afraid that the Russians would capture .. . India! And the Straits for convenience they want - today they are, tomorrow Persia (but otherwise, the only way, there is no other way) and that's all ... allles ... lay hands on their favorite pearl.
    1. Vanya Vasilievich 26 December 2019 15: 11 New
      • 13
      • 3
      +10
      Your nonsense Shirokorad
      In terms of general history, the storyteller is no better than Shpakovsky ...
      1. 5-9
        5-9 26 December 2019 15: 18 New
        • 2
        • 14
        -12
        It is possible if we are talking about the end of the 19th century. Before that they wanted and prepared, and, frightening themselves, they were afraid ...
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Albatroz 26 December 2019 15: 21 New
          • 13
          • 7
          +6
          and wanted and prepared

          Exactly the opposite
          And did not want, and did not prepare.
          If they were preparing, then they would take the Bosphorus. And did not start training in the year 15 (only).
          And from scratch
          1. 5-9
            5-9 26 December 2019 15: 24 New
            • 6
            • 14
            -8
            In this case, the entire tsarist Balkan policy of the 19th century and 2 (minimum) wars are idiocy of a century ...
            1. Albatroz 26 December 2019 15: 26 New
              • 12
              • 7
              +5
              Why is this idiocy.
              She was consistent. Anyway.
              And the issue of the straits is so powerful that we had to wait for a favorable foreign policy conjuncture.
              It is bad that in those moments when this conjuncture tucked up, the chance was missed.
              Again, first of all, due to the lack of real training.
              1. Victor Leningradets 26 December 2019 16: 06 New
                • 3
                • 14
                -11
                Sorry, Manfred, but the policy of tsarism in the Balkans was consistently idiotic. Unfortunately, after 1945, it remained the same.
                If we discard all the historically-like nonsense about the "Slavic brotherhood", our government only did (and still is doing!) That it caved in to the shafts in front of the "Civilized Countries", hoping to curry favor from footmen to "partners".
                I personally led two groups of Bulgarian students and I know that they will never forget what the Russian soldier did for them. But also they will not forget how cynically (oh, now they say "pragmatically"!) Bulgaria, as a bargaining chip, paid it either with Berlin, then with Vienna, then with Paris, then with the same Ankara. And not only Bulgaria - all the Balkan countries at least once came under our influence.
                In politics, the main thing is not at all the opportunistic benefits of the bazaar money changer, but the firm succession of the suzerain, who, if necessary, will add a tax and the alien satrap to rule, but will not allow anyone to encroach on a country within his sphere of influence.
                According to the Straits we can say the following:
                If there is any national interest in the Republic of Ingushetia in the First World War, then this is the establishment of dominance in the Balkans and in Asia Minor. The only means of carrying out the expansion of the Republic of Ingushetia in the Balkans and Asia Minor is the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. The most important goal, the capture of which decides the outcome of the war, is the capture of the Straits. And it was not necessary to go to it through Romania - Bulgaria under the battle of Austria-Hungary, not through the anus of Transcaucasia, but through sea landing and the transfer of the European territory of the Ottoman Empire to Bulgaria, when Constantinople was accepted into the composition of the Republic of Ingushetia on the rights of overseas territory, as well as supporting bases. (Among them, by the way, Tartus loomed).
                1. Albatroz 26 December 2019 16: 27 New
                  • 12
                  • 6
                  +6
                  RI national interest in the first world war,
                  was to save the empire, fighting off aggressors, including Turkey treacherously attacking it.
                  Since Russia had no plans for the Straits before the WWII, resuscitation of this issue and subsequent compensation in Asia became only a form of payment for the aggressor (Turkey) for their aggression. And the fact that the solution of the age-old problem coincided with the act of justice is wonderful.
                  And you should go to her

                  you can go.
                  But simpler - through a combined Bosphorus operation. I hope they will tell us more about this.
                  1. Victor Leningradets 26 December 2019 16: 51 New
                    • 2
                    • 8
                    -6
                    Combined ... that is the thing!
                    And keep fighting back ... - you will not save anything with passive defense. They will find the dowel - and the khan! And push through, as in 1916 - the same does not roll. Another thing is active defense to channel the German Army to the Western Front and solve its problems. Germany would not last long without raw materials and foodstuffs, then Lenin, whatever one may say, was right. Another thing, if we came to the collapse of Germany with the Straits and the Balkans, and even with the torn-out France and the credited Britain, it would not be the Versailles system, but, say, the Peterhof system.
                    And to rely on the honesty of the Allies in the Entente, that the straits will pass us on to our suffering - this is to the holy fools.
  • evgen1221 26 December 2019 15: 44 New
    • 0
    • 7
    -7
    The army didn’t fall apart and the rear could well, on more than legal grounds, and an urgent landing by the British in the area of ​​the strait would not have helped.
  • voyaka uh 26 December 2019 17: 14 New
    • 5
    • 13
    -8
    Projects ...
    England sank out to take the straits in 1915. And the troops there were trained, and the guns of the dreadnoughts. Gallipoli remembered?
    Broke off, and with big losses.
    And the Russian army would have also broken off near Constantinople.
    Maximum, the Cossacks would be able to conduct a dashing raid and retreat in time.
    1. Albatroz 26 December 2019 17: 24 New
      • 12
      • 6
      +6
      maximum, the Cossacks would be able to conduct a dashing raid and retreat in time

      lol
      Expert, however)) Cossacks))
      For 300 km, our army operated inside Turkey.
      That and that
      That the Turks of the British beat. Both at Gallipoli and at Kut el Amar.
      And ours ALWAYS beat the Turks. The Caucasians made them — in Armenia, in Trebizond, in Persia and Iraq, what they would do on the Bosphorus. Well, the material and technical prerequisites formed gradually.
      1. voyaka uh 26 December 2019 17: 52 New
        • 5
        • 13
        -8
        "What the Turks of the British beat" ////
        ---
        And the British English in the Crimea.
        But this does not mean anything. Now and then. First, the Japanese defeated the Russians in 1904, then the Russians defeated the Japanese in 1945.
        And the word "always" is inappropriate here. Once at a time is not necessary.
        1. Albatroz 26 December 2019 17: 55 New
          • 12
          • 7
          +5
          First, the Japanese defeated the Russians in 1904, then the Russians defeated the Japanese in 1945.

          Well, maybe the Turks will defeat the Russians in 2020))
          But in 1915 they had a small intestine))
          the word "always" is inappropriate here

          Even as appropriate.
          Learn the history of the Caucasus Army in 1914-17.
          Accounted for.
          This was a system)
          1. Victor Leningradets 27 December 2019 11: 50 New
            • 3
            • 13
            -10
            No Turks in 1914 - 1917 we did not defeat. This is a propaganda stamp for raising a patriotic spirit during the war.
            Defeated - it was forced to conclude peace on OUR conditions (occupied, annexed, etc.) This did not happen, although the Caucasian army won a number of battles. And so, there was a positional war on a section of the front that was secondary to both opponents.
            1. Albatroz 27 December 2019 14: 38 New
              • 12
              • 7
              +5
              No Turks in 1914 - 1917 we did not defeat.

              Even as they defeated.
              A series of CONTINUOUS victory operations, 300 km in Turkey, Enver Pasha is ready to ask for peace. Russians in Mesopotamia and Persia.
              Defeated - it was forced to conclude peace on OUR conditions (occupied, annexed, etc.)

              your Bolsheviks did not allow to conclude a victorious peace.
              Eternally beaten Turks were given a number of Russian territories, which are now under Turkey.
              And so, there was a positional war on a section of the front that was secondary to both opponents.

              The Caucasian front is almost the only one that did not know a positional war.
            2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Karen 27 December 2019 21: 45 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        AlbatrozI’m probably repeating myself here ...
        In a publication by Viktor Hambardzumyan’s son (also a mathematician, like his father), it was clearly shown that the US-Jewish participated in the WWII from the very beginning, only in an implicit form ... Five or six US battleships constantly “barred” near the Gulf of Adan, showing England and France that they will not allow landing in such a convenient place ... Moreover, they constantly ran between the Turkish ports of Palestine and the metropolis ... Allegedly, coal was transported ...
  • Square 31 December 2019 13: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Excellent article!
    Despite all the efforts of the liar troll, who composes (for example) that Bubnov is not an expert (this is the flag captain of the Black Sea Theater in 14-16 and the head of the Naval Administration of Stavka in 17) or that his only source (Wikipedia) is the truth in last resort.
    The trouble is that the historical department of VO is built on the retelling of Wikipedia (which makes a very miserable impression), and only the author of this article produced a solid product.
    I am writing in the past - because he recently left the Military Review, a resource that is increasingly turning into a yellow press and does not care about its authors. But those who want to read the continuation of this and other cycles (Air battle of the Great War, operations, cavalry and others) - can do this on another site.
    http://btgv.ru
    Happy New Year, guys! hi
  • Molot1979 31 December 2019 15: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Not captured, because did not make it. If you could - a big question. The Anglo-French did not succeed. Turks defended Turkey much more persistently than the outskirts of their empire.
    For Tirpitz, the Germans still lost the war. Although the straits of Turkey withheld. The presence of Serbs on the front would complicate matters for Austria, but the Germans fought successfully even when the Austrians were near death. Given the positional crisis, the arrival of 50 British and 000 Russians on the western front had no effect.
  • hhhhhhh 15 February 2020 16: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "As for Russia, instead of Bolshevism, an era of prosperity and unprecedented greatness awaited her." - For some reason we will not begin to prosper for 30 years, without the Bolsheviks.
  • boris epstein 20 March 2020 16: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Great Britain was not going to give Russia the straits. Arguments: How did the battle cruiser Geben and the light cruiser Breslau manage to pass ALONG the whole Mediterranean Sea, in which the British squadron of Admiral Cunningham was, without a single shot? An attempt by the Anglo-French fleet to seize the Dardanelles occurred precisely against the backdrop of the successful actions of the Caucasian army of Yudenich. The attempt was hasty, ill-conceived, without intelligence. Battleships and battleships of the Allied squadron ran into Turkish mines and coastal artillery. Catastrophic losses-4 battleships. There was only one Russian warship in the allied squadron. Without amphibious assault. Landing on the Gallipoli Peninsula was already difficult to maintain. As a result, the landing had to be evacuated. Hurried to prevent Yudenich’s army from reaching the southern coast of the Dardanelles. And from the north coast, Britain and France stopped supplying the Russian expeditionary force and it lost its penetrative power.
  • The comment was deleted.