Military Review

Why England was the worst enemy of Russia

202
Why England was the worst enemy of Russia

Caricature "Real problems begin with" awakening ", 1900 (Russia, England, Germany, Italy, France and Japan are fighting on the body of China. America is watching)


Russia and England have no common borders, geographically distant from each other. It would seem that two great powers can be, if not friendly, then neutral. England practically did not wage a full-scale war against Russia itself (excluding the Crimean War), but the secret war (inciting neighbors against Russia) did not stop for centuries. London has always been in unfriendly relations with Russia: tsarist, Soviet and democratic.

England is our main enemy


Over the past centuries, England has been the most terrible and dangerous enemy of Russia. She did us more harm than Napoleon and Hitler. In the XX and XXI centuries. England shares this place with the United States, which has continued and developed Britain's policy of creating a world empire. If you look at history Germany, France, Turkey or Japan, here you can find objective reasons for the conflict with Russia: historical, territorial, religious, economic or diplomatic. Most often it was a natural (biological) struggle for a place in the sun.

The ongoing conflict with England was different. It is caused by a conceptual deep confrontation. It is prompted by the desire of England (and then the United States) to rule the world, embodying the ancient strategy of Rome: divide and conquer. The Russian world on Earth has the mission of maintaining a measure of balance. Therefore, any attempts by one center of control (throne) to take on the role of "king of the mountain" (planet) provokes resistance from the Russian people. As a result, for centuries London has been trying to solve the "Russian question": to dismember and remove Russians and Russia from the historical arena. Russia is still resisting this onslaught.

Russia and England never had common borders, did not claim the same lands. Russia expanded its borders, made the new lands Russian. Britain was creating a world colonial (slave) empire. Russia and England gave the world two examples of global projects-orders. The Russian order is the unity of people, regardless of race, religion and nation. A life of truth, conscience and love. Orthodoxy is the glory of truth. Spirit is higher than matter, truth is higher than law, the general is higher than the particular. The western order dominated by London is slavery. The world of masters-slave-owners and "talking tools". The domination of matter, the "golden calf".

It was London that created the world slave empire, which became an example for Hitler. The British were the first to create the ideology of racism, social Darwinism and eugenics. They built the first concentration camps, used the methods of terror and genocide to subdue the "inferior" peoples and tribes. For example, in North America, South Africa, India and Australia. The British skillfully used the tribal, national elite (elite) to subjugate huge masses of people.

If it were not for this conceptual confrontation (at the level of “what is good and what is bad”), the two powers could well have lived peacefully and cooperated. At least not to notice each other. For example, this is how the Russian kingdom and Spain lived, the great colonial empire (before it was ousted from the world arena by the French, Dutch and British). Russia is a continental power, and England is a maritime one. The bottom line, however, is that London claims world domination. And Russia stands in the way of anyone who claims to be the "king of the hill." As a result, Foggy Albion is definitely to blame for all the conflicts between Russia and England. It is difficult to find a country in the world that the "Englishwoman" has not done wrong. These are Spain, France, and Germany, with which England fought for leadership in Europe, and even a small Denmark. You can also remember the atrocities of the British in America, Africa, India and China.

"The Englishwoman crap"


For the first time, interest in Russia in England appeared during the Great Geographical Discoveries. In fact, at this time, Europeans discovered the world for themselves and raped, robbed it (the initial accumulation of capital). England was looking for an alternative route to wealthy India and China across the polar seas. In the XNUMXth century, Europeans made several expeditions to find the Northeast (around Siberia) and Northwest (around Canada) passages and to obtain new passages to the Pacific Ocean. Captain Richard Chancellor was received by Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible. Since that time, diplomatic and trade relations between Russia and England began. The British were interested in trade with Russia and the exit through it along the Volga road to Persia and further south. Since that time, Britain in every possible way prevents Moscow from reaching the shores of the Baltic and Black Seas.

So, under Peter I, London, on the one hand, developed trade with Russia, on the other hand, it supported allied Sweden in the war with the Russians. Also, the British stood behind Turkey in almost all Russian-Turkish wars. For this reason, the English ambassador to Constantinople (like the Dutch and French) tried to thwart the conclusion of peace between Russia and Turkey in 1700. England wanted to destroy the germs of Russian shipbuilding in Arkhangelsk and Azov, to prevent Russia from breaking through to the Baltic and the Black Sea.

This hostile London policy continued in the future. The British were behind Russia's wars with Turkey, Persia and Sweden. Prussia acted as "cannon fodder" of England in the Seven Years War. During the reign of Catherine the Great, Russia was able to inflict two "pricks" on England: with its policy, it supported the American Revolution (War of Independence) and proclaimed a policy of armed neutrality, which led to the creation of an anti-British alliance of the Nordic countries. Under the onslaught of almost all of Europe, the British lion had to retreat. On the whole, Catherine skillfully avoided the traps of England and pursued a national policy. As a result, huge successes: the annexation of the West Russian lands and the reunification of the Russian people, a wide access to the Black Sea.

After Catherine II, England was able to take revenge. London pulled Petersburg into a long confrontation with Paris (How Russia became the figure of England in the big game against France; Part 2). This led to a series of wars and heavy human and material losses in Russia (including the Patriotic War of 1812). Russia had no fundamental contradictions and disputes with France. We had no common boundaries. That is, Petersburg could calmly leave the conflict with revolutionary France, and then with Napoleon's empire in Vienna, Berlin and London. Emperor Paul realized his mistake and withdrew the troops. He was ready to conclude an alliance with Paris, to oppose England, the real enemy of Russia. But he was killed by aristocratic conspirators. English gold killed the Russian emperor. Alexander I could not get out of the influence of his "friends", pressure from England, and Russia fell into a trap, into a fierce conflict with France. Russian soldiers in the anti-Napoleonic wars (except for the Patriotic War) shed blood for the interests of London, Vienna and Berlin.

London set Iran and Turkey against Russia in 1826-1829. He did not let Nicholas I occupy Constantinople. Britain acted as the organizer of the Eastern (Crimean) War; in fact, it was one of the rehearsals for the future world war. True, it was not possible to knock out the Russians from the Baltic and the Black Sea, as planned. Then there was a big game in Central Asia. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, when London managed to take away from Russia the deserved fruits of the victory over the Turks, including the sphere of influence in the Balkans, Constantinople and the Straits. The British lion allied with the Japanese dragon against China and Russia. With the help of England, Japan defeated both China and Russia. The Russians were pushed back from the greater Far East, Port Arthur and Zheltorosiya (Manchuria) were taken away. At the same time, the British special services were actively fanning the fire of the First Revolution in the Russian Empire.

Britain successfully dragged Russia into a confrontation with Germany, although the Russian Tsar and the German Kaiser had no serious reasons for much blood (England vs Russia. Getting involved in World War I and “help” during the war; England vs Russia. Organization of the February Revolution). The British skillfully rounded up both the Germans and the Russians, pitting them against each other. Destroyed two empires. England supported the February Revolution, which led to the collapse of Russia and turmoil. The British did not save Nicholas II and his family, although there were opportunities. The big game was more important than dynastic ties. London took an active part in unleashing the Civil War in Russia, which led to millions of victims. The British hoped that the collapse and weakening of Russia - forever. They captured strategic points in the Russian North, the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea, consolidated their positions in the Baltic and Black Sea.

World War II and the Cold War


London's plans to destroy Russia have failed. The Russians recovered from the terrible blow and created a new great power - the USSR. Then London relied on fascism and Nazism in Europe. British capital took the most active part in the restoration of German military-economic might. British diplomacy so "pacified" the Third Reich that it gave him most of Europe, including France. Almost all of Europe was gathered under the banner of Hitler and thrown against the USSR (Hitler was only a tool to crush the USSR). Then they waited when it would be possible to finish off the Russians and Germans, who had been bled out of the mutual massacre. It didn't work out. At the head of Russia-USSR was a great statesman and leader - Stalin. The Russians emerged victorious in this terrible battle.

The British had to play the role of an "ally" of the USSR in order to take part in the division of the inheritance of the Third Reich. After the fall of Berlin, the head of Britain, Churchill, wanted to start World War III almost immediately (in the summer of 1945). The war of the Western democracies against the USSR. However, the moment was recognized as unfortunate. It was impossible to defeat the Russian troops in Europe, which at first retreated to Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, then went forward, took Warsaw, Budapest, Koenigsberg, Vienna and Berlin. But already in 1946 in Fulton (USA) Churchill made the famous speech that marked the beginning of the third world war (it was called "cold") between the West and the USSR. In the course of this war, England almost continuously started "hot" local wars. In 1945-1946. - intervention in Vietnam, Burma, Indonesia and Greece. In the 1948-1960s - the aggression in Malaya, the war in Korea (in terms of the number of soldiers and aircraft England was second only to the United States in the western ranks), the confrontation in South Arabia, conflicts in Kenya, Kuwait, Cyprus, Oman, Jordan, Yemen and Egypt (Suez Crisis). Only the existence of the USSR on the planet did not allow England and the United States to establish their own world order during this period, which would be approximately the same as Hitler's.

In the 1917th century, Britain twice managed to push their heads against two great powers, two peoples who were a threat to London: Germany and Russia, Germans and Russians. The British twice crushed their main enemy in the Western project - Germany. Russia was destroyed once - in XNUMX. For the second time, the Soviet empire learned a lesson from previous defeats and won a great victory. The result was the collapse of the British Empire itself, over which the sun never set. England became the junior partner of the United States.

However, this does not mean that England has ceased to be an enemy of Russia. First, London has retained some of its global influence. This is the Commonwealth of Nations (over 50 countries), led by the British crown. This is British finance capital. This is British cultural influence. Secondly, England has retained its particular hostility in relations with Russia, even "democratic". Britain's relations with Russia are significantly worse than with other NATO members, for example, with Germany, France, Italy and Spain. This was shown by the hysteria of England during the Georgian aggression in South Ossetia in 2008, and the "Crimean spring", and the war in Donbass.

Recently, London has again intensified its policy in connection with the "Russian threat". Thus, from the parliamentary report in the UK of the Intelligence and Security Committee on July 21, 2020, it is clear that London is again targeting Russia. The report notes that Russia is a priority for the British special services with the allocation of additional resources; a special group is being formed to develop a national security strategy in relation to Russia, which consists of representatives of 14 ministries and agencies; attention is directed to Russia's alliances with other countries; refusal to effectively use ordinances on unexplained welfare in order to seize property of the Russian elite acquired with unconfirmed income. That is, the British special services realized that the seizure of capital and property from the Russian oligarchs does not lead them to cooperation, on the contrary, it repels them. Therefore, the British removed the threat of seizure of property and accounts. The real estate and accounts of Russian oligarchs are inviolable in order to create a network of British influence in Russia. Part of the Russian "elite" is guaranteed immunity under the British crown after fulfilling its mission in Russia.

Thus, England shows that in the context of the current global systemic crisis, the West is again interested in creating the Maidan Troubles in Russia.


"Independent British Politics". Caricature of the creative team "Kukryniksy"
Author:
Photos used:
https://lenta.ru/
202 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Valery Valery
    Valery Valery 28 July 2020 05: 36 New
    +6
    In reality, Russia is the only obstacle for the Anglo-Saxons to plunder and enslave the rest of the world.
    1. yuliatreb
      yuliatreb 28 July 2020 06: 11 New
      35
      Yes, we no longer need to be robbed, our government is squandering natural resources to the left and to the right, at such a pace our future generation will not get anything, and what is going on in the Tomsk region, how chips fly there, just tin, we never have strong winds in the Western There was no Siberia, and now there are hurricanes, the taiga will soon turn into a steppe, probably also the hand of the Anglo-Saxons. If our historical enemy allows himself such tricks and attacks and sow a day, and the current government cannot adequately respond, then it is worth considering whether everything is fine in the Danish kingdom.
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 28 July 2020 06: 26 New
        25
        Quote: yuliatreb
        Yes, we no longer need to rob,

        From quite fresh information about our "independence"
        the GAZ group is required to report to the United States Treasury every quarter. It is about giving accountability to the American regulator OFAC. Moreover, every month the company is obliged to confirm the fact that the group is not acting on behalf of the Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska.

        The US Treasury must receive financial statements, minutes of board meetings, lists of all joint ventures, including those planned. But the most important thing is that the GAZ group is obliged to report on all contracts in the amount of $ 5 million or more ..... A company from the Russian Federation has undertaken to comply with OFAC requirements,
        So what about
        Quote: Valery Valery
        Russia is the only obstacle

        Don't tell anyone about it. It was in the past, 30 years ago.
        1. Lexus
          Lexus 29 July 2020 06: 18 New
          +4
          hi It was not worth expecting something different from the thimblers.
        2. vlad106
          vlad106 5 August 2020 12: 04 New
          0
          hi You shouldn't have expected anything else from thimblers ...
          This little Britain has always been the enemy and will spoil our sweat in all directions. vile impudent Saxony led by misanthropic Juudofascism
      2. Varyag_0711
        Varyag_0711 28 July 2020 06: 30 New
        18
        yuliatreb (Vasilisa Yulievna)
        If our historical enemy allows himself such tricks and attacks and sow a day, and the current government cannot adequately respond, then it is worth considering whether everything is fine in the Danish kingdom.

        Well, why was the person slapped a minus? For the truth? Or does it really hurt your eyes?
        The taiga will really soon turn into a steppe, and in Karelia, the forest is not too sickly to be cut. Gazprom and other types of state corporations have foreign capital in the founders and shareholders, and in considerable shares.
        So whose national treasure is Gazprom?
        An Englishwoman, of course, she shits, but her own government shits by her. Just as you look at the face of another "patriot" like Zheleznyak, you can't think of it more patriotic, and then lo and behold, this "patriot" has already stolen and is sitting in London with the whole family.
        1. yuliatreb
          yuliatreb 28 July 2020 09: 55 New
          +1
          Alexey, the words are really alien to them, these are people of a different formation and they have grenades of a different system.
          1. nickname7
            nickname7 28 July 2020 21: 06 New
            -1
            To clarify the point.
            England, if it went with the flow, without making attempts to change its destiny, would remain a poor mediocre country. By the 16th century, trade was seized by Holland, but the British took the trade away from it by force. They made themselves.
            The fact that the author lists humiliations, so they carry water to the offended, history loves winners, one must be able to overcome difficulties.
            1. +5
              +5 1 August 2020 15: 00 New
              +2
              Uh-huh ... A series of victorious wars, mainly against Holland, ended with the stadtholder of Holland becoming the English king ... and Holland became strong after the Venetian black aristocracy came there ... Hidden Jews in general ... the British are also occupied by as a 3,5 century people
      3. Moskovit
        Moskovit 28 July 2020 10: 49 New
        +1
        Everyone knows that Zakharchenko bore the title of Lord, and Arashukov is a Knight of the Order of the Garter.
        The House of Commons did not clean up the storm drains and half of Moscow was flooded again yesterday.
        Several burnt bagpipes were found at the site of forest fires in Siberia.
        1. akunin
          akunin 28 July 2020 14: 41 New
          +5
          Quote: Moskovit
          Several burnt bagpipes were found at the site of forest fires in Siberia.

          ... and ass-burned Scottish Guards kilts laughing
      4. cosmos-PS
        cosmos-PS 29 July 2020 12: 36 New
        0
        And then they tell everyone on TV about how strong the fires are in Siberia and the Far East.
    2. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 28 July 2020 06: 24 New
      12
      Quote: Valery Valery
      In reality, Russia is the only obstacle for the Anglo-Saxons to plunder and enslave the rest of the world.

      Today the main enemy of the Anglo-Saxons is China.
      1. carstorm 11
        carstorm 11 28 July 2020 07: 00 New
        0
        The enemy in what and where? China suits the world of war?) Or maybe it requires at least something from the West?) The Anglo-Saxons now have only one enemy left - reason. And it remains just to wait for who will win, whether they mind or he them. The only bad thing is that we are, for example, always put before the choice of China or the West. At the same time, he was shitting all the time.
        1. Dr. Frankenstucker
          Dr. Frankenstucker 28 July 2020 12: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: carstorm 11
          At the same time, he was shitting all the time.

          Shit foreva!
      2. sidoroff
        sidoroff 28 July 2020 07: 10 New
        +1
        so let them say thank you in advance to the Anglo-Saxons. otherwise, again, as in the Napoleonic Wars and in the World Wars of the 20th century, in one
        The Entente will be.
      3. smok62
        smok62 31 July 2020 17: 44 New
        0
        This is for a diversion. And no whiter than that ...
    3. Arpad
      Arpad 28 July 2020 06: 59 New
      -1
      Quote: Valery Valery
      In reality, Russia is the only obstacle for the Anglo-Saxons to plunder and enslave the rest of the world.

      Obstacle?
      Does the rest of the world know about this?
      1. carstorm 11
        carstorm 11 28 July 2020 07: 12 New
        -9
        it is even geographically clear to every student. well, except for you, probably only.
        1. Arpad
          Arpad 28 July 2020 07: 42 New
          0
          Quote: carstorm 11
          it is even geographically clear to every student. well, except for you, probably only.

          I have not seen on any map that England is surrounded on all sides by Russia,
          By the way, any schoolboy knows about
          The Commonwealth of Nations, briefly referred to simply as the Commonwealth, is a voluntary association of sovereign states that includes Great Britain and almost all of its former dominions, colonies and protectorates
          1. carstorm 11
            carstorm 11 28 July 2020 07: 43 New
            -4
            barrier and borders are you the same thing?)))
            1. Arpad
              Arpad 28 July 2020 07: 46 New
              +2
              Quote: carstorm 11
              barrier and borders are you the same thing?)))

              Well, let's touch on the obstacles - and in what exactly and how did the whole world know about it?
              Throw in a fact - where? When?
              Only without references to the Crimean war, except for you, no one in the world knows for sure about it now.
              1. carstorm 11
                carstorm 11 28 July 2020 07: 55 New
                -8
                try to look at the map. or on a globe) and try to read the article not across. )
                1. Arpad
                  Arpad 28 July 2020 13: 04 New
                  0
                  Quote: carstorm 11
                  try to look at the map. or on a globe) and try to read the article not across. )

                  Understood, there will be no facts - dosvidos.
                  1. carstorm 11
                    carstorm 11 28 July 2020 13: 10 New
                    -4
                    and the meaning of a silly conversation to maintain? facts of obstacles - start with Syria. we didn’t let Assad topple and we don’t let him. here's the simplest example
        2. snake
          snake 28 July 2020 11: 03 New
          +4
          Quote: carstorm 11
          it is even geographically clear to every student.

          What is understandable "geographically"? That Russia is an obstacle for the Anglo-Saxons? They walk through the Russian Federation to plunder the world?
      2. snake
        snake 28 July 2020 11: 00 New
        +5
        Quote: Arpad
        Quote: Valery Valery
        In reality, Russia is the only obstacle for the Anglo-Saxons to plunder and enslave the rest of the world.

        Obstacle?
        Does the rest of the world know about this?

        And the rest of the world doesn't need to know about it. This is propaganda for domestic consumption.
      3. knn54
        knn54 28 July 2020 12: 24 New
        +5
        "How hard it is to live when no one is at war with Russia!"
        Lord palmerston
    4. sanya
      sanya 28 July 2020 07: 31 New
      -2
      The only defense
    5. Dr. Frankenstucker
      Dr. Frankenstucker 28 July 2020 08: 10 New
      11
      ... , Russia is the only obstacle for the Anglo-Saxons to plunder and enslave the rest of the world.


      Less pathos. The task of Russia, as it is presented by the authorities at the moment, is not to let YOURSELF fall apart and plunder. There is no need to mold Russia into a global savior from someone there. What does she have to offer? Indistinct 'Russian world'? Consumer values ​​borrowed from the same West? A universal concept of universal well-being? Gas and oil? Or that, inspired by the "victory" over a handful of small-town Arabs, will we continue the victorious march of the Aerospace Forces around the world, carrying the kind, eternal anti-American?
    6. unknown
      unknown 28 July 2020 08: 19 New
      +6
      What Anglo-Saxons are we talking about?
      In the United States, whites make up about 43 percent of the population.
      Of these, FORTY PERCENT are the descendants of the Germans.
      If we add here the Russians, of whom there are already about twenty-five million in the states, the descendants of the Irish, Italians, French, Poles and other Swedes. Yes, also the Jews ...
      And how many descendants of the Anglo-Saxons are in the states in real life?
      1. snake
        snake 28 July 2020 15: 47 New
        +2
        Quote: ignoto
        In the United States, whites make up about 43 percent of the population.

        65.4% - and that's without Spanish speakers.
        Quote: ignoto
        Of these, FORTY PERCENT are the descendants of the Germans.

        Saxons - ancientGerman tribe.
      2. Maxim Aranson
        Maxim Aranson 17 September 2020 15: 14 New
        0
        We say "Anglo-Saxons", but we mean - the Jewish capital ruling them. That will be more accurate. And note, just when he gained strength in England, then she became a world power, and at the same time an enemy of Russia (and not only her - see China, India ...).
    7. Pravodel
      Pravodel 28 July 2020 08: 35 New
      0
      Absolutely right. Russia, now China, is the only one opposing the Anglo-Saxons in their desire to subjugate the whole world, to sit at the head and rule the world.
      The multiple is not a big clarification.
      1. In the XVI century. the path to the east to Asia, Persia, India was controlled by the Arabs and Turks, so England was looking for other ways to get to the east. It was in search of these routes that the English captain sailed into the possessions of the Muscovy, was received by Ivan the Terrible, who opened the way for the British to the east to Persia and, further, to India, China through the territory of Russia. The British controlled this path almost until the XNUMXth century.
      2. After the annexation of Little Russia and the Crimea and Russia's accession to the Black, Mediterranean and Balkans, Great Britain perceived Russia as the strongest enemy capable of threatening its trade routes to the east, running through the Balkans, Western Asia, Persia, and Afghanistan. A big game began, in which the Anglo-Saxons, by the hands of the Turks, tried to squeeze Russia out of the Black and Mediterranean Sea, the Balkans.
      When this did not work out, the British switched to the Caucasus and provoked the Caucasian War.
      When Russia began to enter Asia through Persia, the British organized the assassination of the Russian ambassador, after which contacts between Russia and Persia ceased for almost 100 years.
      The British perceived Russia's exit to Central Asia on the border with Afghanistan as a direct threat to their interests in India, especially since Russia, together with France, intended to organize a joint campaign to India. To prevent this, the British quarreled between France and Russia, which resulted in Napoleon's campaign against Russia.
      3. After the revolution of 17 in Central Asia, the British organized the Basmachism, which does not resemble the mujahideen in Afghanistan, which lasted until World War II and the Battle of England.
      Summary:
      Aglichans, Anglo-Saxons have never been friends of Russia.
      Russia has always acted and continues to act as the only obstacle for the Anglo-Saxons to world domination. So it was and so it will be until the Anglo-Saxon empire ceases to exist. The fact that she, like the Roman Empire, will fall, will be destroyed, is beyond doubt.
      Moscow is the third Rome, there will be no fourth. Hence, since there will be no quadruple Rome, then the third Rome stood, stands and will stand. And that's it.
      1. Deniska999
        Deniska999 28 July 2020 13: 23 New
        +1
        “Moscow is the third Rome” is yet another messianic dogma, there is no need to repeat archaic nonsense after fanatics.
        1. Pravodel
          Pravodel 28 July 2020 14: 51 New
          -5
          Dear Deniska999,
          Moscow - the third Rome

          This is not a dogma, but the essence, the deep essence of Russia itself. Precisely because Moscow is the third Rome, Russia is not the west, but a unifying entity between east and west.
          The history of the West, which has lasted the last 500-600 years, which has lost the ideological basis of its own existence, is coming to an end. It would be nice that this sunset, as it has already happened 2 times, did not lead to the 3rd World War.
          May God grant that Russia will continue to be the third Rome, not lose its idea and not become like the West.
          1. Deniska999
            Deniska999 28 July 2020 15: 10 New
            +1
            I beg you, modern Russia cannot offer the world any new and progressive idea.
            1. Pravodel
              Pravodel 28 July 2020 15: 40 New
              -1
              No need to beg me, I am not the Lord God and not an angel.
              Russia, by its one thousand-year existence of many foreign peoples - not only Slavs, in which, despite religious and ethnocultural differences, there have never been religious wars, the peoples included in Russia have never been destroyed, shows, demonstrates a new idea of ​​existence, different from the Western and the Anglo-Saxon idea of ​​existence based on the enslavement and destruction of peoples.
              1. Deniska999
                Deniska999 28 July 2020 17: 02 New
                +1
                It looks like the ironic expression "I beg you" is not familiar to you.
              2. ava09
                ava09 30 July 2020 07: 54 New
                -1
                (C) demonstrates a new idea of ​​existence (C)
                I agree that Russia has never been an empire just because there was no metropolitanate in it, living at the expense of the colonies. But I don’t understand - what is new in purely Russian culture?
          2. andrew42
            andrew42 28 July 2020 16: 06 New
            -1
            Kapets to all of us. The essence of Russia - it turns out to be "Rome", and under No. 3. Well, thank you, Pravdodel. Has encouraged. Especially in terms of the finals of Rome # 1 and Rome # 2. And yes, by the way, your 3rd Rome collapsed in 1917. So it makes sense to broadcast about the 4th. Again, here there is a danger of being identified with the 4th Reich, you never know what an ekspert will scribble on to the court. So right away, let's 5th Rome!
            1. Pravodel
              Pravodel 28 July 2020 16: 33 New
              -1
              Dear Andrew42, I dare to console you, nothing threatens you from Moscow as the third Rome.
              If you don't understand this, that Moscow is the third Rome, it's okay, live without this understanding.
              Another thing is that Moscow - the third Rome - poses a real threat, but not to you, but to the West and the Anglo-Saxons. That is why throughout the entire existence of Russia, they are trying to destroy it by any means. But, God forbid, Russia will outlive them all and will shine for centuries, and they, the Westernizers, the Anglo-Saxons, will disappear. in the darkness of history ...
              1. nickname7
                nickname7 28 July 2020 20: 16 New
                0
                Do you even know what ancient Rome is? This is the strongest superpower that defeated competitors and seized their territories. The modern Russian Federation did not stand next to such power. Rome serves as a kind of standard with which various kings and leaders want to associate themselves.
                For that matter, 3 Rome is the United States.
        2. andrew42
          andrew42 28 July 2020 16: 02 New
          +3
          By the way, along with the accession of this dogma to Moscow, the transformation of the Russian ecclesiastical diocese took place at the same time, the Josephites defeated the non-possessors, taking the first step towards
          sycophantic service to the secular authorities, which subsequently led to complete serfdom, and even later to a relic in the form of the present CJSC "ROC". The slogan of a political moment, which has long since sunk into oblivion, but dogmatists will stubbornly tear it out of the mothballs chest, without even thinking when and why it was proclaimed.
          1. Pravodel
            Pravodel 28 July 2020 16: 51 New
            -4
            Dear Andrew42,
            1. The strength of Russia, Russia, lies precisely in the fact that Russia, Russia, relying on the unity and might of the state and the church, was able to build and equip the country, which became the homeland of many peoples who entered it. Precisely because in Russia, in Russia, the church and the state were united in their desire to build a strong strong state based on faith and truth, in Russia, in Russia there have never been religious wars through which Western Europe went through. If you do not understand this, then I cannot tell you anything more.
            2. All attacks on the Russian Orthodox Church, both before the 1917 revolution and now in the Russian Orthodox Church, pursue one goal: to destroy the spiritual unity of the Russian people, to destroy their holy faith, the faith on which the saint was built, lived, existed Russia. Therefore, your attacks on the church just testify that the poisonous fruits of the Anglo-Saxon policy in relation to Russia, Russia, Anglo-Saxon propaganda find fertile ground among the traitors of the Russian people, liberals ... s, Banderlog, Vlasovites and other monsters ...
            I hope you are not one of them. And all your statements and blasphemy against Russia are only delusions, which over time, with an appeal to Russian history - not the history that was written by our Western "comrades" Anglo-Saxons, denigrating Russia, but history based on truth, on demonstrating the power of Russia , disappear and you can see the light, the power of Russia.
            And the City of Russia will shine on the hill of history, which cannot be broken by either internal or external enemies.
            This ends. I have nothing more to tell you.
            And I wish you success in studying the history of Russia.
            1. Deniska999
              Deniska999 28 July 2020 17: 05 New
              +2
              In the 21st century, to carry such mystical-enthusiastic nonsense is, to put it mildly, strange.
            2. andrew42
              andrew42 28 July 2020 18: 36 New
              +1
              There is a lot of pathos and church tinsel. If Russia becomes some kind of numbered Rome, then Russia will disappear. The bearers of the Russian spirit will disappear. Please do not confuse with religious beliefs. And whose City will then shine on our hill? - this is a big question, but the Russian people won't care.
            3. nickname7
              nickname7 28 July 2020 20: 29 New
              +5
              ... in Russia, in Russia there have never been religious wars,

              Old Believers were put in logs and their heads were chopped

              ... attacks on the Russian Orthodox Church, both before the 1917 revolution and now in the Russian Orthodox Church, have just one goal: to destroy spiritual unity

              The church was used as opium for the enslavement of the Russian people by the landowners who squandered the peasant rent at balls.
              Blackening and anti-Sovietism was created to decay Soviet ideology.
              1. andrew42
                andrew42 29 July 2020 12: 57 New
                0
                Nick 7, "Old Believers were put in logs and their heads were chopped off." Recently, more and more often I think that Russian Pravda has remained somewhere. Not in the sense of Yaroslav's laws, but in the sense of "What is the strength of a brother?", In modern terms.
                1. gurza2007
                  gurza2007 3 August 2020 19: 40 New
                  -1
                  Take an interest in the role of Sergius of Radonezh in the Orthodox Church, and then everything will be clear ... when he, being a pagan, changed it from the inside, so that it would become exactly the CHURCH AND ORTHODOX !!! ...
                2. andrew42
                  andrew42 4 August 2020 14: 33 New
                  0
                  In this sense, it is significant that the well-known "monk" sent by Sergius to the battle remained in history as Peresvet, and not as Oleksandr (baptismal name) ..
        3. MA3UTA
          MA3UTA 29 July 2020 01: 32 New
          0
          Within decades after the capture of Constantinople by Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire on 29 May 1453, some Eastern Orthodox people were nominating Moscow as the "Third Rome", or the "New Rome". [4]

          Parry, Ken; Melling, David, eds. (1999). The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. p. 490.
      2. akunin
        akunin 28 July 2020 14: 50 New
        +1
        Quote: The Truth
        Aglichans, Anglo-Saxons have never been friends of Russia.

        it is possible about friends in more detail, I would like, so to speak, in person.
        1. Pravodel
          Pravodel 28 July 2020 15: 42 New
          +2
          The term "friends" is used here in a meaning that does not harm Russia, even if it is neutral to Russia. In this sense, the Anglo-Saxons are not friends, but enemies of Russia.
          1. akunin
            akunin 28 July 2020 17: 19 New
            +1
            Quote: The Truth
            In this sense, the Anglo-Saxons are not friends, but enemies of Russia.

            For Jesus said to him: Get out, you unclean spirit, out of this man. And he asked him: what is your name? And he answered and said, My name is legion, for we are many.
            you can't argue with the classics (to reduce everything to angles - to simplify).
        2. Dr. Frankenstucker
          Dr. Frankenstucker 28 July 2020 18: 24 New
          +4
          it is strange that the branch was not covered with fake quotations from Bismarck. It greatly enhances the self-esteem of urapatriots.
      3. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 28 July 2020 18: 22 New
        +2
        another puddle of pathos. "Third Rome" ... Well, you, the Dement Imperials, are so puffy?
    8. iouris
      iouris 28 July 2020 10: 22 New
      -1
      In reality, Russia is an object to be plundered. The condition of plunder is enslavement. But how far the process of "enslavement" has gone is a question for the experts.
    9. maiman61
      maiman61 28 July 2020 15: 42 New
      +1
      The Anglo-Saxons were, are and always will be enemies of Russia! Denial of this axiom is a betrayal of the motherland.
      1. NF68
        NF68 29 July 2020 17: 19 New
        -2
        Quote: maiman61
        The Anglo-Saxons were, are and always will be enemies of Russia! Denial of this axiom is a betrayal of the motherland.


        They have all enemies who at least do not breathe as well or do not think so as the Naglo-Saxons want.
        1. maiman61
          maiman61 29 July 2020 19: 46 New
          +1
          We are enemies for the Anglo-Saxons, because we were born and have the audacity to live in this world!
    10. NF68
      NF68 28 July 2020 16: 20 New
      +3
      Quote: Valery Valery
      In reality, Russia is the only obstacle for the Anglo-Saxons to plunder and enslave the rest of the world.


      There is also China, which for the British and Americans is already more dangerous than Russia, since China is economically stronger than Russia and continues to develop rapidly.
    11. victorlitvin
      victorlitvin 29 July 2020 06: 34 New
      0
      Sober up
    12. ava09
      ava09 30 July 2020 07: 39 New
      0
      (c) In reality, Russia is the only obstacle for the Anglo-Saxons to plunder and enslave the rest of the world. (c)
      Unfortunately - WAS ...
    13. ArhipenkoAndrey
      ArhipenkoAndrey 4 August 2020 04: 33 New
      +1
      And she is an Englishwoman and now the main enemy of Russia and the whole world, if England were drowned and the world would become cleaner.
    14. Ivan Kanareikin
      Ivan Kanareikin 6 October 2020 20: 12 New
      0
      And now we read together the report of General Kuropatkin to Nicholas 2 about the "peaceful" annexation of its neighbors by Russia. There are no pests, but there are state interests in controlling resources and trade routes, and here our country will give odds to a dozen British. The methods of domestic policy also sometimes did not differ from evil Europe: for example, according to the Cathedral Code, the punishment for schismaticism was burning.
  2. svp67
    svp67 28 July 2020 05: 40 New
    14
    Why England was the worst enemy of Russia
    Why was it?
    1. avia12005
      avia12005 28 July 2020 05: 57 New
      -1
      Absolutely right. As long as there is England and the Anglo-Saxons, Russia will be in constant danger. We did not have a Roman senator Cato the Elder, who ended any speech with the words "Carthage must be destroyed ..."
      1. Arpad
        Arpad 28 July 2020 07: 01 New
        +1
        Quote: avia12005
        ... As long as there is England and the Anglo-Saxons, Russia will be in constant danger.

        i.e. always
        Quote: avia12005
        There is no and we did not have a Roman Senator Cato the Elder

      2. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 28 July 2020 08: 27 New
        11
        As long as there is England and the Anglo-Saxons,


        It's time, dear, it's time to declare war on England.
        1. avia12005
          avia12005 28 July 2020 09: 24 New
          -2
          No one will declare it, since wars are not fashionable now. There are other ways.
          1. Dr. Frankenstucker
            Dr. Frankenstucker 28 July 2020 18: 27 New
            +2
            Quote: avia12005
            There are other ways.

            yes, I am aware of the newbie and the all-powerful "Russian hackers"
      3. andrew42
        andrew42 28 July 2020 16: 11 New
        +1
        Oh, now probably sorry Cato in the next world. After Carthage was destroyed, all "sodomy" in the collective sense, strangely migrated to Rome. By analogy, if you destroy London, you will lose Moscow. If you have not already lost ..
      4. ava09
        ava09 30 July 2020 07: 46 New
        +1
        (C) As long as there are England and the Anglo-Saxons, Russia will be in constant danger. (C) The main thing is not to forget whose capital is served by the Angles and Saxons ...) But seriously, Russia will be in constant danger while it is in the field of Roman law , which at one time was replaced by Kopnoe right.
    2. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 28 July 2020 06: 04 New
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      Why England was the worst enemy of Russia
      Why was it?

      Well yes, and also ---
      ..... did not claim the same land ...
      And what about the lands near the southeastern borders of Russia? Claiming or making plans? Afghanistan, for example.
      Asia has always been in the area of ​​interest. England has never been limited to India alone. Another thing is that the colonial empire began to shrink after WW2.
    3. Kisa
      Kisa 28 July 2020 09: 28 New
      10
      I suppose our inhabitants of heaven under cover in London settle in order to destroy them from the inside ...
    4. iouris
      iouris 28 July 2020 10: 52 New
      0
      The question is different: why exactly "terrible", even "the most terrible"?
    5. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 1 August 2020 07: 15 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      Why England was the worst enemy of Russia
      Why was it?

      If we recall the events in Iran, which the author mentioned, it was precisely because of the intrigues of England that the Russian ambassador Griboyedov, the author of "Woe from Wit" was killed in Tehran at the beginning of 1829. The Persians raged, chopped off the dead head and wore for 3 days at the peak
      But Iran refused in February 1828, almost a year before his assassination from all claims to Northern Azerbaijan, ceded the Yerevan and Nakhichevan khanates to Russia and pledged to pay 20 million rubles in silver, the British then offered their mediation. Ours refused, the British then provoked an attack on our mission
      1. gurza2007
        gurza2007 3 August 2020 19: 55 New
        0
        and during the Second World War, at their expense, equipment was imported to Germany for fixing citizens in concentration camps, their destruction, and the benefits received - gold dental crowns, human hair - for ropes, human skin - for briefcases, gloves ...
        After the Second World War, they are already openly acting, accepting fascists in the United States, imposing their ideology on the territory of the United States, and around the world !!! They are already almost everywhere !!! ... (((
  3. Cartalon
    Cartalon 28 July 2020 06: 22 New
    12
    No guys, our main enemy is the authors of such articles
    1. sanya
      sanya 28 July 2020 07: 39 New
      +6
      + 10000000!
    2. Dr. Frankenstucker
      Dr. Frankenstucker 28 July 2020 08: 11 New
      +5
      ... No guys, our main enemy is the authors of such articles


      Best comment!
      1. Fibrizio
        Fibrizio 28 July 2020 10: 42 New
        +2
        It is thanks to this author that I now always look at who wrote the article, everything immediately falls into place.
        If about "unparalleled", "always right", "saving everyone", "small states themselves attacked ....", "basely deceived", "set a neighbor on us", then this is our favorite author.

        You read it, and Goebbels immediately comes to mind. The Jews almost outlived the Aryans, the Slavs are fools, the Angles are enemies, the French are eating frogs, and pshek is generally so. Some Germans are smart.
        1. Dr. Frankenstucker
          Dr. Frankenstucker 28 July 2020 18: 32 New
          0
          Quote: Fibrizio
          You read it, and Goebbels immediately comes to mind.

          it is as anyone. Personally, this stereotyped blizzard reminded me of the Soviet agitprop. To the great satisfaction of the nostalgic old man's propaganda rhetoric is returning to square one.
  4. marchcat
    marchcat 28 July 2020 06: 23 New
    +4
    A brief historical excursion, to those who left, those who have children and relatives there, and indeed to all those who are longing for England. Who are these people? Maybe you should reconsider your attitude towards them, radically.
  5. Pavel73
    Pavel73 28 July 2020 06: 30 New
    +6
    For the sake of fairness, it must be said that among the British there were real friends of Russia, for example, the writers Arthur Clarke, Gerald Durrell, and H.G. Wells was not our enemy.
  6. 1536
    1536 28 July 2020 06: 34 New
    +6
    Britain should not be Russia's friend. Here is something else. Why do we want Britain to become a friend of Russia? Moreover, this obsessive desire has been present for centuries. "Ah, the British have arrived!" "Oh, what will the British say?" In Tikhortsa, the English queen buys apartments in the center of Moscow and wears, with the air of a winner, a tiara that belonged to the royal house of the Romanovs, ours, by the way, former sovereign emperors. We will keep silent about all kinds of concessions and enterprises, this is a business - nothing personal. Therefore, if you wait for what the English will say, if every single day you listen to the dubbing of stops and announcements in English in the capital's transport, then perhaps you can compare yourself with a smoker who, knowing well about the dangers of smoking, continues to courageously buy cigarettes in a stall and smoke feverishly to satisfy this addiction?
  7. Deniska999
    Deniska999 28 July 2020 06: 38 New
    11
    The theme of the great Tartary, which was destroyed by the evil Anglo-Saxons, has not been disclosed.
    1. Normal ok
      Normal ok 28 July 2020 19: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: Deniska999
      The theme of the great Tartary, which was destroyed by the evil Anglo-Saxons, has not been disclosed.

      Digging finely: pechegeni and Polovtsians - they were conspiratorial Anglo-Saxons))
    2. gurza2007
      gurza2007 3 August 2020 20: 01 New
      0
      Here it is, though in a rather crumpled form ...
      http://www.li.ru/interface/pda/?jid=2791046&pid=326297395&redirected=1&page=0&backurl=/users/chessov275/post326297395
  8. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 28 July 2020 06: 38 New
    0
    Why England was the worst enemy of Russia

    I don't want to waste time and argue with the author, because GB was not a bosom friend for both India and China. Believe me, the empire created by England, on whose territory "the sun never sets", was divided into an island kingdom and vassals that fed this kingdom.
    There is no doubt that Russia was a stumbling block in this struggle for world domination because in the harsh climatic conditions of the country there were few who wanted to live (without a warm sea and a gentle sun). And there was no way to conquer the free people remotely. Today it is possible to cut off financial flows, seize trade operations, prohibit the purchase of technology, etc. And then ...
    But here's the pattern. Over the years, we have not rejected English culture or language. Moreover, Soviet schools were taught (in tsarist Russia they spoke and wrote in French, see Leo Tolstoy) English, German and some other languages. In this regard, I can say with firm conviction - this is such a system of state power, when the state tries to live with its own people in relative harmony at the expense of humiliation, plunder, and destruction of other peoples. This is known from time immemorial how the crowd is "led" to some "different from others" person, to an abnormal phenomenon.
    Therefore, "it is not only the Englishwoman who crap." The "American" also suffers from incontinence, the "French", the "Spanish", and the "Danish" strive to throw up their share of shit ... Even the "frozen in ice" Scandinavians and "Canadians" dream of relaxing the sphincter in the process of bowel movements. This is their structured system of relations - "Law of ChChV", "Law of the chicken coop."
    Due to what historical conditions and spirituality it was Russia that was the main opponent of this - it is not known. But this is precisely why the very sight, the very existence of Russia, causes bile and indigestion in the Western world. You all remember very well how the attitude changes when the presumptuous West gets snotty when they put insolent politicians in their place. It is the authorities who are pursuing such a line in relations. It is they who brew conflicts, from which the peoples are constantly losing.
    It was only Richelieu who said that he could put the people in prison, but in reality no one succeeded. Therefore, the peoples of different countries have nothing to share among themselves. The clans and regimes that have taken the helm are another matter.
    That is why, that countries are ruled by "small elite clubs", there is a fuss in the world from the fact that someone either stepped on someone's corn, or spat (vomited) on the shirt front, or, even worse, piled it in his pants.
    And we in this performance are not spectators or stage workers. We are the ones who get these "33 slaps" and wonder why this one got the role of Harlequin, and this one - Pierrot.
  9. Yuri Rastegaev
    Yuri Rastegaev 28 July 2020 06: 48 New
    -3
    Everything is just like that
  10. Cartalon
    Cartalon 28 July 2020 07: 29 New
    +3
    If the Russian people managed to build such a state in which he himself occupies the most humiliated position, the statement is true as RI is so for the USSR and the Russian Federation, then it is not the British and not even the Jews who are to blame for this, but we look in the mirror and smile. The fact that the Russian elites cared, with rare exceptions about anything but the interests of the Russian people, is only to blame for the Russian people and no one else.
  11. sanya
    sanya 28 July 2020 07: 38 New
    -6
    Generally article brain juice
    England poisoned England poisoned
    She did not incite, but ruled, for example, some ardent Bolsheviks
    in particular by the group of comrade stalin
    And today Russia is fighting for the interests of England in Libya, for example, and in Syria the same thing ... Suffice it to recall where Dr. Assad lived and made good money before becoming president ...
    1. Doctor
      Doctor 28 July 2020 10: 34 New
      -1
      in particular by the group of comrade stalin

      More careful Sanya. You will now reveal the main secret of the XNUMXth century. bully
      1. sanya
        sanya 28 July 2020 11: 45 New
        -2
        Yes, everything has been well known for a long time
        All Bolsheviks were divided into groups of agents of different states
        Lenin worked for the Germans, Trotsky for the USA, Stalin and Beria worked for the British Empire ...
  12. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 July 2020 07: 39 New
    15
    Another fantasy from Samsonov.
    The Anglo-Saxons paint themselves as light elves, against the eastern orcs of Mordor. Samsonov does the same, representing Russia as elves and placing the orcs to the west. Both approaches are flawed by definition.
    Of course, there is a difference in mentality, and it is not in favor of England. Both the Russians and the British expanded their empires, capturing territories and peoples - the Russians by land, the British by sea. But the Russians provided the Bashkirs, Tatars, northern peoples, and so on and so forth with equal rights, that is, if you already became part of the Empire, then get citizenship with all the consequences. For the British, the people from her colonies, all these Indians, Indians, and so on, were not just citizens, but in general a kind of third class in the style of "is a woman a man?"
    Of course, it happened that the Russians also just did not cut out some peoples at the root. Remember the Circassians, for example. But their economy of the ball is tied to the trade of Russian slaves, from which the light elves-Adygs categorically did not want to give up. And they defended their primordial right to trade Russian slaves on the battlefields, almost to the last Adyghe. Here, forgive me, as it comes around, it will respond - we are not so tolerant, thank God ...
    But the fact is that there was no age-old confrontation between England and Russia. England had neither permanent allies nor permanent opponents. The British saw their most important geopolitical task in preventing one country from strengthening in Europe. Simply because in that case, this country could take the British Empire for itself. Therefore, the British were usually engaged in forging an alliance of weaker countries against the strongest and pitting them against each other. In those cases when Russia became excessively stronger, in the opinion of the British, they opposed Russia. When someone else (France, for example) became stronger, the British sought an alliance with Russia.
    In general, only business, and nothing personal - and building an epic canvas of the confrontation between Gondor and Mordor on this is not worth it - Tolkien still did better :)))))
    1. Arpad
      Arpad 28 July 2020 07: 54 New
      +4
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      But the Russians provided the Bashkirs, Tatars, northern peoples, and so on and so on, equal rights, that is, if you already became part of the Empire, then get citizenship with all

      Are you sure about equal rights?
      From what year?
      I dare to remind, when serfdom was abolished in Russia?
      That the Russians did not have equal rights, what can we say about the indigenous peoples?
      https://versia.ru/kak-rossiya-poltora-veka-pytalas-zavoevat-chukchej
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 July 2020 10: 11 New
        +3
        Quote: Arpad
        Are you sure about equal rights?
        From what year?

        From any
        Quote: Arpad
        I dare to remind, when serfdom was abolished in Russia?

        In 1861, by the way, in Great Britain slavery was abolished in 1833.
        Quote: Arpad
        That the Russians did not have equal rights, what can we say about the indigenous peoples?

        You have now mixed a bunch of God's gift with scrambled eggs. I spoke about equal rights in the Empire for my people and for the annexed peoples. And they were. And you are talking about equal rights for all citizens, this is completely different.
        1. forest1
          forest1 28 July 2020 11: 08 New
          +3
          In 1861, by the way, in Great Britain slavery was abolished in 1833.

          There is only a small nuance. That in England by that time there were a couple of tens of thousands of slaves (ethnic non-Britons, mostly imported from the colonies). And in RI there were several tens of millions of them (quite a Russian, representatives of the titular nation). You can certainly console yourself that "well, in the colonies that slavery flourished." Well, then the truth will have to immediately and admit that RI was nothing particularly better than the colonies, except for the position of the nobility. However, in the British colonies there were also those who lived like cheese in butter.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 July 2020 11: 21 New
            +2
            Quote: forest1
            There is only a small nuance. That in England by that time there were a couple of tens of thousands of slaves (ethnic non-Britons, mostly imported from the colonies). And in RI there were several tens of millions of them (quite a Russian, representatives of the titular nation).

            And you can also remember that Russian serfdom and slavery in England and the colonies in the 19th century are two very big differences. You can also compare the situation of serfs in Russia and "free copyholders" in England. You can also remember what happened to the "free" peasantry in England during the time of the fencing. And to understand, finally, that the formal rejection of serfdom in England did not even close to the equality of the rights of English citizens.
            But most importantly, as I wrote above, this has nothing to do with my words about the equal rights of the Russian and the peoples attached to it.
            1. forest1
              forest1 28 July 2020 11: 24 New
              +4
              Well yes. When the landowner decides what property you will dispose of and the right to alienate it, has the right to corporal punishment, sometimes they even killed you (although formally it seems impossible), he decides who he marries, in fact, they forced peasant women to have sex, has the right to sell you, and take to another territory. This is very different from slavery, yes.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 July 2020 11: 47 New
                +3
                Quote: forest1
                When the landowner decides what property you will dispose of and the right to alienate it, has the right to corporal punishment, sometimes they even killed you (although formally it seems impossible), he decides who he marries, in fact, they forced peasant women to have sex, has the right to sell you, and take to another territory.

                Well, compare all this with the British copyhold, when a peasant does not have property, rents land from a landowner, and the common law does not apply to him, that is, he, in fact, is outside the law :)))) And the land holder is completely free to do with him whatever his heart desires, but the peasant and "kva" cannot say. Do you think there was less abuse? Naive:)
                1. forest1
                  forest1 28 July 2020 11: 53 New
                  +2
                  He can just go to the city, he is free. Another thing is whether he will find a job there. This is problem. He could not indicate with whom he should sleep and whom he would marry. Yes, and according to the law, he could not beat him with a stick if he did not like something. By the way, we are now about the same and live. no one will guarantee us a job and earnings either, and this does not really upset you.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 July 2020 12: 47 New
                    +2
                    Quote: forest1
                    He can just go to the city, he is free. Another thing is whether he will find a job there. This is problem.

                    The problem was that those who did not find a job were hanged for vagrancy. In the 19th century - about 4 thousand people, and before that there were hundreds of thousands.
                    Quote: forest1
                    He could not indicate with whom he should sleep and whom he would marry.

                    He could use his power over the tenant.
                    Quote: forest1
                    Yes, and according to the law, he could not beat him with a stick if he did not like something.

                    Once again :))) The copyholder did not have the right to go to the common law court. And even if he did, how could he do it, being completely dependent on the owner of the land? He won the court - he went to the forest from the earth to look for a new life.
                    With such rights, the landowner could do anything, including murders, first night rights, etc.
                    1. forest1
                      forest1 28 July 2020 14: 00 New
                      +2
                      Are there any proofs? Vicki says that the fencing has led to an influx of peasants into the cities. And here you are telling all sorts of things
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 July 2020 14: 02 New
                        0
                        Sure. I'll drop it in the evening
                      2. forest1
                        forest1 28 July 2020 17: 10 New
                        +2
                        Kopigold emerged from the holding of serfs (villans) at the turn of the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries and became widespread in the XNUMXth century. Peasants usually received permission to hold a copyhold in the manorial curia (see Manor), where after paying a monetary contribution (admission fine) and taking an oath to the Lord, the copyholder was given a copy - an extract from the protocol (hence the name), which fixed the size of the rent and the plot, as well as holding period. Kopygold reflected the process of liberation of the villans from serfdom, the actual and legal strengthening of the peasant economy, the replacement of the arbitrary power of the lord with a customary legal relationship. At the same time, its holders (copyholders) did not have legal protection from the courts of common law (according to the legal tradition, the courts of common law until the beginning of the XNUMXth century examined only complaints from free holders), dispositions of the allotment carried significant duties in favor of the lord; in most cases, the copygold was lifelong, not hereditary.

                        Here you can see that all the same, the position of copyholders was better than that of the serfs. They are classified already as dependent on the feudal lords, but no longer serfs.
                        I am not an expert in this matter. But all the same I suspect that it is better this way than completely serf. Thanks for the proof. The statistics of punishment for vagrancy is an interesting question. I do not idialize England, although, of course, they have always been ahead in social and economic issues.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 July 2020 07: 38 New
                        0
                        Quote: forest1
                        I am not an expert in this matter. But still I suspect that it is better this way than completely serf.

                        How can I say? In some ways, yes, in others, no. The serfs were nevertheless associated with the landowner, and in a lean year they could count on his help, which, by the way, happened quite often. And then - take out and put the money, you can't - another will come to your place, and even if you die of hunger, there will be a replacement. Moreover, it was only at first life-long copygolds, then - at the discretion of the lord.
                        It should be remembered that in Russia not all peasants were serfs - approximately half of the territory of the Empire (where about a quarter of the population lived) there were no serfs.
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 July 2020 15: 38 New
                    +1
                    Type in the search engine "England. Part 6. Fighting the beggars and vagabonds" and see the publication on Pikaba. It is, of course, not a history textbook, but it is valuable because it provides links to the British laws of the time in the English-language wiki
                    W. Harrison, who wrote in the 70s of the XVI century, referring to the calculations of the Italian doctor Cardan, who served at the court of Edward VI, reported a colossal number of thieves (that is, driven from the breadwinner of the land and doomed to begging peasants), who were executed under Henry VIII: up to 72 thousand.
                    W. Harrison. The description of England prefixed to the Holinshed's Chronicles, vol. I, 1807, p.186
                    Only under Henry ...
        2. andrew42
          andrew42 28 July 2020 18: 52 New
          0
          Gentlemen, they are such gentlemen! If they say that there is no slavery, you have to take their word for it. Extreme hypocrisy and British nobility are Siamese twins.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 28 July 2020 10: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The British saw their most important geopolitical task in preventing one country from strengthening in Europe. Simply because in that case, this country could take the British Empire for itself. Therefore, the British were usually engaged in forging an alliance of weaker countries against the strongest and pitting them against each other.

    “Mr. Minister, for the past five hundred years, the British have adhered to the same foreign policy: to contribute to the disunity of Europe. Therefore, together with the Dutch we fought against the Spaniards, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and the French against the Germans and Italians ... Divide and rule. Do you understand? Why would we change policies that work so well? We shouldn't do this.
    - But this is ancient history!
    - And current politics. We need to destroy this system, so we enter it. We tried to break it from the outside, but it didn't work. Now we are inside this system and can turn it into nothing. Set up the Germans against the French. The French against the Italians. Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is pretty like the good old days.
    - But ... We all support the European idea?
    - Really! Mr. Minister! ..
    - But .. If not, why did we insist on joining the European Union?
    - For the same reason. Just like the UN. The more members, the more disputes, therefore, the more useless and powerless the union becomes.
    - Terrifying cynicism ...
    - Yes. We call it "diplomacy," Mr. Minister.
    © "Yes, Mr. Minister".
    40 years ago it seemed like a joke. But it turned out to be the pure truth. smile
    1. gurza2007
      gurza2007 3 August 2020 21: 11 New
      0
      Yeah ... divide and conquer !!! ...
  • gurza2007
    gurza2007 3 August 2020 20: 56 New
    0
    Yes, even if everyone is called Cheburashki and Shapoklyaks, nothing of this will change! Evil is evil !!!
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 28 July 2020 08: 17 New
    +1
    A splint article that simplified everything to the utmost.

    Russia was a competitor to England both in Asia and Europe, standing in the way of her world expansion, which explains the anti-Russian actions of England.

    Nevertheless, the most terrible enemy that brought us the most innumerable calamities was a united Germany, which no one "set" anywhere, she itself was eager to fight for life in the East.

    But England was an ally of Russia in both world wars, as well as in their forerunner, the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th century (OV 1812).

    At the same time, almost all countries of the world have visited the enemies of England, due to her irrepressible appetites ...
    1. andrew42
      andrew42 28 July 2020 15: 24 New
      -1
      Olgovich, you pass off your wish as real: "But England was an ally of Russia in both world wars." With such "allies" and enemies are not needed. Before WWI, Russia was dragged into the Entente by the French. A political agreement of 1891 was signed with France, and the Military (!) Convention of 1892 is a real military alliance of 2 states. The 1907 Convention (Petersburg Convention) was signed with England, in which there were NO allied obligations, but there was a delimitation of spheres of influence in Asia, that is, in fact, a truce was formalized (!). What allies are there? - Russia was "signed" de facto to fight for the interests of the British Empire, for the interests of their main geopolitical enemy. As for the period before WWII, the Stalinist leadership trusted Britain from the word in no way, less than Hitler. and did the right thing in relation to this "Western plutocracy", understanding who is pushing Hitler Drang Nach Osten. Found allies, nothing to say.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 28 July 2020 21: 35 New
        -1
        Quote: andrew42
        Olgovich, you pass off your wish as valid

        FACTS listed.
        Quote: andrew42
        Russia was "signed" de facto to fight for the interests of the British Empire,

        In Osovets for 14 years, Russia fought for the "interests of Britain" in the same way as in Brest 41g
        Quote: andrew42
        who pushes hitler drang nach osten

        Hitler was pushed and tried, but here came a complete embarrassment:
        “The war is going on between two groups of capitalist countries. We are not averse toThey had a good fight and weakened each other. It's not bad if the position of the richest capitalist countries (especially England) was shaken by the hands of Germany.... Hitler, himself not realizing this and unwilling, is shaking and undermining the capitalist system <...> What would be bad if, as a result of the defeat of Poland, we extended the socialist system to new territories and populations. <...> We can maneuver push one side against the other to get better. The next moment is push the other side».

        But in reality everything turned out quite differently ...
        1. andrew42
          andrew42 29 July 2020 12: 53 New
          -1
          Olgovich, the facts of hostilities have nothing to do with it. The hack is already underway, and there is nowhere to go. It just so happened that Britain and Russia opposed Germany, each in the status of "enemy of the enemy" in relation to each other. The real FACTS are allied commitments at the time of the outbreak of hostilities. Do you have these FACTS? - They don't exist. There were no allied obligations to WW1 and WW2 (all the more so) between Britain and Russia. It's a good trick already.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 29 July 2020 13: 31 New
            -1
            Quote: andrew42
            Real FACTS are allied commitments at the time of the outbreak of hostilities

            REAL FACTS are real JOINT war against a common enemy.

            That was the case in WWI and WWII.
  • unknown
    unknown 28 July 2020 08: 30 New
    -5
    The answer is in astrology.
    And it's simple.
    Among the various types of interaction between people and countries, there are so-called vector connections. The vector link is the link between the master and the servant. Every sign, whether it belongs to a person or a country, does not matter, has a servant. And for some he is a servant.
    The sign of Great Britain is the Rat.
    The sign of Russia is the Horse.
    The Rat is the owner of the Horse, and the Horse is the servant of the Rat.
    Vector interactions are very complex and ambiguous, from love to hate.
    Much depends on how the master and servant relate and cope with their duties.
    There are situations when the upper classes cannot, and the lower classes do not want to.
    Both the Rat and the Horse are very strong signs, therefore, the interaction between our countries has always been and will be difficult.
    1. andrew42
      andrew42 28 July 2020 18: 41 New
      +2
      Ignoto, This is a Japanese-Chinese horoscope! :)) Let the Taoists guess on it. And what have you lost 5 elements? And who appointed Russia to the Horse? No, about the British rat, I agree. :)) The horse confuses.
  • smaug78
    smaug78 28 July 2020 08: 45 New
    +8
    Everything is clear from the title: another mixture of lies and half-truths from the conspiratorial Samsonov.
    1. Dr. Frankenstucker
      Dr. Frankenstucker 28 July 2020 17: 05 New
      +4
      Quote: smaug78
      from the conspiratorial Samsonov.

      he does not pull on a conspiracy theorist. This is a miserable agitation on the patterns of Soviet agitprop. No conspiracy theories.
  • A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 28 July 2020 08: 55 New
    12
    Yes, the British are very cunning. By the time Germany attacked on June 22, Hitler had been allowed to bomb London for a whole year and all in order to incite him against the USSR. Truly, Jesuits! And how insidiously they forced Stalin to sign the same Pact in order to allow him to supposedly prepare for war and thin out the command of the Red Army!
    By the way, Churchill in 1945 could not want anything, since he lost the elections and returned to big politics only in 1951, when Britain and its problems were already up to their throats. Accordingly, he was a terrible bogey - he spoke the Fulton speech not as a first person, but as a private person, since he had been out of work for a year.
    Since then, 85 years have passed, and Britain continues to be guilty of all Russian misfortunes and troubles?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 July 2020 10: 08 New
      +9
      Quote: A. Privalov
      Since then, 85 years have passed, and Britain continues to be guilty of all Russian misfortunes and troubles?

      Well, someone must be to blame! Well, couldn't the God-bearing people have done all this themselves? Confused him, shoved from the path of the true enemies insidious. smile
      By the way, there are only two candidates for the role of those guilty of all Russia's troubles. And if we accept that Englishwoman doesn't shit - it means that the crane brewers will be to blame for everything.
    2. Hantengri
      Hantengri 28 July 2020 10: 15 New
      +9
      Quote: A. Privalov

      Yes, the British are very cunning. By the time of the German attack on June 22, Hitler had been allowed to bomb London for a whole year and all in order to incite him against the USSR.

      I wonder how Samsonov was able to get past the Battle of Hastings. lol It is obvious that the Anglo-Saxons specially organized it in order to introduce Gita Haraldson (Wessex) to us, under the guise Kazan orphans victims of the Norman conquest. Even her dad, Harold II Godwinson, was not ashamed to make it up to make everything look natural.
      And, after all, it went through!
      In 1075, this Geeta, our Vladimir Monomakh, became obsessed and immediately began to shit, that is, to give birth. She gave birth to Vladimir a whole bunch of monomashichs (Mstislav, Izyaslav, Roman, Yaropolk, Vyacheslav and, possibly, even Yuri), spoiled by vile Anglo-Saxon blood, thereby laying an atomic bomb under the age-old Power of Rurikovich.
      And in 1134 this very bomb went off. "And the whole Russian land was torn to pieces," to the delight of the Anglo-Saxons.
      Here is such a successful special operation of the Englishwoman against the Superethnos! wassat And how did she slip past the attention of Mr. Samsonov?
      1. andrew42
        andrew42 28 July 2020 15: 27 New
        +1
        And the question about Hastings was well raised. Brushing aside the anti-Samosonian mockery, I propose to admit that Britain does not correlate in any way with the "Anglo-Saxons", and to stop this was driven to procrastinate. If you want to find the Anglo-Saxons, go to Senlock. at Hastings. Their bones lie there.
        1. Hantengri
          Hantengri 28 July 2020 15: 39 New
          +1
          Well, Guillaume Bastard, as it were, didn’t cut everyone ... Gradually I endured, fell in love, mixed up. So they didn't go anywhere.
          1. andrew42
            andrew42 28 July 2020 15: 50 New
            0
            Khan-Tengri, we are talking about the ruling elite, which determines the policy of the state. both external and internal, and on the basis of their own values, laying down ideology (often masked by religion) for centuries to come. What does the disenfranchised villans have to do with it? The Anglo-Saxon nobility, if it was preserved in relics, was still assimilated and brought out by the conquerors to zero, and very quickly .. The layers are lower in general, "Prima noche" and no nails. what kind of "Anglo-Saxons" here. New gentlemen and driven hybrids (not to say less culturally).
  • Revolver
    Revolver 28 July 2020 09: 01 New
    +2
    But Ivan IV wooed Elizabeth I. If it had grown together, there could be very interesting options. And after all, it broke only because they did not agree on which church to get married.
  • Esaul
    Esaul 28 July 2020 09: 08 New
    +5
    Wake up, England has already defeated us! All the authorities and the oligarchs work for them, and in the media there is only news about what kind of hat Queen Elizabeth wore.
  • Terrible
    Terrible GMO 28 July 2020 09: 44 New
    +4
    Author - Alexander Samsonov


    You don't even need to read.
    I'll throw in the idea of ​​the next article - Jews, the most terrible enemy of the great Russian spirit wassat
    1. unknown
      unknown 28 July 2020 12: 03 New
      -6
      In ancient languages, the words "Jew" and "Aryan" are not only consonant, but also have the same meaning: MAN.
      Europe is a country, from the word side, "Jews", that is, PEOPLE.
      1. A. Privalov
        A. Privalov 28 July 2020 13: 12 New
        +5
        Quote: ignoto
        In ancient languages, the words "Jew" and "Aryan" are not only consonant, but also have the same meaning: MAN.
        Europe is a country, from the word side, "Jews", that is, PEOPLE.

        I have to upset you. The etymology of these words is much more complicated. Apart from "consonance", no other connections can be traced here.
        In general, it is not worth it to primitize so. Otherwise, the Russian-speaking reader may have an absolutely irresistible desire to link thisRussiankov s tRussianfirs, and Portugaly with portYankees. I'm not even talking about Liverpool's inescapable connection with sausages and hunters, Londonand with a well-known river, and Varshava from tovars. hi
      2. andrew42
        andrew42 28 July 2020 16: 20 New
        0
        What is it? And Putivl was apparently founded by Putin? Actually, Arius, among other things, is a personal name, and a very ancient one. According to official history, the priest Arius is the founder of the Arian heresy. Iran is Ariana, the land of the Aryans. And then the Greek Hebrayos, moreover, offensive meaning?
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 July 2020 16: 50 New
      +3
      Quote: TerribleGMO
      I'll throw in the idea of ​​the next article - Jews, the most terrible enemy of the great Russian spirit

      For all the Jews there is a judge.
      For liveliness. For the mind. For stoop.
      For the fact that the Jew shot at the leader.
      For the fact that she missed.
      © Huberman
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 28 July 2020 09: 51 New
    +4
    And, blame all on England, who will understand.

    In fact, England itself, like us, dogged with everyone around, remember the 100-year war, and grabbed what she could reach. As we are.

    Dogs with everyone, and unite against the enemy - the eternal rules of politics. As then, so now.

    It was in England that they always asked for money, both the Tsar and the Bolsheviks. There are also residents of the current pro-Kremlin oligarchs ... yes, the real estate of officials ...
  • Fibrizio
    Fibrizio 28 July 2020 10: 50 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In 1861, by the way, in Great Britain slavery was abolished in 1833.

    In fairness, I note that it was in England (not to be confused with the colonies) that slavery was abolished almost a hundred years earlier than in Russia. At 33 they took up altruism with "monkeys" and by the way, they beat others in the head for slavery after that, which in my opinion is good. The same Boers.
  • Fibrizio
    Fibrizio 28 July 2020 10: 52 New
    +2
    It is a pity that the rating of articles on the site has been removed. He helped pre-assess the quality of the article. Now you have to go into the comments.
    1. andrew42
      andrew42 28 July 2020 16: 22 New
      +1
      Eka annoyance. Bad luck. And then, they would have glanced at the author below, and you can not read the title. Convenient!
      1. Fibrizio
        Fibrizio 28 July 2020 16: 24 New
        -1
        I honestly read the comments to his articles out of a certain schadenfreude, they are akin to those that are written by the GCD adherents in their groups. You just wonder.
  • andrew42
    andrew42 28 July 2020 12: 39 New
    -1
    It’s time to figure out what this is “Britain, which pathologically hates Russia”. You need to know the enemy by sight, rip off the helmet, and look intently into the running eyes. To say "Anglo-Saxons" is simply ridiculous - who is this? Horst squad? Alfred's warriors? Harold's Housecarls? - There are practically no Anglo-Saxons in the "island elite" for 1000 years! Since that same Hastings in 1066. To operate today with the concept of "Britain" is also juggling with an empty glass. There is a supranational elite, which has 2 bases of concentration, the old London, and the new one in New York / Washington / Los Angeles, as well as branches in the "countries of the British commonwealth" plus "watch forts" from political elite groups of subordinate states (in Europe they grouped and managed by the local Brussels "EScom"). What kind of supranational force of the "Western project" is this, what is its genesis and current state? And its identification is simple. This is the same old symbiosis of the robber baron and money-lender money-changer. At different times, at different "technological orders" - the essence does not change. This is liquidity. The cult of the Golden Calf - conquest, oppression, robbery, extermination. These entities do not accept any other algorithm of life support for themselves, this is the basis of their existence. And what happens under the "British flag" is just a form. Since the 20th century, the form has become more flowery, - the Stars and Stripes flag was added there as the main one, replacing the broken German eagle with a black swastika on its chest. And then, Britain, Britain! - this is an empty phrase, a conversation about nothing, just "clothes", one of.
  • Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 28 July 2020 12: 40 New
    0
    British capital took the most active part in the restoration of German military-economic might.

    What? ... The author is a liar!
    After WWI, Great Britain was not really able to invest in itself. There was nothing to invest! But the Americans rescued them with loans, both Great Britain and France.
    And Germany, as the losing side, was obliged to pay reparations, because of which it almost collapsed completely.
    If we talk about who invested in Germany, it is the United States. But not so that Germany would be a rival to the USSR, but so that Germany could pay reparations to Great Britain and France, so that they, in turn, would pay off American loans.

    British diplomacy so "pacified" the Third Reich that it gave him most of Europe, including France. Almost all of Europe was gathered under the banner of Hitler and thrown against the USSR

    Will you give the phone number of the huckster of the weed supplier?

    The whole article is like this.
    "No rewriting history," huh? Lol.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 July 2020 14: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      If we talk about who invested in Germany, it is the United States. But not so that Germany would be a rival to the USSR, but so that Germany could pay reparations to Great Britain and France, so that they, in turn, would pay off American loans.

      According to seasoned conspiracy theorists, the United States, with its help, pumped up the German fighting hamster, preparing him for a big war in Europe. This war, at a minimum, was supposed to destroy the colonial system (opening up new markets), and ideally, also to weaken all European grandees, putting them in financial and political dependence on the United States.
      The USSR was not considered a target for the reviving Germany - until the end of the 30s the armies of the countries of the "cordon sanitaire" were enough for it.
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 28 July 2020 17: 02 New
        +1
        That's why they are cosmetologists. Anyway, Hitler was created by the Americans from a test tube, and then put as the leader of Germany for only one thing - the war with the USSR.
        And the real Austrian artist was killed by CIA agents.
    2. andrew42
      andrew42 28 July 2020 15: 38 New
      -2
      Lol, this is to believe your post, dear Jack. Especially about the interests of Britain and the United States in the German western occupation zone. Why did your favorite American figures not "invest" in the East German lands, but, on the contrary, bombed everything on them to the ground in 1945, and then the first tore apart Germany, proclaiming the FRG and printing the West German stamp? Plan "Unthinkable", the recruitment of military units from the Germans in the western zone - this is not the British handiwork? From Dr. Goebbels you credit, he would have been delighted with both turning upside down and the insolence of lying.
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 28 July 2020 17: 20 New
        +1
        Why did your favorite American figures not "invest" in the East German lands, but, on the contrary, bombed everything on them to the ground in 1945, and then the first tore apart Germany, proclaiming the FRG and printing the West German stamp?

        Again, my favorites are Americans. How. Okay.)

        Your beloved Germany was supposed to pay reparations and a loan, but with the arrival of your beloved Hitler, everything broke off, since he simply sent everyone to hell with payments.

        They bombed because Germany in 45 was an enemy of the coalition, which included the United States. For the same reason, the USSR bombed Berlin.
        Believe it or not, bombs are thrown in war!

        We shared your beloved Germany after the war between the victor countries: the USA, the USSR, Great Britain and France. Everyone got a piece of the pie, including the USSR.

        Plan "Unthinkable", the recruitment of military units from the Germans in the western zone - this is not the British handiwork?

        The plan was just a plan that Churchill smoked, but it was never pleasant.
        And the recruitment of military units of the FRG from the Germans, then really, how could this even be ... Not like from the GDR, where the Germans also served, only in a different occupation zone.
        Ahh, no, it's the same thing!

        From Dr. Goebbels you credit, he would have been delighted with both turning upside down and the insolence of lying.

        Thank! I always wanted to get a compliment from Goebbels' darling.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 July 2020 18: 31 New
      +2
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      The whole article is like this.
      "No rewriting history," huh? Lol.

      The funny thing is that when Chamberlain gives Czechoslovakia to the Germans in 1938 for the sake of one year of gain for the rearmament of the British Armed Forces (this "peacemaker" five times increased spending on the armed forces in two years of premiership, but there was desperately lack of time to convert pounds into tanks, planes and ships ) - this is conspiracy with a criminal regime and in general horror-horror-horror.
      And when someone in 1939 in the same way signs a Pact with the same Germans for less than two years of respite for exactly the same thing, this is competent and balanced foreign policy. smile
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 28 July 2020 18: 35 New
        0
        And when someone in 1939

        After fruitless negotiations with allies, the features of which are well known to you. For the USSR in 1939 there was no alternative, only Germany was a negotiable party, in 1938 no one tried to look for an alternative. The British were so kind that they returned the Czechoslovak gold reserves to the Germans.
      2. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 29 July 2020 10: 42 New
        0
        And when someone in 1939 in the same way signs a Pact with the same Germans for less than two years of respite for exactly the same thing, this is a competent and balanced foreign policy. smile


        That the USSR, that Great Britain, just wanted to buy time, which is quite logical.
        But yes, it amuses the fact that some are allowed and others are not. Multi-port.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 29 July 2020 12: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          But yes, it amuses the fact that some are allowed and others are not.

          And because we should not forget that the main principle of Soviet science is its partisanship. smile
          ... in any assessment of an event, directly and openly take the point of view of a certain social group.
          © VIL
  • Simfy
    Simfy 28 July 2020 12: 52 New
    +8
    The article reminded Hollywood films "on real events" ... where there is one name from the event, and the rest is "from the director" (((England "megamind" all "twists and turns", and Russia, Germany, Turkey, France, USA, etc. . straight some mentally retarded, they only beat their foreheads (
    1. andrew42
      andrew42 28 July 2020 15: 42 New
      0
      England is certainly no megamind if you are talking about a country and a classical state. But one of the "megamind" hemispheres is indeed located in the City of London.
  • CBR600
    CBR600 28 July 2020 12: 55 New
    0
    Again, I don't see the key word - sovereignty. Not in the article, not in the comments. And from this, everything dances. Wai wai
  • Operator
    Operator 28 July 2020 13: 39 New
    -3
    The author is clearly behind the times: Britain is rapidly shrinking to England in the 16th century, and the United States to the USA in the 19th century.

    We have yet to send squadrons of the Northern and Pacific fleets to the ports of the USA to export the former American nuclear warheads to Russia so that African Americans do not receive them. bully
    1. EVDmitri
      EVDmitri 28 July 2020 16: 46 New
      +1
      The perspective is right. good
      But Britain has not ceased to be an empire. She just disguised herself. Of the 53 members of the British Commonwealth, 16 of them have the British Queen as their head of state. And it does not have nominal power, but real power itself.
  • 16112014nk
    16112014nk 28 July 2020 15: 50 New
    -2
    Rather, global warming would have come. The ice would melt and flood this island forever, like Atlantis. To be remembered only in legends.
  • Alexander Yolgin
    Alexander Yolgin 28 July 2020 16: 12 New
    -1
    England is not only an enemy of Russia, she is the enemy of all mankind
  • EVDmitri
    EVDmitri 28 July 2020 16: 40 New
    -1
    Britain is Russia's geopolitical rival. And therefore, in most cases - the enemy.
  • serggb
    serggb 28 July 2020 18: 30 New
    0
    The Anglo-Saxons are always doing everything possible to overthrow Germany and Russia. Very often they succeed. Therefore, the Englishwoman historically shits not only in Russia, but also in Germany.
  • Alexey Sadomtsev
    Alexey Sadomtsev 28 July 2020 19: 48 New
    -3
    They did not touch upon the topic of revolutions. The first revolution took place in England, by Cromwell. The effect is powerful. A century later, they decided to try it in France - it turned out to be very effective too. After the war of 1812, England began to prepare similar things in the Russian Empire, the result - the Decembrists and failure. They went the other way - they began to trouble the aristocracy. Disgruntled people appeared. The fifth column began to emerge. Chernyshevsky, Herzen and others. All this went sluggishly, slowly (Russian mentality). They came up with an interesting move - the abolition of serfdom. The landowners skipped money and became beggars. A huge mass of dissatisfied people appeared and the fifth column began to grow much faster. Further, various streams of revolutionaries appeared and England supported all of them in one way or another. The first congress of the RSDLP in London is an example. Well, then, everything is already known.
  • Unknown
    Unknown 28 July 2020 21: 13 New
    0
    the article is correct. Britain has always shaped public opinion, in Europe as well as in the British Commonwealth. Britain has always molded a negative image of Russia, be it R.I. or the USSR, and they cannot be persuaded. Here, for example, the statement of a famous Briton ........... Do not misunderstand me: every Russian is the nicest person as long as he wears his shirt out. As an Asian he is charming. But as soon as he tucked his shirt into his pants, like a European, and begins to insist that Russians should not be treated as the most western of the eastern peoples, but, on the contrary, as the most eastern of the western, he turns into an ethnic misunderstanding, with which, rightly, not easy to deal with "
    Rudyard Kipling, "
    Ethnic misunderstanding, bgg ............. here is the attitude towards us as a nation. You can type a dozen statements about Russians, from pitta to techer, they will be the same in meaning. The question arises, with by whom did they communicate to express such an opinion? well, Kipling was passing through R.I. and the rest? After all, they communicated with the tsarist aristocracy, and hence such an opinion for the entire Russian people ?, but according to the aristocrats, one cannot judge the people, she is very far from him, and suffers from an inferiority complex, before Europe, and especially before the British. after all, at the time of V.O. , Comrade STALIN taught the British cabinet, treats the USSR with respect. and then all over again. These stupid voyages of Khrushchev to England, then Gorbachev's admiration for him, leave a bad opinion of Russians as a nation. respect yourself, others will respect. maybe our leadership should stop pretending to be Europeans, and be Russian. we are what we are, we will not be different, and we are proud of it!
    1. D. Dan
      D. Dan 31 July 2020 11: 01 New
      +1
      Kipling was still that fascist, the ancestor of all Nazis and a hardened enemy.
  • navodchik
    navodchik 28 July 2020 22: 43 New
    -1
    Alexander thanks! As always, a complete and detailed analysis. Do not pay attention to comments that do not contain logic and knowledge of HISTORY.
  • Kapellan23
    Kapellan23 29 July 2020 00: 50 New
    0
    England is our main enemy
    Still relevant.

    Peace be with you, good gentlemen, let us pass - we go
    Bury the great people that England was equal in everything.
    There was a Kingdom, there was Glory, there was Pride, and Power was -
    For three hundred years the state flourished, in three hundred days it burned to the ground.
    (Kipling 1918)
    https://oboguev.livejournal.com/6270879.html
  • Kapellan23
    Kapellan23 29 July 2020 00: 57 New
    +1
    "The Englishwoman crap"

    "Whoever stole his hat sewed the old woman."
  • MA3UTA
    MA3UTA 29 July 2020 01: 08 New
    0
    Britain, together with other Western states, must stop the Russian militarization of space. Writes about this British edition of The Telegraph.



    https://topwar.ru/173547-britanija-namerena-ostanovit-rossijskuju-militarizaciju-kosmosa.html

    Britain maintained the balance of power in the region in its favor. She did it very rightly, by the way (for her interests).
  • Igor Ostashevsky
    Igor Ostashevsky 29 July 2020 02: 19 New
    -2
    good article. Here I would add about the incitement of separatism in the North Caucasus in the 90s, and about the attitude of the British towards the Slavs - towards the Russians towards Muscovy as a lower race of barbarians and propaganda is the point of view. This racism of whites is not against blacks but against the Slavs, as well as the Spaniards and other peoples. The author did not indicate yet another reason - fear for his pearl India. And the Indians took real steps to transfer their English jurisdiction to the Russian one - the goers were sent to the governor of Turkestan, the tsar was informed about it. And finally, in the First World War, we fought for these creatures, millions of our soldiers died for British interests. We must destroy this old prostitute England. Pay for the press, companies, conduct anti-advertising of business and education, prohibit training, do not recognize diplomas and certificates. Paton, after a German university, took half a year to pass exams at the Institute of Railway Engineers - MIIT - he passed about 20 exams. It is the same with the British and Americans .. Diplomas - only with confirmation. Not so good education there. Technical is definitely not better. And yet - it is necessary to let the same infection in England as in America - let the blacks' feet kiss and repent. Very helpful.
  • Tyra - Sauru Rex
    Tyra - Sauru Rex 29 July 2020 09: 32 New
    0
    In life, one immutable law dominates over all other laws - the law of force. In other words, if you do not eat you, they eat you. England is shamelessly eating others. Russia, with its beautiful-hearted principles, allowed to be eaten. The results are dire.
  • Ua3qhp
    Ua3qhp 29 July 2020 10: 25 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    It should be remembered that in Russia not all peasants were serfs - approximately half of the territory of the Empire (where about a quarter of the population lived) there were no serfs.

    Even more. Here is an excerpt from the collection "Serf population in Russia" on the 10th census. Edition 1861
  • engineer alex
    engineer alex 29 July 2020 15: 23 New
    0
    Russia is a monarchy it was
    Russia was communist too
    Russia is a democratic one I would very much like "at least in a hundred centuries"
  • bulava
    bulava 29 July 2020 17: 24 New
    0
    Not bad we pinched this "lion" in due time. Well, yes, they clung to the United States, like Vaska's cat to his grandfather's felt boot. But in fact - now this is not the same England that was, let's say 70 years ago. A pitiful parody of herself.
  • Campanella
    Campanella 30 July 2020 10: 01 New
    +1
    Like Nicholas, England offered to leave Russia, but he himself refused.
    As for the global sandbox, it is obvious that the struggle for the world throne has been and will be, and the fate of the world depends on it.
    The Americans are clumsy, Britain has also shown itself.
    It's ridiculous for them to make claims to everyone else.
    Our liberal pseudo-historians extol Churchill, reveling in his mind, the same Stalin gets in the way of shit. Strange people to say the least. Personally, I do not consider Churchill to be who they are trying to present him, one of the politicians of a good level, but no more.
  • vladimirw
    vladimirw 30 July 2020 19: 22 New
    +2
    England, the USA are, of course, eternal enemies, and their liberals in the government are traitors and Russophobes worse than open enemies
  • D. Dan
    D. Dan 31 July 2020 11: 00 New
    +1
    Greetings dear. Can I say a few words?
    Firstly, the previous commentator is right - a barrier to the destruction and enslavement of the world of the current political world "deep state" must be set, otherwise the skiff of civilization, development will stop, there will be a rollback and a new round, it will be bad. It is necessary to get out from the planet - then.
    As far as our "iltok" is concerned, any "run from the west" should be welcomed. It is no secret that even our most patriotic elites are not averse to making friends with the Anglo-Saxons, and now they behave for the most part like offended girls - they say, they promised, got fucked, ditched, and even abandoned them. What the West promised through the lips of the Gaidarochubais and other ghouls - "prosperity, peace, defense is not needed, a scoop, we will give technology and money." Instead - just think - thrown :))) Worst of all to have an Anglo-Saxon friend, right?
    The second option is if Trump wins - and Trump is a verdict for bankers - where do you think they will run? Rather, to us. This is where you need to crush them. But I'm afraid our elite have little guts.
  • D. Dan
    D. Dan 31 July 2020 11: 04 New
    +1
    I'll say another word - for today, and for a long time already, GB is not our worst. Hmm. And her wings have long been pinched. her number is almost zero. The worst are traitors within the country and stupid people. Who does not want to build up political consciousness. Wake up !!!!! bl .... be. otherwise a skiff to us SKYUK. Sorry about the emotions.
  • Starley.ura
    Starley.ura 31 July 2020 16: 22 New
    +1
    Now comrades will run in and start yelling "you are lying!" , "Anglo-Saxons are our friends!" , "China is our enemy !!!"
  • +5
    +5 1 August 2020 15: 07 New
    +1
    The relationship between countries is much deeper and more subtle .... Britain won the title of maritime power from France, not least on the Russian hemp and the forest. All world wars (including Napoleonic Zero) we were on their side.
    If you do not consider conspiracy theories, then, do not laugh, Britain was all the time afraid that we razzzz and capture their India ... Those foreign policy in the East was ruled by immigrants from the OIC, who seriously thought that we needed the Straits to quickly conquer Persia through Turkey, which we need to take over India ...
  • Hypatius
    Hypatius 2 August 2020 21: 38 New
    +1
    This article must be in the school history textbook. Very accessible, bravo. I would not hesitate to add that Ivan the Terrible was vilely poisoned, and Peter the Great was impudently replaced by Mad.
  • gurza2007
    gurza2007 3 August 2020 19: 13 New
    0
    Everything that is bad in the world now plays into the hands of the British, because they make money on everything !!! Down with vile lies and cover-ups! Where are the objective school textbooks on the history of the Fatherland? !!!