Military Review

Why England dragged Russia into the First World War

87
Why England dragged Russia into the First World War

Russian Tsar Nicholas II from the balcony of the Winter Palace announces the beginning of the war with Germany


Another wrong and suicidal war for Russia was the First World War. Where Russia fought for the interests of finance capital, France, England and the United States.

Disaster threat


Entry into the war with Germany from the very beginning did not bode well for Russia. Over the three centuries of Romanov rule, the Russian state has accumulated a powerful explosive load of contradictions. The most important thing is the lack of social justice. The division of the people into a small caste of "Europeans" with high incomes, with excellent European education, the ability to live for years and squander fortunes (created by the labor of Russian peasants and workers) in Berlin, Vienna, Paris and London. And a huge popular masses of workers and peasants, for which the heroes were Razin and Pugachev, with a long accumulated hatred of "gentlemen-Europeans." This led to other fundamental problems: land, labor, national, westernization of the social elite, the question of development, etc.

Already the Japanese campaign and the first revolution showed that the Russian Empire was approaching disaster. Any strong blow could destroy the building of the empire, which was held by the sacred traditions of the autocracy and the army. The empire could be saved only by systemic reforms (they were eventually carried out by the Bolsheviks) and foreign policy stability. Tsar Nicholas II had to simply "send" all "allies" and not get involved in wars. The struggle for domination within Europe between the Anglo-French bloc and the German one was not our war, it was a quarrel within the European world. The country needed to focus on solving internal problems: the elimination of illiteracy, the educational and cultural revolution, the Russification of culture and art, industrialization with an emphasis on heavy industry and the military-industrial complex, solving the agricultural problem, etc.

The best minds in Russia understood this perfectly. It is enough to study the works of late Slavophiles, traditionalist-conservatives (the so-called Black Hundreds), some statesmen and the military. Among them were Stolypin, who was eliminated precisely for trying to pull the country out of the trap, and the representative of the "deep people" Rasputin, who warned the tsar against war with Germany. All of them saw the threat of a big war spilling over into a revolution, a socio-political and state catastrophe. The former head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and member of the State Council Pyotr Durnovo warned the tsar about this in his "Note" dated February 1914.

England vs Russia


In the 1990s, a myth was created about the "lost Russia", which was destroyed by the "bloody ghouls-Bolsheviks" led by Lenin. One of the parts of this myth: Russia has already won the First World War, and if it were not for the October Revolution and the "betrayal" of the Allies in the Entente, it would have been among the winners, and there would not have been World War II. Accordingly, Russia would have become a superpower without the huge victims of the Civil War and the Great Patriotic War.

However, this is only a myth. From the very beginning, they planned to destroy and dismember Russia. Set the Russians against the Germans, and then finish off both powers. Paris, London and Washington did not intend to build a new world order together with St. Petersburg. Only “against Russia, at the expense of Russia and on the rubble of Russia,” as one of the Western ideologists let slip much later. England and France were not going to give Russia Constantinople and the straits, Western Armenia. The Collective West was our terrible enemy, not our ally.

The Russian intelligence officer, general and one of the founders of Russian geopolitics and geostrategy, Aleksey Efimovich Vandam (1867-1933), thought the same way. In his work The Greatest of the Arts. Review of the current international situation in the light of a higher strategy "from 1913 Vandam (Edrikhin) warned the Russian government against a war with the Germans on the side of the British. He noted that the Anglo-Saxons are the most terrible enemies of the Russians. With the hands of the Russians, England has long been cracking down on its European competitors. Now the main competitor of England in Europe is Germany. The Germans were building a powerful ocean-going fleet, catching up with the "mistress of the seas" and planning to fight for colonies, sources of raw materials and markets in Africa and Asia. They were dangerous to England, not Russia. Initially, the Germans did not even think about the "living space" in the East, the Second Reich was preparing to fight the French and British colonial empires.

Vandam noted that it is necessary to refuse to interfere in European affairs. Russia's future lies in the south and east. The harsh climate (on this topic there is an excellent modern work by A. Parshev "Why Russia is not America") and the remoteness of Russia from the world sea trade routes doom the country to poverty, therefore, expansion to the south is necessary. It is interesting that Tsar Peter the Great was thinking along the same lines. However, he did not manage to realize his great plans. Russia was to reach the warm southern seas and become a great maritime power in the Pacific Ocean.

The main geopolitical enemy of Russia on the planet is the Anglo-Saxons. For centuries they have been trying to cut off Russia from the seas, push it back into the interior of the continent and to the north. Dismember Russia. Lack of growth will cause stagnation and decline, the extinction of the Russian people, who have lost the will to fight and the purpose of existence (just consumption is degradation and death).

Vandam noted that after the victory over Germany, Russia will remain the only strong continental power on the continent. Therefore, the Anglo-Saxons will immediately begin to form a coalition against the Russians with the aim of squeezing Russia out of the Baltic, Black Sea, Caucasus and Far East. The main war of the XNUMXth century will be the confrontation between the Anglo-Saxon world and Russia. In fact, Vandam anticipated history XX century and three world wars (including the third world - "cold"). All three world wars were based on the confrontation between the West and Russia. The Russians were used in the war with the Germans and at the same time they tried to destroy Russia.

The trap of the first world war


Thus, Russia's entry into the First World War on the side of the Entente was a monstrous mistake by the tsarist government. Paris and England were not going to give us Poland, Galicia, Carpathian region and Constantinople. The main goal of the war was to play off the Russians and the Germans, to destroy and plunder the Russian and German empires. Ensure the victory of "democracy" (financial capital) on the planet. Germany was not a mortal threat to Russia. On the contrary, the Germans were our potential strategic allies. Nicholas II could have avoided war. It was necessary to follow the strategy of Alexander III - not to fight! Make a lasting alliance with the Germans, become a solid rear of the Second Reich. Such an alliance could have been concluded even during the Russo-Japanese War, when the Germans helped us in one way or another. Wilhelm II and Nicholas II had already followed this path, the 1905 Treaty of Bjork was signed, however, it was torpedoed by the Russian Foreign Ministry and Witte, who pursued the foreign policy of St. Petersburg in the interests of England and France.

France and England, faced with a Russian-German alliance, would not have dared to go to war with the Germans, because they were going to fight with Germany "to the last Russian soldier." It is possible that everything would be limited to the conflict in the colonies. However, Russia was able to be used, hooked on loans, "brainwashed" with screams of nobility and honor. As a result, the Russians took the main blow of the Teutons, Austrians and Ottomans, pulled off dozens of divisions that could take Paris and crush France. We have put in this war the cadre core of the army - the last stronghold of the autocracy. The autocracy itself was discredited by the information wave of all sorts of rubbish. For the Russian peasant who endured this bloody massacre on his hump, this was the last straw. A Russian turmoil broke out, killing the empire, autocracy, the civilizational and state project of the Romanovs and nearly ruining the entire Russian world and people.

In "gratitude" for the salvation, our allies began to spoil us literally from the very beginning of the war. They let German cruisers into the Black Sea, which prompted Turkey to oppose Russia. Thus, they strengthened the defenses of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles so that the Russians would not capture them (before that, Russia had complete superiority in the Black Sea). They did nothing to preserve the neutrality of the Ottoman Empire, although there were opportunities. Constantinople was afraid of war with the Russians, offered to negotiate and in exchange for some concessions (for example, guarantees of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire), was ready to maintain neutrality or even side with the Entente. The British refused to negotiate with the Turks, and the appearance of Constantinople on the side of Berlin became inevitable. What for? England benefited from the war between the Russians and the Turks. This distracted the Russian divisions from the main theater of the war. Britain needed a long war of attrition that would bleed the Germans, the Russians, and even the French. The territory of England will not suffer, and after the conclusion of peace, the British will dictate their peace to Europe (however, the Americans also got in, pushing the British). Supplies weapons, ammunition and equipment to Russia were delayed. At the same time, hundreds of tons of gold were pulled from Russia.

As a result, the Russians laid down millions of lives in this war. Saved France and England from defeat. And they themselves fell into a terrible trap, experienced a civilizational, national catastrophe. England, France and the USA feasted well on the wreckage of the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. Russia became a figure in someone else's big game and paid a huge price. She was saved literally by a miracle - thanks to the Soviet project of the Bolsheviks, Lenin and Stalin.
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/
Articles from this series:
Russian penal battalion. Why did Russia fight for European stability
How the Anglo-Saxons played off Russia and Japan
87 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 14 August 2020 05: 42
    -8
    Why England dragged Russia into the First World War

    The whole problem is why Nikolai ⅠⅠ was able to persuade him to speak in WWI on the side of the main enemy of the Republic of Ingushetia - GB?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 August 2020 08: 17
      +6
      Quote: ROSS 42
      The whole problem is why Nikolai ⅠⅠ was able to persuade him to speak in WWI on the side of the main enemy of the Republic of Ingushetia - GB?

      Because Britain was not his main enemy.
      The state with which Russia had the most serious political problems under WWI was Austria-Hungary. And Germany fully supported Austria-Hungary, took her side. That is, at some point, Germany had two, if not allied, then close states - the Austrians and us, but we clawed at each other. And the Kaiser preferred to make the Austrians his ally.
      In general, the idea that Russia should have united with Germany or stayed away is delusional. It would simply lead to the fact that after the fall of France, we would be left alone with the Germans and Austrians, despite the fact that the Austrians had great appetites for us.
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 14 August 2020 08: 38
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Because Britain was not his main enemy.

        You explained everything so beautifully ... fellow
        And all my life I assumed that it was precisely the prospect of the development of Russia (economy, industry, science, agriculture) that infuriated these free masons and shook the islands in fever ...
        There was no reason for Russia to fight on anyone's side. It was just that some could not get around such a "fat piece" of the earth's territory.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 August 2020 08: 47
          +4
          Quote: ROSS 42
          And all my life I assumed that it was precisely the prospect of the development of Russia (economy, industry, science, agriculture) that infuriated these free masons and shook the islands in fever ...

          Well, in vain. There was no "age-old struggle" of England against Russia. England had a different imperative - she was afraid of a consolidated Europe. And therefore, it has always been engaged in consolidating the weaker countries against the most powerful in Europe and playing them off. When Russia became too strong, England gathered an alliance against her, or even fought herself (the Crimean War, for example). When someone else was strong (Napoleon is a textbook example), she offered an alliance and helped.
          "England has no permanent allies - only permanent interests," in general.
          Quote: ROSS 42
          There was no reason for Russia to fight on anyone's side.

          There were. We had a great interest in the Straits, and a desire to dominate the Balkans. Moreover, the first had the most powerful economic foundation, in our country most of the foreign trade depended on the Straits, and Turkey was a rather flighty country and periodically closed these straits.
          Quote: ROSS 42
          It was just that some could not get around such a "fat piece" of the earth's territory.

          You know, when Tolkien invented an "eternal enemy" in Mordor, he still wrote a fairy tale, and understood it :)))))
          1. Varyag_0711
            Varyag_0711 14 August 2020 09: 09
            0
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk (Andrei)
            Well, in vain. There was no "age-old struggle" of England against Russia. England had a different imperative - she was afraid of a consolidated Europe.
            Come on. England, first of all, was not afraid of a united Europe, but as you correctly pointed out to Russia, she was most afraid of all.
            Virtually not a single Russo-Turkish war and not a single Russo-Swedish war has gone without Britain's backing. Maybe you really would not be bad yourself to learn some history? Well, at least in terms of Anglo-Russian relations?
            When someone else was strong (Napoleon is a textbook example), she offered an alliance and helped.
            God save us from such "allies" as small shavens. Russia simply does not have a worst enemy.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 August 2020 09: 27
              +8
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              Maybe you really would not be bad yourself to learn some history? Well, at least in terms of Anglo-Russian relations?

              I know her, unlike you.
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              Come on. England, first of all, was not afraid of a united Europe, but as you correctly pointed out to Russia, she was most afraid of all.

              Some categories of people like to think like this. Everything is clear and understandable - here we are good, here is a bad, eternal enemy. Alas, life is much more complicated, but I see no reason to explain it further. Obviously you will not understand.
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              Virtually not a single Russo-Turkish war and not a single Russo-Swedish war has gone without Britain's backing.

              Yeah. Since the time of the Crimean Khanate :)))))))) I was full height :))))))) And the British encouraged the Turks to go to Astrakhan :)))) And in the Russian-Turkish 1672-1681 and 1686-1700 the Englishwoman is to blame :))))
              And when Karl the 12th fled to the Ottoman Empire - who incited the Turks against us? Aren't they French?
              In 1769-1774, the British were remembered. That in addition to them, the French and the Germans also opposed Russia, they forgot, the British are to blame for everything.
              Okay ... I don't see any point in further discussion. If you don't want to learn history, don't
              1. Ross xnumx
                Ross xnumx 14 August 2020 10: 56
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I know her, unlike you.

                Somewhere it was already: "Firstly, I am the smartest, and secondly, I am the most modest ..."wassat You, young man, are a little cunning, to put it bluntly. You probably know that it was on “Foggy Albion” that the policy of the Russian tsars was constantly coordinated - they were of the same blood with the kings and queens of England (you and me ...) I really forgot which century, but you know something. I’m still at a loss as to why the Russian nouveau riche want to go to London? It turns out that the answer lies on the surface - they are torn to their native land, pulls to the roots ... Here, it turns out, where the pig is rummaging ...
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Some categories of people like to think like this. Everything is clear and understandable - here we are good, here is a bad, eternal enemy. Alas, life is much more complicated, but I see no reason to explain it further. Obviously you will not understand.

                It's right. Where can we understand what you could not and cannot explain. It is true that the earth is round, and around every corner GB (Englishwoman) crap.
                Yes, with such friends and enemies are not necessary.
                It is understandable if something connected the Russian tsars (Russian nobility) with France (fluency in French, fashion, literature and art) or Germany (marriage, science, engineering and architecture) ...
                Name the area of ​​close contacts between Russia and GB ... So, apart from nasty things and intrigues, I remember little.
                But it's useless to explain to you. You have your own story. Probably there is also a globe of Chelyabinsk?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 August 2020 11: 34
                  +6
                  Quote: ROSS 42
                  You, young man, are a little cunning, if not to put it more strongly.

                  No question, refute if you can. If possible, without the kindergarten, which you accumulated above, but at least hid it under the cut :)))
                  A lot of things amused me there. Take, for example, Suvorov's crossing over the Alps. Again the Englishwoman has shit! That is, the British spent a lot of time and money, assembled a second coalition against France, arranged a joint landing with the Russian troops in Holland ... and suddenly, for no reason at all, they began to poke a spoke in their own wheels :))))
                  Little of. You are not even aware of the main historical milestones of that war. You have accumulated there
                  Suvorov invited the Austrians to strike a joint blow in southern France. But the Austrians, being puppets of England, refused. As a result, the war with France, which could have ended successfully in 1799, dragged on.

                  If you knew the history ALWAYS, you would be aware that neither Suvorov nor Suvorov, together with the Austrian forces that were promised (but not given) to him, had a chance to overthrow France.
                  In fact, Suvorov went to the rescue of the Russian-Austrian corps of Rimsky-Korsakov and von Gotze. In total, there were about 46 thousand people in this corps, and it was opposed by the French army of Masséna, numbering about 80 thousand people. So, the Russian-Austrian corps was defeated even before Suvorov had time to intervene. And no help from the Austrians in this case could have helped Suvorov defeat the French forces in Switzerland.
                  If the Austrians are to blame for anything, it is that Archduke Charles should have first defeated Massena, and then gone to the Rhine from Switzerland. But he was in a hurry, forced to react to the movement of the French armies, despite the fact that the British are here in no way at all.
                  Quote: ROSS 42
                  You probably know that it was on "Foggy Albion" that the policy of the Russian tsars was constantly coordinated - they were of the same blood with the kings and queens of England (you and I ...)

                  You will somehow be determined in the testimony. Either the British were always at enmity with us, encouraging other countries, or our kings were obedient puppets. One contradicts the other a little.
                  Quote: ROSS 42
                  I’m still at a loss as to why the Russian nouveau riche want to go to London?

                  The answer is very simple. Firstly, non-residents have to pay much less taxes there, and secondly, the peculiarities of the British court make extradition extremely difficult. For everyone, not just Russians.
                  Quote: ROSS 42
                  It turns out that the answer lies on the surface - they are torn to their native land, pulls to the roots ... Here, it turns out, where the pig is rummaging ...

                  You may be good at piglets. In oligarchs - definitely not :)))
                  Quote: ROSS 42
                  It's right. Where can we understand what you could not and cannot explain.

                  It's just time to waste. It is not too difficult for me to grind into dust all the "argumentation" that you copied by analogy with what I did above. What's the point? For you, this is a matter of faith, not knowledge
                  Quote: ROSS 42
                  Name the area of ​​close contacts between Russia and GB ... So, apart from nasty things and intrigues, I remember little.

                  That is, the fact, for example, that Britain was one of our main buyers in foreign trade is for you a secret sealed with seven seals? That in the first half of the same 19th century, exports to England were up to 50%, and sometimes more - do you know? And what do you know about then?
                  1. Ross xnumx
                    Ross xnumx 14 August 2020 11: 47
                    -4
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You have accumulated above, but at least hid under the cut:)))

                    The spoiler is called ...
                    I am not interested in a conversation with you on abstract topics that neither you personally nor I personally have touched upon!
                    Stay with your opinion, I will stay with my opinion - I have no friends in GB. You probably have, because how can you do without friends and with such knowledge.
                    And we are all from books and notes ... True, they say there are still archives ...
                    Yes, learn to distinguish between irony and sarcasm from direct interpretation.
                    And I advise you not to go into Suvorov's Science to Win with your little hands. He also beat many great forces. That is why Napoleon moved to Russia after the death of Suvorov.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 August 2020 12: 20
                      +5
                      Quote: ROSS 42
                      The spoiler is called ...

                      Thanks, Cap!
                      Quote: ROSS 42
                      I am not interested in a conversation with you on abstract topics that neither you personally nor I personally have touched upon!

                      No hysterics please
                      Quote: ROSS 42
                      Yes, learn to distinguish between irony and sarcasm from direct interpretation.

                      Why should I delve into your "inner world"? "Do not go into yourself the mechanic, there you will be found in no time"
                      Quote: ROSS 42
                      And I advise you not to go into Suvorov's Science to Win with your little hands. He also beat many great forces.

                      Why didn't you beat the French then? :)))) The Austrians weren't enough? So at your leisure, study the battle of Trebbia, find out what the Austrian troops were worth.
                      Quote: ROSS 42
                      That is why Napoleon moved to Russia after the death of Suvorov.

                      laughing You .... You will study history first at least within the bounds of a school textbook. When Suvorov died, when Napoleon came to power, who was the first to move the troops against whom, and when and after which Napoleon went to Russia. I would advise, of course, "Napoleon" Tarle, but where do you go when for you and the school history course was beyond your power
                      1. Ross xnumx
                        Ross xnumx 14 August 2020 12: 35
                        -2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You .... You will study history first at least within the bounds of a school textbook. When Suvorov died, when Napoleon came to power, who was the first to move the troops against whom, and when and after which Napoleon went to Russia. I would advise, of course, "Napoleon" Tarle, but where do you go when for you and the school history course was beyond your power

                        You quit your pipe foundry, Mr. Doolin.
                        Suvorov died in 1799, BUT even during his lifetime he noticed Napoleon:
                        “Oh, how this young Bonaparte strides! He is a hero, he is a miracle hero, he is a sorcerer! He conquers both nature and people. He walked around the Alps, as if they were not there at all. He hid their formidable peaks in his pocket, and hid his army in the right sleeve of his uniform. It seemed that the enemy then only noticed his soldiers, when he shot them like Jupiter his lightning, spreading fear everywhere and striking the scattered crowds of the Austrians and Piedmontese. Oh how he strides! As soon as he entered the path of military leadership, he had already cut the Gordian knot of tactics. Not caring about the number, he attacks the enemy everywhere and smashes it clean. He knows the irresistible force of the onslaught - no longer needed. His opponents will persist in their languid tactics, subordinate to the feathers of the cabinet, and he has military advice in his head. In actions, it is free as the air that it breathes. He moves his regiments, beats and wins according to his will! ”

                        And, (I think so) having come to power much later, Napoleon is unlikely to have moved to Russia if Suvorov was alive ...
                        This is what I wanted to say. Not seeing talented military commanders in Russia, Bonaparte moved eastward.
                        Suvorov had at least one lost battle? Out of 60 - none.
                        It is wrong to speak of Generalissimo Suvorov as a military commander who won only by educating his soldiers to resemble modern special forces. He sought not only discipline from his soldiers, but also coherence and understanding of maneuver. Orders under Suvorov began to be communicated to every soldier ... Napoleon himself admitted that he had adopted the useful from Suvorov's military tactics and strategy.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 August 2020 13: 02
                        +3
                        Quote: ROSS 42
                        Suvorov died in 1799

                        In 1800
                        Quote: ROSS 42
                        And, (I think so) coming to power much later, Napoleon

                        Napoleon became the first consul in 1799.
                        Quote: ROSS 42
                        hardly moved to Russia if Suvorov was alive ...
                        This is what I wanted to say. Not seeing talented military commanders in Russia, Bonaparte moved eastward.

                        Is it okay that after the death of Suvorov Bonaparte was at enmity with England and Austria, but not with Russia? Is it okay that in the end he made peace with both? Is it okay that in the future he again declared war on England, and it was England who made every effort to form the 3rd coalition? Austerlitz, whose Russian army was defeated - is this Russian land? And Preussisch-Eylau, where Bennigsen fought with the French (already in the 4th coalition) - is it somewhere between Smolensk and Moscow in your opinion? :))))
                        That is, after a short period of peace, it was Russia that waged a war against French troops on European territory - as part of two coalitions. I do not blame Russia, we did everything right. But the fact is that then we still came to Napoleon and not he to us.
                        Then all the same - the world. But Alexander could not support the continental blockade of England that Napoleon wanted. Not "did not want", but "could not." That is why the French eventually invaded us, and by this time Napoleon's self-confidence had reached such limits that if there were at least three Suvorovs there, they would have invaded all the same.
                        Quote: ROSS 42
                        Napoleon admitted that he had adopted the useful from Suvorov's military tactics and strategy.

                        Sure. He borrowed from everyone.
                2. Kwas
                  Kwas 15 August 2020 07: 23
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  If the Austrians are to blame for anything, it is that Archduke Charles should have first defeated Massena, and then gone to the Rhine from Switzerland. But he was in a hurry, forced to react to the movement of the French armies, despite the fact that the British are here in no way at all

                  The British, just in spite of the fact that they were starting a joint operation with Austria in Holland, they had to destroy their fleet. That's why Karl went there. Well described by Sokolov.
              2. Kwas
                Kwas 15 August 2020 07: 35
                +1
                I see that you taught history. Only according to Nikolai Starikov. Indeed, he also has sensible thoughts. But twitching, one must also honor others. In particular, on the Napoleonic era of Oleg Sokolov "Battle of two empires", and together with Puchkov "Battle of three emperors".
            2. Kwas
              Kwas 15 August 2020 07: 17
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              If you don't want to learn history, don't

              Yes, he teaches history. Only according to Nikolai Starikov. And he also has sensible thoughts. But we must also honor others ...
          2. Senior seaman
            Senior seaman 14 August 2020 15: 41
            +2
            Quote: Varyag_0711
            Almost none Russian-Turkish war and not a single Russo-Swedish war would have gone without Britain's backing.

            1768-1774 First Turkish War of Catherine II. We are embarking on an expedition to the Archipelago that would not have been possible without the support of England. Great Britain then sold us several ships, allowed its officers to enter the service in the RIF. Provided bases for repair. Moreover, the Royal Nevi ships often went along with our squadrons, fending off possible unfriendly actions of the French.
            1806-1812. Russian-Turkish war. England and I are allies fighting together against the Ottoman Empire.
            1827 year. Navarin. The united Russian-Anglo-French squadron outraged the Turkish-Egyptian fleet with particular cynicism.
            As for the Russian-Swedish, until the XNUMXth century the British did not touch them at all. In the Great Northern War, the British, before the Aland Congress, rather supported us. The situation changed only with the death of Karl and the coming to power of Ulrika-Eleanor.
            War 1741 - 43. Behind Sweden, oddly enough, not England, but France. Which, in turn, is at enmity with England.
            In general, all this is nonsense.
        2. Drago
          Drago 6 October 2020 20: 21
          0
          You are deceived, the straits are not needed for trading. If you have something to sell at a bargain price, they will buy it anyway.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 October 2020 09: 01
            +1
            Quote: Drago
            You have been deceived, the straits are not needed for trading.

            Sergey, what you have just written is an economic absurdity
            Quote: Drago
            If you have something to sell at a bargain price, they will buy it anyway.

            The key word is "at a bargain price." And this price will not be profitable if you try to transport all Russian bread on carts across all of Europe. And even after the appearance of the railway, the situation has not changed. Even today, 90% of all foreign trade goes through the sea.
            1. Drago
              Drago 10 October 2020 16: 47
              0
              It goes across the sea, because geography. Where you can drive, no longer
              carried by ships. The cheapness of water transport is a myth of the 19th century.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 October 2020 19: 05
                +1
                Quote: Drago
                Where you can drive, no longer
                carried by ships

                Exactly the opposite
                Quote: Drago
                The cheapness of water transport is a myth of the 19th century.

                (heavy sigh) Look at the prices for the delivery of goods by sea and by land - you will understand that there is a myth
                1. Drago
                  Drago 11 October 2020 04: 54
                  0
                  Well, it's your business. No, no.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 14 August 2020 09: 02
        12
        Quote: ROSS 42
        There was no reason for Russia to fight on anyone's side. It was just that some could not get around such a "fat piece" of the earth's territory.

        And we even know these some... Remember when the term Lebensraum came into being and it was said:
        Fate leads us there. The compass of the Germans points to the East.

        Adolf did not need to invent an ideology - everything had already been invented before him.
        1. Dr. Frankenstucker
          Dr. Frankenstucker 14 August 2020 10: 30
          +1
          Yes, both Ratzel and Ariosophists conceptually saw European expansion as the dominant feature. All this nonsense of Samsonov that the Second Reich saw as his main goal the struggle with France and England for the African and Asian colonies is the essence of complete nonsense.
          After all, the entire quote looks like this:
          .East bordering directly on the German Fatherland.There is destiny leading us.
          1. Kwas
            Kwas 15 August 2020 07: 40
            +1
            Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
            All this nonsense of Samsonov that the Second Reich saw as his main goal the struggle with France and England for the African and Asian colonies is the essence of complete nonsense.

            Rather, he was undecided, he wanted to go here and there, as Hitler correctly noted (but he himself fell into the same trap). And since, in particular, he built the second most powerful fleet, England decided to extinguish it. Indeed, with the help of a masterful provocation, he embroiled in the coalition war.
        2. Vasily Andreev
          Vasily Andreev 22 August 2020 12: 46
          0
          The author writes as if it was Russia that declared war on Germany, and not vice versa.
      3. Pirate
        Pirate 14 August 2020 11: 10
        +2
        And all my life I assumed that it was precisely the prospect of the development of Russia (economy, industry, science, agriculture) that infuriated these free masons and shook the islands in fever ...
        It's not all wrong
  2. Glory1974
    Glory1974 14 August 2020 10: 44
    +2
    Why was Nikolay ⅠⅠ able to persuade him to speak in WWI on the side of the main enemy of the Republic of Ingushetia - GB?

    and Nicholas II, and the German Kaiser Wilhelm, and the English King George are cousins. How was one persuaded against the other? A rhetorical question, at the forefront of the interests of states and of course the governing elite.
  3. gsev
    gsev 16 August 2020 02: 17
    +1
    Quote: ROSS 42
    The whole problem is why Nikolai ⅠⅠ was persuaded to speak in WWI on the side of the main enemy of the Republic of Ingushetia

    If you read the articles of Pilsudski, the memoirs of the leader of the Socialist-Revolutionaries Chernov, the interrogation protocols of Kolchak, it becomes clear that all the more or less competent politicians foresaw the Russian-German war. Chernov and the emissary of Pilsudski already at the beginning of 1914 agreed on how they would divide the Russian Empire into a restored Poland and a cut-down Democratic Russia, Kolchak and his like-minded naval officers hastily restored the fleet, believing that Germany would attack Russia no later than 1915.
  • Free wind
    Free wind 14 August 2020 06: 29
    +9
    Germany helped Russia in the war with Japan by supplying Japan with Krupp guns. Hooray. Judging by such publications, the successes of British diplomacy should be recognized. There is such a proverb: If over and over again you get punched in the face, then it is not the fist that is to blame, but the face.
  • Deniska999
    Deniska999 14 August 2020 06: 41
    +9
    We have already gone in a circle, it was similar once. Maybe it's enough to publish Samsonov's opuses and disgrace the site?
  • Cartalon
    Cartalon 14 August 2020 08: 29
    0
    Another portion of historical whining
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 14 August 2020 08: 59
    -12 qualifying.
    Russia has already won the First World War and, if not for the October Revolution and not "betrayal" of the Allies in the Entente, she would have been among the victors, and there would not have been World War II. Accordingly, the Russia would become a superpower without the huge victims of the Civil War and the Great Patriotic War.

    .

    What, obvious terrifying TRUTH hurts your eyes?

    You bet!

    Instead of Brest betrayals had to sign Karlhorst 45 already in 1918 and - there would be no GV or WWII.

    But someone urgently needed POWER any valueth, even at the cost of betraying the huge victims of Russia's struggle for freedom, against the German occupiers.
    However, this is only a myth. Russia was planning from the very beginning destroy and dismember... Set the Russians against the Germans, and then finish off both powers

    Documents of such planning are on the table! And not just idle chatter - nobody is interested in it!

    And yes, so that they know, finally: ALL the winners-Europeans of WWI GOT from the defeated territories, etc.
    Initially, the Germans did not even think about "Living space" in the EastThe Second Reich was preparing to fight the French and British colonial empires.

    Yeah, from the 13th century they followed him and only the author does not see. There were a lot of articles on VO about this.

    And yes, so that they know: Germany declared war on Russia and attacked it FIRST, and only a day later, France. Immediately, the main goal is "France".


    the Germans were our potential strategic allies.
    the rapidly developing Russia became the most dangerous COMPETITOR of Germany, and even possessing enormous resources.

    Therefore, she was subjected to unprecedented aggression in cruelty: German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg on the reasons for the attack on Russia:.
    «The future belongs to Russia"which is growing and growing, and which is increasingly pressing on us, like some kind of dark spirit."

    Such things should be KNOWED.

    and Russia could not have fought in WWII exactly ALSO as the USSR in WWII: in both cases it was attacked by a predatorrushing for prey.

    Article, for unsubstantiated theses-minus
    1. Dr. Frankenstucker
      Dr. Frankenstucker 14 August 2020 10: 58
      +7
      Quote: Olgovich
      Article, for unsubstantiated theses-minus

      Olgovich, is there at least one article by Samsonov that you would put a "+" on?
      The evil Anglo-Saxons again at his entrance rallied us and rewrote history on the elevator wall. They interfere, scoundrels, to save the Russian world.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 14 August 2020 14: 23
        +6
        The evil Anglo-Saxons again at his entrance rallied us and rewrote history on the elevator wall. They interfere, scoundrels, to save the Russian world.
        I wonder why such a sensible thesis is minus? This is the alpha and omega of modern Russian propaganda!
    2. Dr. Frankenstucker
      Dr. Frankenstucker 14 August 2020 11: 52
      +3
      Instead of the Brest betrayal, it was necessary to sign Karlhorst 45 already in 1918 and there would have been no GV or WWII.


      to sign "Karlhorst 45 already in 1918" it was necessary to fight. War is not won by surrender. It's funny to hear from some statements that, they say, Russia is also among the countries-winners of WWI. And who, in fact, did the Bolsheviks betray in Brest? They were not the successors of the Republic of Ingushetia, so they were not bound by allied obligations with the Entente.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 14 August 2020 12: 30
        -11 qualifying.
        Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
        To sign "Karlhorst 45 already in 1918" had to be at war.

        In 1918, this was no longer even required: it was enough not to enter into betrayal, but: the cannon fodder of the Anglo-Franks was already deciding the matter itself.

        Completely occupied Serbia is the winner of WWI and got its piece from the vanquished.
        And even Romania, which managed to wag its tail.
        Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
        It is ridiculous to hear from some statements that, they say, Russia is also among the countries-winners of WWI.

        The Entente won WWI, Russia is its biggest part.
        Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
        And who, in fact, did the Bolsheviks betray in Brest? They were not the successors of the Republic of Ingushetia, so they were not bound by allied obligations with the Entente.

        1.YOUR country was betrayed, its many victims in the name of victory over the invaders

        2. And who, besides the German-Turkish invaders, recognized them .... Russia?
        Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
        Olgovich, is there at least one article by Samsonov that you would put a "+" on?

        there is. He's different. I think this is not one person.
    3. Kwas
      Kwas 15 August 2020 08: 25
      -1
      Quote: Olgovich
      Russia had already won the First World War, and if it had not been for the October Revolution and the "betrayal" of the Allies in the Entente, it would have been among the winners, and there would have been no Second World War. Accordingly, Russia would have become a superpower without the huge victims of the Civil War and the Great Patriotic War.

      What, the obvious horrifying TRUTH hurts your eyes?


      Do you also think that we were one step away from victory? As in the Russian-Japanese, and so on ... And nothing that we did not have a single major victory over Germany? And nothing that we did not produce either aircraft or automobile engines? And accordingly, less than 1000 cars were produced, and the planes are an order of magnitude smaller than the enemy (I don't remember the exact numbers from memory, you can find it yourself). And there was no production of machine guns and heavy howitzers ...
      And our heroic army went to unsuppressed positions without machine-gun and howitzer support. This truth is really terrifying!
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 17 August 2020 06: 53
        0
        Quote: Kwas
        Do you also think that we were one step away from victory?

        And you still do not know that in NOVEMBER 1918 the victory took place even WITHOUT Russia? And this despite the fact that the Bolsheviks saved the invaders with gold, bread and troops from the eastern front?
        Quote: Kwas
        And nothing that we did not have a single major victory over Germany?

        To school. Yes
        Quote: Kwas
        And nothing that we did not produce either aircraft or automobile engines? And accordingly, less than 1000 cars were produced, and aircraft are an order of magnitude smaller than the enemy (exact numbers I don't remember from memory, you can find it yourself). And there was no production of machine guns and heavy howitzers ...

        You don’t remember, you don’t KNOW: I haven’t read such dense nonsense about machine guns and guns for a long time.

        And yes, the Entente produced only ONCE more
        Quote: Kwas
        And our heroic army went to non-suppressed positions without machine-gun and howitzer support.

        Lutsk breakthrough - to help.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 14 August 2020 09: 05
    13
    Hmmm ... that way we will soon come to "the cat abandoned the kittens - the Prince of Wales is to blame!" smile
    1. Dr. Frankenstucker
      Dr. Frankenstucker 14 August 2020 10: 50
      +3
      yes no, judging by
      Make a lasting alliance with the Germans, become a solid rear of the Second Reich.

      it should be expected that, they say, the USSR had to join the Triple Pact in November 1940 and become a solid rear of the Third Reich.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 August 2020 14: 11
        0
        Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
        it should be expected that, they say, the USSR had to join the Triple Pact in November 1940 and become a solid rear of the Third Reich.


        Well this is the favorite topic of the Yymperians-alternatives (not to be confused with the monarchists) - how the USSR and Germany together fill and nogebat a spoiling Englishwoman ... and the whole world behind her. Moreover, in some cases, Adolf remains the head of the Reich.
    2. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 14 August 2020 11: 04
      +5
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Hmmm ... that way we will soon come to "the cat abandoned the kittens - the Prince of Wales is to blame!" smile

      Have you seen the prices for Rolls-Royces ?? This is the genocide of the Russians am
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 August 2020 14: 12
        +1
        Quote: Krasnodar
        Have you seen the prices for Rolls-Royces ?? This is the genocide of the Russians

        Exactly! There is an urgent need to blame Britain for unfair prices and file a claim with Stockholm Arbitration!
  • akunin
    akunin 14 August 2020 09: 34
    +1
    The most important thing is the lack of social justice. The division of the people into a small caste of "Europeans" with high incomes, excellent European education, the ability to live for years and squander fortunes (created by the labor of Russian peasants and workers) in Berlin, Vienna, Paris and London. And a huge popular mass of workers and peasants, for which Razin and Pugachev were heroes, with a long accumulated hatred of the "gentlemen-Europeans"
    Razin and Pugachev
    replaced by Stalin and right now.

    Thus, Russia's entry into the First World War on the side of the Entente was a monstrous mistake by the tsarist government. Paris and England were not going to give us Poland, Galicia, Carpathian region and Constantinople.
    means the little land wanted, but what is the old woman of England to blame?
    1. Dr. Frankenstucker
      Dr. Frankenstucker 14 August 2020 16: 09
      +3
      Quote: akunin
      for which the heroes were Razin and Pugachev

      Was Suvorov a hero too? Doesn't the fact that one hero delivered another in a cage to Simbirsk?
      And in general, choosing marginal trash and impostors like Razin and Pugachev for the role of national heroes is, you know, not that ...
      1. akunin
        akunin 14 August 2020 17: 33
        0
        Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
        And in general, choosing marginal trash and impostors like Razin and Pugachev for the role of national heroes is, you know, not that ...

        this is to the author of the article, his quote. hi
      2. andrew42
        andrew42 14 August 2020 18: 13
        0
        And what, AV Suvorov is already glorified for participating in the suppression of the Pugachev riot? Did I miss something? Faithful servant of the serf monarchy, what else can there be estimates. Another thing is that A.V. Suvorov is famous for his great military victories. With Pugachev as the leader of the uprising - the story is murky, but the order for the people to revolt was unequivocal. With Razin it is even more difficult - just the time of the final establishment of serfdom. Razin is more of a folk hero than an anti-hero of the Russian State. Samsonov is right that both figures, Razin and Pugachev, are symbols of the aspirations of the Russian people for social justice. There were simply no other figures. Sorry, bananas are dumb.
  • A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 14 August 2020 10: 22
    10
    This is a new version from Samsonov. A couple of years ago, he argued that the Masons were to blame for everything. We'll have to rehabilitate them now. lol
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 14 August 2020 11: 25
      +7
      No, Mr. Privalov! hi You read inattentively - they were Anglo-Saxon Masons! soldier
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 14 August 2020 11: 43
        +5
        and I understand that people like Samsonov do not change their shoes. They just wear different shoes at the same time.
      2. A. Privalov
        A. Privalov 14 August 2020 11: 51
        +5
        Quote: Krasnodar
        No, Mr. Privalov! hi You read inattentively - they were Anglo-Saxon Masons! soldier

        Ah, well, this is a completely different matter!
        I accidentally confused them with the Saxo-Angolan Masons. Sorry, please. hi
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 14 August 2020 12: 00
          +3
          Sexoangols were infected with AIDS by the Masters of the West. To eliminate competitors.
        2. Kwas
          Kwas 15 August 2020 08: 31
          +1
          Quote: A. Privalov
          I accidentally confused them with the Saxo-Angolan Masons.

          Confused again - with Saxomason Angols!
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 August 2020 14: 14
        +1
        Quote: Krasnodar
        No, Mr. Privalov! hi You read inattentively - they were Anglo-Saxon Masons! soldier

        In general, the whole history of Russia is a struggle of some masons with others, with the support of the third and fourth. smile
        1. Alkonavt
          Alkonavt 15 August 2020 14: 23
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          In general, the whole history of Russia is a struggle of some masons with others, with the support of third and fourth

          Well, finally I heard a more or less acceptable opinion !!! All our troubles in Russia hi
          No matter how you dodge here, but in fact you are right Alexey! ..I also tend to this idea .. As a showdown between them begins, so in Russia, the revolution begins and other countries.
          The redistribution of world property begins! The oligarch spent a lot of money and got divorced izherov ..)))
  • Gennady N
    Gennady N 14 August 2020 10: 38
    -8
    The February Revolution of 1917 is the main reason for the defeat in WWI. Imagine what would happen to the organizers of the revolution if it was carried out in 1941-1945.
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 14 August 2020 11: 18
      0
      Who would have done it in 1941-1945? And the fate of the wrestlers in this period is known either for a loop or execution, or for a long rest in the resorts of Siberia. The Krasnodar trial in hot pursuit of the wrestlers is very indicative ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 August 2020 14: 17
      -1
      Quote: Gennady N
      The February Revolution of 1917 is the main reason for the defeat in WWI. Imagine what would happen to the organizers of the revolution if it was carried out in 1941-1945.

      But so that in 1941 there was no new 1917 and the purges of 1937-1938 were organized. Those who came to power took into account the experience of their predecessors - and they insured themselves.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 14 August 2020 10: 43
    +3
    And France is not to blame? smile Only England? smile
  • Dr. Frankenstucker
    Dr. Frankenstucker 14 August 2020 10: 46
    +4
    Russia had to reach the warm southern seas


    yes? Germany, judging by de Lagarde, also had plans for the "warm southern seas" in the Black Sea region and beyond. Ancient Gothic lands plus Asia Minor. So, these Samsonian Germanophilic fantasies about the fact that, they say, the Second Reich dreamed only of the expansion of overseas colonies and did not imply expansion to the east from itself - this is complete nonsense.
  • Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 14 August 2020 11: 03
    0
    Duc to the Russo-Japanese War, Nicolas pushed Wilhelm laughing
  • Engineer
    Engineer 14 August 2020 11: 57
    +1
    Why England dragged Russia into the First World War

    It would have been a good title for another book by Starikov, but the story was a little different.
    First, Pan-Slavic trends were very popular among the elite of Russia at that time. Nicholas, subject to these trends, saw, of course, himself the leader of a single Slavic world. Therefore, since he had already shown weakness during the Bosnian crisis, he could not give up his brothers anymore. And if someone does not remember, then Nikolai was harnessed precisely for the Serbs, on whom the British, to put it mildly, did not care. The first inconsistency. Secondly, the maniacal idea of ​​the House of Romanov: the cross on the St. Sophia Cathedral, or rather the control of the straits. The elite was vitally interested in controlling these straits for the sake of trade, which was tightly squeezed by the Germans in the Baltic and the Turks in the south. Then bread was the oil of the country. That is why the main forces were concentrated not against Germany, but against Austria-Hungary. The defeat of which was considered a quick matter, and then let's go to Constantinople. Again, England did not need Russian control over the Black Sea straits. Remember the Crimean War, unleashed only because of this ...
    1. Kwas
      Kwas 15 August 2020 08: 38
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      It would have been a good title for another book by Starikov, but the story was a little different.

      I even glanced at the list of his books - is there really such a title for him.
      Quote: Engineer
      The elite were vitally interested in controlling these straits for the sake of trade,

      And I must add, the state was interested in the same for the safety of the Black Sea coast. Only the time for that was chosen badly. It was necessary somewhere in the late XNUMXth - early XNUMXth centuries. But Paul and Alexander were not thinking about that. And then it got too late ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 August 2020 14: 24
      +1
      Quote: Engineer
      Secondly, the maniacal idea of ​​the House of Romanov: the cross on the St. Sophia Cathedral, or rather the control of the straits. The elite was vitally interested in controlling these straits for the sake of trade, which was tightly squeezed by the Germans in the Baltic and the Turks in the south. Then bread was the oil of the country.

      This is not so much a manic idea as actually a matter of the country's survival.
      According to the Ministry of Trade and Industry, over the decade (from 1903 to 1912), exports through the Dardanelles accounted for 37% of the empire's total exports. Sea transportation of goods had an undeniable advantage over land transportation, since it was 25 times cheaper. Of the total export of goods in 1911 in the amount of 1591 million rubles, goods worth 568 million rubles were exported through the straits.

      The significance of the Straits for the economy of southern Russia was fully manifested during the closure of the Dardanelles.
      (...)
      According to the calculations of the Russian Ministry of Finance, the paralysis of the grain trade caused the country a monthly loss of about 30 million rubles. This created problems for Russia's allies, who were forced to import grain from the United States and Argentina.

      The situation when a third of exports go through territory controlled by an openly hostile power clearly did not suit Russia. And the reorientation of exports from the Black Sea ports to the Baltic and Arkhangelsk did not suit, first of all, grain merchants, who would have to lose profit on the increased leg of railway transportation to the north and northwest.
      Hmmm ... a hundred years have passed, but nothing has changed - the issue of transit control is again driving politics.
  • andrew42
    andrew42 14 August 2020 18: 39
    0
    The article is, of course, banal, but judging by the disgusting comments, this article has the right to life even in this form. And where is Samsonov wrong? Is it that Britain has been Russia's enemy since the time of Peter the Great, is it not so much a GEOpolitical enemy (these are the nuances of border spheres of influence), but a political, principled one? - So this is a historical fact., And in general a systemic tendency. The fact that Britain has repeatedly solved its problems at the expense of Russian resources (take the same Napoleonic wars) and "absolutely free"? - So this is also a fact. The fact that Britain used every opportunity to create anti-Russian forces in all (!) States adjacent to Russia? -It's undoubtedly. In the fact that Britain covered Russia with the hands of Japan and threw it out of China? - It's not a secret for anyone. And, finally, Britain at the beginning of the 20th century is the center of control and the financial stronghold of the world Jewocracy, with every fiber of its soul hating any state with its own national elite. I do not feel any special sympathy for monarchical Russia, but what a fool one had to be in order not to seek an alliance with the Monarchical Empires, but to fall into "allies" with the French Republic and the British quasi-monarchy, who were proud of the fact that they cut their heads ?! This is clinical idiocy. All that had to be done was to provide Germany with support in the colonial redistribution, in exchange for pressure on Austria in "Slavic affairs" (since they were so worried about this idea). Instead, Nikolai Worthless turned the entire foreign political line of his more than worthy father (I remember Alexander III even spread rot Skobelev for anti-German shouts). The war in Europe must be the war in Europe, as in the Middle Ages. Another thing is that the Kaiser was not very perspicacious. But the elites of the two empires could well agree against the "republican hucksters". And even the ideological enemy was common. But no. The degradation of the elites, the worthlessness of the rulers, especially the "playability" of Nikolashka. As a result, the nouveau riche defeated 3 continental empires, and made good byryshi on their corpses, then "invested" in the American Kaganate.
    1. Kwas
      Kwas 15 August 2020 08: 49
      0
      I agree with many things, but was it possible?
      Quote: andrew42
      alliance with the Monarchical Empires

      I think not, and it's not even a matter of momentary interests.
      Quote: andrew42
      But the elites of 2 empires could well agree

      The fact is that our elite, yes, was largely German. But in Germany the Russian elite was not at all. And therefore she considered Russia as a state - a satellite, if not a colony, but an equal alliance, she categorically did not agree. And let us also remember that the revolution in Russia was precisely against this elite, which, for all its advantages, had an unreasonable amount, but did not want to give in.
      1. andrew42
        andrew42 15 August 2020 14: 28
        0
        Yes, I agree that the German elite was not pro-Russian. But she was not even pro-British, and certainly not very anti-French. The 2nd Reich is a young, ambitious Empire that was late in its genesis, resurrected "for an hour" without being able to transform behind the technological order. But you had to work with her! Nothing is done by itself. And Nikolai essentially scored on this, and forgot that he himself is essentially a "German". He took the most cheeky political cheats as partners - "offended" France and "vile" Britain. Nicholas the Unreasonable - that's how the British would have called their king, if they were so stupid.
      2. unknown
        unknown 16 August 2020 07: 29
        -1
        All revolutions are planned, organized, secured and directed from above.
        Since this requires intellectual, financial and material resources.
        A revolution is a great excuse to nullify social obligations, take out assets, and live peacefully abroad.
        1. Sugar Honeyovich
          Sugar Honeyovich 16 August 2020 10: 31
          0
          Quote: ignoto
          All revolutions are planned, organized, secured and directed from above.

          But not always and not everywhere it turns out to plan, organize, provide and manage them? lol
          Quote: ignoto
          Since this requires intellectual, financial and material resources.

          It is not important.
  • borys
    borys 14 August 2020 20: 09
    0
    But the last comment from anrew42 is perhaps the most
    reasonable in this thread.
  • BAI
    BAI 14 August 2020 20: 48
    +1
    The most important thing is the lack of social justice.

    Who had it in 2014? Where were there no problems?
  • Uncle Izya
    Uncle Izya 15 August 2020 08: 15
    0
    And why did the king let himself be pulled in?
    The generals had to be dismissed who put pressure on the king
    1. unknown
      unknown 16 August 2020 07: 32
      0
      There is a version that "Nicholas II" calmly ruled in Great Britain under the name "George the Fifth".
      A significant part of his relatives, including his daughter, were taken out by the battleship "Marlboro" from the Crimea. And they made a great job in Great Britain.
  • sidoroff
    sidoroff 15 August 2020 21: 18
    0
    "Thank you" to the Serbs - the brothers must say. after all, they perfectly calculated how they will develop
    events after the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian heir. and were in the black - the enemies of Auto-Hungary and
    The Ottoman Empire collapsed. Yugoslavia received their mini empire, and that the Russian Empire
    disappeared - so it is the cost of production.
  • yriuv62
    yriuv62 16 August 2020 10: 57
    -1
    Russia should not have been drawn into PMA. In Petersburg they slept and saw a cross over the church of St. Sophia. The Russian government has done a lot to unleash the war. For anyone interested, read about it from M.N. Pokrovsky. Our elite really wanted to dismember and plunder!
    1. Vasily Andreev
      Vasily Andreev 22 August 2020 13: 02
      0
      Uh-huh, the odious Pokrovsky is still an "authority".
  • Time traveller
    Time traveller 16 August 2020 11: 14
    +1
    Russia did not "enter the war." Germany declared war on her, which, as in 1941, sought to defeat Russia before she completed rearmament.
    "The German bourgeoisie, spreading tales of a defensive war on its part, actually chose the most convenient, from its point of view, moment for war, using its latest improvements in military technology and preventing new weapons already outlined and predetermined by Russia and France."
    Lenin V.I. PSS, 5th ed. - T. 26 .-- P. 16
  • Time traveller
    Time traveller 16 August 2020 11: 22
    +1
    The correctness of Nicholas II's actions was proved by Stalin, who in the pre-war period could not conclude an alliance with France (although he was negotiating in this direction), tried not to provoke Germany, could not (although he also intended) to support Czechoslovakia (like Nicholas II of Serbia) , not
    announced general mobilization on time and did not bring the army on time to full combat readiness. The result was multi-million dollar losses and the Germans in 1941 near Moscow and Leningrad.
    The only thing that Stalin did differently from Nicholas - he managed to carry out the most severe "purges" in the country, so in the USSR, even during the most terrible defeats, no one dared to utter a word. And the king was betrayed shortly before the victory of the Entente.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Time traveller
    Time traveller 16 August 2020 11: 26
    +1
    Quote: Krasnodar
    Duc to the Russo-Japanese War, Nicolas pushed Wilhelm laughing

    Did Russia attack Japan?
  • Time traveller
    Time traveller 16 August 2020 11: 32
    +1
    Regarding "social injustice" - during the Patriotic War of 1812, serfdom existed in general, which did not prevent Russia from crushing the united army of continental Europe under the command of the best commander in the world at that time.
  • Time traveller
    Time traveller 16 August 2020 11: 42
    +1
    Quote: yriuv62
    Russia should not have been drawn into PMA. In Petersburg they slept and saw a cross over the church of St. Sophia. The Russian government has done a lot to unleash the war. For anyone interested, read about it from M.N. Pokrovsky. "
    Our elite really wanted to dismember and plunder!

    On July 5, 1914, Germany publicly declared its support for Austria-Hungary in the event of a war with Serbia.
    ....
    On July 26, Auto-Hungary began mobilization, concentrating troops on the borders with Serbia and Russia.
    ....
    On July 29, 1914, the Russian Emperor Nicholas II sent a telegram to the German Emperor Wilhelm II with a proposal to transfer the Austro-Serbian question to the international arbitration court in The Hague. Wilhelm II did not answer her.
    Holidays in the German army were canceled.
    ....
    On July 31, a general mobilization began in Russia.
    ....
    On August 1, Germany declared war on Russia.
    Germany invaded Luxembourg.
    .
    On October 29, the Turkish fleet under the command of German Admiral Wilhelm Sushon, without declaring war, fired at Sevastopol, and then Odessa, Feodosia and Novorossiysk ... "
    _________________
    Russia in 1914, like the USSR in 1941, tried to delay the start of the war with aggressive Germany for one simple reason - Germany managed to carry out rearmament, while Russia did not.
    And in general, for some reason, many people lose sight of the obvious fact - the war was unleashed by Austria-Hungary (she was the first to announce mobilization) and Germany, and whether or not there was a war depended on them, and not on Russia.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 16 August 2020 14: 21
    0
    France with a bang, crushing, lost
    Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
    And longed for revenge. And she incited all Europeans indiscriminately against Germany.
    And England was already fine. And she very sluggishly succumbed to the persuasion of the French.
  • Valentin spagis
    Valentin spagis 6 October 2020 07: 58
    0
    Russia in the First World War fought not for the interests of some abstract capital, but for its own existence. Having suffered defeat, Russia, according to the Brest Peace, lost vast territories, and if the allies had not defeated Germany and forced her to return part of the occupied territories, Russia would have become a colony for many years.
  • Lena.72mail.ru
    Lena.72mail.ru 21 October 2020 12: 09
    0
    Maybe a look into history will help us understand what is happening now, we are now being led like a bull on a rope to a war with Turkey, for the sake of obligations to Armenia, it will not work, they will try to drag us into a conflict with Europe or somewhere else, the most important thing for them is to weaken their geopolitical enemy. "Do not give gifts to a Danae," do not push Putin to fit in for provocateurs. Nicholas II believed in the nobility of his relatives, that they would not deceive, that they were brothers in faith and the result, the death of the empire for the sake of other people's interests.