Background of World War II

The following abbreviations are used in the article: GSh - General base, Goals Difference - intelligence materials, USA - North American United States.

In the previous part, it was shown that, in accordance with the instructions of the Wehrmacht High Command, the German special services depicted the accumulation of large military groups on the southern flank of the Soviet Union border: on the territory of southern Poland, Slovakia, Carpathian Ukraine and Romania. Relocation and current locations tank and motorized troops were deliberately distorted and carefully concealed. Therefore, the RM about the presence of enemy troops at the border, which came from intelligence agencies from 1940 to the beginning of the war to the leadership of the Red Army and the USSR, were unreliable.

In the new part, we will try to find the answer to the question: "Which country could manipulate other countries to a greater extent in order to unleash the First World War?" This was the time when the First World War was called the Great War.

The situation in Europe on the eve of the Great War

In 1879, the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy) was concluded, in contrast to which the alliance between Russia and France was formed in 1891-1894. In the event of the outbreak of hostilities, France was obliged to deploy armed forces of 1,3 million people, and Russia - 0,7-0,8 million. Both countries were supposed to exchange RM on the countries of the Triple Alliance.

In 1904, an Anglo-French agreement was concluded, which eliminated the contradictions in matters of centennial colonial rivalry between these countries.

1.01.1907 E. Crowe (Assistant to the Deputy Foreign Secretary of England) drew up a memorandum "On the current state of relations between Britain and France and Germany." The document said:

On August 18.08.1907, XNUMX, the Anglo-Russian agreement was concluded. Russia recognized the British protectorate over Afghanistan. Both powers recognized China's sovereignty over Tibet and agreed to the division of Persia into spheres of influence: Russian in the north, English in the south and neutral (free for Germany) in the center of the country.

Thus, England eliminated the main contradictions with the two countries, which she decided to use in the future in her own interests to fight Germany. In 1907, the Alliance of the Entente (Russia, France and England) was formed. It should be noted that England specifically signed only the naval component of the concept. Therefore, its participation in military ground operations in Europe was uncertain.

In February 1914, P.N.Durnovo (the leader of the right-wing group in the upper chamber, who participated in the meetings of the State Council) submitted a note to Emperor Nicholas II:

The note also noted:

- with the rapprochement of Russia and Japan, the rapprochement of Russia with England is no real benefit to us did not bring;

- since the rapprochement with England “Russia turned out to be [involved - approx. auth.] in a number of incomprehensible attempts to impose a constitution that was completely unnecessary to the Persian population, and, as a result, they themselves contributed to the overthrow of the monarch loyal to Russia, in favor of inveterate opponents. Russia lost prestige, millions of rubles and the precious blood of Russian soldiers, treacherously killed ... for the sake of England ... ";

- the most negative consequences of rapprochement with England and a radical divergence with Germany affected the Middle East;

- Russian-English rapprochement for Turkey is tantamount to England's refusal to its traditional closure policy for us the Dardanelles. The formation, under the auspices of Russia, of the Balkan Union was a direct threat to the further existence of Turkey as a European state;

- Anglo-Russian rapprochement is nothing really useful for us until now did not bring... In the future, it inevitably promises us armed confrontation with Germany.

The note also reflected the main findings:

- main burden war will fall to the lot of Russia;

- vital interests of Germany and Russia nowhere do not face;

- in the field of economic interests, Russian benefits and needs do not contradict Germanic;

- even a victory over Germany promises Russia extremely unfavorable prospects;

- Russia will be plunged into hopeless anarchythe outcome of which is difficult to foresee;

- Germany, in case of defeat, will have to endure no less social upheavals than Russia;

- the peaceful cohabitation of cultural nations is most of all threatened by the desire of England to maintain its eluding dominance over the seas.

PN Durnovo correctly noted a country that would benefit from a future war. A country that will fight with someone else's hands, and his predictions were confirmed.

Having such a note and entering the Great War, Emperor Nicholas II made his greatest mistake, for which he paid with his life and the lives of his family members. Because of his mistake, a huge grief touched almost all families living in Russia.

Thus, there was a super-goal of Foggy Albion and smaller goals of other countries participating in the future war. England wanted to eliminate its main rival - Germany, weaken Austria-Hungary, Russia and France, take away the oil-rich lands from Turkey, and reaffirm its role as the sole leader in world politics.

France wanted to return back its lands, seized by Germany during the war of 1870-1871, and to clean up the Saar coal basin.

Russia dreamed of establishing control over the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. In the course of the war, France was inclined to offer England not to give the indicated straits to Russia.

Austria-Hungary wanted to settle territorial disputes with Serbia, Montenegro, Romania and Russia, as well as disperse the movement, which had a national liberation character.

Germany wanted to gain a foothold in the straits (Bosphorus and Dardanelles), weaken Russia and France. England was not dangerous for Germany, since due to the growth of the economy, she had already overtaken her in development. The figure below shows the shares of industry of different countries in world production.

The USA significantly surpassed all major countries in industrial development, had a weak army and were clearly not going to participate directly in a future world war. In 1913, Germany ranked second in terms of development, outstripping its competitor. The French industry was almost 2 times inferior to the German industry and was not a competitor to it.

Before the war, Germany mined and consumed iron ore, smelted iron and steel 1,6–1,7 times more than England. In 1900, the export of German capital abroad (to the countries of South-Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South America, etc.) amounted to 15 billion marks. In 1914, German capital abroad reached 35 billion marks and amounted to about 1/2 British and more than 2/3 French. On the eve of the Great War, Germany occupied a leading position in world trade in a number of industries. For example, it held the 1st place in the world for the export of products of the electrical industry.

Germany and without war easily bypassed England in all positions, and she did not need a war with this country. This war was not needed and Austria-Hungary with Russia. Therefore, the only country interested in a world war was England.

Performances in Europe before the Great War

In Russia in the first half of 1914, about 1,5 million people took part in strikes and strikes.

In Germany for the period 1910-1913. there were 11533 workers' demonstrations, in which about 1,5 million people took part. In the occupied territories (Alsace and Lorraine) in the fall of 1913, a wave of anti-Prussian demonstrations swept through.

In England: in 1911 about 1 million people went on strike, and in 1912 - up to 1,5 million.

In France, 7260 strikes took place in the six pre-war years. On the eve of the war in France, a strike movement developed in all branches of industry.

Revolutionary actions brought significant losses. Therefore, it was necessary to get rid of them.

And why is the war not a reason to divert the attention of the population to the image of a dangerous enemy?

On the eve of the Great War

The assassination of Archduke F. Ferdinand on June 28.06.1914, 28 was the reason for the start of the Great War. Austria-Hungary presented an ultimatum to Serbia, in which one point was not accepted by the Serbs. This was the reason for Austria-Hungary on June XNUMX to declare war on Serbia.

The murder was prepared by the Serbian nationalist group "Black Hand", which, according to some sources, allegedly had contact with the Serbian military intelligence. Almost every inhabitant knew about the impending assassination attempt in Belgrade, and this is very strange ...

Reports even from the Serbian government came to Vienna about the impending assassination attempt. The special services of Austria-Hungary also received information about the impending assassination attempt, but security measures were not increased, and the visit of the Archduke was not canceled ...
The emperor of Austria-Hungary disliked his heir. The heir did not enjoy the love of fellow citizens.

Archduke Ferdinand believed that Austria-Hungary would not survive the war with Russia. Therefore, he opposed the "war party", which included the head of the General Staff. The members of this party were sure that the war would be local: only against Serbia or Italy. Therefore, in the death of the Archduke, there could be an interest of the ruling circles of his country.

According to the recollections of the wife of the archduke's nephew during the trip:

“The heir to the throne said:
"I must tell you one thing ... I will be killed!"

There is a version that the Russian ambassador, who left on the eve of the assassination attempt, could have influenced the Serbian intelligence, but this is unlikely, since Russia knew that it could follow the start of the war with Austria-Hungary. In this case, the prospect for Russia loomed unfavorable ...

It is still unknown who pushed the Serbs to the idea of ​​killing the Archduke. After all, Ferdinand was already inclined to the idea of ​​granting autonomy to the southern Slavs and tried to find a common language on this issue with Emperor Nicholas II.

Ferdinand did not like Russians, but said:

Я never I will not wage a war against Russia. I will sacrifice everything to avoid this, because the war between Austria and Russia would end with the overthrow of the Romanovs, or the overthrow of the Habsburgs, or perhaps the overthrow of both dynasties ... If we do something against Serbia, Russia will take its side...

Many people knew about these statements of F. Ferdinand, and such a figure as the heir or monarch of Austria-Hungary should not suit the real provocateurs of a future war.

No trace of Foggy Albion was found in this assassination attempt, but all subsequent events show that England could be interested in this murder.

July 6 British Foreign Minister Lord Gray, at a meeting with the German ambassador, promised assistance and mutual understanding between the Entente and the Triple Alliance.

July 8 Gray, at a meeting with the Russian ambassador, announced the likelihood of a move by Austria-Hungary against Serbia. Simultaneously he refuted the assumption of the Russian ambassador that Wilhelm II does not want war и indicated on the hostility of Germany towards Russia. Gray understood that the ambassador would report the content of the conversation to the government, which would notify Nicholas II.

July 9 another meeting of Gray with the German ambassador took place. Gray stated that England is not tied with Russia and France any allied obligations. She intends to maintain complete freedom of action. in case of continental difficulties.

July 20-22 a visit to Russia of the French President and Chairman of the Council of Ministers, who assuredthat in the event of a war with Germany France will fulfill their allied obligations.

July 24 The Austrian ambassador officially handed over to the British government the text of the ultimatum to Serbia, hoping that it would fulfill the promised mediation mission.

Gray, during a meeting with the German ambassador, pointed out the possibility of «four power wars» (Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany and France), without specifying at the same time, whose side will England support and will support at all.

A meeting of the Council of Ministers of Russia took place, at which it was decided to propose to Serbia not to resist in the event of an Austrian invasion, but to seek help from the great powers. It was decided to prepare for mobilization fleet and four military districts: Kiev, Odessa, Moscow and Kazan.

July 25 the Russian and French governments asked Gray to condemn Austrian policies. Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov told the British ambassador that a clear statement by England about its position could have a decisive influence on German policy and prevent war in Europe.

After the end of the war, S.D.Sazonov wrote:

If England ... took a firm position next to Russia and France, there would be no war, and vice versa, if England did not support us at this moment, streams of blood would flow, and, in the end, she would still be involved in the war ...

The misfortune was that Germany was convinced that she could count on England's neutrality....

July 26 King George V of England assured Prince Henry (brother of the German Kaiser) that England “Will make every effort not to be involved in the war and stay neutral».

July 28 the German government turned to Austria-Hungary with a proposal to confine itself to the occupation of Belgrade as "Pledge" and start negotiations with Serbia.

Sazonov met with the ambassadors of England, France, Germany and Austria-Hungary. Before the meeting, the British Ambassador warned his French counterpart that "Completely leave the initiative and responsibility for the attack to the German government".

After the meeting, the British ambassador informed Gray that "Russia is very serious" and intends to fight if Austria attacks Serbia.

July 29 Gray told the German ambassador that the British government "Can stay on the sidelines as long as the conflict is limited to Austria and Russia, but if Germany and France get involved ... will be forced to make urgent decisions".

In the evening, Nicholas II sent William II a telegram with a proposal "Refer the Austro-Serbian question to the Hague Conference".

On the night of July 29-30, a telegram from Nicholas II arrived in Berlin, in which he mentioned "Military preparations"undertaken in Russia from July 25 and partial mobilization against Austria-Hungary. Nikolai tried to be open to Wilhelm.

Wilhelm wrote on the telegram:

"The tsar ... already 5 days ago took military measures, which" are now in force "against Austria and against us ... I can no longer engage in mediation, because the tsar who called for him is secretly mobilizing behind my back."

July 30 Wilhelm sent a return telegram in which he noted that a mobilization against Austria had been declared in Russia. Therefore, he placed the responsibility for making the final decision in favor of peace or war on the Russian emperor.

In turn, the German Chancellor replied to the Ambassador in St. Petersburg that "The thought of the Hague Conference in this case, of course, is excluded".

The Russian Ambassador to Germany told Sazonov by telegraph that the decree on the mobilization of the German army had been signed.

S. D. Sazonov:

Around noon on July 30, a separate issue of the German officialdom Lokal Anzeiger appeared in Berlin, in which it was reported about the mobilization of the German armies and navy ...
Soon after sending the telegram, the Russian ambassador was summoned to the telephone and heard the refutation of the news of the German mobilization ...

The Russian ambassador sent the new telegram to the telegraph, but it was detained somewhere and came to the addressee with a significant delay. At this time, in St. Petersburg, on the basis of information received from Berlin, a decision was made on a general mobilization, the first day of which was scheduled for July 31st. Of course, they learned about it in Berlin ...

King George V of England wrote to Berlin:

My government is doing everything possible to propose to Russia and France to suspend further military preparations if Austria agrees to be content with the occupation of Belgrade and neighboring Serbian territory as a pledge to satisfy its demands. Other countries, meanwhile, will suspend their military preparations.

Hopefully Wilhelm uses his immense influence to persuade Austria to accept this offer, thus proving that Germany and England work togetherto prevent an international catastrophe ...

Partial mobilization began in France.

July 31 Austria-Hungary announced the beginning of a general mobilization.

Germany issued an ultimatum to Russia: stop mobilization or Germany will declare war on Russia.

S. D. Sazonov:

The German ambassador handed me an ultimatum in which Germany demanded that we demobilize the reserve ranks called up against Austria and Germany within 12 hours. This requirement was not technically feasible....
[German intelligence was obliged to know about this - Approx. auth.]
In return for the dissolution of our troops, we were not promised a uniform measure on the part of our adversaries. Austria at that time had already completed its mobilization, and Germany began it ...

The British Foreign Secretary clarified with Germany and France: "Do they intend to respect Belgium's neutrality?" The French ambassador gave an affirmative answer.
The German Ambassador asked Gray a counter-question: "Will England undertake to maintain neutrality if German troops do not enter Belgium?"

1 of August Gray refused to make such a commitment.

France and Germany announced the beginning of a general mobilization.

Germany declared war on Russia.

Gray told the German ambassador that in the event of a war between Germany and Russia, England could remain neutral, provided that France was not attacked.

Germany agreed to accept these conditions, but on the evening of the same day, George V wrote to Wilhelm that Gray's proposals were "Misunderstanding".

German troops invaded Luxembourg.

2 of August Belgium put forward an ultimatum on the passage of the German armies to the border with France. 12 hours were given for reflection.

3 of August Belgium refused the ultimatum to Germany. Germany declared war on France, accusing her of "Organized attacks, in aerial bombardment of Germany" and "Violation of Belgian neutrality".

4 of August without declaring war, German troops invaded Belgium. England presented Germany with an ultimatum, demanding the observance of the neutrality of Belgium, after which it declared war.

In the German press after that conspiracy accusations rained down on British politicscunningly prepared for the destruction of Germany.

The USA has declared its neutrality.

Austria-Hungary did not want to fight with Russia, but Germany, confident in the neutrality of England, pushed it to war. Under German pressure, Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia only 6 of August.

S. D. Sazonov:

Russian government ... until the last minute invasion of German troops in Belgium [was - Approx. ed.] in alarming uncertainty about the intentions of the London cabinet.
Persistent convictions addressed by me to the English government, state about the solidarity of his interests with the interests of Russia and France and thus open the eyes of the German government to the terrible danger of the path, on which he was put by the self-confidence of the Berlin General Staff and the German statesmen, had no success in London...

It can be seen that the provocative position of England did not allow to avoid the outbreak of the Great War.

Hitler thought the same when he sent a letter in August 1939 to Prime Minister Chamberlain.

In response to the message, Chamberlain replied (22.08.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX):

«It was pointed out that if His Majesty's government had made its position clearer in 1914, a great catastrophe would have been averted.... »

The Great War began, during which more than 21,5 million people died and about 19 million were wounded. It turned out that the death and injury of tens of millions of people did not matter for the provocateur country ... As PN Durnovo predicted, the main burden of the war fell to the lot of Russia.

Reading about the events on the Western Front in 1914-1916, one cannot say that the Allied forces (France and England) successfully smashed the German troops. Allied losses exceeded German losses.
For example, in the battles of 1916, the Allied forces lost about 1375 thousand people, and the losses of Germany amounted to 925 thousand and another 105 thousand prisoners. The war turned out to be not so easy and victorious as it seemed earlier. She greatly wore down the economies of all the belligerent countries.

In November-December 1916, Germany and its allies offered peace, but the Entente rejected the offer. Such a peace would not have allowed England to achieve its goals in the war.

Since 1915, during the conduct of submarine warfare by Germany, American citizens have been killed on ships carrying out transportation to England. In early 1917, Germany agreed to end submarine warfare after President Wilson threatened to take the most drastic measures. The figure below shows data on GDP and the rate of change in GDP of the USA on the eve of and during the Great War.

The figure shows that the GDP growth rate at the end of 1916 became negative and, possibly, this factor influenced President Wilson's statement about submarine warfare. The following year, shipments of goods to England and France increased, which led to an increase in production in the USA.

The USA was in no hurry to enter the war, playing, according to Wilson, the role "Moral judge"... But once it was necessary to enter a war in order to be among the winners and to participate in deciding the fate of the losing countries. It was also required to diminish the appetites of the victorious countries. A good reason was needed to enter the war, since the number of opponents and supporters of entering the war in Congress was comparable.

In late 1916, German Foreign Minister Zimmermann drew up a plan to bring Mexico to the side of Germany if the USA entered the war. On January 17.01.1917, XNUMX, he sent a telegram to the German ambassador in the USA.

The telegram said:

We intend to start a merciless submarine war on February 1. In spite of everything, we will try to keep the USA in a state of neutrality. However, in case of failure, we will propose to Mexico: to wage war together and to make peace together. For our part, we will provide Mexico with financial assistance and assure that after the end of the war it will receive back the territories it lost in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona ...

The ambassador was instructed to contact the President of Mexico to find out his opinion on joining the war on the side of the Triple Alliance.

As the war on the western front came to a positional impasse, Germany decided to influence the British government through a naval blockade and on February 1 resumed unrestricted submarine warfare, which caused civilian casualties, including American passengers. In February 1917, the USS Housatonic and California ships were sunk by German submarines. At the end of March, President Wilson proposed that Congress strengthen the armament of American ships so that they could withstand attacks from German submarines.

The death of American citizens during the introduction of submarine warfare could not help much to enter the war for the USA. This follows indirectly from a fragment of a telegram from 21.05.1940/XNUMX/XNUMX by a German diplomat in Washington, who was in charge of the Abwehr:

“The year 1917 shows that American public opinion on the question of entering the war in a significant lesser degree was fueled by Germany's submarine war rather than by imaginary or actual acts of sabotage. "

President Wilson had an idea about the leading role of the United States in the world, which could be achieved with a powerful economy and being in the group of countries that won the Great War. It would be better if the rest of the winners were in strong debt dependence ... The future President F. Roosevelt was also a supporter of the idea of ​​the leading role of the United States in the world.

Zimmermann's telegram was intercepted by British intelligence, decoded and shown on February 19 to the secretary of the US Embassy in London. But he considered it a ploy of British intelligence.

On February 20, a copy of this telegram was unofficially sent to the Ambassador of the USA, who retold its contents to President Wilson, and again the telegram was perceived as a fake.

On March 29, the German Foreign Minister made a grave mistake in confirming the text of the telegram. He was fired on the same day.

On April 2.04.1917, XNUMX, Wilson raised the issue of declaring war on Germany before Congress.
On April 6, Congress agreed, and the USA entered the Great War. After the entry of the USA into the Great War, the fate of the countries of the Triple Alliance was decided. The first American divisions arrived on the western front in October 1917. Allied deliveries increased in the spring of 1917.

In the spring of 1917 (April 16 - May 9), France and England conducted a new offensive operation, but again they did not achieve much success. The Allies lost about 340 thousand people (including wounded), and Germany - 163 thousand (including 29 thousand prisoners). Rebellions broke out in the French army and the soldiers refused to obey. A wave of strikes also swept through the military factories.

The USA from December 1916 to June 1919 provided huge loans to the Allies. Allies' total debt (including interest) was $ 24,262 billion.

In January 1918, the American president presented to Congress a general declaration of the country's goals in the war. In October of the same year, the countries of the Triple Alliance turned directly to Wilson with a proposal for peace. After Germany agreed to conclude peace on the basis of Wilson's proposals, an envoy went to Europe to communicate with the countries participating in the war.

During the war years, the USA turned from a debtor to a creditor. From the moment of its formation to the beginning of the war, capital was imported into the country from Europe. In 1914, foreign investment in American securities exceeded $ 5,5 billion and debt stood at $ 2,5–3 billion. US foreign trade surplus in 1915-1920. amounted to $ 17,5 billion. The Federal Reserve System, which appeared in December 1913, after the end of the Great War, became not only an intra-American financial regulator, but actually eliminated the dominance of London in economic terms, which had lasted for many decades.

After the war, the USA became the leader of the great powers. Among the great countries, Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia disappeared. France and England achieved their goals in the war, but they became major debtors.

For England, the victory was "Pyrrhic."

It was clear that this would not suit the gentlemen. And once they had to try to return to England the role of leader ...

To be continued ...

Comments

[SERGE ANT]

I think that then nothing could stop the wars. If World War II had not happened, a series of local, but very bloody conflicts would have swept around the world. Germany vs France for coal and Lorraine, USA vs UK vs Japan for the Pacific and China. USSR vs Japan for the Far East. Great Britain vs Italy for Africa. Germany vs Poland and Czechoslovakia for the unification of German territories. The list goes on, but its outlines already strongly remind me of World War II. A global world conflict could have been avoided, and numerous wars could not be stopped for sure. Because the international legal system, and the economy, and the general mood of minds every day more and more pushed humanity to the use of force to solve problems.

[Finches]

Grandfather Lenin put everything on the shelves for a long time in this matter: "World domination is, in short, the content of the imperialist policy, the continuation of which is the imperialist war." The issue of unleashing a war is decided by the financial and industrial oligarchy, and as long as imperialism exists, the economic prerequisites for unleashing a world massacre or aggressive squabbles are preserved to a lesser extent!

[Pavel Vladimirov]

the next world war will be between production and capital (+ bureaucracy). do not be mistaken with the choice of side.

[Revolver]

In fact, the only problem between Germany and Russia was Nikolai's Slavophilism and Wilhelm's Germanophilism. Nicholas, by virtue of Slavophilism, could not allow Austria-Hungary to strain fraternal Slavic Orthodox Serbia, and Wilhelm, due to Germanophilism, could not stand aside and watch as Russia lowered the allied German state of Austria. While Serbia was provoking Austria-Hungary on trifles, Wilhelm pulled back Franz Joseph, but the assassination of the Archduke is not something that any country claiming the title of great power could swallow. Further, accordingly, everything is written down in the history books. And who put "Browning" into the hand of Gavrila Princip, many feathers have been broken over this topic, and I'm not going to change the keyboard

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Nagan

In fact, the only problem between Germany and Russia was Nikolai's Slavophilism and Wilhelm's Germanophilism.

Is it Wilhelm alone? Do you remember - when the term was born lebensraum, and what was meant by it.

The compass of the Germans points to the East.

Hitler and Rosenberg only picked up the fallen banner.

[Revolver]

Quote: Alexey RA

Is it Wilhelm alone? You remember - when the term lebensraum was born, and what was meant by it.

Wilhelm, at least at the time, was looking for this Lebensraum in Africa and Southeast Asia, meaning to gnaw off pieces from the mostly French and somewhat English colonial empires. Well, to redistribute sales markets in Latin America, but then he rested on the United States. And with cousin Nicky, cousin Willie had no territorial or personal problems.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Nagan

And with cousin Nicky, cousin Willie had no territorial or personal problems.

therefore Russia was .... FIRST on the path of the aggressor.

[Revolver]

Quote: Olgovich

therefore Russia was .... FIRST on the path of the aggressor.

If I remember history correctly, was it General Samsonov who first invaded East Prussia, or was Rennenkampf the first? It doesn't matter, Russia was the first to start military operations against Germany, although formally the war had already been declared several days ago.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Nagan

If I remember history correctly, was it General Samsonov who first invaded East Prussia, or was Rennenkampf the first?

remember wrong: Germans the first attacked 2 of August Russian Kalish city, having arranged there a BATTLE of civilians, including women and children (the city itself was destroyed by artillery fire and burned), some of the residents were sent to concentration camps, some were expelled and fled. all in the spirit of the Second World War.

Moreover, the Russian troops left before the attack. The State Commission was working to investigate these and similar atrocities of the invaders. The thieves have taken everything away in the name of their German masters.

So Russia was the FIRST attacked by the aggressor, both officially (declaration of war) and in fact (Kalisz)

[Revolver]

Quote: Olgovich

the Germans were the first to attack the Russian city of KALISH on August 2, setting up a BATTLE of civilians there, including women and children (the city itself was destroyed by artillery fire and burned), some of the residents were sent to concentration camps, some were expelled and fled. all in the spirit of the Second World War.

It was not so simple there.
After the declaration of war, the Russian garrison left, and a few days later the Germans entered without a single shot, deployed an infantry battalion there, the mayor handed the commander the keys to the city, and he issued an order for the population to resume trade and promised the protection of property.
But one night, it is not clear who shot, the German soldiers thought that they were being attacked by Russian troops, started shooting "in response" and fired all night. By the morning it became clear that the Russians did not even think to come, but 21 peaceful people and 6 soldiers were killed by "friendly fire", and another 32 soldiers were wounded. The German military commandant of the city, who is also the commander of the battalion stationed in the city, Major Proisker, decided to blame the local population (otherwise he himself would be guilty), demanded the hostages and 50000 rubles (!!!) ransom. I received everything demanded, but the German soldiers became furious, demanded food and drink from the local, and when drunk went to arrange lynching and executions, often even ignoring the orders of the officers. About 20 more peaceful people were thus shot or stabbed to death with bayonets.
And after that Major Proisker for some reason took his battalion out of the city and called artillery fire on it. After the shelling, soldiers raided the city with unspecified results. After the raid, the fire resumed, and so for several days, after which the population of the city began to flee in all directions.
Then there were clashes between the Germans and local Poles.
As a result, after the war, about 5000 people remained in the city out of the pre-war population of 65000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Kalisz

[Olgovich]

Quote: Nagan

It was not so simple there.

It's simple: your statement about the attack of Russia first does not correspond to reality

[gsev]

Quote: Nagan

While Serbia was provoking Austria-Hungary on trifles, Wilhelm pulled back Franz Joseph, but the assassination of the Archduke is not something that any country claiming the title of great power could swallow.

Austrian citizen Gavrilo Princip killed another Austrian citizen, Ferdinand. Where is the reason for the treacherous attack on Serbia?

[Revolver]

Quote: gsev

Austrian citizen Gavrilo Princip killed another Austrian citizen, Ferdinand. Where is the reason for the treacherous attack on Serbia?

Well, here on the site they did not hesitate to blame Parashenko indiscriminately for a half-Jew. all Jews for the Bandera order introduced in / in Ukraine, and some hinted that Israel was allegedly involved in this. Why are Serbs better than Jews? Or Principle is not a Serb?
And where was the treachery? They issued an ultimatum, gave a deadline for execution, warned that otherwise the war. This is not 1941-06-22.

[gsev]

Quote: Nagan

not even on the basis of Parashenko's mother, indiscriminately blame all Jews for the Bandera order introduced in / in Ukraine,

Israel was not attacked for Kolomoisky's actions to create punitive neo-Nazi battalions. Yes, some explained that the actions of a Ukrainian citizen, even if he is a Jew, do not affect Israel in any way. You can assume that I applied this logic to the events of World War 1.

And where was the treachery? They issued an ultimatum, gave a deadline for execution, warned that otherwise the war. This is not 1941-06-22 for you.]

Treachery in a contrived pretext for starting a war. In addition, strictly speaking, all wars were tried to start suddenly. It's just that in the Napoleonic wars, a diplomat could demand his passports a couple of days before the start of the invasion, being sure that the enemy army would not have time to receive messages about the start of hostilities before the start of the actual intervention. Russia had to enter the war with unbroken Serbia as its allies, if in 5 years it did not want to receive such an ultimatum or a similar war from the tripartite alliance that had already defeated and absorbed Serbia. I think the PRC and Russia will also not wait until their adversary destroys one of these countries or, for example, the DPRK with impunity ..

[Olgovich]

peaceful cohabitation of cultural nations is most threatened by the desire of England hold domination over the seas eluding her.

No, at that time England was holding precisely the PEACE and PEACEFUL cohabitation of nations from the growing German robber, who unceremoniously wanted by force to reshape Europe, Asia and Africa for yourself ..

And it was Germany that was actively and consistently preparing for the World War for decades since the Franco-Prussian War and was fully ready to unleash it even during the Bosnian crisis of 1908 and the Balkan Wars of 1912, and only Russia's efforts pushed it back.

In general, in all such articles, striking is the desire to portray Russia and France as thoughtless puppet extras who had neither their own reasoned opinion, nor their policy, nor their own interests, nor actions in their own interests.

But it was completely different: yes, Germany, of course, grew, but where was she before growing of Russia, which has grown numerically in just a couple of decades one and a half timesincreasing by almost at 60 million a person, i.e. on the the population of Germany itselfOn one and a half population of France!

At the same time, the growth rate of its economy was one of the highest in the world.

And this meant for Germany the emergence of a dangerous swiftly growing rival and competitor.

And she was mortally afraid of this, and it was the war, and as quickly as possible, until Russia gained strength, after which the war would become impossible, was Germany's goal to stop Russia and seize part of its wealth and resources. Germany went to Russia in 1914 for about the same thing that went there in 1941

Reich Chancellor of Germany Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg in 1914 clearly outlined the main motive for the attack on Russia and its inevitability :

«THE FUTURE OWNS RUSSIA, tootraya everything grows and grows and which presses on us more and more, like some kind of dark spirit. "

Therefore, all the groaning about the possibility of Russia to avoid the war is an illiterate nonsense: the war was predetermined and there was either the possibility of keeping the aggressor by an alliance against him or the most secured allies to enter the war.

Therefore, Russia acted absolutely right , making an alliance with those who objectively opposed the aggressor (everyone used everyone in their own interests)

It can be seen that the provocative position of England did not allow to avoid the outbreak of the Great War.

arrogant, insane, adventurous and unceremonious stance Germany did not allow to avoid the outbreak of the Great War

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Olgovich

No, at that time England was holding precisely the PEACE and PEACEFUL cohabitation of nations from the growing German robber, who unceremoniously wanted to reshape Europe, Asia and Africa by force ..

And this irrepressible Anglophile Olgych is talking about Russophobia!

[ABC-schutze]

A very dubious statement ... And what, if not a secret, forced England to "hold" the world, precisely at "that moment"? .. In particular, to "contain" the Second Reich? .. Are not the same, in principle, incentives that, two centuries earlier, actively prompted it to "hold" growing Russia, by pressure, say, on Sweden, demanding that it refuse to sign a peace treaty with the Power of Peter the Great and accept the initial (and very soft ...) Russian conditions (Aland Congress)? .. At that time, England was afraid of growing Russia "entering the markets" and did everything to "lock" Russia on the continent and cut off its trade from the outlet to the sea routes. First of all, in the Baltic. There are suspicions that at the beginning of the 20th century, the "mistress of the seas", while still remaining in the status of the dominant military force on the seas, was not interested in "peace" at all, but in cutting off the growing and competitive Germany (which, let's say right away, and for Russia was not any "potential partner" and ally ...) from world sources of raw materials and sales markets. That is, from the growth of one's influence in the existing "foreign" colonies and the acquisition of colonies of their own? .. Just in case, let me remind you that Ribbentrop, in 1940, in a conversation with US envoy Walless, quite logically stated that Germany in Central Europe does not want to have more than the United States, within the framework of the Monroe Doctrine, have in the Western Hemisphere. And that grandfather Lenin, in a very sensible work that came to the rescue, just at the time of the First World War, noting by law the unevenness and spasmodic development of capitalism, wrote: "A characteristic feature of the period under consideration is the final division of the land, not final in the sense that redistribution was possible — on the contrary, redistributions are possible and inevitable — but in the sense that the colonial policy of the capitalist countries has completed the seizure of unoccupied lands on our planet. For the first time, the world was already divided, so that only redistributions are ahead, i.e. the transition from one owner to another, and not from mismanagement to the owner ... ". It was emphasized that under imperialism, military or peaceful ways of resolving inevitably arising conflicts are only forms that do not in any way affect the very essence of imperialism, as phenomena: this way to get profit, while they divide it "according to capital", "according to strength" - there can be no other way of dividing in the system of commodity production and capitalism. Strength, on the other hand, changes with economic and political development; to understand what is happening, you need to know what issues are resolved by changes in power, and whether these are “purely” economic or non-economic (for example, military) changes, this is a SECONDARY question that cannot change anything in the main views on the modern era of capitalism. " For this, it was not at all the mentioned "peace" that England tried to preserve then, "holding" Germany, but her "status quo" and the degree of its former influence and role in it.

[Olgovich]

Quote: ABC-schütze

A very dubious statement ..

this is not a statement, it is a statement of fact.

Quote: ABC-schütze

And what, if not a secret, made England "hold" the world, just at "that moment"?

her arranged the order of things existing at that time and the WORLD with it.

Quote: ABC-schütze

There are suspicions that at the beginning of the 20th century, the "mistress of the seas", while still remaining in the status of the dominant military force on the seas, was not at all interested in "peace", but in cutting off growing and competitive Germany from global sources of raw materials and sales markets.

she ... attacked the German ships?

Established ... a blockade of German ports?

No?

Then what are you talking about?

There was competition and the interests of England, which you described, were, but there was no war.

Quote: ABC-schütze

and this, not at all the mentioned "peace" was trying to preserve England then, "holding" Germany, but its "status quo" and the degree of the former influence and role in it

and that status quo was peace: before the German attack on all its neighbors.

And yes, what's wrong with that?

Quote: ABC-schütze

same, as on the eve of World War II, she also "kept the peace", feeding the Third Reich, "through Munich", Central Europe and opening the way for military conquests "to the East

Where is "the same"?
What did England feed William?

So the situations are completely different: before WWI, France and England did not want to fight, but were not afraid and were ready for this and protecting their interests.

Before WWII, they not only did not want to fight at all, but were also afraid of this and the scale of the terrible victims of WWII. Therefore, they handed everything to Hitler in an ostrich senseless way: let him go at least to the moon, at least where, just to get drunk and leave them alone. Stupidity, of course, but so they hoped ...

[ABC-schutze]

Your opinion and "fact" are not the same ... Sorry, but BEFORE THE BEGINNING of the First World War, it was Germany that SUCCESSFULLY COMPETED with England. Moreover, NOT ATTACKING her ships and NOT arranging the blockade of British ports. So, this is your remark - "not to the cashier." But AFTER the outbreak of the First World War, Germany could sink both British and neutral, civilian ships, on which, for WARRING Britain, "along with passengers", military cargo was transported. Further, I will remind you that the mentioned "world" is not a frozen reality, in ANY HISTORICAL ERA. Already somewhere, but in the homeland of the author of "Mowgli", with all her "Wishlist", this should have been understood better than others. For example, I have already given an example of the "retention" of Russia by the islanders during the Aland Co-Congress ... Do you have problems understanding simple texts? "peace, by" holding "Germany, by the method of concluding the anti-German agreements. This, - before WWII ... And before WWII, the "peacemaking motive" is the same among the islanders. Only the MEANS of "holding" the SAME Germany, in contrast to WWI, are different. There, the ANTI-German "unions" created, and here, a potential "attempt to buy" the Third Reich, feeding him Central Europe. So, EVERYTHING is according to Lenin. And with my analogies, too - "all the way" ...

[Olgovich]

Quote: ABC-schütze

Your opinion and "fact" are not the same ...

Your opinion about my opinion is never true.

But the FACT that it was NOT England, but Germany aspiring to war and unleashing it - on the face.

Quote: ABC-schütze

Sorry, but BEFORE the First World War, it was Germany that SUCCESSFULLY COMPETED with England. Moreover, NOT ATTACKING her ships and NOT arranging the blockade of British ports. So, this is your remark - "not to the cashier."

All in the cashier, just remember the FACT that England did not attack the ships of Germany and did not block its ports BEFORE WWI.

Quote: ABC-schütze

But AFTER the start of the First World War, Germany could sink both British and neutral civilian ships, on which, for WARRING Britain, "along with passengers", military cargo was transported.

and Britain sank the ships of Germany And?

Quote: ABC-schütze

Further, I will remind you that the mentioned "peace" is not frozen reality, in ANY HISTORICAL ERA. Already somewhere, but in the homeland of the author of "Mowgli", with all her "Wishlist", this should have been understood better than others.

Do not eat. Therefore, Germany is not the aggressor?

Quote: ABC-schütze

An example of the "retention" of Russia by the islanders during the Aland Co-Congress, for illustration, I have already given above ... Do you have problems understanding simple texts? ..

HOW can a petty congress illustrate ... the Great War? Are you having trouble perceiving reality?

Quote: ABC-schütze

You, not me, mentioned the "leading motive" of the insular "peace-lovers" who decided to "preserve" the peace by "holding" Germany, by the method of concluding the ANTI-German agreements. This, - before WWII ... And before WWII, the "peacemaking motive" is the same among the islanders. Only MEANS of "holding" the SAME Germany, in contrast to WWI, other

don't you remember yourself anymore? It:

Quote: ABC-schütze
same , as on the eve of World War II, she also "kept the peace", feeding the Third Reich, "through Munich", Central Europe and opening the way for power conquests "to the East

who wrote?

I ask you again: WHAT from the center of Europe did England feed Wilhelm before WWII, like Hitler before WWII?

They said nonsense and you can't get out ...

PS

Adverb "So" with the particle "same" answers the questions how? how? in what degree?

[ABC-schutze]

1. But my opinion about the FACTS, as I understand it, from your remark, remains valid? .. And rightly so. After all, the facts are fully reflected in the article ... 2. Now, I will continue to actively "get out", and I will start with the FUNNY in your answer - with the designation of the Aland Congress by a "trifle". I mentioned it as a completely adequate historical analogy, an illustration of the age-old "peacemaking" intentions of the Croatians. For this, I apologize to ask, what are you doing on the historical thread of the VO portal? .. After all, the Aland Congress was ONE (but not the only) of the KEY events of the WORLD politics of THAT TIME. The course of which was closely and continuously watched (by hindering or facilitating its course) by ALL WORLD POWERS of that time. After all, the CENTER OF WORLD politics was then EXACTLY Europe. And it was in the REGION of the Baltic Sea that, over the course of DECADES, the battles of the aforementioned powers for territory and influence unfolded. Sweden, England, Poland, Denmark, growing Russia, even - indirectly, having "its own interest", Turkey. And Rossi's "free exit" to the aforementioned region, consolidation (military, economic, political, cultural, etc.) in it, on a permanent basis, as a leading player, radically changed the balance of power in the CENTURY. In any case, the teacher told us about this at school. Don't you? .. 3. Come on. Take me to "quote", do mercy, do not engage in cheating, and do not disfigure the context by pulling out "separate" phrases. With your permission, now, I will "quote" myself: "For this, not at all mentioned" peace "England tried to preserve then," holding "Germany, but OWN" STATUS QUO "and DEGREE OF PREVIOUS INFLUENCE and ROLE in it. Likewise, as on the eve of World War II, she also "SAVED THE WORLD", feeding the Third Reich, "through Munich", Central Europe and paving the way for military conquests "in the East." What are the problems with your understanding? .. First, "the same" ("also") can act not only as "adverbs", but also as unions. Secondly, I didn’t have a higher “three” in school. What I have already said openly many times. So, I give you permission to work as my "technical editor", sorting out grammatical and spelling mistakes. Thirdly, the "SAME" I used refers to the REAL OBJECTIVES of England, before WWII and before WWII, and not to the methods it uses to achieve them. That I, IN ADDITION, quite clearly confirmed BEFORE the quoted Lenisnka quote. And that it is ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTANDING to everyone, if you do not "castrate" other people's quotes in a cheating manner, before "linking" to them ... Fourth, REMEMBER THE FACT, Germany WAS NOT an "aggressor" against England. Doubt? .. Then again, in Lenin's way - "with a pencil in hand", read the article under which you leave your comments. I quote for you ... Quote # 1: "During a meeting with the German ambassador, Gray pointed to the possibility of a" war of the four powers "(Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany and France), without indicating which side England would support or even support." Quote # 2: "On July 29, Gray told the German ambassador that the British government" can stay on the sidelines as long as the conflict is limited to Austria and Russia, but if Germany and France get involved ... it will be forced to make urgent decisions. " Quote # 3: "The British Foreign Secretary clarified with Germany and France:" Do they intend to respect Belgium's neutrality? "
The German ambassador asked Gray a counter question: "WILL England OBLIGATE TO BE NEUTRAL if German troops do not enter Belgium?"
On August 1, Gray REFUSED to give SUCH COMMITMENT. "And now REMEMBER THE FACT - IT IS REGARDING" peacekeeping "England, Germany - ITS MAIN GROWING COMPETITOR, NO" aggressor "WAS NOT. "disassembly" of the four continental powers, on the side AGAINST Germany, without any FORMAL grounds for that. Germany did not attack it ...

[Olgovich]

Quote: ABC-schütze

1. But my opinion about the FACTS, as I understand it, from your remark, remains valid? .. And this is correct. After all, the facts are fully reflected in the article.

Alas, you have problems with understanding: you remain with your opinion: yes, it exists, but, in my opinion, it is not correct.

Ordinary facts and it is not necessary to say, this is the loss in WWI and the inevitability of war, etc., etc.

Quote: ABC-schütze

, and I will start with the FUNNY in your answer - with the designation of the Åland Congress by a "trifle". I mentioned it as a completely adequate historical analogy, an illustration of the age-old "peacemaking" intentions of the Croatians.

who gave you the right to judge the "adequacy" ... of your own statements?
You are funny ....

I will repeat it again: the eve of the GREAT war of the 20th century is impossible to illustrate with a small congress of the 18th century during the war. in principle- everything is completely different: times, conditions, subject, etc.

Quote: ABC-schütze

For sim, I apologize to ask, what are you doing on the historical thread of the VO portal ?.

You should ASK an apology, not throw an "sorry", remember.

The answer is simple - none of your business.

Quote: ABC-schütze

... After all, the Aland Congress was ONE (but not the only) of the KEY events of the WORLD politics of THAT TIME. The course of which was closely and continuously watched (by hindering or facilitating its course) by ALL WORLD POWERS of that time. After all, the CENTER OF WORLD politics was then EXACTLY Europe. And it was in the REGION of the Baltic Sea that, over the course of DECADES, the battles of the aforementioned powers for territory and influence unfolded. Sweden, England, Poland, Denmark, growing Russia, even - indirectly, having "its own interest", Turkey. And Rossi's "free exit" to the aforementioned region, consolidation (military, economic, political, cultural, etc.) in it, on a permanent basis, as a leading player, radically changed the balance of power in the CENTURY. In any case, the teacher told us about this at school.

you had a crap teacher, she didn't say that this congress ended with NOTHING.

And he decided the fate of the Northern War Nystadt peace treaty of 1721

But he also CANNOT illustrate the eve of WWI.

Quote: ABC-schütze

What are the problems with your understanding? .. Thirdly, the "SAME" I used refers to the REAL GOALS of England,

problems not with my understanding, but with your presentation: what, in y, "goals" are in your stated, but Does not exist in practice feeding c. Europe England before WWII (as before WWII)? Food didn’t exist!

The third time I ask, present it, do not play with your head!

Quote: ABC-schütze

REMEMBER THE FACT, Germany WAS NOT an "aggressor" against England

has anyone argued otherwise?

Hack on your forehead: Germany acting as an AGGRESSOR against European countries, she unleashed a World War.

Quote: ABC-schütze

England, on ITS INITIATIVE, HELPED into the European continental "showdown" four continental powers, on the side AGAINST Germany, without any FORMAL grounds for that. Germany did not attack her ...

You should also know that at the time of England's entry into the war, only THREE Kont powers took part in the work between themselves.

AGGRESSION against France, Bkelgia and others - there is a REASON

Quote: ABC-schütze

, I have "in Russian", there was no higher "three" at school.

maybe then you shouldn't rape the Russian language?

[ABC-schutze]

First ... Your concern is in vain: "maybe then it is not worth raping the Russian language?" Since you are already in the guise of my "editors", I am completely calm for the fate of the "great and mighty" ... Second ... "There is no need to speak of COMMON facts, these are losses in WWI and the inevitability of war and ... "Sorry, but if you call it" delusional facts "the quotation given by the author, about which I, quite appropriately, reminded you, then WHERE were you all these THREE DAYS? .. We made a bunch of" comments ", sang a panegyric to the" peacemaking "of the islanders , but they were ashamed to reproach the author of the article for referring to "nonsense"? .. Third ... You see, the Aland Congress, mentioned by me as an appropriate historical illustration of the "peacekeeping" of the islanders, is a PROCESS, during which the conditions of the subsequent Nishtat of the world were produced by Russia. And the world of Nishtat you mentioned in the sui is the MAIN RESULT of this MULTI-YEAR PROCESS. Not to understand the difference between "process" and "result", even more so - to "polemically" oppose one to the other, is not correct. We are so, our teacher said. And you, yours, no? .. Are you suggesting that I "take on faith" your babble that this Åland Congress was a "minor" event, ignore the fact that it attracted the close attention of the LEADING WORLD players of THAT time? .. Incl. and England? .. Fifth ... "Hack it on your forehead: Germany, having acted as an AGGRESSOR against the countries of Europe, unleashed a World War." First, the "forehead" is not a document. In any case, my ... Secondly, the war becomes "world", not when "they start shooting", but when all "INTERESTED IN IT" INVOLVE in it. And, since the "peacekeeping" England, whose MILITARY security (including the maritime trade of the "mistress of the seas"), was in NO way threatened by the START of hostilities on the continent, "The nature of this war is EXACTLY SHE, INTERESTS (exactly INTERESTED) in" other people's showdowns. " And your thesis that England was "the only one that tried to keep the peace" is false ... Once again, I remind you that you have not disputed the quotes given by the author, and it OBVIOUSly follows from them that you still DO NOT UNDERSTAND the differences between the "reason" and "reason". With which I congratulate, referring already to your quote: "AGGRESSION against France, Belgium, and so on, there is a REASON." I will clarify that this is a FORMAL "occasion" EXACTLY for "peacekeeping" England. I remind you that BEFORE the "entry of England" into the war, which you mentioned, the latter had no "world" character at all. Themselves mentioned the THREE powers, in whose power Belgium was also acquired, the status of a "world player" (and even a "continental power") which had no ... For this, BEFORE England got involved in the war, the latter bore the character of TRADITIONAL, BILATERAL " showdown "only TWO continental players with world status. In any case, from the pre-last paragraph of your last answer to me, this follows UNIVERSAL. With which I congratulate you ...

[Olgovich]

Quote: ABC-schütze

First ... your concern is in vain: "maybe then you shouldn't rape the Russian language? "Since you are already in the hypostasis of my" editors ", I am absolutely calm for the fate of the" great and mighty ".

do not force the Russian language and the topic, yes.

Quote: ABC-schütze

Second ... "There is no need to speak of COMMON facts, these are losses in WWI and the inevitability of war and ..." Sorry, but if you call it "delusional facts", the quotation given by the author, which I, quite appropriately, reminded you of , then WHERE were you all these THREE DAYS? .. Piled a bunch of "comments", sang an eulogy to the "peacekeeping" of the islanders, but to reproach the author of the article for thatm, that he refers to "nonsense" were ashamed ?.

no, you are just inattentive, alas:

Olgovich (Andrey)
7
31 May 2021 13: 34

+1

Quote: Old electrician


The 3,3 million killed by the Russian army is almost the same as Germany and Austria-Hungary combined and more than the total casualties of France, England and the United States. In military terms,

in military language, this is the delirium of a madman who invented this: even the Soviet "bookkeepers" Urlanis and Krivosheev did not think of such wild numbers, although they tried very hard to stretch their inventions to the maximum,

Quote: ABC-schütze

there is a PROCESS, in the course of which the conditions of the subsequent Nishtat peace were worked out by Russia. And the world of Nishtat you mentioned in the sui is the MAIN RESULT of this MULTI-YEAR PROCESS.

the one and a half year (breaks) congress, ONCE AGAIN, ended with NOTHING, and the historical multi-year PROCESS went on from the beginning of the 20-year Northern War and ended in N. peace

Quote: ABC-schütze

We are so, our teacher said. And you, yours, no? .. You suggest that I "take on faith" your babble about the fact that the Aland Congress was a "minor" event, do not pay attention to the fact

just like that, tk. This minor congress (in comparison with WWI) has NOTHING to do with the Great War

Quote: ABC-schütze

First, the "forehead" is not a document.

but an ideal place to write down / memorize a fact.

Quote: ABC-schütze

Secondly, the war becomes "world", not when "they start shooting", but when all the "parties INTERESTED IN IT" GET INTO IT.

learn the definition of "world war".

England entered an ALREADY ongoing war

Quote: ABC-schütze

England, whose MILITARY security (including the maritime trade of the "mistress of the seas"), was in NO way threatened by the START of hostilities on the continent;

You still have a task: to learn England's obligations to provide territory. integral BELGIUM. And yes: it was after the impudent attack on Belgium that England entered the war on absolutely legal grounds- Learn also the documents of the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907

Quote: ABC-schütze

Themselves mentioned THREE powers, in whose power Belgium was also acquired, which did not have the status of a "world player" (and even a "continental power").

again nonsense: as of August 4, there were already THREE world powers at war with each other without Belgium: Russia, Germany and France.

In addition, AVEngria, Serbia, Belgium, occupied Luxembourg were fought.
"No", this is not a world war

Quote: ABC-schütze

ABOUT England's involvement in the war, the latter bore the character of a TRADITIONAL, BILATERAL "showdown" of everything only TWO continental players with global status

To school, yes or see the paragraph above.

I'll 4 times I ask-: WHAT from the center of Europe did England feed Wilhelm before WWII, like Hitler before WWII?

[ABC-schutze]

The ability to count "to four" on your part is commendable. But later you will be engaged in arithmetic ... For I am "only" for the second time, I am sending you to my answer - the explanation given to your "perplexities" for TWO DAYS already: "Thirdly, the" SAME "used by me refers to REAL GOALS England, before WWI and before WWII, and not to the methods it uses to achieve them.What I, IN ADDITIONALLY quite clearly, confirmed BEFORE the cited Lenin quote. ... ". Since I have not received any clear answer to this explanation by ME, MY thesis, I logically believe that you persistently continue to engage in cheating ... Let's go on (and you, while write it down for the future ...). The Aland Congress ENDED with the signing of the Peace of Nishtat (FULL VICTORY of the Russian Empire), already due to the fact that the CONDITIONS offered EXACTLY by Russia to the Swedes during this congress, by the time of the signing of the Peace of Nishtat, ONLY WERE GORGEOUS. For this, to identify "breaks" in the work of the Congress, with its "ending with nothing", is a banal historical and political amateurism. Again, congratulations ... Thank you, dear teacher ... But your own reference to APRIORI, England's anti-German "obligations" to ensure the "territorial integrity" of Belgium, perfectly illustrates the fallacy of your original thesis about England as the only person involved in "trying" to preserve a certain "peace". Let's go further: “In addition, AVEngria, Serbia, Belgium fought, Luxembourg was occupied.
"Not", this is not a world war "Aha ... And now, - read YOURSELF FAVORITE:" You should also know that at the time of England's entry into the war, ONLY THREE states of powers were participating in the fight among themselves. " , by the way, they wrote to me. And the word THREE, IN CAPITAL LETTERS, too, YOU, noted. Here I am in MY answer to this your wretched "arithmetic" about the BEGINNING of the war on the continent, correctly (so as not to offend you ...) and relied Now you, "suddenly remembered" both ABE-ngriya and Serbia, like Nozderv about the "coachmen," whom Chichikov bribed, trying to steal someone's "daughter" ... For this, while I take my leave "without saying goodbye ". It's interesting to me with you, although not in the same way as with my teacher ... And again, I repeat, for your beloved" forehead. "Belgium was not any" world "power. This is a FACT ...

[Olgovich]

Quote: ABC-schütze

Thirdly, the "SAME" I used refers to the REAL OBJECTIVES of England, before WWII and before WWII, and not to the methods it uses to achieve them.

WHERE GOALS , trachtibides, in this rubbish of yours:

For this, it was not at all the mentioned "peace" that England tried to preserve then, "holding" Germany, but her "status quo" and the degree of its former influence and role in it. just like on the eve of World War II, she "kept the peace" feeding the Third Reich, "through Munich", Central Europe and opening the way for military conquests "in the East".

You're not Russian? You are talking about the METHODS of achieving the goal (same, feeding,)

Quote: ABC-schütze

Since there is no intelligible answer to this explanation by ME, MY same thesis

you DO NOT have a clear thesis.

Quote: ABC-schütze

The Aland Congress ENDED with the signing of the Nishtat Peace Treaty

remember-the Congress ended with NOTHING and the CONTINUATION of the war, and already she-N peace.

Quote: ABC-schütze

there is a banal historical and political amateurism.

who are interested in definitions from No one ?

Quote: ABC-schütze

perfectly illustrates the falsity of your original thesis about England as the only person involved in "trying" to preserve a certain "peace"

where is this thesis, liar? Everybody wanted peace except Germany and Avengria.

Quote: ABC-schütze

And now, - read YOURSELF FAVORITE: "You should also know that at the time of England's entry into the war, ONLY THREE countries of powers were participating in the rags among themselves." This, EXACTLY you, by the way, wrote to me. And the word THREE, IN CAPITAL LETTERS, too, YOU, have noted. Here I am, in MY answer to this wretched "arithmetic" of yours about the BEGINNING of the war on the continent, correctly (so as not to offend you ...) and relied on. Now you, "suddenly remembered" both ABE-ngriya and Serbia, like Nozderv about the "coachmen," whom Chichikov bribed, trying to steal someone's "daughter" ... For this, while I take my leave "without saying goodbye" ... I am interested in you, although not in the same way as with my teacher ... And again, I repeat, for your beloved "forehead". Belgium was not any "world" power. It is a fact ...

poor reasoning based on ignorance of the facts: the key words mentioned by us: "powers among themselves" and "cont. powers", if not yet reached.

So, on August 4 they fought between themselves only THREE Kont powers -France, Germany and Russia. Another such Avengria has not yet joined with them.
Has it finally arrived ??

[gsev]

Quote: Olgovich

At the same time, the growth rate of its economy was one of the highest in the world.

And the table given in the article says that Russia's share in world industrial production has been steadily falling against the background of the United States and Germany. By the beginning of the war, Russia did not have the production of bearings, aircraft engines, chronically lagged behind in the production of heavy artillery, due to problems with transport, the army was not provided with ammunition in the Japanese and German wars.

[Olgovich]

Quote: gsev

And the table given in the article says that Russia's share in world industrial production has been steadily falling against the background of the United States and Germany.

watch it again and do not disgrace: Russia is the ONLY European power that has an increase in its share since 1900: Germany, France and England have a steady decline.

And this despite the fact that the table is the most modest in relation to Russia - there are also much larger and more convincing figures for its growth.

Quote: gsev

By the beginning of the war, Russia had no bearing production

you ask, how many years old SKF bearings appeared in England, in 1912, and in Russia in 1916 a full-fledged plant was built, although they produced small batches - since 1912

Quote: gsev

aircraft engines, chronically lagged behind in the production of heavy artillery, due to problems with transport, the army was not provided with ammunition in the Japanese and German wars

EVERYTHING was decided and decided.

[gsev]

Quote: Olgovich

Russia is the ONLY European power to have an increase in its share since 1900:

After the abolition of serfdom in Russia, a twenty-year crisis began with a decline in industrial production by 20-30 percent. An increase of several tenths of a percent is the predatory export of grain and oil from timber. As a result of this growth, the peasants die permanently from starvation.

[Olgovich]

Quote: gsev

After the abolition of serfdom in Russia, a twenty-year crisis began with a decline in industrial production by 20-30 percent.

since 1895 - rapid industrial growth and industrial revolution in Russia

Quote: gsev

An increase of several tenths of a percent is the predatory export of grain and oil from timber.

growth in the production of metal, steam locomotives, steamers, etc.

Quote: gsev

As a result of this growth, the peasants are constantly starving to death.

in USSR.

This was not the case in Russia in the 20th century.

[Revolver]

Quote: Olgovich

all the groaning about the possibility of Russia to avoid war is an illiterate nonsense: the war was predetermined and there was either an opportunity to keep the aggressor in an alliance against him or to enter the war with the most secured allies.

Of course it from the field of fantasy about parallel worlds, but ...
Somewhere in 1910, give or take a couple of years, cousins ​​Nikolai and Wilhelm are going to hunt together somewhere, no matter where, and at the same time they invite their second uncle Franz Joseph to communicate without formalities, so, purely between us, emperors. Even without ties. At dinner, they casually say to grandfather that the monarch's work is hard, and he, purely to save energy and maintain health, should have gone on a long-deserved rest. But what about the Empire? And we will take care of her, and we will also attract a cousin, whatever his name was, the king of Serbia. By the way, he himself. The grandfather can formally remain the king of Austria as long as he has time left there, but Austria becomes part of the Reich, on the same conditions as the Kingdom of Bavaria.
Austria and other lands with a significant German population, such as the Sudetenland, go to the German Reich. Long-standing dreams of Greater Germany are coming true.
The Slavic lands in the east of Austria-Hungary retreat to Russia, Nicholas is crowned king of Czechoslovakia, Poland unites with Krakow, still remaining in a crown union with Russia.
Hungary becomes a formally independent state, Archduke Ferdinand becomes king there, but in life under the German-Russian protectorate.
Slavic lands in the south of Austria-Hungary, such as Croatia, go to Serbia. Meet the Yugoslav Empire.
Alliances are being reshaped. It turns out England, France, Turkey, as in the Crimean War, against Russia, but not alone, but with Germany and the Balkan Slavic countries and Greece. Well, and Hungary, although the warriors are still the same, but they will go for cannon fodder.
Italy is not clear where, but its participation on either side makes little difference.
Russia without western fronts, concentrating on the Caucasus, the Black Sea, and the Balkans. The Turks will get a must, even with the expeditionary corps of England and France fighting for it. The straits are taken!
Germany, without eastern fronts, concentrates on France. Perhaps also with the Russian expeditionary corps to help. Paris will not resist. Vichy mode signs the world
America will not have time to decide whether it needs to intervene, and on which side.
What a better world the result would be!

[gsev]

[quote = Nagant] Slavic lands in the south of Austria-Hungary, such as Croatia, go to Serbia. [/ quote Immediately after the defeat of France in Russia, they realized that Germany intends to expand to the East. Throughout the 19th century, European politicians were tormented by the Russian question - how to colonize Russia and get direct access to the future colonization of Central Asia and China. To do this, Bismarck proposed first to tear Ukraine away from Russia. To this end, Schlieffen developed his plan to defeat France in a 60-day blitzkrieg. All statements about the peacefulness of German militarism are the same fog as the current statements about the lifting of sanctions against the Nord Stream on the eve of the Biden-Putin meeting.

[Nekarmadlen]

Russia without western fronts, concentrating on the Caucasus, the Black Sea, and the Balkans. The Turks will get a must, even with the expeditionary corps of England and France fighting for it. The straits are taken!

... You have forgotten about the Empire of Japan (an ally of Great Britain, if that) in the Far East ...

[Revolver]

Quote: Nekarmadlen

You have forgotten about the Empire of Japan (an ally of Great Britain, if that) in the Far East ...

Even if the Japanese reach Baikal, after the straits they will reach them. Of course, they will seize Sakhalin, and they will not be able to recapture it, there is really no fleet for the landing operation, but no matter how Russia kicks them out of Korea and in general from the continent, all the more so if, after the end of the conflict in Europe, the Kaiser sends help - they are also a kagbe piece of China get it harmlessly.

[antivirus]

- the main burden of the war will fall on the lot of Russia;

- the vital interests of Germany and Russia do not collide anywhere;

??? went this way Nikki; at the end of the 19th century - the push to the east - the KVZhD- and Transsib, Port Arthur, and so on. already disillusioned with his cousin. The borrowed capital kept the countries in the rut of the necessary policy.
It was the development of Yuzovka (English or Belgian?) And the so-called "capital inflow" (as it is now) that determined who to be friends with.
example of Nikolay2 to whom science?

[andrewkor]

Very interesting, detailed information about the prerequisites of WWII. I look forward to the continuation of how the West raised a rabid dog (Nazism), and he pounced on himself first of all !!

[parma]

Quote: andrewkor

Very interesting, detailed information about the prerequisites of WWII. I look forward to the continuation of how the West raised a rabid dog (Nazism), and he pounced on himself first of all !!

In the same way, the West also nurtured the industrial power of the USSR (and he also put his hand to the coming to power of the Soviets) ... this happens when businessmen get into politics for profit))

[Vladimir_2U]

To be honest, the role of England as a provocateur of WWI is completely unclear even in this article, but tsarist Russia coped with this role perfectly.

The German ambassador asked Gray a counter question: "Will England undertake to maintain neutrality if German troops do not enter Belgium?"
On August 1, Gray refused to make such a commitment.

On August 4, without declaring war, German troops invaded Belgium. England presented an ultimatum to Germany, demanding the observance of the neutrality of Belgium, after which it declared war.

Russia dragged France into the war, followed by England. By the way, this is a real victory of the tsarist diplomacy, another thing is that the general state of both society and the economy of Ingushetia has poured this victory into a cesspool. Why victory? This war, whether Russia is ready for it not in the minds of the top, but in fact, having torn Turkey off from France and England, gave the Bosphorus and the straits into the hands of Russia.

Having such a note and entering the Great War, Emperor Nicholas II made his greatest mistake, for which he paid with his life and the lives of his family members. Because of his mistake, a huge grief touched almost all families living in Russia.

It turned out that the death and injury of tens of millions of people did not matter for the provocateur country ... As PN Durnovo predicted, the main burden of the war fell on Russia.

But this is not so! Russia more or less successfully opposed Austria-Hungary and Turkey, and without "meat grinders" like Verdun, but as soon as Germany transferred at least some significant forces from the Western Front, Russia immediately suffered defeat.

[Old electrician]

Quote Vladimir_2U:

Russia dragged France into the war, followed by England.

- wow! You have made an outstanding historical discovery! The First World War was unleashed by Russia!
The French ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paleologue, wrote in his memoirs:

Sunday, January 31, 1915 Petrograd "Government Bulletin" publishes the text of a telegram dated July 29 last year, in which Emperor Nicholas proposed to Emperor Wilhelm to transfer the Austro-Serbian dispute to the Hague court. <...> The German government did not consider it necessary to publish this telegram in a series of messages exchanged directly between the two monarchs during the crisis preceding the war. <…> - What a terrible responsibility Emperor Wilhelm took upon himself, leaving the proposal of Emperor Nicholas without a single answer! He could not respond to such a proposal otherwise than by agreeing to it. And he didn't answer because he wanted war

France and England not only wanted this war, they dreamed of it. However, the Russians were the first to be drawn into it. After the Sarajevo assassination on July 20-22, 1914, French President Poincare and Chairman of the Council of Ministers Viviani visited Russia. French government officials have assured that

in the event of a war with Germany, France will fulfill its allied obligations

- you start the main thing, and we will pick it up. If Russia could not be drawn into the war, then for France and England it would be a tragedy!
Quote Vladimir_2U:

By the way, this is a real victory for tsarist diplomacy, but the general state of both society and the economy of Ingushetia has poured this victory into a cesspool. Why victory? This war, whether Russia is ready for it not in the minds of the top, but in fact, having torn Turkey off from France and England, gave the Bosphorus and the straits into the hands of Russia.

- gee-gee-gee!
General Staff Colonel E.E. Messner is a White Guard, a White émigré, a staunch anti-Soviet, convinced that all Russia's troubles originated from Jacob Schiff:

France, brazenly taking over the strategy of the Entente, demanded unbearable operational activity from Russia. If Clemenceau and Lloyd George demanded this, then these civilian strategists did not understand anything about the war, but Generals Joffre, Foch and Kitchener demanded the same (these three hardly had in mind to achieve the Masonic goal of exhausting Germany and Russia equally), and we self-sacrificingly rushed to bail out the allies when they "got stuck", and if they were well, we ourselves rushed to the offensive, thinking to hasten the victory without the help of the Anglo-French, who were in no hurry to win. We attracted most of the forces of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey, and the French gave their front-line soldiers frequent leave for childbirth, while the British played football in the rear of their positions ...

He:

From military weariness, which began in the 15th year (curse the cunning of the allies!), The grain riot turned into the February revolution ...

Winston Churchill on his planned future of the Russian Empire:

... All legitimate aspirations can be satisfied within a single Russia - a state consisting of several autonomous states on the basis of a federation. Such a Russian state would pose less of a threat to the future peace of all countries than a vast, centralized tsarist monarchy. And now it is just such a moment when, due to the critical situation in which all the parties existing in Russia and all its military forces are located, it is possible, with the help of the wise application of the policy of the allies, to give events such a turn ...

- The CIS was not conceived at all in 1991.
From the memoirs of the British ambassador to Russia Buchanan:

... The palace coup was discussed openly, and at dinner at the embassy one of my Russian friends, who held a high position in the government, informed me that the only question was whether both the emperor and the empress would be killed, or only the last ...

- touchingly, as the ambassador of a country for which the Russians had to die to the last, discussed plans to assassinate the Russian tsar.
Intelligence spokesman for the French General Staff, Captain de Maleycy:

The February revolution took place thanks to a conspiracy between the British and the liberal bourgeoisie of Russia. The inspiration was the [English] Ambassador Buchanan, the technical executor was Guchkov. "

- I just trudge from the wisdom of Nick 2 and his all-conquering diplomacy!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Old electrician

wow! You have made an outstanding historical discovery! The First World War was unleashed by Russia!

This is not my discovery.

Sazonov planned to carry out mobilization measures in an atmosphere of deep secrecy. But on July 31 (18) on the walls of Russian cities, announcements on red paper about mobilization appeared. Against the background of a general patriotic enthusiasm, storekeepers arrived at the collection points by 15% more than planned.

On July 31, the German ambassador to St. Petersburg, Count Friedrich Pourtales, tried to get an explanation from Sazonov and in an ultimatum demanded that the mobilization be canceled, which was refused. Nicholas II at these hours sent a telegram to Wilhelm II: “It is already technically impossible to suspend mobilization,” he wrote, “but Russia is far from wanting war. As long as negotiations with Austria on the Serbian issue continue, Russia will not take provocative actions. "

Russia refused to give Germany a positive response to demobilization. In the evening of the same day, Pourtales handed a note declaring war to Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Sazonov, after which, according to the minister's recollections, "he went to the window and cried."

Obviously, the war could have been avoided, but it was the government of the Republic of Ingushetia who did not care about such a possibility.

Quote: Old electrician

in the event of a war with Germany, France will fulfill its allied obligations

Iii? France did not go to war?

Quote: Old electrician

If Russia could not be drawn into the war, then for France and England it would be a tragedy!

How did Russia find itself drawn into WWI? How is it?

Quote: Old electrician

Of the General Staff, Colonel E.E. Messner is a White Guard, a White émigré, a staunch anti-Soviet, convinced that all Russia's troubles came from Jacob Schiff

How does this deny the start of the war due to the RI? And how do these words prove that Russia bore the brunt of the fighting in WWI? No way! And the colonel could write whatever he wanted, only later, justifying Niki2 and his colleagues from the General Staff in the drain of the country. The ratio of the number of German troops on the Western and Eastern (for Germany) fronts speaks for itself.

Quote: Old electrician

Winston Churchill on his planned future of the Russian Empire:
... All legitimate aspirations can be satisfied within a single Russia - a state consisting of several autonomous states on the basis of a federation. Such a Russian state would pose less of a threat to the future peace of all countries than a vast, centralized tsarist monarchy.

And nothing that Church wrote after the abdication of the tsar?

Quote: Old electrician

The palace coup was discussed openly, and at dinner at the embassy one of my Russian friends, who held a high position in the government, told me that the only question was whether both the emperor and the empress would be killed or only the last ...
- touchingly, as the ambassador of a country for which the Russians had to die to the last, discussed plans to assassinate the Russian tsar.

How do these events in the course of a long-running war deny the guilt of the Republic of Ingushetia in unleashing WWI?

Quote: Old electrician

I just trudge from the wisdom of Nick 2 and his all-conquering diplomacy!

But diplomacy was not his. But not English either.

I could do this at the end of the second half of October 1914. By this time it was already clear to me that Russia's demand for the concession of the straits to it, if it does not meet with special sympathy from the Paris and London cabinets - this was difficult to expect, remembering the policies of these powers throughout the XNUMXth century, - This will at least be recognized as legitimate and justifiable by events....

The Emperor received my report on the Straits, as I expected, with a feeling of deep satisfaction, which resulted in the words that I remembered: "I owe you the most joyful day of my life." Hearing these words for any Russian who looked upon his Tsar as the bearer of the idea of ​​national unity of his homeland was in itself a great reward.

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/sazonov_sd/10.html

Niki2 agrees with the assessment of the mind.

[Old electrician]

... Russia refused to give Germany a positive response to demobilization. In the evening of the same day, Pourtales handed a note on the declaration of war to Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov, after which, according to the minister's recollections, "he went to the window and cried."

- in this place I also cry every time! However, you forgot to continue:

As it turned out later, the note contained two versions of the text, which, by an oversight of the German Embassy in St. Petersburg, were combined in one document. This detail, however, was not immediately noticed, since the essence of the German statement was so clear that, speaking in the language of the ministerial diary, it was not the words that mattered.

Simply put, regardless of Sazonov's answer, Pourtales' answer was the same - "War!" and Sazonov's words did not decide anything here.
In passing, I will note that initially on July 29, 1914, mobilization was announced in Russia only in the military districts bordering Austria-Hungary. Those. the mobilization of Russia was directed against Austria-Hungary, so Germany was not threatened in any way. It would be reasonable to hear a declaration of war from Vienna, and not from Berlin, but it was Berlin who was looking for a reason to start it and, taking the opportunity, began to intensify military hysteria.
Another spicy detail. Initially, Berlin announced the general mobilization of Germany, and only then demanded the abolition of the general mobilization from Russia, without making the slightest hint that the mobilization in Germany could be canceled at least under any conditions or circumstances. Doesn't this seem somewhat illogical to you? Well yes! For you, the main proof is Pourtales' crocodile tears!
As for the rest of my quotes, they are only proof that the only goal of Russia in the First World War was to die to the last for the interests of England. And vice versa. One of the main interests of England in this war was the destruction of the Russian Empire. Do you consider normal the plans of the ambassador of the supposedly union state to overthrow the autocracy and assassinate the tsar? I am surprised every time, but I have never heard from anyone, even from the monarchists and from you including, I have not heard a word of indignation at Buchanan's open admission of England's subversive role in pre-revolutionary Russia. Those. is this a normal ally, for the sake of which it was necessary to destroy the country and the army in the war to a victorious end ?! In such realities, only a dumbass could and can dream of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles! If Nik-2 was not an idiot, then in 1915 he would have had to hang everyone who fought for the war to a victorious end (am I a tsar, or not a tsar ?! Autocracy after all !!!), kiss his cousin Wilhelm, and calmly in Chinese to watch from the mountain, as the British, French and Germans continue to beat each other. In this case, it could well have happened that grandfather Lenin would have died unknown in exile.
I agree with you that the Eastern Front was secondary for Germany, but Russia's losses amounted to 3311 thousand people. killed, 3749 thousand wounded and 3342,9 thousand people. prisoners

and without "meat grinders" such as Verdun.

The 3,3 million killed by the Russian army is almost the same as Germany and Austria-Hungary combined and more than the total casualties of France, England and the United States. In military terms, in order to pull off one German from the Western Front (for example, from Veden), several Russians were killed each time. Great strategy! It remained to push a little more, put another five or seven million and everyone would be happy! And most importantly, all without a single Verdun!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Old electrician

As it turned out later, the note contained two versions of the text, which, by an oversight of the German Embassy in St. Petersburg, were combined in one document. This detail, however, was not immediately noticed, since the essence of the German statement was so clear that, speaking in the language of the ministerial diary, it was not the words that mattered.
Simply put, regardless of Sazonov's answer, Pourtales' answer was the same - "War!" and Sazonov's words did not decide anything here.

This is not true! If you bothered to read this note, you yourself would understand, but it can be fixed!

Note presented by the German Ambassador in St. Petersburg to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on July 19, 1914 at 7 pm.
From the beginning of the crisis, the Imperial Government tried to bring it to a peaceful resolution. Meeting the wishes expressed by His Majesty the Emperor of All Russia, His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, in agreement with England, made efforts to fulfill the role of mediator between the Vienna and St. Petersburg cabinets, when Russia, without waiting for their result, began to mobilize the entire totality of its land and sea forces. As a consequence of this threatening measure, not caused by any military preparations by Germany, the German Empire faced a grave and immediate danger. If the imperial government did not take measures to prevent this danger, it would undermine the security and very existence of Germany. The German government therefore found itself compelled to appeal to the government of His Majesty the Emperor of All Russia, insisting on an end to the aforementioned military measures. In view of the fact that Russia refused (did not find it necessary to answer) to satisfy this wish and showed by this refusal (by the accepted provision) that her speech was directed against Germany, I have the honor, by order of my government, to inform Your Excellency the following: His Majesty my Emperor The August Sovereign, on behalf of the Empire, accepting the challenge, considers himself in a state of war with Russia.

St. Petersburg, July 19 / August 1, 1914.

That's all, and no two options, just an unedited text, but the description of the delivery clearly indicates that Sazonov's answer would be positive, the note simply would not have been handed!

The note conveyed to S.D.Sazonov by Count Pourtales was rather laconic. It indicated that while Germany was making a number of conciliatory efforts to prevent war, Russia was mobilizing and arming itself.

“This armament of Russia,” the note said, “is hostile to Germany, and therefore Germany demands that Russia prove its peacefulness and, within 12 hours, begin demobilization and the cancellation of all measures directed against Germany and Austria.

In conclusion, a note verbale indicated that if Russia did not begin demobilization within the time period indicated by Germany, then Germany would announce the mobilization of its army.

Having familiarized himself with the content of the Germanic note verbale, S.D.Sazonov asked Count Pourtales:

- So this is war?

“No,” the German ambassador replied, “this is another step away from the war.

After this short dialogue, the ambassador left the ministry and returned to the German embassy.

At about seven o'clock in the evening on July 10, the German ambassador appeared at the Foreign Office with a note declaring war.

Before handing this historical document to S.D.Sazonov, Count Pourtales told the minister that he had brought with him a note declaring war, but that he had been instructed not to hand the notes, if only the Russian government or has already given, or agree to issue a demobilization order.

The Foreign Minister replied to the German Ambassador, that he does not accept any reservations and conditions and offers to hand him the note brought, once it is intended to be handed over to the Imperial Russian government.

In response to this statement, the German ambassador handed over to S. D. Sazonov a note declaring war.

Quote: Old electrician

Initially, Berlin announced the general mobilization of Germany, and only then demanded the abolition of the general mobilization from Russia, without making the slightest hint that the mobilization in Germany could be canceled at least under any conditions or circumstances. Doesn't this seem somewhat illogical to you? Well yes! For you, the main proof is Pourtales' crocodile tears!

Well, it's not true! There was no mobilization in Germany yet, just a warning!

They arose in connection with the exchange of telegrams between Nicholas II and his cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm II. July 16/29... And SD Sazonov that day twice had explanations with the German ambassador. The first seemed to give hope for a peaceful outcome of the crisis. But during his second visit, F. Pourtales read out to S. D. Sazonov a telegram from the German Foreign Minister Bethmann-Hollweg, which said that if Russia continued military preparations, Germany will feel compelled to mobilize and move from words to actions. This warning provoked the following reaction from S. D. Sazonov: "Now I have no more doubts about the true reasons for Austrian intransigence."
After some hesitation, the Russian Foreign Minister agreed with the opinion of the military about the need for general mobilization in order to hopelessly keep up with the central powers in mobilization measures - by that time in Austria-Hungary, mobilization was already in full swing.
The situation worsened overnight. The news came about the military preparations of Austria-Hungary on the Russian border and the pre-mobilization measures of Germany. From the morning of July 17/30, Minister of War V.A. Sukhomlinov, N. N. Yanushkevich and S. D. Sazonov, joined by A. V. Krivoshein, tried to convince the tsar of the urgency of general mobilization. At three o'clock in the afternoon, the tsar agreed to provide SD Sazonov had an audience for a report on the general situation. With great difficulty, the minister managed to convince Nicholas II that Germany had already made a choice in favor of war and that Russia had no choice but to mobilize.

So there was a GENERAL mobilization of RI and only then Germany. And not a trace of England and France as instigators.

Quote: Old electrician

The 3,3 million killed by the Russian army is almost the same as Germany and Austria-Hungary combined and more than the total casualties of France, England and the United States.

This is only evidence of the military, technical and economic backwardness of the Republic of Ingushetia.

Quote: Old electrician

Do you consider normal the plans of the ambassador of the supposedly union state to overthrow the autocracy and assassinate the tsar?

But really, you could not understand what the ambassador wrote, it's a pity.

Quote: Old electrician

I am surprised every time, but still never from anyone, even from monarchists and from you including

Am I a monarchist? Haha.

[Old electrician]

On July 29, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. In response, on July 29, 1914, mobilization was announced in Russia only in the military districts bordering Austria-Hungary. Threats rained down from Germany, and on July 31, Russia announced a general mobilization.
On August 1, at one o'clock in the afternoon, a telegram was sent to the German ambassador in St. Petersburg, which contained instructions on declaring war on Russia on the same day at 5 o'clock in the evening. At 5 o'clock the Kaiser issued a decree on general mobilization. He was no longer interested in the answer from St. Petersburg. Some preliminary measures were already carried out the day before, after the announcement of the "threatening situation". In fact, latent mobilization in Germany was carried out as early as July 25, 1914, i.e. it began even before Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Quote: V. Novitsky, World War 1914-1918, vol. 1, M., 1938:

As a result of preliminary orders, at the time of the publication of the decree on mobilization, the German army had already largely completed mobilization work, and the troops assigned to cover the border with Belgium and France had already been transferred to their destination

- alas! Backward Russia with a frail railway network could not boast of such a speed of mobilization. The whole German calculation was based on this.
Quote Takman B. The August Cannons. M., "Young Guard", 1972:

At five o'clock a policeman appeared at the gate of the palace and announced the mobilization to the people. The crowd obediently picked up the national anthem "Thank All Our Gentlemen." Cars raced along Unter den Linden, officers standing, waving handkerchiefs and shouting: "Mobilization!" People in a frenzy of chauvinism rushed to beat alleged Russian spies, some to death, giving vent to their patriotic feelings.

- It goes without saying that if Sazonov had answered "yes", then Russian tourists would not have been hitting muzzles all over Germany from five o'clock in the evening.
Simultaneously with Russia, i.e. at the same five o'clock in the evening an ultimatum was presented to France. The German government demanded an answer in the next eighteen hours - whether France would remain neutral in the event of a Russian-German war, and if so, Germany insisted on this neutrality

on the transfer of the fortresses of Tul and Verdun to her, which will first be occupied, and returned after the end of the war.

- it is impossible to call this demand except as completely arrogant.
Baron von Schön, the German ambassador in Paris, could not bring himself to convey this "impudent demand" at a time when, as it seemed to him, French neutrality would give Germany such a colossal advantage, for which she should rather offer a good payment herself, rather than make threats. He presented the French with a note on the observance of neutrality, without including the requirement for the transfer of the fortresses, which nevertheless became known to the French because the instructions to the ambassador were intercepted and deciphered. In other words, Baron von Schön received these instructions even before Sazonov's answer and independently of him, if the French knew their content in advance. The French, secretly rejoicing in their success, answered Berlin - shit! And the world massacre began!
Your Ukrainian logic is completely beyond my understanding. Germany declared war on Russia, but not the other way around. Pourtales' snot on Sazonov's curtain is not proof of Russia's guilt. However, according to inexplicable logic, Russia is still to blame for unleashing a war in your country. Those. Is Russia always to blame for everything beyond any logic?
And the last:

Am I a monarchist? Haha.

- it never occurred to me to offend you so. I just listed you in one heap with the Russophobic monarchists, for whom the Anglo-Saxons are the only light in the window and who can be forgiven for everything. I appreciate your love for the Anglo-Saxons, but I do not share it.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Old electrician

On July 29, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. In response, on July 29, 1914, mobilization was announced in Russia only in the military districts bordering Austria-Hungary. Threats rained down from Germany, and on July 31, Russia announced a general mobilization.

There is no need to lie, it devalues ​​your whole point of view.

On July 29, Russia announced the mobilization of military districts bordering with Austria-Hungary [68]. On the morning of the same day, Nicholas II signed an order on general mobilization, but under the influence of the telegrams of Wilhelm II [69] temporarily did not put it into effect

But before that:

On July 25 in Russia, at a meeting of the Council of Ministers chaired by Nicholas II, it was decided "to take all preparatory measures for the early implementation of mobilization if necessary." The "Provision on the preparatory period for the war" was put into effect, which assumed the conduct of extensive mobilization measures without a formal announcement of mobilization. The first day of the "preparatory period for the war" on the whole territory of European Russia announced 26 July

But for the Germans, everything was more modest, at first:

The general course of German mobilization is presented in the following form: on July 25, officers who were on leave outside Germany were called by telegraph, and all large structures (on the roads, etc.) were taken under guard; On July 27, work began in the fortresses of Metz and Diedenhofen; on the same day, the return of troops from the camps to the places of permanent quartering began, the guard of the railways was strengthened and a partial call-up of reservists was announced; On the 29th - the termination of holidays and the beginning of mobilization work in the fortresses; On the 30th, border guards were strengthened, and the troops covering them were moved up to them, and 6 age classes of reservists were called up; 31st declared "a situation threatening war"

By the way, this is your link, and you write as if the troops were already at the border:

Quote: Old electrician

In fact, latent mobilization in Germany was carried out as early as July 25, 1914, i.e. it began even before Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Quote: V. Novitsky, World War 1914-1918, vol. 1, M., 1938:
As a result of preliminary orders at the time of the publication of the decree on mobilization, the German army...

Quote: Old electrician

People in a frenzy of chauvinism rushed to beat the alleged Russian spies, some to death, giving vent to their patriotic feelings.
- It goes without saying that if Sazonov had answered "yes", then Russian tourists would not have been hitting muzzles all over Germany from five o'clock in the evening.

What is it for? Such things would be easily attributed to misunderstandings and apologized, maybe. Don't be fooled.

Quote: Old electrician

He presented the French with a note on the observance of neutrality, without including in it the requirement to transfer the fortresses, which nevertheless became known to the French, because the instructions to the ambassador were intercepted and deciphered.

You don't confuse with Pearl Harbor, about transcripts?

Quote: Old electrician

The French, secretly rejoicing in their success, answered Berlin - shit! And the world massacre began!

Rave. If only because Germany declared war on France three days later than Russia

Quote: Old electrician

Your Ukrainian logic is completely beyond my understanding. Germany declared war on Russia, but not the other way around. Pourtales' snot on Sazonov's curtain is not proof of Russia's guilt. However, according to inexplicable logic, Russia is still to blame for unleashing a war in your country.

Unfortunately, the SIMPLE logic of events is inaccessible to your understanding, there is no need to drag hatred towards Ukrainians here. Just as it is not necessary to drag Pourtales' feelings over and over again if you have nothing to say in favor of your point of view, because the text of the note and the circumstances of its delivery speak against your position. There is no need for inexplicable logic either, you simply ignore the logic of events, but I do not blame Russia, I do not even blame the Tsar and Sazonov, they did a hundred years ago: one was stupid to death, and the other provoked this stupidity.

Quote: Old electrician

Those. Is Russia always to blame for everything beyond any logic?

I have already analyzed your disregard for the logic of events, and now I will analyze the illogicality of this statement. Russia, as my Motherland, is always right, but the governments, and even the system in it, were different, and in unleashing the WWI, I consider the Tsar and Sazonov to be guilty, no less than the Kaiser and who was in charge there in Austria-Hungary. France and England this time turned out to be led.

Quote: Old electrician

I just listed you in one heap with the Russophobic monarchists, for whom the Anglo-Saxons are the only light in the window and who can be forgiven for everything. I appreciate your love for the Anglo-Saxons, but I do not share it.

And this is sheer stupidity.

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Obviously, the war could have been avoided, but it was the government of the Republic of Ingushetia who did not care about such a possibility.

German plans envisioned a lightning-fast defeat of France on the model of 1870, and then a war against the Russian front using the advantage in heavy artillery. In principle, Germany almost won. But active actions, albeit at the cost of the death of Samsonov's army, did not allow the Germans to introduce reserve corps in the battle on the Marne in time. If the Germans had been able to postpone Russian mobilization and, accordingly, the offensive of the Russian army on Austria and Prussia, Serbia would have been defeated in 1914, and perhaps Paris had been taken in October 1914, after which the French railway network tied to Paris, as the center of this network, would not have allowed allies in France to maneuver reserves. The German invasion through Belgium prompted Great Britain to enter the war, and unrestricted submarine warfare and the silly games of German diplomacy with ostentatious zeal to provoke a Mexican attack on the United States and a promise to support this Mexican intervention with German weapons provoked the United States to enter the war on the side of the Entente. The Russian General Staff apparently understood this and did not go to the tricks of the Germans with the demand to cancel the Russian mobilization.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: gsev

The Russian General Staff apparently understood this and did not go to the tricks of the Germans with the demand to cancel the Russian mobilization.

The decision to start-abolish mobilization was not made in the General Staff, and I adhere to the fact that abolishing mobilization would have avoided war, certainly for Russia.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Old electrician

France and England did not just want this war, they are about it dreamed. .

Empty unsubstantiated chatter

Quote: Old electrician

- you start the main thing, and we will pick it up.

again she

Quote: Old electrician

Of the General Staff, Colonel E.E. Messner

Messner did not understand that Russia was saving itself from the catastrophe of 1941-42 and losses of the scale of the Great Patriotic War - and this managed

Quote: Old electrician

Winston Churchill on his planned future of the Russian Empire:
... All legitimate aspirations can be satisfied within a single Russia

He said that already in late xnumx, when Russia was no longer there, and before the VOR there was no trace of that.

and yes, let's continue with the quote you did not complete: Politics, the purpose of which to disunite, to dismember Russia, if it is temporarily successful, will not be able to achieve lasting results and will only lead to a whole series of successive wars, from which united militaristic Russia in order to exist either under the banner of reaction or the banner of Bolshevism. That is why every effort should be made to steer events along a course that can lead to a federation of Russian regions, so that all prejudices against both local autonomy and against the general unity will be thrown away.

Quote: Old electrician

touchingly, as the ambassador of the country, for which the Russians had to die to the last, discussed plans to assassinate the Russian tsar.

where discussion-Show

Quote: Old electrician

Intelligence spokesman for the French General Staff, Captain de Maleycy:
The February revolution took place thanks to a conspiracy between the British and the liberal bourgeoisie of Russia. The inspiration was the [English] Ambassador Buchanan, the technical executor was Guchkov. "

Let him read Stalin in the Short History Course of the VKPBEE:

The bourgeoisie thought to resolve the crisis through a palace coup.
But people allowed its own way.

and so it was: we look at the chronology of events: the VK State Duma is just a reaction to the actual revolution that has already taken place

Quote: Old electrician

Simply put, regardless of Sazonov's answer, Pourtales' answer was the same - "War!"

this is definitely true

Quote: Old electrician

I just trudge from the wisdom of Nick 2 and his all-conquering diplomacy!

Yes, what would await Russia in the event of the failure of his diplomacy, is clearly seen in 1941-42 and the losses in the Second World War.

And in WWI the main cannon fodder Anglo-Frenchwho took over the main blow, for which Russia preserved France with its offensives in 1914 and 1916.

Quote: Old electrician

3,3 million killed the Russian army is almost the same as Germany and Austria-Hungary combined and more than the total casualties of the killed France, England and the United States. In military terms,

in military terms, this is the delirium of a madman who invented this: even the Soviet "accountants" Urlanis and Krivosheev did not think of such wild numbers, although they tried very hard to stretch their inventions to the maximum,
data of the Central Statistical Bureau of the USSR, 1925 626 killed and 440 missing, total = 228, wounded 828

[Kayuk]

The 3,3 million killed by the Russian army is almost the same as Germany and Austria-Hungary combined and more than the total casualties of France, England and the United States.

I agree with you that the Eastern Front was secondary for Germany, but Russia's losses amounted to 3311 thousand people. killed, 3749 thousand wounded and 3342,9 thousand people. prisoners

Thank you, Olgovich!
I read the text and comments and kept thinking, well, at least someone would pay attention and correct these monstrous numbers. Especially the ratio of killed and wounded. Even in WW2 it was 1 to 4. And here, why waste time on trifles, here you are - 1: 1. Your data is more like 1: 5 truth.

[parusnik]

Strange tables from the author in the economic noted Russia / USSR until 1913, in the military Russian Empire.

[Old electrician]

A.E. Edrikhin (pseudonym Vandam) Major General (1917), military intelligence officer, White Guard, White emigrant:

... it's bad to have the Anglo-Saxon as an enemy, but God forbid to have him as a friend!

[knn54]

-Author: The Federal Reserve System, which appeared in December 1913, after the end of the Great War, became not just an intra-American financial regulator, but actually eliminated the dominance of London in economic terms, which had lasted for many decades.
I believe that this is the MAIN reason, both the declaration of war by the USA on Germany and one of the important reasons for WWII.
The dollar wanted WORLD domination.
Unfortunately, I don’t remember the names (perhaps they are on the Internet) of materials that indicated that influential persons (including the “Swiss gnomes”) of this world had secretly gathered on the Titanic to solve the crisis (without war) ...
Therefore, the liner was doomed.
And one interesting point, Durnovo was categorically against the possible inclusion of Galicia in the Republic of Ingushetia.
PS Which of the UK "ally", showed the actions of Royal Navy, unhindered by the two newest heavy German cruisers, which neutralized the superiority of the Black Sea Fleet of the Republic of Ingushetia.
The Admiralty was then headed by W. Churchill.
The author is undoubtedly a PLUS.

[gsev]

Quote: knn54

the actions of the Royal Navy, unhindered by the two newest heavy German cruisers,

War had not yet been declared, so there was no reason to attack the Germans. In 1914, plans were in the air to block the map of Europe. For example, the head of the Socialist-Revolutionaries V. Chernov with a representative of Pilsudski in the spring of 1914 discussed which part of Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic States and possibly the Kuban would go to the new independent Poland. But these were only project plans.

[Undecim]

Objects such as an owl and a globe are clearly visible through the text of the article.
History acts as an owl, the author's idea that the only culprit of both the First and Second World Wars is England is the globe, the rest of the war countries did not want to resist the insidious Albion with its "super goal" and entered the war against their own will.
At the same time, the article contains a lot of distortions.
For example.

In February 1914, P.N.Durnovo (the leader of the right-wing group in the upper chamber, who participated in the meetings of the State Council) submitted a note to Emperor Nicholas II:
Russia will be plunged into a hopeless anarchy, the outcome of which is difficult to foresee;

In fact, according to Durnovo, "hopeless anarchy" threatened Russia only in case of defeat; in case of victory, Durnovo did not see any problems.
"If the war ends victoriously, the suppression of the socialist movement in the end will not present insurmountable difficulties. There will be agrarian unrest on the basis of agitation for the need to reward the soldiers with additional cutting of land, there will be labor unrest in the transition from the likely increased wartime earnings to normal prices - and, hopefully , only this will be limited until the wave of the German social revolution reaches us.But in case of failure, the possibility of which, in the fight against such an enemy as Germany, cannot be foreseen, a social revolution, in its most extreme manifestations, is inevitable in our country ".

In November-December 1916, Germany and its allies offered peace, but the Entente rejected the offer. Such a peace would not allow England to achieve its goals in the war.

In fact, the question is much more complicated. Attempts to conclude peace began shortly after the outbreak of the war. Peace initiatives have come from neutral governments, individuals and the warring parties themselves.
Germany began to propose to conclude a separate peace for Russia already in December 1914.
Proposals to Nicholas II were sent repeatedly, but to no avail.

[Cartalon]

Fierce Delirium, that would take two to dance tango, nor any supporters of an equal alliance with Russia in Germany were not.
In all countries there were hawks and pigeons, Britain generally entered the war after the invasion of Belgium, without him the British would calmly let the Germans defeat the Russians and the French.

[Daniil Konovalenko]

And then the "Englishwoman" shit. France, after the defeat in the Franco - Prussian War of 1870-1871, dreamed of revenge.

In 1879, the Triple Alliance was concluded (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy)

The Triple Alliance, formed in 1882. In 1879, the Dual Alliance was created - a treaty of alliance between Austria-Hungary and Germany.

in 1891-1994, an alliance between Russia and France was formed

Here is an interesting moment, at the 1900 meeting of the General Staff of France and Russia, not only the possibility of a war with the countries of the Triple Alliance, but also with Great Britain was considered. It was decided that if Great Britain attacks France, then Russia will move troops in the direction of Afghanistan and British India. In turn, if Great Britain attacked Russia, France was supposed to concentrate troops on the coast of the English Channel and create a threat of landing in Great Britain. Everyone wanted war, not just one. And another not unimportant factor, the growth of the labor movement in European countries, in Austria-Hungary, national liberation movements were gaining strength. The murdered duke dreamed of a triune monarchy, which did not cause enthusiasm. War, a victorious war, solved many problems.

[Kayuk]

War, a victorious war, solved many problems.

It's right to the point. And this thought soared in the minds of the leaders of all European countries. And the most interesting thing is that everyone was sure of their victory.
In Germany, fears dominated that time was working against her and her ally, Austria-Hungary. Since Austria-Hungary - the main ally - weakened, and Russia, on the contrary, strengthened every year, the position of Germany became more and more vulnerable. The loss of Austria-Hungary meant the complete isolation of Germany in the international arena. When the then German Chancellor was asked to plant some special trees in his estate, Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg replied: “Why? In 50 years only Russians will be able to use them ”.
In Austria-Hungary, in turn, they rightly feared that their "patchwork empire" would be destroyed by national movements. The Austrian Chief of the General Staff Konrad von Götzendorf believed that if there was no victorious war, then in 10-15 years Austria-Hungary would become a kind of Switzerland.
The Ottoman Empire, after the defeat from Italy and the Balkan states in 1911-1913, was greatly influenced by Kaiser's Germany. She saw in Germany a country that could help her regain lost territories, so she joined the Central Powers.
The goal of Nicholas II was to prevent further discrediting of the imperial government and himself. After the Bosnian crisis of 1908-1909, the tsarist government came under strong criticism from the liberal opposition for making concessions on Bosnia. The First and Second Balkan Wars (1912-1913 and 1913) only increased these attacks. Well, as the main prize in this war - the Black Sea straits and Constantinople - an old dream of Russia.
France dreamed of regaining the lands of Alsace and Lorraine, which it had lost in the war of 1870-71. Also, France sought to seize the German Saar coal basin.
England sought to crush the economic power of Germany and prevent its growing influence in the Balkans.
And even Italy - to complete the unification of Italian lands into a single state, however
at the expense of the territories of Austria-Hungary.

[Daniil Konovalenko]

Thank you for completing the comment, I agree with it.

[Shiden]

The prerequisites for the First World War mainly lie in the economic plane, and everything else is an application. It is necessary to proceed from that time, the Franco-Prussian war showed the importance of the overseas colonies, because according to the peace treaty between France and Prussia, the first lost not only Alsace and Lorraine, but also paid a huge amount of money. indemnity at that time. And look France not only paid a huge sum but continued economic growth. Even after WWI, France and England, despite huge economic losses, quickly recovered and the Great Depression of the 30s lived with minimal financial losses.

[Victor Tsenin]

> in 1891-1994, the union of Russia and France took shape.

A small typo.
The results of WWI were such that WWII became inevitable immediately after the end of the first.

[BAI]

All participants wanted war. That is why it was inevitable. But everyone was ready for it to varying degrees. Here it is better to argue why military alliances have formed such a composition. Russia was wrong with the choice of allies.

[Non-fighter]

The plate of industrial production struck me - in 20 years from 1880 to 1900, it fell to second place, and the Germans were still breathing down their heads. Yes, you have to do something about it.

[Comrade Kim]

Quote: BAI

All participants wanted war. That is why it was inevitable. But everyone was ready for it to varying degrees. Here it is better to argue why military alliances have formed such a composition. Russia was wrong with the choice of allies.

The USA showed the greatest economic interest. Their concerns until April-May 1945 "helped" Hitler. IBM supplied Himmler's department with "iron felixes" to optimize the work of the concentration camps. The US chemical industry supplied tens of thousands of tons of components for the production of ersatz gasoline, GM-Opel flooded Germany with spare parts and equipment.