Everybody wanted war, war was inevitable

86
Everybody wanted war, war was inevitable

“So they killed our Ferdinand,” his maid said to Schweik.
Schweik retired from military service a few years ago after the medical commission recognized him as an idiot.
- Which Ferdinand, Mrs. Mullerov? Schweik asked. “I know two Ferdinands. One serves the pharmacist Prusha. One day, by mistake, he drank a bottle of hair-growing fluid from him; and then there's Ferdinand Kokoschka, the one who collects dog shit. I don't feel sorry for both of them ...

This is how Jaroslav Hasek reacted through the lips of his hero to the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Countess Chotek. The inhabitants are forgivable, at that moment after the invention of dreadnoughts, submarines, machine guns and other airships and airplanes, war seemed impossible to many, and political assassinations became commonplace back in the XNUMXth century: from emperors to policemen.

But not this time, only a month will pass and the guns will start talking, and a fun walk for a maximum of three months will turn into a nightmare for four years with ten million corpses. Empires will collapse right on Engels.



“For Prussia - Germany, no other war is now possible except a world war. And it would be a world war of unprecedented scale, unprecedented strength. From 8 to 10 million soldiers will choke each other and devour all of Europe at the same time to such an extent clean, as never before have been devoured by the clouds of locusts ... Hunger, epidemics, the general savagery of both the troops and the masses ... The hopeless confusion of ours artificial mechanism in trade, industry and credit; all this ends in general bankruptcy. The collapse of the old states and their routine statesmanship; the collapse is such that dozens of crowns are lying on the pavement ... "

And after the world war there will be the Spanish flu, the world depression and the Second world war.

Europe, which has not known big wars since 1870, will fight and die for the next 30 years, intermittently for pandemics and crises. It was planned, of course, something completely different. It's just that the world was already divided, and some of them considered the partition to be unfair and wanted to correct it, to their advantage, of course (Germany), and whoever grabbed a third of the planet wanted to keep it as it is (France and Britain). Some empires staggered greatly (Austria-Hungary and Ottoman), and some needed to increase grain sales by gaining access to the Mediterranean (Russia).

No one really had serious and vital reasons. There were plans and there were personal ambitions. And according to the plans, everything was fun, never bloody and fast.

Schlieffen Plan



The German war plan was based on the axiom that they would have to fight against Russia and France, respectively, on one of the fronts they would have to attack, on the other - to defend. Taking into account the mobilization in Russia, lasting at least a month, and the weakness of the Russian army, it was quite logical to strike the first blow at France, and after its lightning-fast defeat and the capture of Paris, to transfer German troops to the Eastern Front, using a railway network close to ideal.

60 days were allotted for the defeat of France, the main goal was to avoid a positional front. The main blow was through Belgium, bypassing the French fortifications. The plan is ideal and, undoubtedly, is a masterpiece of military thought, if in the end it did not degenerate into a run to the sea and a positional meat grinder. The German General Staff officers did not read the Russian classics:

We thought for a long time, wondered
Topographers wrote everything
On a large sheet. Smoothly written into the paper
Yes, forget about the ravines,
And walk on them ...

And as a result, they ran into the resistance of Belgium, Britain's entry into the war, the beginning of the Russian offensive to the end of the deployment and the miracle on the Marne alternately. Well, the inevitable problems with the management of unprecedented masses of troops and equipment. But, I repeat - the plan among the participants is the best and most realistic, taking into account the defeat of Russia ten years earlier, the catastrophe of France in 1870 and the neutral position of England, in theory it could have come out.

"Plan XVII"



In general, the first time after the Franco-Prussian war, the French were preparing for defense, powerful fortresses were built, reserves were created, fortress artillery was developed ...

But over time, the thread of reality was lost and the young school triumphed. And on navywhere the sailors believed that the battleship could be destroyed by numerous light forces. And on land, where General Joffre was a supporter of an offensive along the entire front with a density of 3-5 km per division and a powerful second echelon - a reserve for the first echelon. The main attack was planned for the past Alsace and Lorraine, lost in the war. The humor is that the Germans foresaw this in their plans.

It turned out, again, according to the classics:

We made a noise with a bang
Yes, the reserves did not ripen,
Someone has misinterpreted ...
On Fedyukhiny heights
Only three companies came to us,
And let's go to the shelves!

And only the mistakes of German diplomacy, incorporated in the Schlieffen plan, saved France.

Among all the plans, it was the French that was the most failed and stupid, and it was the French who had the worst in that war, in the military sense, exposing all the shortcomings of their strategy and tactics. But on paper there was a plan - an offensive based on moral superiority, and it seemed to many that it would come out, we would retake Alsace with Lorraine, and there the Russian steam roller would arrive in time.

Russian plan of 1912



Russia also faced a war on two fronts - against Germany and Austria-Hungary, and with the first there was nothing to divide, but it had to, for the Entente. And the second could be broken, but if not distracted by the first.

To this should be added the fear of decisive action after the shame of the Russo-Japanese and we get a typical Buridan's donkey. The way out in 1912, however, was found "witty" - the main blow was to inflict the forces of four armies on Austria-Hungary, and in the meantime, two armies invaded East Prussia against Germany. Two more armies in the rear - one covering the Baltic coast and the capital, and the second - holding back Romania. Basically, a gamble - if Germany transfers reserves to East Prussia, our two armies are in danger of disaster. And taking into account the personality of the commander of the North-Western Front Zhilinsky and, in fact, two separate operations for the two armies of the front ...

The prince said: "Go, Liprandi."
And Liprandi: “No, sir,
No, they say, I will not go. You don't need a smart one there,
You went there Reada,
I'll see ... "
Suddenly Read just take it
And led us straight to the bridge:
"Come on, with a bang."

Then the results are somewhat predictable - the blow against Germany turned into a cauldron, and there was not enough strength to finish off Austria. But it looked more and more pink and optimistic. At least, no specific dates for victory were indicated, the Russo-Japanese War nevertheless gave the generals an inoculation against hats. It is a pity that she did not teach Nicholas and his government anything, just as the first revolution did not teach - as a result of the dragging out of the Russo-Japanese war.

Austria plans



It sounds funny, but the Austrians were also going to attack:

The Austro-Hungarian operational plan envisaged an offensive in the northern direction between the Vistula and Bug rivers, which in the end should have forced the Russians to clear Poland. The striking force was the advancing on Lublin 1st Army, which was supported by the 4th on the right, ledge back. The 3rd Army was required to cover the flank of the 4th from the northeastern direction (from the side of Lutsk), the Keves group covered the eastern direction. After the 1st and 4th achieved success between the Vistula and the Bug, one of them could provide assistance to the 3rd army near Lvov, while the other was supposed to continue the pursuit towards Brest.

Moreover, to attack with forces less than the Russians had, and having less mobility, less strength of troops and worse equipment.

In fact, the entire war plan was based on the fact that Russian mobilization would proceed extremely slowly and erratically, which would allow the Russian army to be beaten in parts as its corps arrived at the front. Do not forget - Austria also faced a war on two fronts, and although Serbia is a small country, but with a strong army and high fighting spirit.

The only real plan in such conditions was just a defense plan based on the Carpathians, but ... Politics, patriotism would crack, which was critical for a patchwork monarchy. The two were already holding on to their word of honor, and the surrender of the kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria would be perceived as weakness.

The result is a disaster, fortunately for the Austrians, weakened by Russian planning flaws.

A certain result



Everyone was wrong.

What seemed to the parties to be a small conflict with a maximum duration of six months turned into a long-term nightmare, with a truce for a quarter of a century in the end.

I will say more - we could not help but be mistaken. Even Engels was mistaken, at least in numbers - only 15 million people were in the ranks of the Russian Imperial Army. It is clear that there were fewer people at the front, but ...

There was neither the ability to manage such masses, nor the technology and tactics for breaking through the defenses (until the end of the war, the defense would not be broken on the Western Front, and the Brusilov breakthrough on the Eastern Front did not lead to strategic results), nor the means of developing success.

In the end, there was not even a recipe for a stable world.

A good example for our time, when Europe lives 76 years without war, going through a golden age, and politicians are drawn to jazz weapons, imprisoned for the past war and not tested in a big war.

And after all, many people even now think: one has only to knock - and we will have lunch in one capital, and supper in the second. The case when story should at least teach something.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

86 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    3 July 2021 04: 55
    The case when history should at least teach something.

    Too much time has passed since the last War. There are almost no participants, and the generation that was "vaccinated" from wars is leaving. The world is slowly losing its mind and begins to accelerate its run towards a new carnage.
    1. -4
      3 July 2021 05: 41
      But, I repeat - the plan among the participants is the best and most realistic, taking into account the defeat of Russia ten years earlier, the catastrophe of France in 1870 and the neutral position of England, in theory it could have come out.
      I agree. Delirium must be repeated often and many times, otherwise who will believe? How could there be a realistic plan if the bright minds of the German General Staff at the head of the best, mobilized, equipped army and ready to grind everyone into powder could not implement it? fool Yes, and Russia did not lose to Japan on land, it was all the then liberal-enlightened people, and Europe was trumpeting. Well, I really wanted to ...
      They prepare wars for a long time and carefully, but the Germans, as always: the army is there, the reserves have been made, and Frederick the Great is with us. fool
      1. +6
        3 July 2021 07: 59
        Mavrikiy
        Yes, and Russia did not lose to Japan on land, it was all the then liberal-enlightened people, and Europe was trumpeting.
        Excuse me, are you serious or is this such a banter? Tell me at least one battle of the RYAV in which we did not lose.
        1. -4
          3 July 2021 09: 15
          Quote: Alex_1973
          Tell me at least one battle of the RYAV in which we did not lose.

          Losing a battle and losing a war are two different things. The ground forces of the Republic of Ingushetia were not only not defeated, but not even mobilized, and the YaI put in service everyone it could, and at the same time, in the upcoming spring campaign, it was almost two times less ..
          1. +7
            3 July 2021 09: 27
            Dart2027
            Losing a battle and losing a war are two different things.
            Excuse me, but what did we win RYAV ?! I overslept something?
            The land forces of the Republic of Ingushetia were not only defeated
            Well, yes, there was no defeat, the army could win, but the generals did not. Kuropatkin retreated and retreated, and Stoessel and Fock simply surrendered Arthur, who in theory could still hold out for a couple of months.
            but not even mobilized
            And how would mobilization help? And what was the tsar and the government thinking about getting involved in this adventure?
            and YaI put into operation everyone she could, and at the same time, in the upcoming spring campaign it was almost two times less ..
            Without the RYAV fleet it was impossible to win, but we, forgive me, pumped the fleet.

            In general, in the RYAV, the heroism of soldiers and officers could not compensate for the incompetence and venality of generals and admirals.
            1. -5
              3 July 2021 09: 37
              Quote: Alex_1973
              Excuse me, but what did we win RYAV ?!

              We lost because of internal turmoil.
              Quote: Alex_1973
              Kuropatkin retreated and retreated

              You probably don't know, but it was removed by then.
              Quote: Alex_1973
              and Stoessel and Fock just passed Arthur

              After the Japanese gained control at two heights from which the defenders were easy to shoot and threatened that otherwise there would be a massacre.
              Quote: Alex_1973
              And how would mobilization help?

              You don’t know why it is being held and what it gives?
              Quote: Alex_1973
              And what did the tsar and the government think about when they got involved in this adventure?

              Who attacked whom you also do not know?
              Quote: Alex_1973
              Without the RYAV fleet it was impossible to win, but we, forgive me, pumped the fleet.

              And what was it not to win? The war was on the mainland.
              1. +5
                3 July 2021 09: 55
                Dart2027
                We lost because of internal turmoil.
                What is this nonsense? Trouble was the result of a lost war, and not vice versa.
                You probably don't know, but it was removed by then.
                In the course, but before he was removed, he managed to pump everything that is possible and what is not.
                After the Japanese gained control at two heights from which the defenders were easy to shoot and threatened that otherwise there would be a massacre.
                And who admitted that they got this control?
                You don’t know why it is being held and what it gives?
                It is known. And why didn't they?
                Who attacked whom you also do not know?
                It is known. Do you know who brought the Japs to this situation?
                And what was it not to win? The war was on the mainland.
                I understand that in your opinion we won the RYAV?

                Stop smoking all kinds of nonsense!
                1. -8
                  3 July 2021 10: 30
                  Quote: Alex_1973
                  Trouble was the result of a lost war
                  Was the war lost? The Japanese were near Moscow and St. Petersburg?
                  Quote: Alex_1973
                  In the course, but before it was removed
                  That is, it is still known.
                  Quote: Alex_1973
                  And who admitted that they
                  Is the fact that a besieged fortress always has limited resources compared to the besieging ones is unknown to you? Well, the successes of the Japanese in the siege were such that General Nogi, as a result, committed ritual suicide.
                  Quote: Alex_1973
                  And why didn't they?
                  And the army of the Republic of Ingushetia and without it significantly surpassed the army of Japan. So her rout is a wet fantasy.
                  Quote: Alex_1973
                  Do you know who brought the Japs to this situation?
                  And who drove Hitler to attack the USSR? They attacked.
                  Quote: Alex_1973
                  I understand that in your opinion we won the RYAV?

                  Quote: Dart2027
                  We lost because of internal turmoil.
                  1. +4
                    3 July 2021 10: 35
                    A complaint
                    Was the war lost? The Japanese were near Moscow and St. Petersburg?
                    Excuse me, are you Bill with the prefix de for an hour? Can you feed the Portsmouth world conditions or google it yourself?

                    Honestly, I'm too lazy to refute all your other nonsense. Let me take my leave, I am not interested in communicating with inadequate people.
                    1. -5
                      3 July 2021 11: 27
                      Quote: Alex_1973
                      Can you feed the Portsmouth world conditions or google it yourself?

                      They were such that street riots began in Japan, since the people, who did not have information about the real state of affairs, could not understand why?
                      Quote: Alex_1973
                      Honestly, I'm too lazy to refute all your other nonsense.

                      Well, your nonsense is easily refuted.
                  2. +12
                    3 July 2021 11: 49
                    In the Crimean War, the British and the British also did not stand near Moscow, which did not prevent them from losing the war.
                    1. -5
                      3 July 2021 12: 34
                      Quote: Kronos
                      In the Crimean War, the British and the British also did not stand near Moscow

                      British with British? What is it like?
                      In that war against Russia, almost all European countries united and the result was far from what was expected. Japan was sponsored by England and the United States, but they would not have fought with her, since there was a war with Germany on the nose where it was difficult without Russia.
                      1. +6
                        3 July 2021 12: 44
                        The French wanted to write, I mean that losing is not necessary when the enemy is near the capital.
                      2. +7
                        3 July 2021 13: 28
                        Losing is when the situation after the war is worse than before the war. Victory is when it's better. Seems to be the clearest and most logical classification.
                      3. 0
                        5 July 2021 06: 43
                        Quote: Plate
                        Losing is when the situation after the war is worse than before the war... Victory is when it's better. Seems to be the clearest and most logical classification.

                        Ridiculous, thanks. When did you go to school? Compare the position of France before the war and after that, and that of England. The decision to lose is made during the war, not after it. Losses of Russia - 143 thousand people. Allies - 223 thousand people fool The allies simply could no longer continue the war, due to the situation, including the internal state of the countries. "Economy to shreds", politics to dust, there is nothing to say about Turkey, English loans bye-bye, and eat hotts. hi
                      4. 0
                        10 July 2021 10: 39
                        What does the loss have to do with it? The allies took advantage of their numerical advantage (at least a local one - in the Crimea): they could afford to kill more soldiers than we did. But how does this relate to who won and who lost? They were not the first, they were not the last to use it: we also did not neglect this (in general, those who neglect their advantages in a war usually lose it).
                        Compare the position of France before the war and after that, and that of England.

                        I have to admit that it has not improved very much, so it is impossible to confidently call them the winners (although England potentially benefited from the absence of the Black Sea Fleet, but was never able to get anything out of it). Some time after the war, by the way, the new emperor lowered duties on industrial goods. Guess who benefited from it? Of course, this does not apply to the war itself, so you can not answer, but you also started talking about France and Great Britain, although I just wanted to indicate the criteria from which the defeat of Russia is clearly visible.
                        And this loss is quite unambiguous. Loss of the Black Sea Fleet, loss of some territories, albeit small ones. Russia's defeat is obvious, but for some reason you are trying to refer to European opponents.
                      5. -6
                        3 July 2021 14: 04
                        Quote: Kronos
                        I mean, losing is not necessary when the enemy is near the capital

                        Both the Crimean and RYaV are unsuccessful wars for Russia, but there is a difference between them.
                        Crimean could develop into a global batch, but this did not happen, since the allies did not succeed in an easy walk, and they agreed to greatly reduce their appetites, and RI also did not seek to fight to the last drop of blood. It is difficult to say who would have won if the war broke out to a victorious end. Most likely, it would not have been possible to defeat the combined forces of almost all European powers, because they had an overwhelming advantage in resources (just in case, I clarify that in the Second World War the USSR did not fight with all of Europe). Although, on the other hand, their union was not very strong anyway and would not last long. But this is precisely the key factor - the enemy was too superior in resources and the Republic of Ingushetia agreed to admit defeat.
                        But Japan did not have such an advantage. Yes, Japan was able to destroy the fleet in parts, but there was no need to talk about the defeat of the RI army, and in a protracted confrontation it had no chance.
                      6. 0
                        20 July 2021 08: 17
                        And the whole of Europe fought in the Crimean? Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Prussia fought the same? Austria fought?
                        If Japan did not have such an advantage (which could be a great excuse), then why did they lose?
                      7. +1
                        20 July 2021 19: 13
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        Austria fought?

                        And you do not know about the ultimatum of the emperor AV if RI does not go to peace? And the position of Germany? School history course.
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        why did you lose

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        We lost because of internal turmoil.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        This is what I am talking about - RI did not lose either RYAV or PMA to its opponents, but lost to internal turmoil.
                      8. -1
                        21 July 2021 14: 10
                        I do not know when Austria and Prussia declared war on Russia, when the Crimean war was going on. Position is not war.
                        And if Prussia and Austria can still be woven (I didn't like their neutrality), then what about the rest of the countries.
                        .....
                        And the Germans were sure that they lost in WWII because of internal traitors, as they held on to the battlefields.
                        Japan is similarly - exclusively internal problems. If there were no these problems, Sakhalin BV was completely given to them
                        Crimean war - and again, internal problems for the allies
                      9. +1
                        21 July 2021 19: 29
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        Position is not war.

                        In total, they had to keep most of the army in the Crimea, and on the western borders, defending the European part of the country.
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        then what about the rest of the countries.

                        Which ones, those who had not armies but one name?
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        And the Germans were sure that they lost in WWII because of internal traitors, as they held on to the battlefields.
                        But according to their own words, 800000 people died of hunger. How long would they last?
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        Japan is similarly - exclusively internal problems.
                        Oh really? They started having street riots after after the results of the peace treaty became known.
                      10. 0
                        22 July 2021 06: 55
                        1. In the Second World War in the Far East, the same army was kept.
                        2. Ie France, UK (+ Sardinia) and Turkey represent all of Europe? Now it is clear where the tales about "the entire civilized world condemn Russia".
                        3. The Jews ate / destroyed everything; if not for the Jews, there would be no hunger - well, in the same spirit. We didn't lose on the battlefields!
                        4. I have one more proposal there, but I will repeat the essence: Japan could not keep up with many of the requirements, precisely because of problems with the economy; if the Japanese had a better economy, Sakhalin would be completely lost
                      11. +1
                        22 July 2021 19: 27
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        In the Second World War in the Far East, the same army was kept.

                        Most of the army? Truth?
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        Those. france, uk (+ sardinia) and turkey

                        Do we forget about AB and Germany? But at the same time about the fact that the AB included a significant number of other peoples?
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        We didn't lose on the battlefields!

                        We didn’t lose. But the resources were exhausted to the end, in contrast to their opponents. And unlike RI.
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        Japan could not keep up with many of the requirements, precisely because of the problems with the economy; if the Japanese have a better economy,

                        There is a fact Japan has exhausted all its resources, but RI has not. So thanks to the helpful ... who saved the Japanese army.
                      12. 0
                        23 July 2021 06: 43
                        1. No, not true. They were holding 40 divisions.
                        2. I do not understand this answer, can you clarify / paraphrase it?
                        3. So all the resources were dredged up by internal enemies (Jews)!
                        4. There is a fact Russia did not win a single battle during the roar, so thanks to such commanders
                      13. 0
                        23 July 2021 17: 09
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        No it is not true. They were holding 40 divisions.

                        During the KV, most of the RI army was absent in Crimea.
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        Didn't understand the given answer

                        AB is not only Germans and Hungarians.
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        So all the resources were dredged up by internal enemies (Jews)!

                        No war of attrition.
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        There is a fact Russia did not win a single battle during the roar, so thanks to such commanders

                        Didn't win. But the army was not defeated, did not suffer losses making the remaining troops incapable of combat and did not have problems with replenishment.
                      14. 0
                        24 July 2021 02: 07
                        1. This absent army fought, suffered losses, demanded replenishment?
                        2. I don't understand your position. Either you refuse to consider the independent states of Sweden, Spain, Belgium, they say there is no army, the country is small, then you consider the nations that are part of another state (by default, the Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, and we must add more Romanians, Norwegians and Bulgarians), who have their policy Dont Have.
                        3.
                        4
                      15. +1
                        24 July 2021 06: 40
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        This absent army fought

                        A smaller part of the army was in the Crimea.
                        Quote: Sergey Zhikharev
                        Then you refuse to consider the independent states of Sweden, Spain, Belgium, they say there is no army

                        Because she really wasn't there. That is, there were some forces, but they did not look at all against the background of the main players, and the alliance of countries that was directed against the Republic of Ingushetia gathered all the strong armies of European countries, including most of its territories.
                    2. 0
                      5 July 2021 06: 19
                      Quote: Kronos
                      In the Crimean War, the British with the British

                      belay Cool. However, the monitor is probably spattered there too ... request
                  3. -1
                    5 July 2021 00: 24
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    And the army of the Republic of Ingushetia and without it significantly surpassed the army of Japan. So her rout is a wet fantasy.

                    Russia is connected with the Far East by the Transsib and the CER. This is a very thin thread to fully ensure a long war with Japan, it could not either in 1905 or even in 1945. Having defeated the troops of Russia, Japan had the opportunity to smash with its victorious experienced troops one by one new unfired troops being transferred along the Transsib, using the lack of Russian high-explosive shells. Simply, both Russia and Japan would have to get into a debt hole to continue the war. For example, Turkey was unable to pay off the loans taken for the Crimean and Russian-Turkish war for the liberation of Bulgaria until the beginning of World War I. The Russian General Staff was so discouraged by this fact that even in the 1s, Belgrade and Parisian prisoners from the headquarters of the defeated white armies wrote scientific works about the incompetence of the Soviet military elite, which did not give the Japanese Chukotka, Kamchatka and Northern Sakhalin to prevent the inevitable devastating war with Japan. and incite it with such concessions on the United States, instead, Stalin and Voroshilov are trying to create military aviation, armored forces and modern artillery. As a Luhansk locksmith outside the post of minister, he cannot understand that Russia cannot do anything with new military toys against the samurai spirit with excellent Japanese machine guns. With all the readiness of the USSR to fight on 1930 fronts, they had in mind the problem of transport for the normal supply of the Far Eastern fronts. Stalin personally, through his future minister of railway transport and subsequently an adviser to Mao, monitored the supply of ammunition during the war on Khalkhin Gol. From the allies of the USSR he demanded to be capable by September 2 of the year either to land troops in South Korea or to ensure the escorting of convoys to Vladivostok to supply Soviet troops a few months after their entry into the war against Japan.
                    1. -2
                      5 July 2021 05: 43
                      Quote: gsev
                      Russia is connected with the Far East by the Transsib and the CER. This is a very thin thread to fully ensure a long war with Japan, it could not either in 1905 or even in 1945.

                      Truth? Then how did the troops get there in the same 1945?
                      Quote: gsev
                      Japan, having defeated the troops of Russia, had the opportunity to smash with its victorious experienced troops one by one new unfired troops being transferred along the Trans-Siberian

                      I remember here it was already said about the ratio of the number of killed.
                      Quote: Mavrikiy
                      losses of RIA -28800 people, NIA - 49400 people. "The losses of the Japanese in battles on land were twice the losses of the Russians"
                    2. 0
                      5 July 2021 20: 35
                      Russia is connected with the Far East by the Transsib and the CER. This is a very thin thread to fully ensure a long war with Japan, it could not either in 1905 or even in 1945.

                      You got it a little confused here ... Today Russia is connected with the Far East by the Transsib and the BAM. In 1905, it was connected by the Transsib section from Moscow to Transbaikalia plus the Chinese Eastern Railway with an exit along the Grodekovskaya branch to southern Primorye and Vladivostok. In 1945, it connected one Transsib, but entirely across Soviet territory from Moscow to Vladivostok, and the Chinese Eastern Railway was in the hands of the Japanese.
        2. -9
          3 July 2021 10: 42
          Quote: Alex_1973
          Excuse me, are you serious or is this such a banter? Tell me at least one battle of the RYAV in which we did not lose.

          belay Excuse me, but what do you read before going to bed? This is such a banter. Read "History of War Loss" B. Urlanis. And I beg you, do not read WIKIPEDIA before dinner! feel
          (RIA losses - 28800 people, YIA - 49400 people. "The losses of the Japanese in battles on land were twice as high as the losses of the Russians") This is a defeat! belay
          1. +8
            3 July 2021 11: 01
            Mavrikiy
            belay Excuse me, what do you read before going to bed? This is such a banter. Read "History of War Loss" B. Urlanis. And I beg you, do not read WIKIPEDIA before dinner! feel
            (RIA losses - 28800 people, YIA - 49400 people. "The losses of the Japanese in battles on land were twice as high as the losses of the Russians") This is a defeat! belay
            I ask again, are you clinical fool or are you just trying to look like them? RYAV lost outright, despite any losses from Japan. Russia lost its entire fleet with the exception of the Black Sea Fleet. Lost Port Arthur, Dalny, half of Sakhalin and all its acquisitions in Manchuria.
            Tell me more that we won the Crimean War and WWI. But what else to expect from the mentally ill?
            1. -8
              3 July 2021 11: 28
              Quote: Alex_1973
              RYAV lost outright, despite any losses from Japan.

              Quote: Dart2027
              Did the Japanese stand near Moscow and St. Petersburg?
              1. +6
                3 July 2021 12: 17
                Dart2027
                Did the Japanese stand near Moscow and St. Petersburg?
                I repeat, are you generally adequate? In Krymskaya near Moscow and St. Petersburg, too, no one stood, so what? Did we win it?

                How much of a brain is needed to deny the obvious ?! Tell me, how much will it be in your "parallel reality" 2 * 2?
                1. -5
                  3 July 2021 12: 35
                  Quote: Alex_1973
                  In Krymskaya near Moscow and St. Petersburg, too, no one stood, so what?

                  Quote: Dart2027
                  In that war against Russia, almost all European countries united and the result was far from what was expected. Japan was sponsored by England and the United States, but they would not have fought with her, since there was a war with Germany on the nose where it was difficult without Russia.

                  Quote: Alex_1973
                  Isn't it necessary to have no brains to deny obvious things ?!

                  Indeed, you have a clear problem with this.
          2. +1
            5 July 2021 12: 42
            Quote: Mavrikiy
            Excuse me, but what do you read before going to bed? This is such a banter. Read "History of War Loss" B. Urlanis. And I beg you, do not read WIKIPEDIA before dinner!

            And your source writes how many prisoners returned to Russia after the war. This number has been accurately calculated. Their transportation was paid for in money. According to my sources, Russia's losses by prisoners alone exceeded 60 people, which was 000-20 times higher than the Japanese. In commercial popular science works, the main thing is entertainment and indulgence of the readers' requests. The Japanese believe that during the battle of the Varyag they did not suffer any losses either in people or in equipment, except for burnt coal and spent shells. In Soviet times, it was claimed that the Varyag was able to sink one Japanese ship and damage 30.
      2. -1
        3 July 2021 12: 12
        And whoever felt about Nicholas 2, but he understood that Russia did not need war. It is no coincidence that both Germany and Austria-Hungary and the Turks declared war on us, and not we declared war on them.
        1. 0
          3 July 2021 18: 38
          Quote: Artyom Karagodin
          And whoever felt about Nicholas 2, but he understood that Russia did not need war. It is no coincidence that both Germany and Austria-Hungary and the Turks declared war on us, and not we declared war on them.

          It's just lovely, you are for 55 comments and one article, it seems like the only one who remembered about the Turks. hi
          The author has definitely forgotten.
          Russia also faced a war on two fronts - against Germany and Austria-Hungary, and with the first there was nothing to divide, but it had to, for the Entente. And the second could be broken, but if not distracted by the first.
          Two fronts, very good funny.
    2. +5
      3 July 2021 06: 55
      Too much time has passed since the last War

      Nothing passed from the First to the Second, however ... request
    3. +8
      3 July 2021 09: 17
      Quote: Mitroha
      Everybody wanted war, war was inevitable


      who wanted that war? Only the state elites and royal dynasties, and the peoples, did not want to go to world slaughter.
    4. +1
      3 July 2021 13: 09
      Well, actually, the participants in the last War were constantly itching their fists. Another question is that "brothers" and others like them have once again become not brothers at all hi .
  2. -8
    3 July 2021 05: 28
    Everybody wanted war, war was inevitable
    Nonsense and German propaganda: "We are not to blame, we wanted everything!" Serbs wanted or we? fool
    1. -1
      3 July 2021 12: 25
      The Serbs most likely wanted it, because it all started with them. With dreams of Great Serbia.
      1. +1
        4 July 2021 06: 16
        Serbs were just war detonators
      2. 0
        5 July 2021 12: 49
        Quote: Hiking
        The Serbs most likely wanted it, because it all started with them. With dreams of Great Serbia.

        And what's wrong with realizing the people's dream to live in a state convenient for living? Before that, the Austrians treacherously occupied Bosnia inhabited by Serbs. At one time, France, Germany, Italy united into one state, overcoming feudal fragmentation.
      3. 0
        5 July 2021 20: 03
        The Serbs most likely wanted it, because it all started with them. From the dream of Great Serbia

        Russians, too, today are the same divided people as the Serbs and also want to unite in one state - Great Russia. In your opinion, this means that we are asleep and see how to unleash a world war?
  3. +4
    3 July 2021 05: 55
    Given the emergence of weapons of enormous power and the enormous speed of delivery vehicles for these weapons, all plans based on the experience of past wars are doomed to failure. And what can actually turn out is very, very unpredictable, although the General Staffs are working and the most experienced officers are considering possible options. fellow request
    1. +8
      3 July 2021 06: 15
      Quote: Ros 56
      And what can actually turn out is very, very unpredictable, although the General Staffs are working and the most experienced officers are considering possible options

      Yes, history develops and repeats itself, only wars will never be a farce.
    2. +8
      3 July 2021 06: 29
      The general staffs are working and the most experienced officers are considering possible options.
      While the enemy is drawing maps of the offensive, we are changing the landscapes, moreover, manually. When the time comes for the attack, the enemy is lost in unfamiliar terrain and comes to full non-readiness. This is the point, this is our strategy.
      1. 0
        3 July 2021 13: 30
        Are you there from the construction battalion or from the gunners?
      2. Fat
        0
        3 July 2021 13: 46
        Well, he said ... you will receive VSOP as it is issued, as well as the People's Commissars
  4. -3
    3 July 2021 06: 15
    There will be no big wars between the leading world powers, which claimed tens of millions of human lives. Nuclear weapons are to blame for everything.
    But small wars, between non-nuclear states, will continue indefinitely, because the so-called. world powers.
    Start with the war that Israel has fought since its founding, the war in Africa, after the declaration of independence there, and further down the list ...
    1. 0
      3 July 2021 21: 48
      Few doubt that Israel has nuclear weapons.
  5. VLR
    +9
    3 July 2021 06: 28
    It is even necessary, but I have
    the article "The Downfall of the Second Reich" is currently awaiting publication. With a cover like this:


    Apparently, he will go for this one.
  6. +6
    3 July 2021 06: 43
    Unfortunately, wars have been and will be, such is the essence of man. Each generation had its own war, remember the history. And now the war is already knocking at the door. Nuclear weapons will not stop those who have not seen the war. I think that our generation will also have its own war. And soon.
  7. -5
    3 July 2021 07: 08
    So the captain of an English destroyer at a speed of 30 knots, rushing through the Crimean waters, thought that the Russians would not catch up with him and nothing would happen to him.
    The contradictions between the EU, the US and Russia have reached the point of military conflict.
    How this Gordian knot will be cut is completely incomprehensible. what
    There is no evidence that the Anglo-Saxons are ready to resolve the issue of Russia peacefully ... all the same, I think war in some form is inevitable to resolve the accumulated contradictions.
    1. -1
      3 July 2021 09: 14
      And they caught up with him and did he have something?
      1. -3
        3 July 2021 13: 11
        Until they caught up, while there was nothing serious for him.
        While let him live and enjoy the rays of the sun ... another time, fortune may turn away from him.
  8. -4
    3 July 2021 07: 24
    Russia also faced a war on two fronts - against Germany and Austria-Hungary, and with the first there was nothing to divide, but it had to, for the Entente. And the second could be broken, but if not distracted by the first.


    it was one front, or rather a united one: Germany, in fact, directed and led AVEngria.

    Russia had nothing to share with Germany, but Germany had great views of Russian territory - Drang nach Osten was not canceled either in WWI or WWII. It is strange that the author does not know
    To this should be added the fear of decisive action after the shame of the Russo-Japanese and we get a typical Buridan's donkey.

    Russia fought almost 10 thousand km (including thousand km of taiga windbreaks, mountains and rivers) from St. Petersburg, in the region that became Russian only 40 years ago, against an industrialized country fighting on its doorstep and the Far East kept- and this is by no means a shameful result. Riots against the results of the war took place in Japan.
    The way out in 1912, however, was found "witty" - the main blow was to inflict the forces of four armies on Austria-Hungary, and in the meantime, two armies invaded East Prussia against Germany. Two more armies in the rear - one covering the Baltic coast and the capital, and the other holding back Romania. Basically, a gamble - if Germany transfers reserves to East Prussia, our two armies are in danger of disaster.

    An excellent plan: without Avengria, Germany would automatically lose the war, and a strike in Prussia would automatically save France by putting it on her the brunt of the war and major losses.

    A certain result

    The result is that Russia was the only country in Europe that absolutely did not need war, which did not strive for it, and which made every effort to ensure peace.

    In this regard, international Hague Peace Conferences 1899,1907 yy (in fact, the prototype of the UN), organized by Russia's initiativethat put forward there fundamental principles and norms of international law and peaceful coexistence of states, which were adopted by the conferences
    1. +1
      3 July 2021 08: 42
      Quote: Olgovich
      The result is that Russia was the only country in Europe that absolutely did not need war, which did not strive for it, and which made every effort to ensure peace.

      But Nikolashka could not abandon his relatives and at not the best time for Russia intended to send part of the Russian troops from the front to help his cousin in France, for this the generals demanded his resignation and which they received. For his refusal to rule Russia and the loss of the ability to solve his problems at the expense of Russia, not one of the foreign relatives did not take him under their wing and allowed him and his family to die.
      1. -1
        3 July 2021 10: 31
        The position is binding. If the position does not oblige, then it also kills. First morally, and then physically.
      2. 0
        5 July 2021 20: 26
        But Nikolashka could not abandon his relatives and at not the best time for Russia intended to send part of the Russian troops from the front to help his cousin in France, for this the generals demanded his resignation and which they received.

        Some kind of stream of consciousness ... Why did he "intend" to send troops to France, if they were already sent there? Have you heard anything about the Russian Expeditionary Force? Do you know Marshal Malinovsky's name at all? What are Nicholas 2 relatives in France? Here in Germany there was a relative - Wilhelm II ... According to your logic, he should have sent troops to help him then, and not at all to Republican France, if he wanted to help his relatives. Can you find out the source of information about the generals who overthrew the king for sending troops to France?
    2. 0
      5 July 2021 20: 15
      Russia still fought on two fronts: against Austria-Hungary and Germany in the European theater of operations and against Turkey in the Caucasus. The latter was not even Caucasian, but rather Asian Minor.
      1. -1
        6 July 2021 08: 35
        Quote: fuxila
        Russia still fought on two fronts: against Austria-Hungary and Germany on European theater of operations and against Turkey in Caucasian... The latter was not even Caucasian, but rather Asian Minor.

        united Western Front - from Trebizond to the Baltic States
  9. +6
    3 July 2021 07: 37
    The results of the wars are not comforting: as a result of WWI, four empires disappeared from the maps, as a result of WWII, the colonial system was reduced to dust, the Cold War destroyed an alternative to the further development of mankind. The last war, mankind's rollback back to the past. Although self-destruction is already underway culturally It remains to grapple in a bloody fight in which there will be no winner.
    1. +1
      3 July 2021 10: 37
      Quote: parusnik
      The results of the wars are not comforting: as a result of WWI, four empires disappeared from the maps, .......
      hi good morning, Alexey! What happens? One of the destroyed empires now joins the EU in the form of separate parts, which each have a certain weight, while the other is strengthening and trying to recreate itself as a new empire. The third empire is one of the 2 strongest, in all respects, EU countries.
      The colonial centuries-old system of Great Britain was later destroyed, although there are still remnants of influence in the former colonies. I look forward to further hardships for Britain. (The Englishwoman continues to shit)
      And our Russia is in what position, what it went through for 100 years ..... what a result.
    2. +2
      3 July 2021 12: 46
      It's just good that empires and the colonial system disappeared.
      1. +2
        3 July 2021 15: 26
        I agree, and then they will eat themselves until someone presses the button. And as in the song, here the rocket came and yeah smile
  10. +2
    3 July 2021 09: 33
    As always, this author has a superficial and gallant retelling of Wikipedia, flavored by Schweik.
    Moreover, in a hurry, the author did not even bother to describe the plans of Britain, as well as to describe at least briefly the fact that many well-established statements, such as that everyone was expecting a short war, are currently not relevant.
    The only truly valuable part of the article is the last paragraph.
    1. +1
      3 July 2021 12: 48
      Why are they not wealthy? All the main participants had military supplies for half a year of the war, after which problems began with ammunition and weapons.
      1. +4
        3 July 2021 13: 05
        Why are they not wealthy?

        Because historical science does not stand still, and new documents are being introduced into circulation. Respectively. some established views are being revised. For those who are interested in the issue, this is not news.
        1. 0
          3 July 2021 13: 47
          And what are the current opinions on this issue?
  11. 0
    3 July 2021 10: 00
    Russia does not need to pull on a story about the causes of the First World War and try it on - whether it fits or not, but it needs to quickly and decisively decide and end with this Ukraine. It was necessary to collect their lands and save the Russian world immediately and further in 2014, and no one in Europe would have squeaked. Russia has solidly and confidently regained nothing else, but the most important geopolitical and military foothold of Crimea. And no one even fired a single shot. Turkey, the USA, England, France and Germany, who always had views of the Crimea, only deeply hiccupped, but they did not even think to fight against Russia for their land. But with this Ukraine it is necessary to end now and immediately, because a Ukrainian Hitler may appear there at any moment. And he will feed and shoe the Ukrainians, put thieves in prisons and give everyone a job at Ukrainian military factories to forge weapons for the war against Russia. Moreover, the Ukrainians also promised that when you defeat Russia, you will receive lands and estates with slaves, and the oligarchs will receive gold and diamond mines in Siberia and all oil and gas fields in Russia. And they will trample this well-armed army of the Ukrainian Hitler against Russia so that it will not seem a little. This is who can attack Russia, especially since the West will not regret this Ukrainian Hitler's money, if only he creates an excellent modern weapon and that the intervention in Russia is carried out by the hands of the Ukrainians. Why are the heads of the British, Germans, French or Americans, if there are Ukrainians for this? Moreover, those who want to fight so much that they already jump on the spot ...
    1. 0
      3 July 2021 13: 51
      maybe a Ukrainian Hitler will appear
      Cameroonian Hitler's appearance is more real. There are no more Ukrainian (i.e., Soviet) military factories, it will be problematic to feed and shoe Ukrainians, and it is even more difficult to put all thieves in prisons there - guards and wardens will have to be recruited from foreigners sad .
  12. +4
    3 July 2021 12: 09
    Quote: Dart2027
    Losing a battle and losing a war are two different things.

    The war consists of successive battles. In the RJV we have always suffered defeats and retreated. If in the Ochelnoy War (against the French) they intentionally retreated and surrendered Moscow, but then they drove out the invaders. Here, no counteroffensive, and signed the world as the losing side.
    For the sea in general I am silent, a complete collapse. The garrisons in the Far East consisted of TENS of Cossacks and invalids. Push and collapse, with full ownership of the sea. hi
    1. -4
      3 July 2021 12: 40
      Quote: fa2998
      The war also consists of successive battles. In the RYAV we have always suffered defeats and retreated.

      Since retreating in 1941 in the RYA, no one could even imagine. And how did it end?
      Quote: fa2998
      If in the Glorious War (against the French) they intentionally retreated and surrendered Moscow, but then they drove out the invaders.

      Quote: fa2998
      In RJAV we have always suffered defeat

      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Read "History of War Loss" B. Urlanis. And I beg you, do not read WIKIPEDIA before dinner! feel
      (RIA losses - 28800 people, YIA - 49400 people. "The losses of the Japanese in battles on land twice exceeded the losses of the Russians")
      There were also prisoner losses, but in general, Japan would not have won a land war.
      1. +4
        3 July 2021 12: 50
        Well, the Vietnamese, for example, lost a lot more Americans, how did it prevent them from winning? And your logic in style, they have lost more, which means we did not lose.
        1. -4
          3 July 2021 13: 43
          Quote: Kronos
          Well, the Vietnamese, for example, lost much more Americans.

          That is, the Vietnamese army could win the entire US Army? Seriously? Not to mention that without the help of the USSR it would have been destroyed extremely quickly.
          Quote: Kronos
          And you have logic in style

          The army of Ingushetia was not only not defeated, but was fully combat-ready, significantly superior in number and mobilization potential, and the losses at that time could not be called serious.
      2. +5
        3 July 2021 19: 11
        "Japan Would Not Win a Land War"
        Then why is it that Imperial Japan, and not Imperial Russia, is considered by the whole world to be the winner in that war?
        Is it possible that the country was "ruled" by people with a "small intestine"?
        Who then could not mobilize the country for a long war with the Germans, Austrians, Hungarians and Turks.
        But during the disasters of 1941-1942, the country's leadership was able to mobilize the country. And to protect the rear from all sorts of "unrest" and "revolutions."
        1. -6
          3 July 2021 21: 33
          Quote: hohol95
          Then why is it that Imperial Japan, and not Imperial Russia, is considered by the whole world to be the winner in that war?

          Quote: Dart2027
          We lost because of internal turmoil.

          Quote: hohol95
          Who then could not mobilize the country for a long war with the Germans, Austrians, Hungarians and Turks.

          And that the Germans, Austrians and Turks were able to win? In 1917, the defeat of Germany and its allies was obvious to everyone.
          Quote: hohol95
          But during the disasters of 1941-1942, the country's leadership was able to mobilize the country. And to protect the rear from all sorts of "unrest" and "revolutions."

          YES, because anyone who opened his mouth for anything other than business was shut up immediately and as hard as possible.
          1. +4
            3 July 2021 21: 40
            So why the "Rulers of Rossei" could not shut the mouths of the dissatisfied and start industrial production of the required weapons and materials?
            This is the main question! They "profiled" the rear. Brought to the February "riot" and with cute faces "washed their hands" !!! And then the army and the navy "floated"!
            1. -3
              4 July 2021 06: 59
              Quote: hohol95
              So why the "Rulers of Rossei" could not shut the mouths of the dissatisfied

              This is what I am talking about - RI did not lose either RYAV or PMA to its opponents, but lost to internal turmoil.
  13. +1
    3 July 2021 17: 45
    Great article.
    Thanks, Author.
    This is exactly what it is - none of the politicians really understands real life, cannot predict anything and does not represent any consequences, but ambitions, baseless "wishes" and shapkozakidatelstva, as they say - "above the roof".
    A generation of leaders who not only saw a real war, but also a typical test of an atomic bomb, has long since died or retired.
    Politicians cut off from the "land" think that war is a type of TV show, with an obligatory sweet prize for them and a type of friendship for the rest.
    Pride and ambition always outweigh the lessons of history - that's how it is.
    I think so.
  14. +4
    3 July 2021 21: 57
    No one really had serious and vital reasons
    the author even contradicts himself here, listing the real desires and ambitions of the participants. If these are not serious reasons, then what are the serious ones?
    The Russo-Japanese War, nevertheless, gave the generals an inoculation against hats.
    In my opinion, from the article it follows that almost all the main participants in the war have sinned with hats.
    There was neither the ability to control such masses, nor the technique and tactics for breaking through the defense.
    a natural consequence of forty years of peace against the background of the rapid development of weapons and technology.
  15. 0
    4 July 2021 22: 46
    Quote: Dart2027

    And that the Germans, Austrians and Turks were able to win? In 1917, the defeat of Germany and its allies was obvious to everyone.
    .


    Who?
    Please provide at least one Allied commander who claimed this in 1917, and not retroactively.
    Well besides Nivelle.
    1. The comment was deleted.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"