The question of the straits from Catherine the Great to Nikolai Pavlovich

74

For the first time, the question of the straits arose precisely under Catherine, when, following the results of victories over the Turks and the rapid development of Novorossia, an instrument appeared in the form of the Black Sea fleet and the victorious army, and funds were formed for further external expansion through the export of grain.

Russia nobleman reached the peak of power and confidently rushed to the club of the great powers, in which it was greatly hampered by the lack of free sea power. It seems we had a fleet, even two - the Baltic and the Black Sea, but to get out of the shallow Baltic into the Atlantic, you need to pass the strait in the Danish waters, and the Black Sea is an ideal trap, connected to the sea by the narrow Mediterranean Bosphorus, followed by the Sea of ​​Marmara, and then the even narrower and more winding Strait of the Dardanelles.



In fact, the Russian fleet, both military and commercial, turned out to be absolutely dependent on the goodwill of the Ottoman Empire, the very one with which we fought all our history, and which Russia, to put it mildly, hated, in addition, increasingly falling into dependence on England and France.

There was an ideological moment, albeit a deeply secondary one: Istanbul is Constantinople, the Second Rome, the place from where Christianity came to Russia, and where we took a lot from culture and traditions. And this place has been ruled by Muslims since 1453.

In short, it so happened that the straits became the cornerstone of Russia's foreign policy, and it was Catherine who was the first to try to solve this problem.

The Yassy Peace, despite the name - the Treatise of Eternal Peace and Friendship, concluded between the All-Russian Empire and the Ottoman Port in Iasi on the 29th day of December 1791, was perceived correctly - as a truce, Russia had to master New Russia and strengthen the Black Sea Fleet, Turkey - lick the wounds.

Previous agreement - Kuchuk-Kainardzhiyskiy:

Art. eleven.
For the benefits and benefits of both empires, there is free and unhindered sailing for merchant ships belonging to the two contracting powers in all the seas washing their lands; and the Sublime Port allows such exactly Russian merchant ships, which other states are in trading in its harbors and use everywhere, free passage from the Black Sea to the White, and from the White to the Black, as it does to stick to all harbors and marinas, on the shores of the seas and in passages or canals, these connecting the sea, located.

He also carried a lot of good things, for example, the right of unhindered passage of Russian merchant ships in the Mediterranean, but ended in war.

Russia was preparing. Even one of the empress's grandchildren was named with a hint - Constantine, it was rumored that it was he who would lead the revived Byzantium, but ...

But it didn't take off. In Europe, the Napoleonic Wars began, and there was no time for plans, and then at all - Catherine died, Paul was quickly killed, and Alexander was interested exclusively in European politics. And in the war of 1806-1812, we were more likely to defend ourselves.

The Bucharest peace in the straits regime did not change anything, and this war as a whole did not advance the solution of the issue a single step.

Nikolai Pavlovich's attempts



In 1828, another Russian-Turkish war broke out.

The Russian army and navy are operating successfully, Russian troops entered Bulgaria. There is only one step left to the straits ...

But it didn't work out again.

Firstly, mass diseases began in the army, and secondly, European politics. All major players were against the occupation of Constantinople by Russian troops. I had to be content with the article of the Adrianople Peace:

The resplendent Porta undertakes to observe carefully so that trade, and especially sailing in the Black Sea, is not impeded in any way; at this end, she recognizes and announces that the passage through the Constantinople Canal and the Dardanelles Strait is completely free and open for Russian ships under a merchant flag, with cargo or ballast, having to come from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean or from the Mediterranean to the Black. These courts, if only merchants, regardless of their size or the amount of their cargo, will not be subject to stoppage or oppression, in accordance with the above stated.

She confirmed the right to free trade, but did not give confidence in the persistence and solution of this problem.

Meanwhile, the lion's share of the income of the empire and the nobility is bread, and the problem had to be solved.

The second attempt of Nikolai Pavlovich was the Crimean War.

However, at first it was just Russian-Turkish and had an interesting background.

In 1833, Russian troops nevertheless ended up on the shores of the Bosphorus, however, at the request of the Turkish Sultan, saving the Ottoman Empire from death. The result was the Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty, according to which Russia received the right of free passage of warships and merchant ships and vessels through the straits and the right to close the straits for warships of third countries, plus joint defense of the straits.

It was an undoubted diplomatic victory that solved all the problems of Russia without taking Constantinople and the cross at Hagia Sophia, to which the pragmatist Nicholas did not really strive.

But the contract has expired. And the straits regime had to be discussed in London - with Great Britain, France, Austria and Prussia. The result of this discussion was the Conventions of 1840 and 1841, according to which the Black Sea was closed to warships of all countries in peacetime.

Nikolai Pavlovich considered the Convention a success, because he sincerely hoped to solve the problem of the “sick man of Europe” by peaceful and joint actions of the “European concert”.

But, as the future showed, these hopes were groundless, none of the European powers was interested in the appearance of Russia in the Mediterranean and its further strengthening ...

Actually, one of the reasons for the Eastern War lies precisely in this. So, Britain - by lending to the Ports, increased its economic and political presence there, Austria - worried about its part of the Balkans, France - wanted to return to the club of superpowers ...

Russia, remaining alone, nevertheless did not believe that the "partners" in the Holy Alliance would betray and attack, especially since the concessions of 1841 were very serious.

And there were no plans capture straits, there were plans prevalence in the Port, these are two different things.

The very reason for the conflict was stupid - who will own one of the churches in Jerusalem: Russia or France?

But in the end, the Russo-Turkish war broke out first, and then the European one. And here Nicholas made a terrible mistake - instead of pogroming the Ottoman fleet and landing in the Bosphorus (and there were forces for this), he ordered the occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia until Russian demands were satisfied. The Turks, feeling the European powers behind their backs, were not going to satisfy anything.

The Turks themselves in that war showed themselves, as always: from Sinop to Kars, the Sultan's troops and fleet suffered defeat after defeat. But the fate of the conflict was decided not in the Caucasus, but near Sevastopol.

And the Paris Peace Treaty not only put an end to the plans for the straits, but also deprived Russia of the main instrument in the struggle for them.

Article XI.
The Black Sea is declared neutral: entry into the ports and waters of which, open for merchant shipping of all peoples, is formally and forever prohibited to warships, both coastal and all other powers, with the only exceptions that are stipulated in Articles XIV and XIX of this treaty.

Article XIII.
As a result of the declaration of the Black Sea as neutral on the basis of
Article XI, it may not be necessary to maintain or establish naval arsenals on the shores of this arsenals, as they no longer have a goal, and therefore e.v. Emperor of All Russia and E.I.V. the sultan undertake not to start or leave any naval arsenal on these shores.

As a result, Russia lost the right to defend its shores, and the Black Sea Fleet was reduced to a flotilla of 6 ships of 800 tonnes each and four ships of 200 tonnes each.

It was this that was a catastrophe in the eyes of society at that time, and not a defeat (rather conditional) in the war.

However, by that time Nikolai Pavlovich was already dead, and Alexander Nikolaevich, the future Liberator, Westernizer and liberal, ascended the throne.

Whatever it was - time was lost, the chance was lost, primarily due to the credulity of the top of the empire to the Western partners in the Holy Alliance.

But the problem itself did not go away - Russia needed control over the straits.

Ideally - as under Nicholas under the terms of the Unkar-Iskelesiysk agreement, only indefinitely. Not ideal - annexation, despite all the propaganda: what to do with Istanbul and the surrounding lands - in St. Petersburg did not really know.

New wars and new diplomatic conflicts lay ahead, and in a worse situation than before.
Our news channels

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

74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -8
    23 August 2021 02: 31
    If it were not for the shameful Peace of Brest, then, probably, the straits would have been ours. IMHO ...
    1. +10
      23 August 2021 03: 05
      Don't write nonsense. By March 1918, the Russian army had not existed for six months. Tell me, who issued Order No. 1 and the Declaration of the Rights of the Soldier, which corrupted the army? Bolsheviks or Liberals of the Provisional Government? If we read the biographies of future prominent military leaders of the Red Army, for example Budyonny, Zhukov, Rokossovsky, we will see that they all left the army without permission and returned home in the fall of 1917, and then there was still no peace between Russia and Germany. So the Brest Peace was a forced measure, the only way to preserve Soviet power, otherwise the Germans would have seized Petrograd and Moscow, since there was simply no one to protect them. For example, you can remember how in the summer of 1918 only 40 thousand Czech legionnaires were able to capture part of the Urals, the Volga region, all of Siberia and the Far East, which was the reason for the outbreak of the Civil War. The Bolsheviks had to create the Red Army from scratch, since the former tsarist army was no longer there, all the soldiers had been lying on the stove at home for six months or a year.
      1. -14
        23 August 2021 06: 30
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Don't write nonsense. By March 1918, the Russian army had not existed for six months. Tell me, who issued Order No. 1 and the Declaration of the Rights of the Soldier, which corrupted the army? Bolsheviks or Liberals of the Provisional Government?

        do not be nonsense: the original Order 1 DOES NOT exist, but it was printed in OWN printing house and distributed by the Bolsheviks
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        If we read the biographies of future prominent military leaders of the Red Army, for example, Budyonny, Zhukov, Rokossovsky, we will see that all of them willfully left the army and returned home in the fall of 1917

        yeah, we look and see your blatant lie, they burst in after and as a result of the thief,:
        - Zhukov: After dissolution squadron in December 1917 returned to Moscow,

        -Rokossovsky: November 21, 1917 awarded the St. George medal of the 2nd degree. The dragoons elected Rokossovsky to the squadron committee, and then to the regimental committee, which decided the life of the regiment. ... At the end December Kargopol regiment was transferred to the rear to the east

        Budyonny - B late xnumx he returned home for a year, did not take part in political events.
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        So the Brest Peace was a forced measure, the only way to preserve Soviet power, otherwise the Germans would have seized Petrograd and Moscow, since there was simply no one to protect them.

        the collapse itself began precisely after and as a result of the thief: the Bolshevik traitors began truce and demobilization right .. during the war. A voluntary conscription into the red army in January 1918 fully failed

        Why was it necessary to keep the so-called unrecognized and unselected (losing the election). "conscientious power" - with what fright? RUSSIA had to be preserved, and they just betrayed it, giving it FOREVER (read the treaty) to the German occupants of the third European Russia.

        As for the "capture" of Moscow, take a look at the map, where the front was (this is not 41 years old): the Germans did not have any opportunity to physically occupy such vast territories: they were beaten by superior forces in the West, where the United States had already fought ... Even for the occupation of only Ukraine, they needed half a million soldiers, and that was a fatal loss of strength on the Western Front.

        But even with the occupation of Petrograd, they would have gotten out of there in a couple of months, as they got out of Belgrade and Bucharest, which became the winners of WWI

        And yes, the main point of the Brest betrayal was the demobilization of a non-existent, as it were, army, which the Bolsheviks did: they urgently needed to shed the blood of fellow citizens, and not fight the invaders.

        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        which was the reason for the outbreak of the Civil War.

        reasons for the GV: anti-popular thief, dispersal of the US and Brest betrayal. The Bolsheviks themselves recognized the presence of a thief in November 1917, read their "decrees".

        As for the straits, Russia has always had little chance of getting them, because the whole of Europe was consolidated against it.
        1. +6
          23 August 2021 06: 52
          completely failed in January 1918

          Yeah, but Kaledin didn't fail on the Don laughing
          So much so that he shot himself at the approach of Sievers and Sablin's units.
          1. -9
            23 August 2021 07: 55
            Quote: Konnick
            Yeah, and at Kaledin's

            does this cancel the FULL failure of the VOLUNTARY summoning to the CA?
            1. +3
              23 August 2021 10: 17
              does this cancel the FULL failure of the VOLUNTARY summoning to the CA?

              What a failure? The 1st Moscow revolutionary detachment of Sablin was recruited on a voluntary basis. It was the volunteers who defeated the troops of Kaledin.
              1. -5
                23 August 2021 11: 01
                Quote: Konnick
                What a failure?

                usual - few people voluntarily went and already in May 1918 a decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was issued "On the compulsory recruitment into the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army" dated May 29, 1918:

                You need to urgently switch to forced dialing

                The registration of military servicemen was kept, commissions were created to capture deserters who were shot, confiscated property from their families, taken hostage, etc. And still more than 40% fled from the army.
        2. +3
          23 August 2021 06: 55
          Again, you're lying, like all monarchies.
          Quote: Olgovich
          do not be nonsense: the original Order 1 DOES NOT exist, but it was printed in OWN printing house and distributed by the Bolsheviks

          By March 2 (15), 1917, the Executive Committee already consisted of 36 members, among whom there were 7 Bolsheviks.

          The head of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet was N. S. Chkheidze, the leader of the Social Democratic Menshevik faction, a member of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma, created at the same time. The comrades of the chairman are the Menshevik M.I.Skobelev and the Socialist-Revolutionary A.F. Kerensky (all three are members of the IV State Duma and Masons.
          The Bolsheviks in the Petrograd Soviet were less than 20%, the head of the Petrosoviet was the Socialist Dek Chkheidze, his deputies were the Menshevik Skobelev and the Socialist-Revolutionary Kerensky, the future head of the Provisional Government.
          Quote: Olgovich
          the collapse itself began precisely after and as a result of the thief: the Bolshevik traitors began a truce and demobilization right ... during the war. A voluntary conscription into the Red Army in January 1918 completely failed.

          The collapse began after the seizure of power by the liberals of the Provisional Government, who issued Order No. 1 and the Declaration of the Rights of the Soldier, according to which the soldiers themselves elected their commanders, and the commander did not have the right to order the soldiers, but could only ask them, and the commander also did not have the right to punish the soldiers for disobeying orders.
          Quote: Olgovich
          Why was it necessary to keep the so-called unrecognized and unselected (losing the election). "conscientious power" - with what fright? RUSSIA had to be preserved, and they just betrayed it, giving it FOREVER (read the treaty) to the German occupants of the third European Russia.

          Lying again. FOREVER, a third of European Russia was not given, in 1922 almost everything was returned, finally except Finland, then Stalin returned in 1939, and even with a profit, for example, Galicia was included in the Ukrainian SSR, which was never part of Russia, and this was the main Stalin's mistake, Galicia had to be made independent or given to Hitler. Then there would be no benderization of Ukraine.

          Quote: Olgovich
          And yes, the main point of the Brest betrayal was the demobilization of a non-existent, as it were, army, which the Bolsheviks did: they urgently needed to shed the blood of fellow citizens, and not fight the invaders.

          Such nonsense monarchizda, I do not even want to comment, in the style of ala Novodvorskaya, who constantly squealed about the "bloodthirstiness of the commies".
          Quote: Olgovich
          reasons for the GV: anti-popular thief, dispersal of the US and Brest betrayal. The Bolsheviks themselves recognized the presence of a thief in November 1917, read their "decrees".

          The reasons for the outbreak of the Civil War are the Social Revolutionary revolt in July 1918, which tried to overthrow the Bolsheviks from power, the revolt of the Czech legionaries, who became the bayonet of the SR revolt, and the mistake of the Bolsheviks, who continued the policy of the Provisional Government to dissolve the army, as a result of which many thousands of regular officers remained without earnings and the meaning of life, and who went instead of the Red Army to Denikin's Volunteer Army. The Bolsheviks themselves later realized their mistake, and only on September 6, 1918, they created the Revolutionary Military Council under the leadership of the People's Commissar for Military Affairs Trotsky.
          1. -6
            23 August 2021 08: 06
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            Lying again, like everyone else

            didn't make it the first time?

            There is NO original Order 1 in nature, but have printed (invented, so too) his BOLSHEVIKS
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            whom the soldiers themselves chose their commanders

            ignorance, the election of commanders is a Bolshevik crime.-Read their stupid so-called. decrees

            The real collapse, after your thieves, read the reports from the front to the General Staff, before your thieves and after.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            Lying again. FOREVER, a third of European Russia was not given,

            read the contract: there are NO time limits, i.e. given FOREVER.

            And it was the Entente that destroyed your Treaty, at the front and in Compiegne.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            , later returned to Stalin in 1939, and even with a profit, for example, to the Ukrainian SSR

            what has to do with this "return" .. RUSSIA ?! Yours cut off to her 5 million km2 from 1917 to 1940 and did not return a REVOLVE!
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            What nonsense monarchism, I don't even want to comment,

            and you deign to agree to READ, finally, dunno
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            The reasons for the outbreak of the Civil War are the Socialist-Revolutionary revolt in July 1918, which tried to overthrow the Bolsheviks from power,

            read the so-called decrees. ow power from November 1917, where they themselves recognize the going GW
            1. +2
              23 August 2021 08: 17
              Quote: Olgovich
              There is NO original Order 1 in nature, but printed (invented, that means too) his BOLSHEVIKS

              The Bolsheviks then, in March 1917, were an insignificant force, the same Lenin, for example, was then in Switzerland and arrived in Petrograd only at the end of April 1917. Maybe you will still argue that the tsar was overthrown not by the liberals, but by the Bolsheviks?
          2. 0
            24 October 2021 20: 24
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            the mistake of the Bolsheviks, who continued the policy of the Provisional Government to dissolve the army, as a result of which many thousands of regular officers were left without earnings and the meaning of life, and who went instead of the Red Army to Denikin's Volunteer Army.

            with all my contempt for the bloody Bolsheviks of the pre-Stalin era ... you overestimate them, the Bolsheviks did not send the army in the sense that you think they took power gradually, no one left the officers without work; they were simply shot by soldiers and not by order of the Bolsheviks , but according to their deep inner desire ... the Bolsheviks indirectly drove the officers into the white army by decree on land, while they cunningly sat down on the aspirations of the common people, and did not order them to rob and kill the rich, (Decree on Peace, on Land, factory workers). The people hated the oligarchs, including the officer caste, both for all the atrocities against the common people, and for the betrayal of the tsar, for the tsar for a simple backgammon was the hope of justice, and betrayal is disgusting, while famine began immediately after the arrest of the tsar, murders began and the people immediately connected this with what the liberals did (the betrayal of the tsar) and hated them and began to rob and kill them for this (do not dig a hole for another you yourself will fall into it) .. the white army was not monarchist, only three generals remained loyal to the tsar doctor Botkin , Keller and Huseyn Khan of Nakhichevan ... only one was Russian ... the people's dream of a good tsar was later embodied in the personality of I V Stalin
        3. 0
          23 August 2021 07: 15
          Quote: Olgovich
          yeah, we look and see your blatant lie, they burst in after and as a result of the thief,:
          - Zhukov: After the squadron was disbanded in December 1917, he returned to Moscow,

          -Rokossovsky: November 21, 1917 was awarded the St. George Medal, 2nd degree. The dragoons elected Rokossovsky to the squadron, and then to the regimental committee, which decided the life of the regiment. ... At the end of December, the Kargopol regiment was transferred to the rear to the east

          Budyonny - At the end of 1917 he returned home, did not take part in political events.

          What can be the dissolution in a country at war? Here's what? This is called desertion. And Budyonny did not return home, since there was no truce and demobilization, but deserted. As for Rokossovsky, he joined the Red Guard in December 1917, that is, again, he deserted from the army. His cousin Franz Rokossowski also deserted from the army and joined the Polish militant separatist movement. For example, let's see how Vasilevsky, the future marshal, behaved:
          Following the advice, in January 1918 he was demobilized from the army and "stayed at the dependents of his parents until June 1918, doing agriculture."
          That is, if translated into human language, he deserted from the army, and lay at home on the stove with his parents, helping them with the housework. And there were millions of such deserted soldiers.
          1. -6
            23 August 2021 09: 13
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            What can be the dissolution in a country at war? Here's what? This is called desertion. And Budyonny did not return home, since there was no truce and demobilization, .

            you are depressingly illiterate: already on November 9 the Lenins turned to ...soldiers fool with an indication of what gives them the right ... to negotiate about a truce with the enemy ... What was the reason for fraternization and a mass exodus from the front (since peace!) And the split of the army.
            On November 14, Germany agreed and an armistice was concluded on December 2.

            SNK on November 10 adopted the decree “On the gradual reduction in the size of the army " -about dismissal to the reserve -and this is BEFORE the bonus. And away we go ..
            At the end of November, congresses of the fronts with the same demobilization resolutions took place, army and below, and rivers of soldiers flowed to the rear.

            in total, the Bolsheviks were demobilized from November 17 to April 18 7 million soldiers.-and these are not deserters.
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            oh, if translated into human language, he deserted

            He himself clearly wrote that DEMOBILIZED-you do not understand the Russian language?
        4. +6
          23 August 2021 07: 47
          Quote: Olgovich
          As for the straits, Russia has always had little chance of getting them, because the whole of Europe was consolidated against it.
          "All Europe", and would never have allowed Russia to get the Straits, if there were "war to the bitter end." Only the end was not the same, the tsar abdicated the throne, without any Bolsheviks, like his brother, that instead of a crown he chose to wear a red bow in unity with the bourgeois February revolution of 1917.

          No one would not only allow Russia to take the straits, but also become a superpower, like the USSR, just remain a great country, with those intrigues, debts and problems in the country. If it were not for the Bolsheviks, the Yeltsins, Chubais and Gaidars would have come to us not after 1991, when Russia was the legal successor of the space and nuclear superpower, but already in 1917. There would be no longer Russia, as a great country, for that the First World War was started, for the world throne of capitalism and the elimination of all competitors in Europe, Russia as well.

          The straits had to be taken even under Alexander I, when Russian troops were stationed in Paris. So, solid "knights", our emperors distributed everything, and helped those who were not worth it.
          By the Crimean War, they had sea mines, but they did not calculate the options, but they should. In the Baltic, when in May 1855 the Anglo-French fleet (101 pennants) entered the Gulf of Finland, more than 200 galvanic and percussion mines designed by academician B.S. Jacobi. Why didn’t they think of something like that in order to block the exit from the straits? Why did they not attack the transports that dangled in the sea without cover, allowing all this European rabble to land on Russian soil?
          Also, they would have learned to "goat" from Britain, approaching the straits, by financing and organizing liberation wars against the Turks. If Romania and Bulgaria were part of our empire, it would be easier.
          Tsarism, with the emperors, half-blood Germans, and, for the most part, German queens, paid too much attention to what relatives in Europe would think, instead of ambitions for Russia and the Russian people.
          1. -4
            23 August 2021 09: 21
            Quote: Per se.
            "All Europe", and would never have allowed Russia to get the Straits, if there were "war to the bitter end."

            what are. "would"?

            less than nothing.

            ALL winning countries, even Romania, have received territorial increments.

            I think that the promise would be formally fulfilled, but with a bunch of reservations that nullify it.
            Quote: Per se.
            Don't be Bolsheviks Yeltsins, Chubais and Gaidars would they come to us not after 1991, when Russia was the legal successor of the space and nuclear superpower, but already in 1917.

            they are all communists and not of the most ordinary level, and it is precisely such experimentators who came to power with a thief in October 17 and staged a pogrom of the country and the people ..
            Quote: Per se.
            There would be no longer Russia as a great country

            Great Russia fought with the usurpers of power for 4 whole years until 1922, but later the struggle continued for decades. ...
            1. +6
              23 August 2021 10: 47
              Quote: Olgovich
              what are. "would"?
              They are worth analyzing, using examples of the past, finding the best option in the present, not repeating mistakes. Otherwise, all the talk - "rustle of nuts", disputes of "pike vests".
              they are all communists and not of the most ordinary level, and it is precisely such experimentators who came to power with a thief in October 17 and staged a pogrom of the country and the people ..


              I would agree with you, Andrei, if these "thieves" and "experimenters" did not build a space and nuclear superpower in 30 years, with a new world pole of power and a bloc of socialist countries.

              great Russia fought with the usurpers of power for 4 whole years until 1922
              Are those that "white acacia, flowers of emigration"? Offended for the taken away French bun, adding new ones to the tsar's debts, from those who hastened to profit from the intervention in Russia, and then threw these fighters? They swore allegiance to the tsar, who received the shame of Tsushima, and then surrendered him when Nicholas II was brought to abdicate, at the most crucial moment of the First World War ...

              Do you think a pro-Western Provisional Government would be better than the Chubais and Yeltsins, under the tune of the West? Come to power, General Kornilov (or similar), that would not have unleashed a civil war between monarchists and democrats, even without the Bolsheviks?

              Your right to have your opinion, but what happened happened. The communists have built a superpower in 30 years, and the current capitalists have not created anything in 30 years, squeezing Russia like a lemon. Russia is still alive because as long as the Soviet margin of safety remains, there is a great Soviet legacy from a superpower. Otherwise, the West does not need a strong Russia in any form, with a tsar, communists or democrats. Only socialism made it possible to gain independence from the likes of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, and when transnational monopolies were finally formed, one must be a very naive person to believe in the independence of a country that picked up capitalism from the dustbin of history, with an already established world leader and master of this system.
              1. -4
                23 August 2021 11: 48
                Quote: Per se.
                They are worth analyzing, using examples of the past, to find the best option in the present.

                the past and "would" are little related.
                Quote: Per se.
                I would agree with you, Andrei, if these "thieves" and "experimenters" did not build a space and nuclear superpower in 30 years, with a new world pole of power and a bloc of socialist countries.

                It is not necessary to agree with me, but with the facts: the level of 1913 in food, clothing, housing, grain yield in 1913, the nuclear superpower reached income only after FORTY years, 10-13 years were lost for the development of education and the economy, and the level of freedom in 1913 never reached at all. Their entire reign, since 1917, is an endless series of demographic catastrophes of the Russian people,
                the time of depopulation and ruin of central Russia, the dying of its village as a result of robbery and poverty.
                Quote: Per se.
                Are those that "white acacia, flowers of emigration"?

                these are the ones that won the freest elections in the world in the US-people of Russia
                Quote: Per se.
                Do you think a pro-Western Provisional Government would be better than the Chubais and Yeltsins, under the tune of the West? Come to power, General Kornilov (or similar), that would not have unleashed a civil war between monarchists and democrats, even without the Bolsheviks?

                The EaP only before the CA, then the CA determined the executive power in the country and what is the CA if ALL parties work in the Parliament? There they would have fought, on the podium and in the hall, without shooting
                Quote: Per se.
                Your right to have your opinion, but what happened happened. The communists have built a superpower in 30 years, and the current capitalists have not created anything in 30 years, squeezing Russia like a lemon.

                yes no, dear, for 30 years they arranged losses from GV - 25
                million (indirect losses, did not recover even before the Second World War), years with deaths from hunger in 1918,1919,1920,21,22,23,24,25,28,29,32,33,34,36,37,46,47, 32, of which an unprecedented catastrophe in the history of mankind in 34-700 years in terms of the number of victims (several million with cannibalism), extrajudicial multimillion-dollar exile of peasants, peoples, exiled, at the same time, millions of children, shot about 37 thousand fellow citizens in the year 38-XNUMX, destroyed tens of thousands monuments of Russian glory, culture, deprived the people of the right to vote and freedom, carried out an abortion revolution, ensured a wild decline in the birth rate, etc.
                And only then can we talk about achievements in space and the atom. Which in other countries happened without all the above.

                You are talking about the last 30 years, so remember that the Bolsheviks, instead of the full strength of the young, initiative, fast-growing, sober people, taken by them in 1917, left in 1991 an old, dying out, with a small number of young people, drunk with alcohol.
                Do you know that by 1989 they had destroyed more than half of the settlements in Russia (160 thousand)?
                1. +4
                  23 August 2021 12: 31
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  But with the facts: the level of 1913 in food, clothing, housing, grain yield in 1913, incomes, the nuclear superpower reached only forty years later, 10-13 years were lost for the development of education and the economy, and the level of freedoms of 1913 was never reached at all.
                  Interestingly tugged, since 1913, as if there was no First World War, and complete devastation, fermentation and colossal debts.
                  Tell me, Olgovich, how many years after the tsar's abdication and the war "to a victorious end," would Kerensky's successors have reached this level?

                  In general, even without taking into account the terrible losses in the First World War, to the reign of Nicholas II, there was a debt on loans from the poor harvest of 1891, and in general, payments on the state debt accounted for 20% of government spending (the total treasury income was 1,7 billion rubles).
                  In 1897, the Minister of Finance of Nicholas II, Witte Sergei Yulievich, for a successful entry into the Western economy, attracting Western capital, proposed a monetary reform pegging the ruble to gold.
                  So, Western capital came to Russia, the construction of new enterprises began.

                  However, the more production growth was, the more profits were made by foreign creditors and foreign banks; the amount of external debt did not decrease, but continued to grow.
                  The Russo-Japanese War further contributed to the tsar's debts, from 6,6 billion to 8,7 billion.
                  An interesting arithmetic of "progress" from the help of the West turned out, from 1887 to 1913 Western investments in Russia amounted to 1 billion 783 million gold rubles, while 2 billion 326 million gold rubles were withdrawn from Russia. So, having received new enterprises from foreigners, Russia actually incurred losses, and the peasantry remained the main supplier of the budget. Russia and without the war was well spread rot, without any "would".

                  As for the "Holodomor", here it is frankly necessary to pretend to be "felt boots" so as not to know that the West agreed to trade only for grain, deliberately provoking famine in Russia.
                  Yes, industrialization and subsequent independence came at a high price.
                  Now, over 30 years of current capitalism, "optimization" and reduction of industry, healthcare, education and science, we have lost many more people, and hundreds of billions of dollars are already flowing out of Russia.

                  You know, Olgovich, you remind me of one shot from the department at the University of Yekaterinburg that for his inveterate anti-Sovietism he received a grant from Soros. There is no point in arguing further, everything is the same, you will get an answer like "God Save the Tsar", yes "commies' oaths." Let's stay where we are.
                  1. -1
                    23 August 2021 13: 26
                    Quote: Per se.
                    Interestingly tugged, since 1913, as if there was no First World War, and complete devastation, fermentation and colossal debts.

                    1.the complete devastation and death of the country's citizens in the Civil War by ORDERLY more than in WWI, was ensured by the Bolsheviks

                    2 The pre-war indicators, thanks to the capitalist NEP, almost recovered in 1928.The wild failure began in 1930
                    Quote: Per se.
                    Tell me, Olgovich, how many years after the tsar's abdication and the war "to a victorious end," would Kerensky's successors have reached this level?

                    the successors not of Kerensky, but of the CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE: France restored the economy already in 1923 and in 1927 had already tripled the volume of industrial production. And this despite the fact that France suffered a lot - 10 of its most developed departments were destroyed in WWI
                    Here is the answer
                    Quote: Per se.
                    Russia and without the war was well spread rot, without any "would".

                    There was a paradise in Russia, compared to the 1920s-1950s
                    Quote: Per se.
                    As for the "Holodomor", here it is frankly necessary to pretend to be "felt boots" so as not to know that the West agreed to trade only for grain, deliberately provoking famine in Russia.

                    Yes, no, you have to be completely ignorant, so as not to know that forests and non-food products (1932 hungry year) were exported for 350 million rubles (for each position), and bread for only 228 million rubles. They also exported cow's butter, eggs, fabrics (226 million rubles)
                    Quote: Per se.
                    Yes, industrialization and subsequent independence came at a high price.

                    Note that the people were not told about the price, NEITHER A WORD, neither before nor after, they were so afraid
                    Quote: Per se.
                    Now, over 30 years of current capitalism, "optimization" and reduction of industry, healthcare, education and science, we have lost many more people, and hundreds of billions of dollars are already flowing out of Russia.

                    Russia has never lost as much as under the Bolsheviks, see above. And just find out what by 1989 year in Russia, 40 thousand were destroyed from schools (more than half from schools), tens of thousands of recreation centers and medical centers.
                    Quote: Per se.
                    You know, Olgovich, you remind me of one shot from the department at the University of Yekaterinburg that for his inveterate anti-Sovietism he received a grant from Soros. There is no point in arguing further, everything is the same, you will get an answer like "God Save the Tsar", yes "commies' oaths." Let's stay where we are

                    Learn the History of the Motherland according to primary sources, and not false propaganda materials of the Bolshevik times

                    Just notice that in defining Bolshevism in one word, that word would be lie.
                2. 0
                  29 August 2021 10: 10
                  Among other mistakes, you fall into one, which, it seems to me, you yourself could realize. Covering with one paint (very similar to shit) all the time of the rule of the CPSU (b) -KPSS, you do not take into account the fact that these were at least 5 radically different eras, with a clear violation of continuity. At least according to the rulers, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev. They must be analyzed separately. Otherwise, it is possible to gloss over the entire "tsarism" with the same substance, from Grozny to Nikolai, with special emphasis on mistakes and crimes, for example, the development and "delights" of the so-called "serfdom". But that would also be wrong!
                  1. -2
                    29 August 2021 11: 32
                    Quote: Kwas
                    Covering with one paint (very similar to shit) all the time of the reign of the CPSU (b) -KPSS,

                    judging by the results, yes.
                    Quote: Kwas
                    You do not take into account the fact that these were at least 5 radically different eras, with a clear violation of continuity. At least according to the rulers, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev. They must be analyzed separately.

                    there are shades, yes.

                    But they are all varieties of the same Bolshevik, um, root, which they have swornly admitted dozens of times. And they naturally led to the same thing. The end.
                    Quote: Kwas
                    Otherwise, you can also cover up the whole "tsarism" with the same substance, from Grozny to Nikolay, with special emphasis on mistakes and crimes, such as the development and "delights" of the so-called "serfdom". But that would also be wrong!

                    it will not work, these are the stages of the country's DEVELOPMENT from feudolism to a developed capitalist society, the growth and development of the people.

                    The next period is, in many ways, a rollback.
              2. +2
                25 August 2021 07: 51
                I wonder why then, in your opinion, the Soviet Union has not been there for 30 years, and the entire Western world still exists, despite both? And why, in principle, was the collapse of the Soviet Union possible? To say that all these Americans and Europeans are so bad, and all this solely because of them, is probably not worth it. They "love" each other not much more than us. Yes, they made their "contribution" to this, but it was not the most significant.
                1. 0
                  25 August 2021 09: 20
                  Quote: mpr200
                  I wonder why then, in your opinion, the Soviet Union has not been there for 30 years, and the entire Western world still exists, despite both?
                  Especially for you, Vladimir. Naturally, this will be just my personal opinion.

                  The Soviet Union did not die from a dead-end path of development, on the contrary, it had enormous potential. A bit of background. Your "entire Western world" is, first of all, the world system of capitalism, in which the leader and master at the moment is the United States and, in its shadow, Great Britain. The First World War was supposed to eliminate the rivals of the Anglo-Saxons in Europe, primarily the main contender, Kaiser's Germany. The goal was achieved, the largest empires, the German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian, have sunk into oblivion. The only major empire left in the east is Japan.

                  Russia had to fall apart when paying off debts, "color revolutions" for independence and interventions in the name of "democracy." The Anglo-Saxons have not learned to do this now, for this they have a long-standing historical talent, so England plundered the whole world, having in itself the modest size of the metropolis and population, and therefore raked in the heat with the hands of others, creating and destroying alliances in their own interests. Like Nicholas II, after Tsushima, he ended up in the Entente, in fact for England, the talent of the Anglo-Saxons, and the lack of will and stupidity of the tsar, a powerful foreign lobby in Russia. Thanks to England, Russia acquired not only Tsushima, but, by and large, the February Revolution, English ears stick out in this, not German ones, including in the murder of Rasputin, a very significant phenomenon, as well as the subsequent reluctance of London to accept the royal family in emigration.

                  I will not repeat myself if the West would not have allowed Russia to become a superpower, given the dependence that it already existed. All high-tech equipment was purchased abroad and without a war, the war exacerbated the problem, and did not contribute to the growth of the Russian economy.
                  It must be understood that Hitler appeared because the USSR had to be destroyed or mortally weakened by someone else's hands. The Third Reich would not have been possible if England and the United States did not want it, did not allow and did not help the Nazis.

                  Why did the Anglo-Saxons help the USSR in the war, although before the war they themselves were ready to bomb our cities and oil fields in the Caucasus? Because money and a lot of money were made on deliveries. Secondly, as Harry Truman said, it was necessary that the Germans and Russians kill each other, as much as possible. It was not possible to destroy the Soviet Union, the USSR defeated Hitler, and the Anglo-Saxons did not dare to finish off the USSR, even having obtained a nuclear bomb, our army was incredibly strong, the entire economy was already working on defense, and it would not have been difficult for the USSR to occupy the whole of Europe.

                  The "cold" war began, moreover, the "democrats" did not disdain provocations and sabotage against the Soviet people. Ideological war and ideological sabotage especially gained strength, and the West did not disdain the most vile and impudent lies, beautifully wrapped in demagogy, hypocrisy and hypocrisy. In the most important of the arts, Hollywood, it frankly outplayed us, especially when it became a direct participant in the US lunar scam.
                  Socialism was victorious in space, the United States was pushed aside from the USSR, acting in the role of catch-up. All that remained was to lie again, so the Apollo project appeared with its "conquerors" of the Moon, the American "ASTRALONAUT". Their far-fetched achievements, outright blunders, very soon became known in the Kremlin.

                  Then something happened that became one of the main reasons for the collapse of Soviet ideology, the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. The deal with the United States on the Moon, where the USSR, having colossal authority in the world, officially recognized the American lunar clownery, instead of mixing the United States with dirt, disgrace the whole world. What for? Then, that I wanted to fuck with this broth, raise the rating. Indeed, then a miracle happened, the "victorious" US in space are making unprecedented concessions before the "defeated" "empire of evil." For the first time in history, a US president arrives in Moscow, and "detente" ensues. The apotheosis is the joint show "Soyuz-Apollo", where the Yankees again only showed an enchanting start and a dummy landing, and only Soyuz actually worked in orbit. Many in the USSR were anointed on this lie, many were "in the share."

                  Naturally, gifts and concessions from the United States gave an impetus to the economy, but we lost globally. The moon was the litmus of the superiority of either socialism or capitalism. In fact, capitalism, led by the United States, triumphed, the unprecedented rise from the flights of Gagarin, the successes of Soviet astronautics began to be replaced by the fetish of the West. Especially, the party nomenclature itself, the future renegades, was bought.

                  Khrushchev's flirtation with the West, Brezhnev's deal and subsequent stagnation, and the finale, the henpecked dreamer Gorbachev. At the same time, staged problems, empty shelves, coupons, "dry law". Further, the State Emergency Committee, which completed the discrediting of the Soviet regime by fools and traitors, and the "prisoner of Foros" lowered the red flag in the Kremlin, instead of hanging three drunks from Belovezhskaya Pushcha on poles. Capitalism proved to be more experienced and cunning than young socialism. whom he harmed as he could the whole story.

                  We have what we have, having picked up capitalism from the dustbin of history, under the dollar, in a foreign pole of power, under rules that were not invented for the good of Russia.
                  Here, the same Olgovich, asks what would be, what kind of earthly paradise with the tsar or the Constituent Assembly. Here, only, few people think how great the achievements of the USSR and the Soviet people would have been, without the invasion of Hitler, without the collapse of the USSR, where would we be now, with the potential, on the reserves of which Russia is still alive. Probably, and on Mars, Soviet apple trees would bloom, and not the "Mars rovers" from Devon showed the world.
        5. +3
          23 August 2021 10: 31
          Quote: Olgovich
          Why was it necessary to keep the so-called unrecognized and unselected (losing the election). "conscientious power" - with what fright?


          There was no power at all at that time (before the revolution). Seriously believe. that the US (the event, again, the Bolsheviks held) could restore order and eliminate separatism can only very stupid human. In Russia, the talking shop leads only to collapse (remember only the Congresses of Soviets in the 90s, where there were more than 70% of the members of the CPSU.). Could the DC consisting of Socialist-Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks slightly diluted by other parties be able to govern the state? By the way, you, as a liberal mowing like a monarchist, like when 40% in the US had a party that sent wholesale and retail to the ancestors of the tsar's dignitaries (at one time naturally), and even representatives of the dynasty.
          And having understood the "rotten essence" of the US, the guard was tired.

          Quote: Olgovich
          But even with the occupation of Petrograd, they would have cleared out in a couple of months


          A sober assessment (a rare case) by you of the situation, but why then the Brest Peace is a betrayal?
          And before that there was no call for peace without annexations and indemnities (which Germany supported)?
          And the understanding is not of the durability of this document (paper is not worth the written ink), even you understand.
          Quote: Olgovich
          As for the "capture" of Moscow, take a look at the map, where the front was (this is not 41 years old for you):

          If you compare the periods of the war, then 3 with a year of war - then this corresponds to the autumn of 1944 Well, where was the front?
          How is this comparison now? The Red Army is not a completely helpless (without allies) tsarist (then republican Russian) army.

          Quote: Olgovich
          reasons for the GV: anti-people thief, dispersal of the US and Brest betrayal

          It was hard to part with my privileges, and this is the reason.
    2. -3
      23 August 2021 06: 19
      Yours, enemies of the communists, there is nothing, even the state symbols you slammed from the Romanovs and the communists.
      And the British only promised to give the straits to Russia. And not the fact that they would have given.
      1. +2
        23 August 2021 07: 24
        And the British only promised to give the straits to Russia. And not the fact that they would have given.

        Yes, they only learned about Russia's intentions to prepare an amphibious operation on the Bosphorus, quickly and unsuccessfully landed in Galipolli. And they never asked RI to help in this operation, like ourselves. Even if Russia were among the winners, it would have been shown a fig to you, not the straits.
    3. 0
      18 November 2021 09: 37
      Wouldn't be in any case.
      There would be no Brest-Litovsk Peace - Germany would have ended the war on more honorable terms for itself.
      It was the Brest-Litovsk Peace that brought the Second Reich to the Zugunder.
      Let me remind you that half a century before that, largely because of the threat to the straits, the British and French began the Crimean War against Russia. And now, on a silver platter, would they bring what you were fighting for?
      Hold your pocket wider.
      Control over the straits would allow the Russian navy to have a permanent presence in the Mediterranean. This is a threat to the southern coast of France and the Suez Canal, the "throat" of the British Empire. Of course, our allies could not allow this.
      In addition, how would Russia take these straits if even the "allies" did not object? Turkey controlled them, the failure of the operation in Gallipoli clearly showed that the Turkish army is not so weak. Where the Britons failed, there the Russian army and navy would not have coped, our army and navy, frankly, were then second-rate. In the same league with the Austrians and the same Turks.
      So no straits, empty fantasies and razvodilovo in full on the part of our dear allies.
  2. -3
    23 August 2021 05: 30
    Turkish "tomato" is going to dig a channel bypassing the straits. And, "all flags will be visiting us." fool Rejoice "Banderlog". And wait for Kaa.
    1. +2
      23 August 2021 06: 13
      What nonsense is this? How to get around the Dardanelles?
      1. +3
        23 August 2021 07: 59
        Nonsense. Distribute branzulets left and right.
      2. +3
        23 August 2021 11: 49
        Why bypass them?
  3. +2
    23 August 2021 05: 52
    In 1833, Russian troops nevertheless ended up on the shores of the Bosphorus, however, at the request of the Turkish Sultan, saving the Ottoman Empire from death.
    Why?
    1. +1
      23 August 2021 06: 27
      Quote: parusnik
      In 1833, Russian troops nevertheless ended up on the shores of the Bosphorus, however, at the request of the Turkish Sultan, saving the Ottoman Empire from death.
      Why?


      The question of "solidarity of monarchs", when one crown bearer assisted in the fight against a rebellious vassal, to another.
      And in such cases, and history has demonstrated this to us more than once, kings-kings-emperors often acted solely out of the interests of personal thrones and only them.
      1. +7
        23 August 2021 07: 57
        The question of "solidarity of monarchs"
        Then solidarity in 1848, the suppression of the uprising in Hungary, and completely for nothing, without any benefits for Russia, and as a result, Nikolai's fig during the Crimean.
        1. +3
          23 August 2021 08: 08
          Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
          Then solidarity in 1848, the suppression of the uprising in Hungary, and completely for nothing, without any benefits for Russia, and as a result, Nikolai's fig during the Crimean.

          About that and speech Yes
          1. +2
            23 August 2021 08: 24
            In 1833, Russia could have watched the fight and then skinned both of them. smile But again, "solidarity".
            1. +2
              23 August 2021 08: 28
              Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
              In 1833, Russia could have watched the fight and then skinned both of them. smile But again, "solidarity".


              And political blindness, myopia ...
    2. 0
      23 August 2021 06: 31
      Quote: parusnik
      Why?

      Because in the case of the capture of Constantinople by the Egyptian separatists, the straits would have gone to Greece, and Nicholas I, who considered the straits his own, could not allow this. Therefore, he preferred that the straits remained in the Ottoman Empire.
    3. +2
      23 August 2021 11: 13
      Quote: parusnik
      Why?

      We chose the lesser of the two evils.
      The uprising of Mehmet-Ali of Egypt did not begin spontaneously, nor was it an accidental rebellion of a rebellious vassal. It was beneficial primarily to France, since she had strong economic ties with Egypt, and the French trade and diplomatic representatives then enjoyed great influence in Alexandria. In the event of the victory of Mehmet-Ali on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, on the shores of the Bosphorus near the southern maritime borders of Russia, a new powerful state with a predominant influence there of France, and, possibly, England, would arise.
      The possession of the leading maritime powers of the right to control the Straits would have the most unfavorable and unpredictable consequences for Russia.

      The commander of the Separate Caucasian Corps, Baron G.V. Rosen informed the Minister of War, Count A.I. Chernyshev: “Megmet Ali Pasha is clearly disclosing that his main goal is to restore the glory of Muslims and avenge the shameful peace concluded by the Sultan with Russia. In all likelihood, these rumors are spread by them in order to more persuade the people, full of fanaticism and hatred of the Gentiles, especially the Russians. "
      Original Russian Text © G.A. Grebenshchikov. St. Andrew's flag over the ancient Bosphorus.
      1. 0
        29 August 2021 10: 21
        It is unlikely that Mehmet-Ali of Egypt would have had the strength to take power in Istanbul by military means. It would only be a weakening of both, which plays into our hands. But he also had no support for the coup. So our intervention, as it was, is a clear mistake.
  4. -5
    23 August 2021 06: 26
    It was an undoubted diplomatic victory that solved all the problems of Russia.
    What is so lacking in the current ...
  5. +7
    23 August 2021 07: 48
    Firstly, a question to the author, why did you choose this particular time period, and not, say, from Katerina to the present day.
    Well, and secondly, the very first comment was thrown at the fan, leading the discussion aside ..
    Then Olgovich, a fighter with the Bolsheviks, joined in and the topic was forgotten.
  6. +3
    23 August 2021 08: 22
    And in the war of 1806-1812, we were more likely to defend ourselves.
    ..In 1807, Russian troops occupied Khotin, Bendery, Ackerman, Bucharest. The Black Sea squadron of Rear Admiral Pustoshkin captured Anapa ... smile
  7. -3
    23 August 2021 08: 24
    Getting ready for a pseudo-election? Forward Lilliputians.
    1. -3
      23 August 2021 12: 06
      Cool. Vaccine horror advocates rule! Where were you a year ago, When the midgets were resting, and we were working? And this year we worked on May. One hundred vaccinations for you one place. I wish ... to survive.
  8. -4
    23 August 2021 08: 27
    The Russian Empire could resolve the issue of the straits twice, during the reign of Paul and Nicholas, but the tsars were useless. In the place of the final solution to the Turkish problem and the straits, while Europe was fighting among itself, after the French revolution, redrawing its borders anew, Pavel thrust himself into that quarrel for some reason. I missed a convenient chance for Russia. From a tsar who was not Russian in blood and spirit, nothing else could be expected. It was necessary to save the European monarchies, on which Russia, by and large, does not give a damn. A German, he is a German, he doesn't care how much Russian blood will be shed in senseless Italian campaigns, forgetting about the fundamental interests of Russia. The son, too, did not differ much from his father. For some reason he tried to save Sultan Mahmud, who was not at all friendly to Russians. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire was only on the hands of Russia. The squadron and the troops could stay there, on the shores of Istanbul for a long time, if not forever, while the legacy of the "patient" was divided. The main thing is to use the current moment, for example, like the British. Spain became weak, once they squeezed Gibraltar, they are still sitting, so does Malta, etc. But where else, Nikolashka has other concerns, he began to save the Habsburg empire from collapse, which is also an enemy. In general, those tsars were still - non-Russians. And after the Crimean war, R.I. did not see the straits, as their ears, only to admire in the mirror. All of Europe has always opposed this turn of affairs
    1. +6
      23 August 2021 11: 21
      Quote: Unknown
      The son, too, did not differ much from his father. For some reason he tried to save Sultan Mahmud, who was not at all friendly to Russians. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire was only into the hands of Russia. The squadron and the troops could stay there, on the shores of Istanbul for a long time, if not forever, while the legacy of the "patient" was divided.

      The inheritance was already divided without us: France and England stood behind Ibrahim Pasha. If the power of Sultan Mahmud II fell, they would recognize Mehmet-Ali as the new sultan. After that, he would legally turn to the Western powers with a request for help in expelling the "Russian invaders."
      1. +1
        23 August 2021 13: 59
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The inheritance was already divided without us: France and England stood behind Ibrahim Pasha. If the power of Sultan Mahmud II fell, they would recognize Mehmet-Ali as the new sultan. After that, he would legally turn to the Western powers with a request for help in expelling the "Russian invaders."

        Not everything, but the divided also needs to be digested, it takes time. England and France at that time were not yet united on the Turkish issue, they had contradictions, the British first took the side of Mahmoud. Yes, and Mehmet-Ali himself was not inclined to become a sultan, with a bunch of problems of the Turkish Empire on the outskirts. Each of the then powers pulled the blanket over themselves, and Russia should not be an exception. It was necessary to play on the contradictions of countries, while not forgetting their interests. But who headed the Foreign Ministry? Vykrest, a man without a tribe, Nesselrode does not really know the Russian language, and is far from Russian interests. Correctly people say "baptized Jew, that the thief is forgiven." Like a shepherd, such is the flock, the tsar is not Russian, and he selected his own kind. In the subject, Yermolov answered Nikolai's question what reward he wants, "Sovereign, make me a German."
        1. -1
          23 August 2021 15: 45
          Colleague Unknown, if you follow your logic, Nicholas 1 was a German and he didn't care about the interests of Russia. In that case, Catherine II was Russian? She strove to plant a cross on St. Sophia and her entourage were also Russians: the Orlovs, Potemkin, Zubov, but for some reason she did not speak Russian well.
          Alexander 1 was the brother of Nicholas 1, and his entourage was also from "baptized Jews - forgiven Jews"?
          Concerning the straits: V.I. Lenin was categorically against the straits. Therefore, the Bolsheviks published ALL the tsarist plans to seize the straits. Skomorokhov told about this
          1. +1
            23 August 2021 20: 56
            Quote: Astra wild2
            Nicholas 1 was a German and he didn't care about the interests of Russia. In that case, Catherine II was Russian? She strove to plant a cross on St. Sophia and her entourage were also Russians: the Orlovs, Potemkin, Zubov, but for some reason she did not speak Russian well.

            About Nikolai to the point. Catherine is one hundred percent German ... but she was able to learn Russian, and according to the memoirs of contemporaries, she was fluent in it. Catherine, and even Queen Elizabeth I of England, the only ones who skillfully directed their favorites to solve state problems. -Zadunaisky, Prince of Italy, Count Suvorov-Rymniksky, F.F. Ushakov. Against her background, a worthless son and grandchildren look pale.
            Quote: Astra wild2
            Alexander 1 was the brother of Nicholas 1, and his entourage was also from "baptized Jews - forgiven Jews"?

            ........ Forgiven thief. It was about Nesselrode. There were plenty of foreign Varangians surrounded by Alexander.
            1. -1
              23 August 2021 21: 29
              "I had a good command" at school, when I read about Radishchev, they emphasized that Catherine 2 was twisting her words.
              Under Alexander1 the most noticeable. : Palen, Barclay da Tole, Fulk, Michaud, but they were military, and the foreign minister was Russian
              1. +1
                24 August 2021 05: 56
                [quote = Astra wild2] school, when I read about Radishchev, they emphasized that Catherine 2 ruined words. [/ quote]
                I repeat, Catherine learned Russian thoroughly, only she spoke with an accent all her life, but what can she do from a German. Under Alexander1 the most noticeable. : Palen, Barclay da Tole, Fulk, Michaud, but they were military, and the foreign minister was Russian [/ quote]
                Palen is an intriguer. dark personality. Barclay de Tolly was a good military man. had Scottish roots. But in society he was considered a German. When it was necessary for the sake of the interests of the case, he was replaced by a Russian Kutuzov. As for foreign affairs under Alexander, a fair leapfrog Andrey Yakovlevich Budberg (German Andreas Eberhard von Budberg-Bönninghausen), Prince Adam Jerzy Czartorysky, Ivan Andreevich Veidemeyer German surnames and one Polish, and two Russians Count Aleksander Romanovich Vorontsov, like his brother, an obvious Anglophile, Count's dignity allowed such a hobby, Count Nikolai Petrovich Rumyantsev, yes, the son of a famous military leader, so circumstances forced the tsar to go for it, you understand the war.
                1. 0
                  24 August 2021 06: 50
                  I forgot Benegsen. An insidious schemer, an intelligent and brave general, but NOBODY LOVED him
    2. +1
      29 August 2021 10: 31
      Quote: Unknown
      The Russian Empire could resolve the issue of the straits twice, during the reign of Paul and Nicholas,

      You have forgotten the reign of Alexander. Then, during the Napoleonic Wars, we already had bases in the Mediterranean (including the gorgeous Kator), and instead of butting with Napoleon (apparently flattering Alexander's ambitions and his dark conscience), we took advantage of the situation by sending the forces of the Empire to the south. The forces would have been quite enough, and neither Britain nor France could then prevent us by armed means. Well, then - negotiations with A and F, at which it would be quite possible to agree, along the way to arrange peace in Europe.
  9. +6
    23 August 2021 08: 41
    Russia nobleman reached the peak of power and confidently rushed to the club of the great powers

    At that time, such a club did not yet exist. It appeared as a result of the Vienna Congress of 1815.
    It is interesting what the author wanted to illustrate in relation to the topic of the article with the painting "Laying the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called on Count Speransky by Nicholas I?"
    1. +2
      23 August 2021 15: 13
      Victor Nikolaevich, my opinion: the author liked the picture and decided to share it. As in "classmates"
  10. +7
    23 August 2021 08: 53
    And here Nicholas made a terrible mistake - instead of pogroming the Ottoman fleet and landing in the Bosphorus (and there were forces for this), he ordered the occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia until Russian demands were satisfied.
    What?! But what about Sinop ?! - and what kind of landing in the Bosphorus ?! It reminds me of a classic
    In your opinion, the battle at Trutnov, - Captain Sagner grinned, returning the notebook to the cadet Bigler, - could have been given only if Trutnov was lying on level ground. Oh you, Budyovitsky Benedek! Cadet Bigler, it was very kind of you that during your short time in the ranks of the imperial troops you tried to delve into strategy. Unfortunately, everything looks as if the boys are playing soldiers and are making themselves into generals. You promoted yourself so quickly, it’s a pleasure! Imperial Royal Officer Adolph Bigler! That way, perhaps we will not reach Budapest yet, and you will already be a field marshal.
  11. +4
    23 August 2021 10: 31
    As far as my memory serves me, a fairly detailed plan for the capture of the Straits existed on the eve of the Crimean War. It was built on the relative weakness and dilapidation of the Turkish fortifications, as well as on a passing current - the surface current in the Straits comes from the Black Sea, greatly facilitating the movement of steam ships in the direction of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. Using all these factors, it was supposed to destroy the Turkish batteries with artillery fire and land troops.
    Unfortunately, as often happens, they were afraid of too decisive action. The result is a war in Crimea.
    1. +1
      23 August 2021 18: 16
      To capture this small part of the entire operation, these straits still need to be held in the long term, which looked unlikely in any historical period.
      1. 0
        29 August 2021 10: 40
        The task of restraining could well have been solved using the forces of Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians, Greeks, which would be enough to arm them with old weapons, and who would selflessly and effectively protect their territories. On condition of an eternal military alliance with Russia, or better, joining it on the basis of broad autonomy. By the way, this would also stimulate the internal development of Russia towards greater freedoms. Maybe the agrarian issue could be solved ...
  12. +1
    23 August 2021 12: 59
    Like an article about the Black Sea straits. Comments immediately flew about the turmoil of the seventeenth year, as soon as one spoke about the Brest peace. So what do we still call the armed seizure of power the Great October Socialist Revolution?
  13. +2
    23 August 2021 14: 52
    the question of the straits arose precisely under Catherine, when, as a result of victories over the Turks and the rapid development of Novorossia, an instrument appeared in the form of the Black Sea Fleet and a victorious army, and funds were formed for further external expansion through the export of grain.
    Russia nobleman reached the peak of power and confidently rushed to the club of the great powers, in which it was greatly hampered by the lack of free sea power. It seems we had a fleet, even two - the Baltic and the Black Sea, but to get out of the shallow Baltic into the Atlantic, you need to pass the strait in the Danish waters, and the Black Sea is an ideal trap, connected to the sea by the narrow Mediterranean Bosphorus, followed by the Sea of ​​Marmara, and then the even narrower and more winding Strait of the Dardanelles.

    Somehow I can't believe that the concern about the free passage from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea was caused by concern about the grain trade. I associate it more with political intrigue, the division of zones of influence, etc.

    In the 18th century, was it difficult for battleships or the largest-tonnage merchant ship to pass Jutland when fully loaded?

    In the 18th century, Russian trading companies were created to trade with Turkey (1755), Iran (1758), Khiva and Bukhara (1760). Direct trade relations are established with the countries of the East. In 1782 Russia concludes a trade agreement with Denmark, in 1785 - with Austria, in 1786-1787. with France and Portugal.
    England at this time has a significant trade balance with Russia. Moreover, 2/3 of the 18th century, the share of grain in Russia's import was not so significant.
    Since the beginning of the 18th century, mining products, iron and copper have been exported. During the 18th century, the export of industrial products (mainly metallurgical and textile) has been increasing, if I am not mistaken, half of Russia's exports. The export of goods from Russia on Russian ships was encouraged.
    In this century, trade relations with Europe through the Baltic Sea are expanding, Russia becomes the main exporter of iron. The main importer of iron is England. At the end of the 18th century, domestic demand for iron in Russia increased, and the export of metal from Russia to Europe decreased.

    The Azov military, the Dniester military, the Danube rowing flotilla created earlier, which are military naval forces in the south of Russia, if I am not mistaken, since 1783 began to be called the Black Sea Fleet.
  14. -1
    23 August 2021 15: 08
    "it was a catastrophe in the eyes of society at that time, and not a defeat (rather conditional) in the war."
    The author does not know or does not want to say: "six ships of 800 tonnes of displacement" Turkey should have had exactly the same number of ships in the Black Sea.
    "Quite conditional", and V. I. Lenin said: "shamefully lost the war"
    For a common man in the street, it is forgivable not to know these details, but for a historian ...
    I would put 2. And what do you think?
    1. +3
      23 August 2021 17: 50
      "The author does not know or does not want to say:" six ships of 800 tons displacement "exactly the same number of ships in the Black Sea should have been in Turkey."

      And in the Marmara and Mediterranean seas?
      1. -1
        23 August 2021 19: 36
        I also thought about the Mediterranean Sea.
        Probably, Alexander II also thought about the Mediterranean and Marmara seas and built "Fort Totleben".
        There was a film about him: "The Seekers"
    2. 0
      24 August 2021 07: 53
      Quote: Astra wild2
      "Quite conditional", and V. I. Lenin said: "shamefully lost the war"

      Lenin said a lot, using any shortcoming of tsarist Russia as an excuse for spitting. As it is sung in the song - the cat abandoned the kittens ...
      But in fact, Russia lost this war more politically than militarily. The situation in Crimea at the end of the war was stalemate.
      Turkey should have had exactly the same number of ships in the Black Sea. "

      Therefore, during the war of 1877, Turkey had battleships, while Russia did not. And, these were "special 800-ton battleships."
      1. 0
        24 August 2021 09: 10
        Colleague Trapper, you probably remember that the Turks had squadrons in the Mediterranean and Marmara Seas?
        They could have transferred a ship from there
        Р
        S
        Do not be offended, but for the irony about Lenin -.
        Thanks to Lenin, there was the Soviet Union, and so beloved by some of his colleagues, Stalin always remembered and emphasized: Lenin was a leader and teacher.
        I respect Stalin, but Lenin is closer to me!
        1. +1
          24 August 2021 09: 43
          Quote: Astra wild2
          Colleague Trapper, you probably remember that the Turks had squadrons in the Mediterranean and Marmara Seas?
          They could have transferred a ship from there

          Of course I remember, so the limitation on naval forces for Turkey was fictitious, and, therefore, the argument
          Turkey should have had exactly the same number of ships in the Black Sea.

          he's, well, kinda ... strange.

          Quote: Astra wild2
          Thanks to Lenin, there was the Soviet Union, and so beloved by some of his colleagues, Stalin always remembered and emphasized: Lenin was a leader and teacher.
          I respect Stalin, but Lenin is closer to me!

          This is completely your right, which you, of course, have the right to express in the same way as I do - to disagree with him)
          But at the same time, I respect your opinion.
          1. -1
            25 August 2021 05: 46
            Thank you for understanding
  15. +3
    23 August 2021 18: 14
    The only possible option was the occupation of Turkey with total genocide, under all other circumstances, even if Russia had seized control over the Bosphorus (or all the straits), Russia would have lost control over them.
  16. +1
    29 August 2021 10: 49
    I read it, but did not find, in my opinion, the main, military-economic reason. The capture of the straits, the subsequent construction of the largest fortified area there, with the support of an almost impregnable fleet, was more reliable and much cheaper than our numerous efforts to defend the entire Black Sea coast, plus the construction and maintenance of the Black Sea fleet.
  17. 0
    5 September 2021 05: 11
    There will still be a war with Turkey, and everything is heading towards that.
  18. 0
    8 September 2021 07: 36
    But what about the RTV of 1877-1878?
    The situation in 1897 is perfect ...
    In fact, Russia with the idea of ​​straits, like Japan with the Kuriles. Instead of solving the issue once and for all, beating around the bush, and regretting what is not ours ...
  19. Eug
    0
    8 October 2021 16: 59
    The exit from the Dardanelles is controlled by the Greek port of Alexandropolis. By the way, it seems that the States are going to buy it out now ...

"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)

“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; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"