Military Review

Cross on St. Sophia. From Alexander the Liberator to Joseph Vissarionovich

91

The Paris Treaty deprived Russia of the Black Sea fleet, but did not remove the problem of the Black Sea trade and only pushed the reforms necessary for the country and the search for funds to abolish these regulations. Moreover, with the beginning of the industrial revolution in Russia, the Southern Territory began to acquire strategic importance - metal, coal, mechanical engineering were added to bread in Novorossiya, and Odessa became the largest trade port of the empire. All this had to be defended, and the best defense was the control of two narrow straits to prevent enemy forces from entering the Black Sea like the Crimean War.


You can discuss the politics of that time in general and Prince Gorchakov personally as much as you like, the old man's ideas were indeed not always sensible, and often fantastic, but in 1871 it happened - with the support of newborn Germany and, taking advantage of the military collapse of France, Russia abandoned the Paris restrictions ...

It was an undoubted success and achievement of Russian diplomacy, but ...

Over the next five years, we did not have a fleet on the Black Sea, except for such two round and non-seaworthy popovki (in fact, unsuccessful floating batteries) and ROPiT steamers - good auxiliary cruisers in the presence of a combat fleet.

And the Turks, meanwhile, were building exactly the armored fleet, and they did it in England, the country - the leader of the military shipbuilding. The war was becoming inevitable, along with it it turned into an inevitable and a chance to resolve the issue of the straits, but ...

The fleet was not built.

There were objective reasons for this - Nikolaev fell into decay. But there were also subjective reasons - Alexander at number two really constantly looked back at Europe, trying to become his own in the eyes of Western countries, and did not cross a certain line.

And then it struck.

In 1875, the uprisings of the Balkan Slavs began. Serbia supported them. The Turks, in turn, slaughtered the rebels with terrible cruelty. And Russia was simply forced to intervene, the people would not understand. And here it turned out - to fight only on land, there is no fleet.

It was possible, of course, following the example of Catherine the Great, to send the Baltic to the Mediterranean sea and arrange a new Chesma, but the British ... In a word, Petersburg did not dare, although there were ships, moreover, ships superior to the Turkish ones.

They fought on the Black Sea for what they were - steamers of active defense, armed with boats with pole mines, simply armed steamers, and the mother of the infantry paid in blood for what the Tsar-Father and his ministers did not think of. It was that war - this is Makarov, Rozhdestvensky, Skrydlov and many more, then young and desperate officers, trying to win the war at sea without ships.

Whatever it was, the Russian army fought for itself and for that guy, and in 1878 the Russian bayonets were 25 kilometers from Constantinople. The dream was - a stone's throw, the Turks no longer had enough troops to defend the capital, they just had to go in and take.

But the British battleships entered the Dardanelles, and as a result, the empire was afraid to occupy the Bosphorus, frightened by the specter of a new Crimean war.

But who?

France?

She licked her wounds and made preparations for a revenge with Germany.

Germany?

There was no time for drach nach osten: they were building an empire and preparing for war with France.

Austria?

Alone - not an enemy, and the internal problems threatening an explosion were acute there as never before.

And England on its own would not have got into the war, simply for lack of a land army of the required size.

But anyway - the chance was missed.

Cross on St. Sophia. From Alexander the Liberator to Joseph Vissarionovich

And the rather lucrative San Stefano Peace was replaced by the Berlin Congress, as a result of which Russia received nothing. No, some scraps of territories like Kars and Southern Bessarabia were given to us (Britain, without fighting, acquired Cyprus). But in general ... the problem of the straits has not been resolved. The passage to the Mediterranean Sea was closed to Russian warships, unless with the permission of the Sultan, who was completely dependent on London.

Preparation phase


The next decades and the reign of three emperors, Russia was preparing ... to seize the straits, which it could take without a fight in 1878.

Secretly measured the depths and currents of Makarov, built battleships for battles with coastal batteries (type Catherine II, 3X2 305-mm guns, four of them on the bow), created a special stock of heavy guns and mines to strengthen the straits after capture ...

Millions were spent, and the exhaust was sharply negative. It was the attempts of the fleet to prepare at the same time to seize the straits, strengthen the sea power in the Far East and the defense of the Baltic that eventually led to Port Arthur and Tsushima. And the collection of Black Sea battleships stood in the harbors throughout the war, interrupted by riots against the Tsar, Father.
The preparation went on for so long that the first four battleships and six gunboats built were hopelessly outdated, and so expensive that in 1905 there were three modern battleships and two armored cruisers in Sevastopol, which could turn the tide of a real war.

Chances, for fairness, were: before the Far Eastern War, what after. For example, the Cretan crisis of 1897, but Russia chose to shoot at the Greeks, and did not dare to go to war for which it had been preparing for 20 years.

And since 1908, after the diplomatic Tsushima Izvolsky, it was not at all up to the straits, all the more so - the Germans began to patronize the Turks with their plans to build a railway to Basra. Even the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 didn’t give anything, and, perhaps, they couldn’t give anything: Russia was a tight member of the Entente, and didn’t want to risk causing a world war, and it didn’t have the right.

As a result of 35 years of preparation, colossal amounts were spent, weapon managed to become obsolete, Bulgaria from an ally became a potential enemy, and a fleet on the Black Sea now had to be built for defense. The Turks, with the help of the Germans, acquired two battleships, modernized their old and ordered two battleships in England. In response, the construction of battleships began on the Black Sea, diverting resources from the Baltic.

Meanwhile, the world war was approaching. And since the supplies of the allies went mainly through Odessa, and from there Russian products were exported to Europe, the violation of the neutrality of the Ottoman Empire meant simply space problems for the Russian Empire. We have not thought about this for 35 years, looking back at Europe in the Ottoman issue. But the Germans thought about it, and their Mediterranean squadron rushed to Istanbul with the first shots of the war.

And then Souchon did what he did, putting Russia in a shah, not fatal, but expensive: building port infrastructure in Arkhangelsk and Murmansk during hostilities and creating a fleet there from scratch is still a pleasure. The allies also understood this. Their Dardanelles operation is not an attempt to seize the straits for themselves. This is an effort to solve a logistical problem: Europe needed Russian bread, Russia needed European weapons.

It is clear that burn out - and no one would give us the straits. But it so happened that, preparing for the Bosphorus landing in 1879, we were "not ready."

The preparations were carried out during the war, these were as many as four battleships in the Black Sea Fleet against one "Goeben", and the fleet of "Eldipiforov" and "Bolinder", and training with a run-in of landing troops of ground units, but ...

In 1917 there was a revolution, and we can only guess: would Kolchak have erected that very cross, or would it have turned out to be the second Dardanelles?

However, there was a chance that even without the revolution, we simply would not have made it to the end of the war.

Be that as it may, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, Russia was shaken by the Civil War.

The Soviet period



It is never strange that the dying Russia and Turkey became allies during that period. It would be strange if it turned out somehow differently.

For Russia (even Soviet, at least some), the Turks on the Bosphorus are better than the British or the Greeks, pure pragmatism. As a result, we helped the Turks as much as we could, and at the Lausanne Conference of 1923 we supported her with all our might.

As a result, the Black Sea straits remained behind the Turks, but with the right of passage for warships of any states in peacetime. This was unprofitable for us and for the Turks, and in 1936 the Montreux Convention was signed, according to which the Black Sea countries received the right to freely navigate their ships through the straits, and the non-Black Sea countries - only in peacetime and with tonnage restrictions.

Article 18.

1. The total tonnage that Powers that are not coastal to the Black Sea may have in this sea in peacetime is limited as follows:

a) Except as provided in paragraph b) below, the total tonnage of the said Powers will not exceed 30000 tons;

b) In the event that, at any given moment, the tonnage of the strongest fleet in the Black Sea exceeds by at least 10000 tons the tonnage of the strongest fleet in that sea by the day of the signing of this Convention, then the total tonnage of 30000 tons provided for in paragraph a) will be increased by the same amount, up to a maximum figure of 45000 tons.

For this purpose, each Coastal Power will report, in accordance with Annex IV to this Convention, to the Turkish Government on January 1 and July 1 of each year, the total tonnage of its fleet in the Black Sea, and the Turkish Government will transmit this information to other High Contracting Parties, as well as to the Secretary General. League of Nations.

The convention is valid to this day. And, as practice has shown, it is she who is the best option for solving the problem of the straits, although it would not hurt to update some of its provisions.

The last act of the struggle for the straits was the 1940s, when Molotov, in negotiations with Hitler, raised the issue of the straits. But there, rather, the question was about control, in the sense that

d) The issue of Turkey and its fate cannot be resolved without our participation, since we have serious interests in Turkey.

The USSR did not intend to transfer the straits to Germany. And in 1945, Stalin demanded major concessions from Turkey.

From June 7 to July 6, 1945, the Soviet leadership made a number of decisions on Iran and Turkey and put forward demands that marked the beginning of the Cold War era.

One of the first actions in this series should be considered the reception by the People's Commissar V. Molotov of the Turkish Ambassador S. Sarper, to whom the conditions were read: joint control over the Straits, the provision of military bases to the Soviets in the Bosphorus and Dardanelles region, the return of Kars and Ardahan to the Union.

Which led, among other things, to Turkey's accession to NATO and problems on the southern flank of the Warsaw Pact. On the other hand, it was inevitable, and this attempt did not really affect anything.

Сonclusion


If we sum up the results of the 200-year struggle for the straits, it was justified: the Russian fleet needs access to the Mediterranean. But only partially successful. And the reason is both objective (fear of the powers of strengthening Russia) and subjective (indecision of the rulers at critical moments) factors. Nevertheless, at the moment this issue has been settled in the best way for Russia. And it is unlikely that in the foreseeable future there will be progress on it.
Author:
91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 24 August 2021 05: 41
    +2
    The tsarist autocracy was always late when it was necessary to quickly solve the most important issues, both in foreign policy and in domestic ... everything new was born in torment ... through defeats and revolutions ... ...
    No matter how this tradition is inherited now.
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 24 August 2021 06: 23
      +3
      So our problems have always been the same. We are not enough for everything.
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 24 August 2021 07: 22
      -7
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      The tsarist autocracy was always late when it was necessary to quickly solve the most important issues, as in external policy

      It was so "late" that it outstripped ALL in state building, creating the largest country in the world

      ,
      but in 1871 it happened - with the support of newborn Germany and, taking advantage of the military collapse of France, Russia abandoned the Paris restrictions.

      French support also led to the cancellation of the Paris Treaty. as well as the defeat of France. But the support of France would maintain the balance of power in Europe, preventing the rapidly growing united German monster from strengthening.

      And in fact, we got a strong Germany, which, in the absence of a weighty French counterbalance, unleashed TWO world slaughter in the very near future.

      The Berlin Congress, as a result of which Russia received nothing. No, some scraps of territories like Kars and Southern Bessarabia went to us

      Russia received the DANUBE (it is a pity that the author does not understand what it is) and the most important port in the Caucasus. Turkey, the eternal enemy, has been thrown back from the borders of Russia in the north of the Black Sea, i.e. where it has been carrying out aggression and expansion towards Russia for centuries.
      Russia was preparing ... to seize the straits, which it could take without a fight in 1878.
      could take, save now, no, see the Berlin Congress, it showed what Russia could claim

      We have not thought about this for 35 years, looking back at Europe in the Ottoman issue

      Would the author suggest that Russia unleash a World War? And for the straits it would be just like that: and the lesser reason led to PMA.

      And in WWI, the Black Sea Fleet with brilliant operations turned the Black Sea into the inland sea of ​​Russia and locked the Bosphorus, carrying out a unique and largest-scale in the history of wars at sea (at that time) the installation of minefields off the coast of a hostile state, the combat readiness of which was supported by ships, submarines and naval aviation IChF.

      The straits, again, could have taken, but no one would have allowed Russia to own them
      1. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 24 August 2021 07: 49
        +2
        Quote: Olgovich

        It was so "late" that it outstripped ALL in state building, creating the largest country in the world

        Created, yeah. Therefore, they created it because there was no serious opposition in the creation from anyone. So this is not a special merit. Everything happened by itself.
        1. Woodman
          Woodman 24 August 2021 08: 45
          0
          Quote: Krasnoyarsk
          So this is not a special merit. Everything happened by itself.

          And then I remembered "Kolya s Urengoy". By the rain, probably ...
        2. Archon
          Archon 21 October 2021 03: 45
          0
          Well, not quite by itself, but with the help of certain people who most likely yearned for fame and wealth, with the presence of patriotism. And the acquisition of Siberia, the Far East, Sakhalin, the Pacific Islands, North American territories and Alaska was not backed by political will and some kind of technology, plans for the future.
      2. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 24 August 2021 08: 40
        +5
        Quote: Olgovich
        It was so "late" that it outstripped ALL in state building, creating the largest country in the world

        Yeah, joining the tundra and taiga on the permafrost with a scanty population in the form of the Tungus and Khanty living in the Stone Age is, of course, a very great achievement wassat
        Quote: Olgovich
        And in fact, we got a strong Germany, which, in the absence of a weighty French counterbalance, unleashed TWO world slaughter in the very near future.

        Don't talk nonsense. The First World War was unleashed by Britain with its provocations, when Foreign Secretary Gray promised the German ambassador the neutrality of Britain in the event of a war with Russia and France, and he said to the ambassadors of Russia and France that Britain would definitely enter the war against Germany. The Second World War was also unleashed by Britain and France, declaring war on Germany on September 3, 1939, which turned the Polish-German war into a World War.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 24 August 2021 09: 20
          -5
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Yeah, joining the tundra and taiga on the permafrost with a scanty population in the form of the Tungus and Khanty living in the Stone Age is, of course, a very great achievement

          yours to such achievements (Warsaw-Kuriles, northern Iran-Novaya Zemlya) -as to Moscow, yes: your "achievements" are borders of the 17th century after 70 years of continuous "successes".
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Don't talk nonsense. The First World War was unleashed by Britain with its provocations,.

          those. the beast that itself attacked almost ALL of its neighbors, killed and wounded millions of itself, and ... did not want to? "Set on", right? belay lol
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          The Second World War was also unleashed by Britain and France, declaring war on Germany on September 3, 1939

          and again poor naive Germany suffered from the evil machinations of cynical sophisticated villains, right? wink And yes, you forgot the United States. Weave lol
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 24 August 2021 10: 04
            +2
            Quote: Olgovich
            yours to such achievements (Warsaw-Kuriles, northern Iran-Novaya Zemlya) - as to Moscow, yes: your "achievements" are the borders of the 17th century after 70 years of continuous "successes".

            There were no communists in Britain, but Britain nevertheless lost Ireland, British India and South Africa.
            Quote: Olgovich
            those. the beast that itself attacked almost ALL of its neighbors, killed and wounded millions of itself, and ... did not want to? "Set on", right?

            Exactly what they incited. The Kaiser was confident that Britain would remain neutral, he was not crazy to fight against Russia, France and Britain at the same time, because Britain was then the world hegemon with inexhaustible resources from the colonies. And the British assured the German ambassador in London that Britain would remain neutral. For comparison, when the Adagir crisis occurred in 1911, Prime Minister Lloyd said that if Germany did not abandon Morocco, Britain would declare war on Germany, and the Germans immediately backed up, recognizing Morocco as French. Is it possible that after only 3 years, in 1914, something has changed, since the Kaiser, in your opinion, decided to fight against the three strongest powers in Europe - France, Russia and Britain?
            Quote: Olgovich
            and again poor naive Germany suffered from the evil machinations of cynical sophisticated villains, right? And yes, you forgot the United States. Weave

            In this case, the aggressors are precisely France and Britain, since it was they who declared war on Germany, and not vice versa. That is, by and large, the main unleashers of WWII are not Germany or even the USSR, as liberals like to assert, but precisely the very strongholds of democracy - France and Britain.
          2. Kozak Za Bugra
            Kozak Za Bugra 24 August 2021 10: 53
            +6
            [/ Quote]
            and again poor naive Germany suffered from the evil machinations of cynical sophisticated villains, right? wink And yes, you forgot the United States. Weave lol[/ Quote]

            In principle, yes, from intrigues, Great Britain gave Germany Carte Blanche to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia, promising lightning neutrality in case of war ... Well, the Germans suffered, and the United States, by the way, feared a war with Great Britain, which ruled Japan over American possessions in the Pacific.
            The same thing happened in WWI Great Britain hoped to drag the countries into war among themselves, playing on contradictions and promising neutrality, expecting a war and its strengthening when all the other fought and aslabevalib among themselves.
      3. Foul skeptic
        Foul skeptic 24 August 2021 09: 01
        +2
        It was so "late" that it outstripped ALL in state building, creating the largest country in the world

        State building - in politics, the area of ​​state activity (along with economic and socio-cultural construction), dealing with relations between the center and the regions, designing and organizing the work of optimal state bodies, effectively implementing their functions for the progressive socio-economic development of the state and society, ensuring political and individual personal rights of citizens.
        It seems that state building and the size of the country are not so closely related to each other.
        But the support of France would maintain the balance of power in Europe, preventing the rapidly growing united German monster from strengthening.

        For half a century (a little more) before that, the monster seemed to be French, I could be wrong.
        Russia received the DUNAI (it is a pity that the author does not understand what it is)

        Until last week, you yourself did not really understand what it was, until in the conversation about the beginning of the PMA you clarified this to you.
        having carried out the unique and most ambitious in the history of war at sea (at that time) the installation of minefields

        Is it the most ambitious in WWI? What is it? Areas of obstacles, the number of mines, the forces and means involved?
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 24 August 2021 11: 10
          .
          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          om), dealing with relations between the center and the regions, designing and organizing the work of optimal state bodies, effective p [/ b],

          .The red-haired man was quite accustomed to the situation and quite sensibly, albeit monotonously, told the content of the mass brochure "Mutiny on Ochakovo"(C)lol
          commented on "external": it was built the biggest state of the world.
          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          For half a century (a little more) before that, the monster was French, it seems, I could be wrong

          somewhere there are restrictions on the quantity?

          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          Until last week, you yourself did not really understand what it was.

          you did not understand anything before her (because in elementary facts / events there is zero) and after that you did not understand anything, despite the fact that you poked your nose at what you put on, yes
          Quote: Nefarious skeptic
          Is it the most ambitious in WWI? What is it? Areas of obstacles, the number of mines, the forces and means involved?

          other conditions are indicated, how much can you poke?
          1. Foul skeptic
            Foul skeptic 24 August 2021 12: 03
            +6
            commented on the "external": the largest state in the world was built.

            Again, this will not be true. The Russian Empire was not the largest state in the world. In general, it is strange to judge the success of the state in the 21st century from the standpoint of "size matters." People have some kind of complexes.
            somewhere there are restrictions on the quantity?

            By the quantity of what?
            you did not understand anything before her (because in elementary facts / events there is zero) and after that you did not understand anything, despite the fact that you poked your nose at what you put on, yes

            You see what the matter is ... you can talk as much as you like about someone's misunderstanding, poking your nose, etc. ... but any forum member at any time can simply view the flow of our conversations and draw a conclusion on their own.
            other conditions are indicated, how much can you poke?

            Are you talking about the shores of an enemy state? And what is the point in such an "additional condition"?
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 25 August 2021 07: 23
              -5
              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              Again, this will not be true. The Russian Empire was not the largest state in the world.

              was. Dominions of Britain are actually independent states within the empire.
              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              By the quantity of what?

              by the number of you mentioned, do not remember yourself already?
              In general, it is strange to judge the success of the state in the 21st century from the standpoint of "size matters." People have some kind of complexes.

              and you try to build at least a one-point toilet, not that the largest country in the world, then you say
              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              You see what the matter is ... you can talk as much as you like about someone's misunderstanding, poking your nose, etc. ... but any forum member at any time can simply view the flow of our conversations and draw a conclusion on their own.

              who needs you, Nobody? lol

              .I la: talk about the Danube-on the table, liar

              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              Are you talking about the shores of an enemy state? And what is the point in such an "additional condition"?

              fool
              Read ONE AGAIN if you don't get it.
              1. Foul skeptic
                Foul skeptic 25 August 2021 10: 14
                +2
                was. Dominions of Britain are actually independent states within the empire.

                Is the Russian segment of Wikipedia your everything? All the "knowledge" from resources of this level? Can you tell me how "de facto independence" relates to "dominion"? This is the meaning of the word "dominion" in English. Tell Henry VIII about "virtually independent states" under which Wales was declared dominion. That would have surprised him in the 16th century to learn that he was declaring a "virtually independent" state. The General Government of the "Principality of Finland" was more independent than the dominions of the British Empire. In fact, they began to make them independent (without quotes) (they began to make them, not they became) after the sixth and seventh imperial conferences, that is, after the Russian Empire disappeared.
                by the number of you mentioned, do not remember yourself already?

                The problem is that I do not mention the quantity ...
                Quote: A vile skeptic
                For half a century (a little more) before that, the monster was French, it seems, I could be wrong

                and you try to build at least a one-point toilet, not that the largest country in the world, then you say

                Ah-ah, so on what basis and by what criterion do you consider yourself an expert in all matters. wassat
                And la: talk about the Danube-on the table, liar

                Stamp your foot still. As soon as I see from you the fulfillment of all previous requests to you for an explanation of what you have written or the provision of supporting documents for what you have written, I will immediately begin to take such statements seriously.
                Quote: A vile skeptic
                Because it was necessary to solve the problem with the Danube controlled by Austria-Hungary, which was the bread artery of Europe.

                Read ONE AGAIN if you don't get it.

                Read what? Explanations from you to the question asked to you? So there are no explanations.
                Quote: Olgovich
                And in WWI, the Black Sea Fleet with brilliant operations turned the Black Sea into an internal sea of ​​Russia and locked the Bosphorus, having carried out the unique and most ambitious in the history of wars at sea (at that time) the installation of minefields off the coast of a hostile state, the combat readiness of which was supported by ships, submarines and IChF naval aviation.

                Can you explain why you call the installation of minefields by the Black Sea Fleet in WWI "unique and most ambitious" (from any position that you consider defining "uniqueness and scale)?
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 25 August 2021 10: 49
                  -5
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  your everything?

                  idle chatter - your everything: Canada July 1, 2017 celebrated 150 years of independence.

                  Finland-pah on the size of the country.
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  The problem is that I have the quantity is not mentioned.

                  what have you got to do with it? I have it mentioned.
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  Ah-ah-ah, and so on what basis and.

                  you see, you are not even elementary lol can lol understand or even imagine, but trying to reason
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  those. TO

                  You, a liar, cannot imagine the conversation you have announced about the Danube. Thursday d.

                  And how many screams ... lol Shame ..
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  Can you explain why you call the installation of minefields by the Black Sea Fleet in WWI "unique and most ambitious" (from any position that you consider defining "uniqueness and scale)?

                  it is enough for you that you have been given interesting information about which you are not, and then you will find out if you want.

                  Teach, yes ... yes

                  Maybe that will come
                  1. Foul skeptic
                    Foul skeptic 25 August 2021 12: 08
                    0
                    idle chatter is your everything: Canada celebrated 1 years of independence on July 2017, 150

                    July 1 in Canada, even after 1982, is not a holiday celebrating the country's independence day. Empty chatter is the news feed in the media, from where you frantically dug this pearl.
                    Canada did not become independent in 1867 - just out of 3 colonies (objects of an empire with a representative government) they made one dominion (an object of an empire with a responsible government). And this was not a step of granting independence, but a diametrically opposite step - the strengthening of the power of the British crown - the influence of the French part of the population of these colonies (and earlier these were the colonies of France, which Britain squeezed for itself together with the French population) on the political life of the colonies was limited by creating a single rather than a fragmented counterweight from the English representatives. To know such things, it is necessary not to read journalists with loud headlines that do not correspond to reality.
                    Finland-pah on the size of the country.

                    And the point is not in the size of the country (you really have some kind of complexes with this), but in the fact that your language will not turn to consider Finland not as part of the Russian Empire, and you do not consider parts of the British Empire as part of it, having invented them independence for the period up to 1917. You are such an unbiased builder of one-point toilets. wassat
                    what have you got to do with it? I have it mentioned.

                    Yes? Where do you mention the amount of something here?
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    French support also led to the cancellation of the Paris Treaty. as well as the defeat of France. But the support of France would maintain the balance of power in Europe, preventing the rapidly growing united German monster from strengthening.

                    you see, you can understand or even imagine an elementary lol lol, but you are trying to reason

                    How did you make such a conclusion from this message?
                    and you try to build at least a one-point toilet, not that the largest country in the world, then you say

                    Ah-ah, so on what basis and by what criterion do you consider yourself an expert in all matters.

                    You, a liar, cannot imagine the conversation you have announced about the Danube. Thursday d.

                    And how many yells ... lol Shame ..

                    So far, only you are the disgrace here.
                    I did not state about the "talk about the Danube", you, in your repertoire, distorted my words about the "talk about the beginning of WWI", where you were told about the role of the Danube in the grain trade in Europe. An excerpt from the conversation is given to you. Just so you can learn internet etiquette with visual examples.
                    it is enough for you that you have been given interesting information about which you are not, and then you will find out if you want.

                    Information from the dream world of a single individual is not interesting, reality is closer to me.
                    I learned about the mine war at sea in WWI from the work of Goncharov. Therefore, I had every reason to ask - can you somehow justify your fantasies? Including the previous ones and these
                    Quote: Olgovich
                    if they still do not understand, then I talked about only one operation - about continuous minefields (and not about individual banks) from Europe to Asia, set at the other end of the sea near the enemy shores, in the sea front of the Bosphorus.

                    The number of mines in the obstacles is 4153, and Rybka mines specially made for this operation were also used.

                    Because your information is at odds with Goncharov. And there is more reason to believe him than you.
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 25 August 2021 14: 29
                      -3
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      Canada did not become independent in

                      has become actually independent, this is the BBC: "Canada just celebrated 1 years of independence on July 150"

                      The country "Smolensk" or "Bryansk region" did not participate in the WWI, but the countries Canada, New Zealand, VBrtania, yes
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      And the point is not in the size of the country (you really have some kind of complexes with this), but in the fact that your language will not turn to consider Finland not as part of the Russian Empire, and you do not consider parts of the British Empire as part of it, having invented them independence for the period up to 1917.

                      you are combing the "case" with a complex of agoraphobia: there was no such country "finland" at that time,
                      there was only Russia, just like the country Canada was, which officially considers itself to have existed since 1867.

                      But only Russia succeeded build the largest country in the world - it was so difficult and unique task.

                      What incapable crooks cannot understand.
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      Yes? Where do you mention the amount of something here?

                      you mentioned "one more". Sclerosis?
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      How did you make such a conclusion from this message?

                      when it doesn't reach, read it again, ten times
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      So far, only you are the disgrace here.
                      I did not state about the "talk about the Danube", you, in your repertoire, distorted my words about the "talk about the beginning WWI", where

                      fuu, liar: what, in, PMV, when I talked about Danube 1878
                      Russia received the DUNAI (it is a pity that the author does not understand what it is)
                      ?

                      What are you weaving?
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      Information from the dream world of a single person is not interesting, reality is closer to me

                      you are given real facts, as opposed to your alternate history
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      Because your information is at odds with Goncharov. And there is more reason to believe him than you.

                      VIOLATION OF MARINE COMMUNICATIONS:
                      PROBLEMS AND WAYS OF THEIR SOLUTION
                      ON EXPERIENCE OF ACTIONS OF THE RUSSIAN FLEET
                      IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR
                      (1914–1917)
                      07.00.02 - Domestic history
                      Abstract of dissertation for the degree of doctor
                      historical sciences
                      1. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 26 August 2021 10: 45
                        -1
                        became virtually independent, this is the Air Force: "Canada just, on July 1, celebrated 150 years of independence."

                        The country "Smolensk" or "Bryansk region" did not participate in the WWI, but the countries Canada, New Zealand, VBrtania, yes
                        you are combing the "case" with a complex of agoraphobia: there was no such country "finland" at that time,
                        there was only Russia, just like the country Canada was, which officially considers itself to have existed since 1867.

                        But only Russia managed to build the largest country in the world - it was such a difficult and unique task.

                        1) And what, what is the BBC? I know perfectly well where you got this stupidity from, I wrote to you earlier - "This is a news feed in the media, from where you frantically dug this pearl. ... To know such things, one should not read journalists with loud headlines that do not correspond to reality." Do you want to sketch news from the BBC on Crimea, Navalny, "newbie", etc.? Do you recognize them as true? belay
                        2) Do you think the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada are weighty enough? Well, compared to the same BBC? I will give you an excerpt from the decision on the right to extract mineral resources on the shelf. In short, so as not to present a multi-page text here, I will explain the essence of the matter. When British Columbia was annexed to Canada, the shelf was not delimited. When minerals were later discovered there, naturally, the legal question of their ownership arose. This issue was closed by this court decision in 1967. Here is an excerpt from the decision that applies to our conversation as well:

                        At the time of accession (1871) Canada is not a sovereign state. And when does it become such? And we look further:

                        By 1931. By the way, an interesting fact is mentioned that until 1928 the territorial waters were called "British waters".
                        3) The absence of the countries "Smolensk or Bryansk region" as part of the empire and the presence of the countries Canada and New Zealand as part of the empire does not mean the independence of the administrative unit that is part of the Empire - it is just that the metropolis itself decides the form of the administrative-territorial structure as it is convenient for it (and not dependent territory).
                        4) It is very good that you mentioned the participation of these countries in WWI - this is another proof of the lack of independence. Since the participation of these countries on the side of the metropolis was predetermined by law. For "independent" Canada, in particular, paragraph 15 of one of the BNA Acts (Act's of BNA) - The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. Very independent, isn't it?
                        5) By the way, in order not to postpone, I will immediately show one more, completely "independent" paragraph, No. 9 - The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
                        Moreover, "independence" extends to a very wide range of cases, paragraph 16 - Until the Queen otherwise directs, the Seat of Government of Canada shall be Ottawa.
                        6) There was no difference whether the country was "Finland" or not. Do not replace content with a form. That Canada, that Finland is an administrative-territorial unit within the empire (the governor-general, which he ruled, as well as in Canada ... the governor-general). Therefore, there was not Russia, but the Russian Empire, and not Canada, but the Dominion of Canada within the British Empire. And it was this name (and not Canada) that was official, which was enshrined in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the aforementioned acts. - "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly. "
                        Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean "Canada as constituted under this Act.End note"
                        .
                        7) "Considering" oneself as existing as the basis for a holiday and the independence of the state are not the same thing. You don't have to go far, the Belarusian brothers adopted the date of July 3, 1944 as Independence Day.
                        8) If you look at the chronological line of world history, you will see that there has always been the largest state in history, and it was not always Russia (in the broad sense of the word) (but only from the 20th century). This is a normal historical process, as well as the fact that all the largest ones disintegrated into smaller ones. And to complete the conversation about "the biggest", I will just give a couple of pictures (from the statistical collection of the Central Statistical Bureau of 1913 and from the Brockhaus encyclopedia of the 1890s):





                        Since the message came out large, you will have to answer the rest in a subsequent message
                      2. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 26 August 2021 11: 47
                        -3
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And what, what is the BBC? I wrote to you earlier

                        do not care about these written nonsense: such a "single" country was that the GOVERNMENTS states, its components, independently make ... decisions to enter the war, sign the Treaty of Versailles and join the league of nations:

                        the Australian government's reaction followed the words of Prime Minister Joseph Cook dated August 5, 1914: “... If the Empire has declared war, then Australia will do the same»

                        She might not have done the same, it was her GOOD will.

                        Bryansk region is also visible, declared war on Germany
                      3. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 26 August 2021 15: 42
                        -1
                        do not give a damn about these written nonsense: such a "single" country was that the GOVERNMENTS of the states that make it up independently make ... decisions to enter the war, sign the Treaty of Versailles and join the League of Nations:
                        the reaction of the Australian government followed the words of Prime Minister Joseph Cook dated August 5, 1914: "... If the Empire declared war, then Australia will do the same."
                        She might not have done the same, it was her GOOD will.
                        Bryansk region is also visible, declared war on Germany

                        1) You forgot to provide evidence of the "independence" of these actions. How independent Canada is in actions related to the armed forces has already been shown to you (in the act of the law).
                        2) Australia was exactly that "independent / independent". Here are the provisions of the Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900, which show this very "independence" (in front of the provision I put its continuous number in the document and give a short explanation if it’s not enough with English, although the translator will help here):
                        1 - The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth.
                        Legislative power is vested in the Parliament, consisting of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives
                        2 - A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
                        The Governor General is appointed by the Queen, whose powers are determined by the Queen at her will
                        5 - The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.
                        The Governor General (appointed by the Queen and acting on her behalf) determines the work of Parliament, up to the dissolution of the House of Representatives.
                        58 - When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.
                        Any law of parliament must be approved by the Governor General (appointed by the Queen and acting on her behalf)
                        59 - The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.
                        The Queen can repeal any law within a year after its adoption, it will be considered canceled on the same day
                        60 - A proposed law reserved for the Queen's pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor ‑ General for the Queen's assent the Governor ‑ General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen's assent.
                        Any law approved by the Governor General must be approved by the Queen
                        61 - The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
                        Executive power in the state belongs to the queen and is exercised through the governor-general.
                        If you cite all such "independent" points, it will drag on. Therefore, I will end with a cherry on the cake - an oath to the queen:

                        3) Now regarding the words of Prime Minister Joseph Cook dated August 5, 1914: "... If the Empire declared war, then Australia will do the same" ... which you found on Wikipedia lol
                        To understand the reason for these words, you need to know the environment in which they appeared. And they appeared during the election race, where the liberal Cook and his party were relegated to the background by the opposition in the person of Labor Party Fischer. And Cook knew this, since the Laborites won a majority in the Senate. Therefore, he grabbed at any straw to raise his rating. Including flirting on imperial the feelings of the population. Since he knew that "Australia will do the same" before August 5 lol Since the telegram that Britain is likely to participate in the war came from the metropolis on July 30.07.2014, 3, and on August 1, Governor General Fergusson initiated a cabinet meeting on this matter. By the way, do you know what the main expeditionary forces from Australia were called? XNUMXst AIF. Do you know how it stands for? First Australian Imperial Force. Do you know who approved the General scheme of defense back in 1913? British Committee of Imperial Defense. Do you know who inspected the readiness of the Australian army to fulfill the plan in early 1914? Inspector General of British Overseas Forces Ian Hamilton.
                        To understand anything, Wikipedia is not enough, you know, good books are needed:

                        I especially like the ending ... about constitutional and Australia's political inability to stay out of the way. The very "independence and independence".
                        4) Geopolitical myopia to see the "independence" of individual signatories in the signatures under the peace treaty. This is just an example of the experience of British diplomacy, which, instead of one vote in the League of Nations, achieved six votes. The British focus was not in vain - a similar thing, albeit with a lower efficiency, was then turned over by the Soviets, having received two additional non-permanent members of the UN Security Council.
                      4. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 27 August 2021 08: 35
                        -2
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        do not give a damn about these written nonsense: such a "single" country was that the GOVERNMENTS of the states that make it up independently make ... decisions to enter the war, sign the Treaty of Versailles and join the League of Nations:
                        the reaction of the Australian government followed the words of Prime Minister Joseph Cook dated August 5, 1914: "... If the Empire declared war, then Australia will do the same."
                        She might not have done the same, it was her GOOD will.
                        Bryansk region is also visible, declared war on Germany

                        1) You forgot to provide evidence of the "independence" of these actions. How independent Canada is in actions related to the armed forces has already been shown to you (in the act of the law).
                        2) Australia was exactly that "independent / independent". Here are the provisions of the Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900, which show this very "independence" (in front of the provision I put its continuous number in the document and give a short explanation if it’s not enough with English, although the translator will help here):
                        1 - The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth.
                        Legislative power is vested in the Parliament, consisting of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives
                        2 - A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
                        The Governor General is appointed by the Queen, whose powers are determined by the Queen at her will
                        5 - The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.
                        The Governor General (appointed by the Queen and acting on her behalf) determines the work of Parliament, up to the dissolution of the House of Representatives.
                        58 - When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.
                        Any law of parliament must be approved by the Governor General (appointed by the Queen and acting on her behalf)
                        59 - The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.
                        The Queen can repeal any law within a year after its adoption, it will be considered canceled on the same day
                        60 - A proposed law reserved for the Queen's pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor ‑ General for the Queen's assent the Governor ‑ General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen's assent.
                        Any law approved by the Governor General must be approved by the Queen
                        61 - The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
                        Executive power in the state belongs to the queen and is exercised through the governor-general.
                        If you cite all such "independent" points, it will drag on. Therefore, I will end with a cherry on the cake - an oath to the queen:

                        3) Now regarding the words of Prime Minister Joseph Cook dated August 5, 1914: "... If the Empire declared war, then Australia will do the same" ... which you found on Wikipedia lol
                        To understand the reason for these words, you need to know the environment in which they appeared. And they appeared during the election race, where the liberal Cook and his party were relegated to the background by the opposition in the person of Labor Party Fischer. And Cook knew this, since the Laborites won a majority in the Senate. Therefore, he grabbed at any straw to raise his rating. Including flirting on imperial the feelings of the population. Since he knew that "Australia will do the same" before August 5 lol Since the telegram that Britain is likely to participate in the war came from the metropolis on July 30.07.2014, 3, and on August 1, Governor General Fergusson initiated a cabinet meeting on this matter. By the way, do you know what the main expeditionary forces from Australia were called? XNUMXst AIF. Do you know how it stands for? First Australian Imperial Force. Do you know who approved the General scheme of defense back in 1913? British Committee of Imperial Defense. Do you know who inspected the readiness of the Australian army to fulfill the plan in early 1914? Inspector General of British Overseas Forces Ian Hamilton.
                        To understand anything, Wikipedia is not enough, you know, good books are needed:

                        I especially like the ending ... about constitutional and Australia's political inability to stay out of the way. The very "independence and independence".
                        4) Geopolitical myopia to see the "independence" of individual signatories in the signatures under the peace treaty. This is just an example of the experience of British diplomacy, which, instead of one vote in the League of Nations, achieved six votes. The British focus was not in vain - a similar thing, albeit with a lower efficiency, was then turned over by the Soviets, having received two additional non-permanent members of the UN Security Council.

                        again idle chatter: show the decision of the GOVERNMENT of the Yekaterinoslav province to declare war on Germany. What? No?

                        When you find it, come.
                      5. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 27 August 2021 08: 46
                        -1
                        again idle chatter: show the decision of the GOVERNMENT of the Yekaterinoslav province to declare war on Germany. What? No?

                        When you find it, come.

                        Refute this "idle chatter", only for this you will have to refute the constitutional acts of Canada, Australia, Douglas Newton, etc. fool wassat
                        And what does the Yekaterinoslav province of the Russian Empire have to do with the administrative-territorial and political division of the British Empire?
                        And what does this have to do with the question of the "largest" country? Refute the CSO and the compilers of the Brockhaus encyclopedia tongue
                      6. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 27 August 2021 09: 41
                        -2
                        The largest country in the world is Russia, Britain was-set countriesif it hasn't come down to now.
                      7. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic 27 August 2021 09: 55
                        0
                        Who didn't get it? The CSB didn't get it? The compilers of the Brockhaus encyclopedia didn't get it? Do you refute them? I can still give you sources from that era, which also "did not reach" tongue
          2. Foul skeptic
            Foul skeptic 26 August 2021 11: 40
            -1
            you mentioned "one more". Sclerosis?

            referring to my question about quantity limitation

            I refer to your mention of another one.

            Chronology of messages in their logical sequence:
            Quote: Olgovich
            But the support of France would maintain the balance of power in Europe, preventing the rapidly growing united German monster from strengthening.

            Quote: A vile skeptic
            For half a century (a little more) before that, the monster seemed to be French, I could be wrong.

            Quote: Olgovich
            somewhere there are restrictions on the quantity?

            Quote: A vile skeptic
            By the quantity of what?

            Quote: Olgovich
            by the number of you mentioned, do not remember yourself already?

            Quote: A vile skeptic
            The problem is that I do not mention the quantity ...

            Quote: Olgovich
            what have you got to do with it? I have it mentioned.

            Quote: A vile skeptic
            Yes? Where do you mention the amount of something here?

            Quote: Olgovich
            you mentioned "one more". Sclerosis?

            Can't you see how you lie? Contradict yourself twice and attribute to others what they did not say.
          3. Olgovich
            Olgovich 26 August 2021 12: 05
            -3
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            Can't you see how you lie? Contradict yourself twice and attribute to others what they did not say.

            THIRD TIME for armored ones:

            1.I refer to MY question (somewhere there are restrictions on quantity?):

            /// what do you have to do with it? I have mentioned ////

            2.I refer to YOUR (Quote: Vile skeptic: Some half a century before the monster was French seems to be) mention of another one instance:

            /// by the number of you mentioned yourself do not remember already? /// you mentioned "one more". ///

            you don't see that ... don't you see anything? belay
          4. Foul skeptic
            Foul skeptic 26 August 2021 16: 37
            -1
            1.I'm referring to MY question (are there any quantity restrictions?):
            /// what do you have to do with it? I mentioned ////

            Just BEFORE that you wrote - "by the number of mentioned you- don't remember yourself already? "
            Or do you have a complaint about the text of your own message? wassat fool
            2.I refer to YOUR (Quote: Vile skeptic: For some half a century before that, the monster seemed to be French) mention of another instance:
            /// by the number of you mentioned yourself do not remember already? /// you mentioned "one more". ///

            It remains to show my message with the words "one more" wassat
            What nonsense are you still talking about?
          5. Olgovich
            Olgovich 27 August 2021 08: 41
            -2
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            Just BEFORE that you wrote - "do not remember yourself by the number of you mentioned?"
            Or do you have a complaint

            What are my claims to the mournful m you? belay

            FOURTH TIME: 1. I refer to MY question (where are there any restrictions on the quantity?):

            /// what do you have to do with it? I mentioned ////

            2.I refer to YOUR (Quote: Vile skeptic: For some half a century before that, the monster seemed to be French) mention of another instance:

            /// by the number of you mentioned yourself do not remember already? /// you mentioned "one more". /// Ra
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            It remains to show my message with the words "more

            froze again ...
            On :
            Quote: A vile skeptic
            For half a century (a little more) before that, the monster was French
          6. Foul skeptic
            Foul skeptic 27 August 2021 08: 53
            -1
            FOURTH TIME: 1. I refer to MY question (where are there any restrictions on the quantity?):

            /// what do you have to do with it? I mentioned ////

            2.I refer to YOUR (Quote: Vile skeptic: For some half a century before that, the monster seemed to be French) mention of another instance:

            /// by the number of you mentioned yourself do not remember already? /// you mentioned "one more". /// Ra

            What are you carrying? Read the above chronological sequence and try to find the logic in your own posts. Your messages are out of the context of mine.
            froze again ...
            On :
            Quote: A vile skeptic
            For half a century (a little more) before that, the monster was French

            Where is "another one" here? You are healthy?
          7. Olgovich
            Olgovich 27 August 2021 09: 44
            -2
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            What are you carrying? Read the above chronological sequence and try to find the logic in your own posts. Your messages are out of the context of mine.

            What are you carrying? Read the above chronological sequence and try to find the logic in your own posts. Your messages are out of the context of mine.

            Everything is strictly logical and consistent with me
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            Where is "another one" here? You are healthy?

            you-no: if I'm talking about one thing, and you STILL about one thing that is happening to you
  2. Foul skeptic
    Foul skeptic 26 August 2021 16: 26
    -1
    fuu, liar: what, in, PMV, when I talked about the Danube 1878
    Russia received the DUNAI (it is a pity that the author does not understand what it is)
    ?
    What are you weaving?

    Chronology of messages:
    Quote: Olgovich
    Russia received the DUNAI (it is a pity that the author does not understand what it is)

    Quote: A vile skeptic
    Until last week, you yourself did not really understand what it was, until in the conversation about the beginning of the PMA you clarified this to you.

    Quote: Olgovich
    you did not understand anything before her (because in elementary facts / events there is zero) and after that you did not understand anything, despite the fact that you poked your nose at what you put on, yes

    Quote: A vile skeptic
    You see what the matter is ... you can talk as much as you like about someone's misunderstanding, poking your nose, etc. ... but any forum member at any time can simply view the flow of our conversations and draw a conclusion on their own.

    Quote: Olgovich
    who needs you, Nobody? lol
    .I la: talk about the Danube-on the table, liar

    Quote: A vile skeptic
    Because it was necessary to solve the problem with the Danube controlled by Austria-Hungary, which was the bread artery of Europe.

    Quote: Olgovich
    You, a liar, cannot imagine the conversation you have announced about the Danube. Thursday d.
    And how many yells ... lol Shame ..

    Quote: A vile skeptic
    So far, only you are the disgrace here.
    I did not state about the "talk about the Danube", you, in your repertoire, distorted my words about the "talk about the beginning of WWI", where you were told about the role of the Danube in the grain trade in Europe. An excerpt from the conversation is given to you. Just so you can learn internet etiquette with visual examples.

    The conversation in which you learned about the significance of the Danube to the Russian Empire was the conversation about the beginning of WWI last week. And the fact that you then "showed" this knowledge this week in a conversation about the period of the 1870s does not in any way affect the source of this information - the conversation about PMA - which you did not deny ("you and before her") and now you are arranging "noble indignation" in the style of Aristarkh Ludwigovich wassat
    you are given real facts, as opposed to your alternate history

    Where are the real facts in this value judgment?
    Quote: Olgovich
    having carried out the unique and most ambitious in the history of wars at sea (at that time) the installation of minefields off the coast of a hostile state

    Can you confirm this value judgment (about uniqueness and scale)?
    VIOLATION OF MARINE COMMUNICATIONS:
    PROBLEMS AND WAYS OF THEIR SOLUTION
    ON EXPERIENCE OF ACTIONS OF THE RUSSIAN FLEET
    IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR
    (1914–1917)
    07.00.02 - Domestic history
    Abstract of dissertation for the degree of doctor
    historical sciences

    And in the abstract there is nothing that confirms your value judgment, it only confirms the number you are using (4153). By the way, if you find a review from the commission for the work, then in the comments you will find a point about the inferiority of consideration as evidence of the blockade effect in the form of an assessment of the decrease in the amount of transported coal.
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich 27 August 2021 08: 53
    -2
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    The conversation in which you learned about the significance of the Danube to the Russian Empire was the conversation about the beginning of WWI last week.

    1. I learned about the significance of the Danube for Russia even when you were still in your pants, yes: RTVy, the storming of Ishmael, the wars of 1812, 1854, 1878 is the Danube to a greater / lesser extent.

    .2. Conversation about the Danube 1878 before this topic on the table, a liar.
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    Where are the real facts in this value judgment?

    read it a hundred times until you reach it.
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    Can you confirm this value judgment (about uniqueness and scale)?

    compare and it will come
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    And in the abstract there is nothing that confirms your value judgment, it only confirms the number you are using (4153). By the way, if you find a review from the commission for the work, then in the comments you will find a point about the inferiority of consideration as evidence of the blockade effect in the form of an assessment of the decrease in the amount of transported coal.

    the remark is worth nothing.
  4. Foul skeptic
    Foul skeptic 27 August 2021 09: 35
    -1
    1. I learned about the significance of the Danube for Russia even when you were still in your pants, yes: RTVy, the storming of Ishmael, the wars of 1812, 1854, 1878 is the Danube to a greater / lesser extent.

    What are you carrying? Collected in one heap the military events with the participation of the country in the Balkans and give them the reason for the economic importance of the Danube for Russia? Particularly pleased with the mention of the storming of Ishmael during the war of 1787-1791, announced by Turkey.
    I'll tell you more, you still don't know the details of the economic significance of the Danube for Russia, just already know what it is. Wikipedia and LJ don't just write this wassat
    .2. Conversation about the Danube 1878 before this topic on the table, a liar.

    And why? If it is clear to you in what conversation it was written about the significance of the Danube for Russia. So you are a liar.
    read it a hundred times until you reach it.

    You can read two hundred times - when they are not there, they will not appear on subsequent readings of the same text. Again, you are not able to confirm your words.
    compare and it will come

    Just because I compared it, I can say that your words about "scale and uniqueness" do not correspond to reality.
    the remark is worth nothing.

    Why? Because the builder of one-point toilets wanted it that way?
  5. Olgovich
    Olgovich 27 August 2021 10: 27
    -2
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    What are you carrying? Collected in one heap the military events with the participation of the country in the Balkans and give them the reason for the economic importance of the Danube for Russia?

    what are you talking about, ignoramus?

    These wars are linked by the desire for the possession of fortresses on the banks and the Danube Delta (as one of the goals)
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    I'll tell you more

    Yes, nobody cares about these tales of useless. lol
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    And why not?

    but because there was no talk of the Danube 1878, a liar.

    On his table, powerless
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    Just because I compared it, I can say that your words about "scale and uniqueness" do not correspond to reality.

    You do not lol can lol liar.
    chatter alone
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    Why? Because the builder of one-point toilets wanted it that way?


    Not a bankrupt, an unfinished one, sealed with snot, an unfinished lopsided one-point one that collapsed just 70 years later on the heads of would-be builders and drowned them in a filled fetid pit, and ask, yes.
  6. Foul skeptic
    Foul skeptic 27 August 2021 10: 54
    -1
    These wars are linked by the desire for the possession of fortresses on the banks and the Danube Delta (as one of the goals)

    Will you show at least one historian who thinks so (about the purpose of the "Danube Delta to support exports" in these wars)? Moreover, as in the case with the use of the word "cabotage", you again slapped "delta Danube "not realizing that the Danube Delta does not in any way affect the economic side of the issue with export problems, which arose later, already in the 20th century. Which is just evidence that you "and now you do not know the details of the economic significance of the Danube for Russia, just already know what it is. "
    but because there was no talk of the Danube 1878, a liar.

    Why then do you demand to show what is not? Show me my words, where I say that you learned about the role of the Danube for Russia from the "conversation about the Danube in 1878"? If I didn’t say that, then on what basis do you demand it from me?
    you can't lol lol, liar.
    chatter alone

    And, that is, I did not substantiate my words about "scale and uniqueness"?
    Not a bankrupt, an unfinished one, sealed with snot, an unfinished lopsided one-point one that collapsed just 70 years later on the heads of would-be builders and drowned them in a filled fetid pit, and ask, yes.

    Everything, the citizen is hysterical.
  7. Olgovich
    Olgovich 27 August 2021 11: 36
    -2
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    Will you show at least one historian who thinks so (about the purpose of the "Danube Delta to support exports" in these wars)? Moreover, as in the case with the use of the word "cabotage", you again slapped the "Danube delta" without realizing that the Danube delta does not in any way affect the economic side of the issue with export problems, which arose later, already in the 20th century.

    what is the 20th century, ignoramus?

    The Danube has ALWAYS been of strategic importance as the main river of non-Russian Europe and the trans-European trade route
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    Why then do you demand to show what is not?

    did we talk about the Danube 1878 earlier? No. And you will get out with your PMA, mentioning, allegedly, a conversation about this that had taken place earlier. It was NOT there, liar.
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    And, that is, I did not substantiate my words about "scale and uniqueness"?

    you have not refuted these facts.
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    All,

    But who needs the bankrupt, unfinished construction of a lop-sided, unfinished, lopsided one-point, sealed with snot, which has collapsed on the heads of would-be builders and drowned them in a filled, fetid pit?
    belay lol
    no one can call.
  • Foul skeptic
    Foul skeptic 25 August 2021 12: 30
    0
    Quote: Olgovich
    what have you got to do with it? I have it mentioned.

    Quote: Olgovich
    by the number of you mentioned, do not remember yourself already?

    lol laughing tongue
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 25 August 2021 14: 41
      -2
      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
      what have you got to do with it? I have it mentioned.

      referring to his quantity limitation issue
      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
      by the number of you mentioned, do not remember yourself already?

      referring to yours mentioning one more.

      What, it didn't come again? belay fool lol
  • Zabavnik Und Poteshnik
    Zabavnik Und Poteshnik 24 August 2021 11: 01
    +6
    Quote: Olgovich
    having carried out the unique and most ambitious in the history of war at sea (at that time) the installation of minefields

    I am not sure about the "most ambitious" - ICF delivered 13 thousand mines - 40 thousand Baltic Fleet. As for the uniqueness - if you mean "Crab", then the "uniqueness" should be shared with the Kaiser's submariners of the Flemish Flotilla.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 24 August 2021 11: 37
      -7
      Quote: Zabavnik Und Poteshnik
      I'm not sure about the "most ambitious" - ICF delivered 13 thousand mines - Baltic Fleet 40 thousand.

      Where did the Baltic Fleet put 40 thousand mines on one position?
      1. Zabavnik Und Poteshnik
        Zabavnik Und Poteshnik 24 August 2021 12: 09
        +5
        Quote: Olgovich
        Where did the Baltic Fleet put 40 thousand mines on one position?

        I'm talking about the fact that the number of mines in the Baltic was much more than in the World Cup - 40 tons versus 13 tons. And the effect from them was also great. Where do you see the uniqueness? In the December performance of 600 mines near the Bosphorus, which was never locked? This required a whole flotilla of 4 mines and a powerful escort. And in the Baltic, for example, a single "Ladoga" single-handedly at the entrance to the Gulf of Finland laid half a thousand mines. What kind of uniqueness are we talking about? ,
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 25 August 2021 08: 49
          -4
          Quote: Zabavnik Und Poteshnik
          I'm talking about the fact that the number of mines in the Baltic was much more than in the World Cup - 40 tons versus 13 tons. In the December performance of 600 mines near the Bosphorus, which was never locked?

          if you still do not understand, then I only said about one and operations - about solid minefields (and not about individual banks) from Europe to Asia, installed at the other end of the sea near the enemy shores, in the Bosphorus sea front.

          Number of mines in obstacles4153 , moreover, the Rybka mines specially made for this operation were also used.
          Quote: Zabavnik Und Poteshnik
          And the effect of them was also great.

          belay lol
          Coal mining in Turkey has decreased by SEVEN times, the transportation of coal by sea (the main method) has been stopped altogether since 1916, Turkey has turned from a coal exporter into an importer and coal was driven from ... GERMANY (instead of military cargo!), The Black Sea turned into Inland Sea Russia, and the Turks carried out only coastal shipping close to the coast, which did not solve anything.
          1. Zabavnik Und Poteshnik
            Zabavnik Und Poteshnik 25 August 2021 10: 01
            +1
            And, of course, sorry. I agree that the Black Sea blockade of Turkey was more than successful, no doubt about it.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 25 August 2021 11: 58
              -4
              Quote: Zabavnik Und Poteshnik
              the Black Sea blockade of Turkey was more than successful, no doubt about it.

              not always, of course: in June 1917, the Germans, having smashed, brought out the "Breslau", but these were the exceptions, not the rule.

              But overall, the operation is successful
            2. Foul skeptic
              Foul skeptic 25 August 2021 13: 52
              0
              And you have nothing to apologize for. It's just that your opponent gives out the effect of the blockade of Turkey by ships for the effect of laying minefields.
          2. Foul skeptic
            Foul skeptic 25 August 2021 14: 26
            0
            Coal production in Turkey has decreased by SEVEN times, the transportation of coal by sea (the main method) has been stopped altogether since 1916, Turkey turned from an exporter of coal into an importer and coal was driven to it from ... GERMANY (instead of military cargo!)

            It remains to explain why you are passing off the effect of the blockade of Turkey by the ships of the Black Sea Fleet as the effect of laying minefields? Zunguldak had only one performance in 40 minutes - June 16, 1917.

            PS
            the Turks carried out only coastal shipping

            wassat "Connoisseur" to be seen from afar lol You used the word "cabotage" simply from the principle "I'll put in a smart word to give weight to my message" without trial, what does it mean?
            Because coal from Zunguldak to Constantinople was always by cabotage and delivered, you do not need to go out to sea for this. Look at the sailing directions, in this area "close to the shore" - it is more than 40 meters deep.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 26 August 2021 11: 05
              -3
              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              It remains to explain why you are passing off the effect of the blockade of Turkey by the ships of the Black Sea Fleet as the effect of laying minefields?

              for tbilists: During the interrogation of A.V. Kolchak:

              We blocked the Bosphorus so firmly that in the end, having established the necessary control from constant watch and observation of the destroyer, so that these mines were not destroyed and erased, and in order, if necessary, to reinforce these barriers again, we , in the end, completely secured their sea from the appearance of enemy warships.

              All transport on the Black Sea proceeded as in peacetime. Minefields, patrol service, properly organized and properly developed, radio communications made it possible to provide us with a completely safe Black Sea basin from any assassination attempts by the enemy and provide completely safe transport for the army.

              The combined blockade of the Bosphorus with the widespread use of mine weapons, surface ships, submarines and aircraft turned out to be so effective that the enemy was forced to abandon the transportation of coal to Constantinople from the Zonguldak region
              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              You used the word "cabotage" simply from the principle

              tbila can be seen from afar: cabotage denotes coastal shipping, which is what has been said.
              Quote: Nefarious skeptic
              Because coal from Zunguldak to Constantinople was always by cabotage and delivered, you do not need to go out to sea for this. Look at the sailing directions, in this area "close to the shore" - it is more than 40 meters deep.

              in this area and 20 m or less is, therefore, almost the mouth of the Bosphorus and the coastal zone were littered with mines literally.
              1. Foul skeptic
                Foul skeptic 26 August 2021 17: 09
                -1
                What do Kolchak's laudatory odes to himself have to do with the question you asked?
                It remains to explain Why do you pass off the effect of the blockade of Turkey by the ships of the Black Sea Fleet as the effect of laying minefields?

                Well, for a snack.
                1) In 1915 and especially in the fall of 1916, due to storms, mines were torn from the mines (partially the Turks later used them against us).
                2) The Turks learned about some of the productions (from Goncharov you will find out which ones specifically) at the time of installation, since the wrong process led to premature detonation of fuses and unmasking.
                3) We ourselves did not know exactly where we set the mines, since the drop was carried out without astronavigation, only by dead reckoning... Because of what our submarines could not attack transports passing through the Bosphorus because of the danger of running into their own mines.
                3) For the same reason, mines were not placed at design depths.
                cabotage means coastal shipping, which is what is said.

                And the remark is not to this, but to the fact that senselessly write about "only coastal shipping "in relation to the delivery of coal from Zunguldak to Constantinople - it was not delivered otherwise by the sea. The person who writes this simply does not understand.
                in this area and 20 m or less is, therefore, almost the mouth of the Bosphorus and the coastal zone were littered with mines literally.

                It's in your fantasies, but in reality it is locked minami The Bosphorus is considered only in the period of September 1916. And that's all.
                PS Even Kozlov estimates the contribution of mines to disruption of communications in the Black Sea at 7%.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 27 August 2021 09: 14
                  -2
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  given in

                  this is the conclusion of a specialist and a professional n, unlike the vicious yapping of the ignorant Tabaka
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  that it is pointless to write about "only coastal shipping" in relation to the delivery of coal from Zunguldak to Constantinople - otherwise it was not delivered by sea.

                  provide a turkish map of the coastline route
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  Well, for a snack.

                  nothing is perfect.

                  And the goal was achieved, while a unique operation in the world was carried out on foreign shores near the capital of an enemy state.
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  This is in your fantasies, but in reality, the Bosphorus is considered blocked by mines only in the period of September 1916.

                  this is a FACT, and the expression is not mine, but a specialist Kozlov, and not some Tabaki: your nonsense is not interesting
                  Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                  PS Even Kozlov estimates the contribution of mines to disruption of communications in the Black Sea at 7%.

                  7% not in the violation of communications, but in the loss of ships.

                  Hack on your forehead:
                  We blocked the Bosphorus so firmly that in the end, having established the necessary control from constant watch and observation of the destroyer, so that these mines were not destroyed and eradicated, and in order, if necessary, to reinforce these barriers again, we, in the end, completely secured our sea against the appearance of enemy warships.

                  All transport on the Black Sea proceeded as in peacetime. Minefields, patrol service, properly organized and properly developed, radio communications made it possible to provide us with the Black Sea basin completely safe from any attacks from the enemy and provide absolutely safe transport for the army.
                  1. Foul skeptic
                    Foul skeptic 27 August 2021 10: 34
                    -1
                    this conclusion

                    This conclusion has nothing to do with what you said.
                    It remains to explain Why do you pass off the effect of the blockade of Turkey by the ships of the Black Sea Fleet as the effect of laying minefields?

                    provide a Turkish route map, enveloping the coastline

                    And you their own words not enough? Why not a "route with access to the open sea"? Because there are none? lol
                    nothing is perfect.
                    And the goal was achieved, while a unique operation in the world was carried out on foreign shores near the capital of an enemy state.

                    Explain what do you consider "unique" in this operation? You have been asked for a long time. And the answer is still not to be seen.
                    this is a FACT, and the expression is not mine, but a specialist Kozlov, and not some Tabaki: your nonsense is not interesting

                    Where does the specialist Kozlov say - "Almost the mouth of the Bosphorus and the coastal zone were literally littered with mines."? Moreover, Kozlov's abstract does not say anywhere about "the uniqueness and scale of the mine war in the Black Sea." Like Goncharov, like Pavlovich.
                    7% not in the violation of communications, but in the loss of ships.

                    Which Kozlov considers a violation of communications (the fight against shipping)
                    Hack on your forehead:
                    We blocked the Bosphorus so firmly that in the end, having established the necessary control from constant watch and observation of the destroyer, so that these mines were not destroyed and erased, and in order, if necessary, to reinforce these barriers again, we , in the end, completely secured their sea from the appearance of enemy warships.

                    All transport on the Black Sea proceeded as in peacetime. Minefields, patrol service, properly organized and properly developed, radio communications made it possible to provide us with the Black Sea basin completely safe from any attacks from the enemy and provide absolutely safe transport for the army.

                    What relation do Kolchak's laudatory odes to himself have to reality?
                    Tell "Lieutenant Zatsarenny", who was sunk at the end of June, about complete safety from assassination attempts even in 1917. Here is the price for Kolchak's words.
                  2. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 27 August 2021 11: 03
                    -2
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    then the conclusion has nothing to do with what you said

                    it fully confirms my words.
                    Your opinion from nobody is the least that interests
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    And your own words are not enough for you?

                    about what ? fool
                    I see, again it did not reach the first time: route maps before and after the blockade
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    Explain what do you consider "unique" in this operation? You have been asked for a long time.

                    you cannot read and understand what is written. uniqueness data - given
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    Where does the specialist Kozlov say - "Almost the mouth of the Bosphorus and the coastal zone were literally littered with mines."?

                    in an interview.

                    Д
                    activity
                    Of the Black Sea Fleet in the Bosporus region enriched the national school
                    naval art valuable experience of the mine blockade of the strait zone. Combat practice has shown that to suppress the movement of enemy ships and
                    ships, it is necessary to create an obstacle of sufficient depth and density using various combinations of mines placed against large and shallow-draft ships, submarines.
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    What relation do Kolchak's laudatory odes to himself have to reality?

                    the most direct. unlike Tabaki's barking
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    Lieutenant Zatsarenny ", which was sunk at the end of June.

                    AL at the end of June 17. And BEFORE?

                    Shame on the evil Tabaki ...
                  3. Foul skeptic
                    Foul skeptic 27 August 2021 11: 32
                    -1
                    it fully confirms my words.

                    No, it doesn't explain why do you pass off the effect of the blockade of Turkey by the ships of the Black Sea Fleet as the effect of laying minefields?.
                    about what ? fool
                    I see, again it did not reach the first time: route maps before and after the blockade

                    Your words were even highlighted for you. Just read my previous post and you will see this highlight. If you don’t see it, I’ll copy and paste it again.
                    you cannot read and understand what is written. uniqueness data - given

                    Copy this "data on uniqueness" and give it again, please - what you may consider unique, in fact, may not be unique.
                    What is the uniqueness of laying mines near the Bosphorus from the Black Sea side by the Black Sea Fleet, if it was mined in the same way by the enemy from the Sea of ​​Marmara?
                    in an interview.

                    Already in the interview? In which? If you call the author's abstract "interview", then in the passage you quoted there is no "Bosphorus literally littered with mines."
                    the most direct. unlike Tabaki's barking

                    Do you deny the death of the ships?
                    AL at the end of June 17. And BEFORE?
                    Shame on the evil Tabaki ...

                    And what is wrong with the fact that at the end of June 1917? Was Kolchak's interrogation earlier? lol No, later, in 1920, so his words in 1920 also extended to 1917.
                    And before you know it, you have to read books. Or do you think that those drowned in previous years will confirm the words of Kolchak? So similarly refuted. And transport near Tarkhankut and a destroyer at the entrance to the bay of Sevastopol.
                  4. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 27 August 2021 11: 49
                    -2
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    No, it does not explain why you pass off the effect of the blockade of Turkey by the ships of the Black Sea Fleet as the effect of laying minefields.

                    your misunderstanding of the reading is the least that interests.
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    Copy this "data on uniqueness" and give it again, please

                    I will not be kind.
                    Who are you? belay
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    Already in the interview? In which?

                    newspaper-is.
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    What's wrong with

                    yes everything is so, there is nothing ideal, and the exception confirms the rule, but it is one: the Black Sea has become the INNER sea of ​​Russia, where
                    We blocked the Bosphorus so firmly that in the end, having established the necessary control from constant watch and observation of the destroyer, so that these mines were not destroyed and erased, and in order, if necessary, to reinforce these barriers again, we , in the end, completely secured their sea from the appearance of enemy warships.

                    All transport on the Black Sea proceeded as in peacetime.

                    on unfinished tobacco workers, yeah yes
                  5. Foul skeptic
                    Foul skeptic 27 August 2021 12: 34
                    0
                    I will not be kind.
                    Who are you? belay

                    That is, you cannot, as expected, confirm your words.
                    newspaper-there

                    Link please?
                    yes everything is so, there is nothing ideal, and the exception confirms the rule, but it is one: the Black Sea has become the INNER sea of ​​Russia, where
                    We blocked the Bosphorus so firmly that in the end, having established the necessary control from constant watch and observation of the destroyer, so that these mines were not destroyed and eradicated, and in order, if necessary, to reinforce these barriers again, we , eventually, completely secured their sea from the appearance of enemy warships.

                    So if "everything is so" why do you again quote Kolchak's words that do not correspond to reality?
                    Do you know what other difference between us, among other things? At the moment, you have Kozlov's abstract, and I have Kozlov's entire dissertation. That is why your attempts to milk something out of a minimum of information are all the more ridiculous to me and to pull it by the ears as a justification for a "complete mine blockade of the Bosphorus." You know how fun it is to watch. Because I know about Kozlov's conclusions on our issue of the blockade of the Bosphorus in his dissertation. You are not. And if they knew, they would not have brought him in as an arbiter. wassat
                    "Goeben" and "Breslau" at the end of 1916 and in the first half of 1917 did not appear in the Black Sea, not because minefields became an insurmountable obstacle for them, but because at that time both ships were under repair: "Goebene" eliminated combat damage received during the two previous campaigns, and "Breslau" was essentially modernized with rearmament from 105-mm artillery to 150-mm and the transfer of boiler heating from coal to oil. Some of the guns and teams were removed from the cruisers and used on the dry path. In June 1917, with the completion of work on the "Breslau", the cruiser was withdrawn from the Bosphorus along a swept fairway and made a successful raid into the northwestern part of the Black Sea. The results of this "sabotage" were the destruction of the radio station and the lighthouse on the island. Fidonisi with the capture of a part of his garrison, as well as the death of the destroyer Lieutenant Zatsarenny (Senior Lieutenant PG Shtilberg) and 37 crew members on mines placed by an enemy cruiser 2,5 miles southeast of this island. ... If necessary, the enemy brought in and out of the strait his ships and vessels, organizing control reconnaissance searches for mines, followed by making passages in the obstacles; sometimes it was practiced mine protection of ships and vessels by means of escorting behind trawls. An example is the entry into the Bosphorus of the large transports Patmos (1097 brt) and Giresun (3056 brt), which arrived from Zunguldak on September 8 (21) and September 19 (October 2), 1916, respectively. ... Among the mistakes of the Russian command that did not allow blocking the Bosphorus for a long time, we note, first of all, the insufficient depth and density of the main and additional obstacles. This allowed the enemy, even in the absence of sufficient anti-mine forces and means, to make passages along the Anatolian and Rumelian coasts. Significant interruptions in mine-laying activity (September 1916, February - April 1917) made it easier for the enemy to fight the discovered obstacles. It should be recognized as inexpedient the refusal to combine mines of various types in the main obstacle, which, as a result, posed a danger only to large surface ships, and from the use of anti-blast means. ...
                    Undoubtedly, the massive mine-protecting actions of the Black Sea Fleet made navigation in the pre-strait zone very difficult, but actually the blockade of the Bosphorus was not achieved.
                  6. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 27 August 2021 12: 37
                    -2
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    That is

                    that is, everything is already chewed for you repeatedly, you cannot say anything new, you are not in a position to argue, you repeat yourself.

                    I see no point in wasting time.

                    that's all.
  • Region-25.rus
    Region-25.rus 25 August 2021 15: 07
    +1
    which outstripped ALL in state building, creating the largest country in the world
    again and again, healthyA)) The training manual is already over for the hike)) Repetitions after repetitions. Well, yes, but about the "non-Russians" in the course? And what about the Pale of Settlement? Oh yes ... the USSR was a "prison of peoples" with equal rights laughing
  • Region-25.rus
    Region-25.rus 25 August 2021 15: 35
    +1
    which outstripped ALL in state building, creating the largest country in the world
    but what about the "Empire, over which the sun never sets"? laughing or again - "You don't understand! This is ANOTHER!"? or send to a modern school to learn the "wisdom" in the lessons of Orthodoxy and OBZH. wassat
  • ViacheslavS
    ViacheslavS 25 August 2021 16: 56
    0
    It was so "late" that it outstripped ALL in state building, creating the largest country in the world


    Well, to be honest, most of the territory was sparsely populated and it was not so difficult to take this territory. And it is quite another to take, for example, the same Bosphorus.
  • Andrey Chizhevsky
    Andrey Chizhevsky 14 October 2021 21: 32
    0
    The author, either out of ignorance or by design, kept silent about the so-called "Turkish fleet" .. Well, I do not argue - "Goeben" and "Breslau" under the flag of Sushon - the Effendi strengthened that congregation of incomprehensible floating craft which was called the Turkish fleet. But even the somewhat outdated EBR of the Black Sea Fleet The Republic of Ingushetia could successfully resist them. And after the commissioning of the newest aircraft of the Black Sea Fleet, in general, the "German-Turkish fleet" preferred to defend in the harbors. As a result, the Black Sea Fleet of the Republic of Ingushetia seized the strategic initiative in the Black Sea. I don’t know - Kolchak would have achieved success with landing on the Bosphorus - but the Caucasian army with the assistance of the Black Sea Fleet warships acted successfully. On the straits - even if Russia won the Bosphorus - then England would immediately seize the Dardanelles. About this already in 1915, Sir Winston was very sad .. But. .. History cannot be rewritten. Now the Bosphorus channel, which is being created by Turkey, is more straining. This channel turns the Montreux doctrine into a piece of paper.
  • qQQQ
    qQQQ 24 August 2021 16: 01
    0
    Quote: Lech from Android.
    The tsarist autocracy was always late when it was necessary to quickly solve the most important issues, both in foreign policy and in domestic

    This is the main problem in any rigidly centralized system. Long passage of the signal upward, making a decision and descending downward, and at each stage an error is possible, which only accumulates over time. In principle, the USSR suffered the same, and modern Russia is no better, and maybe worse in terms of governance.
  • Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 24 August 2021 08: 11
    +4
    I agree with the Author. For Russia, control over the straits was vital precisely in the 18-19 centuries. And the most acute in the 19th century. If Russia had established control over the Straits, for example, in 1878, Russia of course would have had to strengthen and maintain them, but all the other Black Sea fortresses would become unnecessary. There would be no need to build a large number of battleships that never left the World Cup. There would be no problems with grain export - the budget would not have failures in receiving money. In general, the question of ownership of the straits for the end of the 19th century was vital for Russia.
    1. Non-fighter
      Non-fighter 25 August 2021 09: 10
      0
      Danube. You can build ships in Europe and float down the river. Take the fortress from land.
      The coast is Turkish. Base for pirates. Cleaning up the entire coastline, it's easier for Porto to be liquidated right away.
    2. ViacheslavS
      ViacheslavS 25 August 2021 17: 03
      0
      From a geopolitical point of view, control over the straits is a strategic thing. But despite the history, the Russian Empire did not have a chance to keep them, perhaps it could have been lucky, they would have taken it on a swoop by successfully landing the expeditionary force, but then the logistics would have played a role and the Ottoman Empire, even single-handedly, would have regained control, not to mention the fact that England would be on their side.
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 24 August 2021 10: 38
    -4
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    There were no communists in Britain, but nevertheless,

    Britain is not Russia: Russia had no colonies. , New Russia, lost by Russia because of your evils, is ... a colony? fool
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Exactly what they incited. The Kaiser was confident that Britain would remain neutral, he was not crazy to fight against Russia, France and Britain at the same time.

    Germany had been preparing for this war for decades, then with kicks in the back drove Awengria to the war and SAMA attacked Russia and France at the same time, thereby opening TWO fronts.
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    in your opinion, decided to fight against the three strongest powers in Europe - France, Russia and Britain?

    the Germans have gone too far. And it would be foolish to expect (and they themselves are aware of this) that England would not want to take advantage of a successful situation in the matter of eliminating a competitor.
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    In this case, the aggressors are precisely France and Britain, since it was they who declared war on Germany, and not vice versa.

    those. destruction aggressor-Is this already ... aggression? belay fool lol

    That is, according to your logic, the USSR treacherously attacked a defenseless, not expecting a blow in the back, naive Japan in 1945? belay
    Lavrov, yes ...
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 24 August 2021 11: 19
      +6
      Quote: Olgovich
      Britain is not Russia: Russia had no colonies. , New Russia, lost by Russia because of your evils, is ... a colony?

      And what is the difference between the conquest of Central Asia, the Baltic States, Crimea, Novorossiya, Little Russia, Siberia from the conquest of Ireland, India, South Africa by Britain? Absolutely nothing. And by the way, let me remind you that the United States was also British land, the British diligently conquered the East Coast from the Dutch, French and Swedes (remember that New York was originally called New Amsterdam, and Delaware and New Jersey were under Swedish control), and as a result from Acadia to Florida, the entire coast became part of Britain. But the American separatists decided to become independent and won. Are the British Communists really to blame for this?
      Quote: Olgovich
      Germany had been preparing for this war for decades, then with kicks in the back drove Awengria to the war and SAMA attacked Russia and France at the same time, thereby opening TWO fronts.

      I repeat once again: Germany DID NOT DECLARE war on Britain, Britain's entry into the war was a complete surprise for the Kaiser, because before that Gray had assured the German ambassador that Britain would remain neutral, and Prime Minister Lloyd, unlike the Agadir crisis of 1911, did not publicly declare that Britain will go to war against Germany if it attacks France.
      Quote: Olgovich
      the Germans have gone too far. And it would be foolish to expect (and they themselves are aware of this) that England would not want to take advantage of a successful situation in the matter of eliminating a competitor.

      So you are justifying the mean behavior of the British? Oh yes, because THIS IS ANOTHER! IT IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND! If the British are cheating, then it is a noble deed to eliminate a competitor. wassat ... Already the monarchies have cackled their heads.
      Quote: Olgovich
      those. the destruction of the aggressor is already ... aggression?

      That is, according to your logic, the USSR treacherously attacked a defenseless, not expecting a blow in the back, naive Japan in 1945?
      Lavrov, yes ...

      Why then did they not declare war for the attack on Czechoslovakia, which, by the way, had a treaty of alliance with France? And why then did they not declare war on the USSR, which also attacked Poland on September 17, 1939? How does the German attack on Poland differ from the Soviet attack on Poland? Explain to me why London and Paris did not declare war on the USSR because of the attack on Poland, although they declared war on Germany for the same act?
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 24 August 2021 11: 30
        -6
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        And what is the difference between the conquest of Central Asia, the Baltic States, Crimea, Novorossiya, Little Russia, Siberia from the conquest of Ireland, India, South Africa by Britain? Absolutely nothing.

        among the ignorant. Novorossia can only be called a colony
        , Yes
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        I repeat once again: Germany DID NOT DECLARE war on Britain, Britain's entry into the war for the Kaiser was a complete surprise, because before that Gray had assured the German ambassador

        only a full tebil hopes in the world war for ... belay words and this is a stupid post-lost war excuse of the Germans
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Why then for the attack on Czechoslovakia

        but there was no attack on the emergency - all of the "good" will, albeit conditional
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        And why then did they not declare war on the USSR, which also attacked Poland on September 17, 1939?

        because the recognized aggressor - Hitler and everyone who is against him - cannot be such in principle.
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        although they declared war on Germany for the same act?

        what .. the same? belay fool USSR PROTECTED the population from Nazism, hack to death on your nose.

        That is, according to your logic, the USSR treacherously attacked a defenseless, not expecting a blow in the back, naive Japan in 1945?
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 24 August 2021 11: 49
          +1
          Quote: Olgovich
          among the ignorant. Novorossia can only be called a colony
          , Yes

          It was taken away from the Crimean Tatars, before that it was their land, and they grazed their flocks there. This is how the seizure of Novorossiya from the Krymchaks differs from the seizure of land from the Indians on the East Coast of the modern United States?
          Quote: Olgovich
          only a complete tebil hopes in the world war for ... words and this is a stupid post-lost war excuse of the Germans

          Well, yes, in 1911 the Kaiser did not dare to go to war with Britain, and in 1914 he did. It's as simple as that! How did the situation in 1911 differ from the situation in 1914? Likewise, it was enough for London to declare that if Germany attacked France, Britain would declare war on Germany. And that's all, the Germans would back up and would not bring matters to war.
          Quote: Olgovich
          because the recognized aggressor - Hitler and everyone who is against him - cannot be such in principle.

          Once again: the USSR was not against Germany, just under the guise of the USSR attacked Poland and seized its eastern territories. So from the point of view of world law, the USSR is the same aggressor as Germany. But for some reason London and Paris did not declare war on the USSR.
          Quote: Olgovich
          what .. the same? USSR PROTECTED the population from Nazism, hack to death on your nose.

          That is, according to your logic, the USSR treacherously attacked a defenseless, not expecting a blow in the back, naive Japan in 1945?

          That is, Bendera had to be saved from the Nazis? Is it okay that Bendera themselves were Nazis who massacred Jews and Poles by hundreds of thousands just under the auspices of German Nazis?
          As for Japan, firstly, an agreement was signed on neutrality, not on non-aggression. And secondly, the treaty was concluded for 5 years, and provided for the possibility of denouncing the treaty a year before the end of the treaty, and the treaty was signed on April 13, 1941, and on April 5, 1945, Molotov told the Japanese ambassador that the neutrality treaty would be denounced. So legally, the USSR did not violate its agreement with Japan.
          1. Okolotochny
            Okolotochny 24 August 2021 13: 21
            +9
            It was taken away from the Crimean Tatars, before that it was their land, and they grazed their flocks there.

            Do not hesitate, but add - and also carried out armed raids on the territory of the Republic of Ingushetia, robbed, killed, took prisoners away, acted in the interests of the enemy of the Republic of Ingushetia.
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 24 August 2021 13: 37
              +1
              Quote: Okolotochny
              Do not hesitate, but add - and also carried out armed raids on the territory of the Republic of Ingushetia, robbed, killed, took prisoners away, acted in the interests of the enemy of the Republic of Ingushetia.

              That's it! The Crimean Khanate was an enemy of Russia, and it caused the most trouble for the Russian kingdom. And naturally, Russia destroyed the Crimean Khanate, for it was impossible to endure it any longer. In the slave markets of Feodosia, almost all goods were Little Russians, not Russian. And when modern Ukrainians scream about the restoration of the Crimean Khanate, they should be the first to go into slavery to the Crimeans. Zelensky would have made a wonderful jester, although he disgusts me with his antics, but someone would like him and buy him. And the old woman Farion would have been killed on the spot, since this is not a commodity, but a burden.
          2. Olgovich
            Olgovich 25 August 2021 07: 04
            -4
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            He was taken away among the Crimean Tatarsbefore that this was their landand they grazed their flocks there. This is how the seizure of Novorossia from the Krymchaks differs from the seizure of land from the Indians on the East Coast of the modern United States?

            and who gave these lands to the Tatars or there was no one there before them, including Russia?
            Tatars are not indigenous, like the Indians, the Wild Field was nobody's
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            Well, yes, in 1911 the Kaiser did not dare to go to war with Britain, and in 1914 he did. It's as simple as that! How did the situation in 1911 differ from the situation in 1914? Likewise, it was enough for London to declare that if Germany attacked France, Britain would declare war on Germany. And that's all, the Germans would back up and would not bring matters to war.

            As prepared, and decided: Germany was preparing for war with the coming of Wilhelm to power, building up the army and industry. She needed a war to redistribute the world and eliminate competitors.
            On August 2-3, France announced its support for Russia, and England to support France..

            On August 4, England presented ULTIMATUM to Germany not to enter Belgium, the Germans spat and climbed and only after that they got a war. And where is the "fear" of war with England?
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            Once again: the USSR was not against Germany, just under the guise of the USSR attacked Poland and seized its eastern territories. So from the point of view of world law, the USSR is the same aggressor as Germany. But here for some reason London and Paris did not declare war on the USSR.

            That for some reason only for you for some reason, but for everyone the explanation is clear: Hitler is the aggressor, the USSR opposed the aggressor, and NOBODY of the USSR and did not blame the war declared
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            That is, Bendera had to be saved from the Nazis?

            just like that, to save the population from Nazism, or are you ... against?
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            So legally, the USSR did not violate its agreement with Japan.

            what international law permits aggression and war, eh?
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 25 August 2021 12: 40
              -3
              Quote: Olgovich
              and who gave these lands to the Tatars or there was no one there before them, including Russia?
              Tatars are not indigenous, like the Indians, the Wild Field was nobody's

              Are you serious or trolling? The Wild Field was Krymchak, there was no man's land in the 18th century in Europe for a long time, when states began to be created. There was a state of the Crimean Khanate, which owned the Wild Field, and the Crimean people lived there and grazed their cattle.
              Quote: Olgovich
              On August 4, England presented ULTIMATUM to Germany not to enter Belgium, the Germans spat and climbed and only after that they got a war. And where is the "fear" of war with England?

              Yeah, on August 4, England issued an ultimatum, and on the same day, a couple of hours later, declared war on Germany. Is this normal in your opinion? England to the last created the appearance of maintaining neutrality for the Germans, and as soon as Germany invaded Belgium and declared war on France, she threw off the mask of peaceful neutrality, and found an excuse to attack Germany in the form of an invasion of Belgium.
              Quote: Olgovich
              That for some reason only for you for some reason, but for everyone the explanation is clear: Hitler is the aggressor, the USSR opposed the aggressor, and NOBODY of the USSR and did not blame the war declared

              I repeat once again for especially gifted monarchies: the USSR did not act against Germany, but attacked Poland, a full-fledged ally of Britain and France, which had an alliance agreement with Britain and France.
              Quote: Olgovich
              what international law permits aggression and war, eh?

              What international law did Britain and France use when declaring war on Germany and launching an aggression against it?
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 25 August 2021 15: 05
                -2
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                Are you serious or trolling? Wild Field was Crimean,

                to get it: Krymchaks are not Crimean Tatars, they are ... Jews lol and there were no Krymchaks in the Wild Field.
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                In the 18th century, there was no man's land in Europe for a long time, when states began to be created. There was a state of the Crimean Khanate, which owned the Wild Field, and Krymchaks lol there they lived and grazed their cattle.

                there were states BEFORE the Crimean Khanate, destroyed by aliens - the same K Rus
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                Yeah, on August 4, England issued an ultimatum, and on the same day, a couple of hours later, declared war on Germany. Is this normal in your opinion? England to the last created the appearance of maintaining neutrality for the Germans, and as soon as Germany invaded Belgium and declared war on France, she threw off the mask of peaceful neutrality, and found an excuse to attack Germany in the form of an invasion of Belgium.

                England is a GUARANTEE of the integrity of Belgium even before the ultimatum, and Germany was so "afraid" that she did not answer it and climbed into it.

                She could not go if she was afraid, she could not declare war on Russia, but she laid down on everyone and did what she planned
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                I repeat once again for especially gifted monarchies: the USSR did not act against Germany, but attacked Poland, a full-fledged ally of Britain and France, which had an alliance agreement with Britain and France

                And ... the full-fledged allies of Poland have not been condemned in ANY way, and even vice versa, because everyone who is against Hitler is NOT an aggressor.
                It is a fact. It is clear that you, a fan of national Poland, sing with them in the same tune, but alas, you
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                What international law did Britain and France use when declaring war on Germany and launching an aggression against it?

                And you take an interest in international law: on September 24, 1927, the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted a special declaration proclaiming that any aggressive war is and remains prohibited and constitutes an international crime. , The Paris Pact condemned the aggressors, etc., etc.

                Here is the aggressor who unleashed the war-and BILI.
            2. Foul skeptic
              Foul skeptic 25 August 2021 13: 14
              0
              On August 4, England presented ULTIMATUM to Germany not to enter Belgium, the Germans spat and climbed and only after that they got a war. And where is the "fear" of war with England?

              Do you not understand that these words of yours just confirm the point of view of Kota Kuzi regarding the policy of England and its role in WWI?
              what international law permits aggression and war, eh?

              The same one that gave birth to the pope of international relations, Hugo Grotius. The principle of jus ad bellum has not undergone fundamental changes since the 17th century, despite all the attempts of the 20th century to give the unchanged content a more decent form.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 26 August 2021 11: 15
                -2
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                Do you not understand that these words of yours just confirm the point of view of Kota Kuzi regarding the policy of England and its role in WWI?

                you don’t understand it, but once again: Germany was so "afraid" of the entry of England that it ATTACKED Belgium, despite the guarantor of England and ultimatum England, that is, in fact, attacked England.

                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                jus ad bellum

                once again for the silver carps: international law condemned aggression: on September 24, 1927, the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted a special declaration proclaiming that any aggressive war is and remains prohibited and constitutes an international crime. , The Paris Pact confirmed and strengthened it..

                As part of this, non-aggression pacts were signed.
                1. Foul skeptic
                  Foul skeptic 26 August 2021 17: 27
                  -1
                  you don’t understand it, but once again: Germany was so "afraid" of England's entry that it ATTACKED Belgium, in spite of Britain's guarantor and England's ultimatum, that is, in fact, she attacked England.

                  You don't understand that at that time Germany was ALREADY at war with 2 countries, in addition, and on 2 fronts. And she already has NO choice to attack or not to attack Belgium, for this there is even a term - political zugzwang, by analogy with zugzwang in chess. What they knew very well in Britain.
                  once again for the silver carps: international law condemned aggression: on September 24, 1927, the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted a special declaration proclaiming that any aggressive war is and remains prohibited and constitutes an international crime. , The Paris Pact confirmed and strengthened it ..
                  As part of this, non-aggression pacts were signed.

                  Only the Assembly forgot in this declaration to decipher what constitutes a "war of aggression". recourse Therefore, the sense of such a "declaration", from the point of view of international law ... is a little less than zero.
                  To conclude a non-aggression pact, this declaration is needed like a fifth wheel for a cart; non-aggression pacts were concluded even before 1927, doing just fine without the League of Nations.
                  1. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 27 August 2021 09: 36
                    -2
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    You don’t understand that at that time Germany was ALREADY at war with 2 countries, in addition, and on 2 fronts. And she already has NO choice to attack or not to attack Belgium

                    Do not be nonsense: Germany SAMA attacked two countries and SAMA organized two fronts, i.e. she had a choice. And she COULD not attack Belgium - there was also a choice

                    And she chose.
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    Only the Assembly forgot in this declaration to decipher what constitutes a "war of aggression". Therefore, the sense of such a "declaration", from the point of view of international law ... is a little less than zero.
                    .

                    on the basis of this "zero", the USSR was kicked out of the League of Nations for aggression — and rightfully so.

                    The prohibition of "wars of aggression" was textually enshrined in The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907on the peaceful settlement of international disputes and in the Paris Pact on the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy (the Briand-Kellogg Pact) of 1928. In the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. it was stated that the contracting parties will "look for the most effective means to ensure a lasting peace for the peoples," and also signed protocols of intent for the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

                    The Paris Pact of August 27, 1928, which for the first time established a multilateral obligation of states to renounce the use of armed force, indicated that its participants "... condemn the method of resorting to war to resolve international conflicts" and "renounce in their mutual relations the war as a weapon national policy ”and undertake henceforth to resolve all their differences only by peaceful means. The USSR was the first to ratify the Paris Pact and achieved its early entry into force by concluding a special protocol with Poland, Romania, Estonia and Latvia on February 9, 1929 (in the same year, Turkey, Iran and Lithuania joined the Moscow Protocol).

                    So everything was in international law. teach, yes.
                    1. Foul skeptic
                      Foul skeptic 27 August 2021 09: 51
                      0
                      Do not be nonsense: Germany SAMA attacked two countries and SAMA organized two fronts, i.e. she had a choice. And she COULD not attack Belgium - there was also a choice

                      And she chose.

                      So what? Does it somehow contradict what I said? Was Germany at war with 2 countries at the time of England's intervention? Yes or no?
                      on the basis of this "zero", the USSR was kicked out of the League of Nations for aggression — and rightfully so.

                      The Paris Pact of August 27, 1928, which for the first time established a multilateral obligation of states to renounce the use of armed force, indicated that its participants "... condemn the method of resorting to war to resolve international conflicts" and "renounce in their mutual relations the war as a weapon national policy ”and undertake henceforth to resolve all their differences only by peaceful means. The USSR was the first to ratify the Paris Pact and achieved its early entry into force by concluding a special protocol with Poland, Romania, Estonia and Latvia on February 9, 1929 (in the same year, Turkey, Iran and Lithuania joined the Moscow Protocol).

                      So everything was in international law. teach, yes.

                      "Knocked out" for ... the war? That is, all the Hague Conventions, the Briand-Kellogg Pacts, and the League of Nations Declarations were unable to influence the incentives of states to resort to war. That is, there is no contradiction with what was written earlier.
                      what international law permits aggression and war, eh?

                      The same one that gave birth to the pope of international relations, Hugo Grotius. The principle of jus ad bellum has not undergone fundamental changes since the 17th century, despite all the attempts of the 20th century to give the unchanged content a more decent form.

                      What are you arguing with then? And Baba Yaga is against it? wassat
        2. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 24 August 2021 11: 54
          -4
          In general, I think that Stalin made his main mistake in annexing Galicia to Ukraine. It was necessary to leave Bendera under the Germans, so that some Nazis were cut with other Nazis.
      2. Doctor
        Doctor 24 August 2021 18: 41
        +2
        Explain to me why London and Paris did not declare war on the USSR because of the attack on Poland, although they declared war on Germany for the same act?

        Because then they would receive a full-fledged military alliance between Germany and the USSR, which would surely finish them off.
    2. Region-25.rus
      Region-25.rus 25 August 2021 16: 44
      0
      lost by Russia because of your EVIL
      a la Solzhenitsyn? Inventing new words? laughing
      .e., according to your logic, the USSR treacherously attacked a defenseless, not expecting a blow in the back, naive Japan in 1945?
      Well, how bE on the very Яno one attacked wink They attacked a certain quasi-state "Manchukuo", with a puppet government in the person of the under-emperor Pu-Yi and his hangers-on. Whose power rested on the bayonets of the Kwantung Army.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 24 August 2021 15: 41
    0
    Will the modern Black Sea Fleet be able to block the straits? And mine ports and NATO bases in the Black Sea? And to ensure the neutrality of Ukraine and Georgia by force? Or will we again repeat the heroic defense of Port Arthur and Dalny in Tartus and Khmeimim? When will we learn the applied subject "Realgeopolitic"?
    1. Bagatur
      Bagatur 24 August 2021 16: 17
      -1
      The main force of the Soviet Navy after the nuclear submarine is the naval missile-carrying aviation. Forget it?
  • Dmitry Ivanov_8
    Dmitry Ivanov_8 24 August 2021 20: 43
    +1
    "Moscow did not make a concerned face, summon the Turkish ambassador and poke a diplomatic note in his nose. Or, finally, gather a round table. No, we acted differently. USSR Foreign Minister Comrade Gromyko, speaking with American journalists, said that the Soviet fleet does not need the Bosphorus to enter the Mediterranean Sea, which naturally rained down questions - how is this possible, you taught geography?
    Gromyko calmly replied: just two volleys and besides the Bosphorus there will be more straits, though I'm not sure if Istanbul will remain!
    Literally on the same day, all claims from the Turkish side were withdrawn. You have to learn from history! "

    A bike or not?
  • Mother Theresa
    Mother Theresa 24 August 2021 21: 56
    0
    The main message of the article monarchy is bad.
  • bandabas
    bandabas 24 August 2021 23: 36
    0
    With the brothers, everything is clear. they are like ... in the hole. And, with ridny white and Little Russians ... When families are tied up with other relatives. Complete insanity. Lilliputians and gutters need it.
  • Non-fighter
    Non-fighter 25 August 2021 09: 00
    +3
    Without getting up from the couch, I want to say a few words about what the author did not notice.
    Well, you took the straits, so what? And then a puddle of the Mediterranean Sea, the exit from which is as much as 1 piece. I'm talking about Gibraltar.
    And a few more words about the city of Istanbul, aka Constantinople.
    If you take the straits, what will you do with the city?
    This is a large city, and 80% of the population is Muslim, and alien to us by faith. The rest is a patchwork quilt, and God forbid 3% are loyal to Russia in it. Here is a base for espionage and sabotage. and other troubles.
    Are we occupying? Great, we still need troops to control. In this case, all economic ties will be severed, and how will you feed this disloyal population? Either you feed him, or in a maximum of 2-3 months you get a hunger riot in a large city in the near rear. The main provisions came from Greece, according to "Zvezda", a series about the Russian fleet was shown there.
    Options? Destroy all Muslims? And then fight the whole world ???
    For example, let's take the defense of Sevastopol. What was the loyalty of the civilian population? I say from the couch that it is tall. What is the contribution to the defense of the city? I say that it is significant.
    Farther. Well, we took the straits, but how will we defend? If you remember the history of Mediterranean campaigns, then what was needed and then took, up to Corfu inclusive :). Again, without getting up from the couch, I say that the fortifications were outdated and dilapidated, that is, there is no hope for them. Well, let's not forget that the end of the 19th century was a time of rapid technological progress, and the fortifications certainly did not have time. If there is an article about Fort Bayard nearby, read it.
    And how will we supply the army and navy? Until 1870, the Bulgarian coast was not ours, and there are enough muddy personalities like smugglers who can be upgraded to pirates. And there is also a Turkish coast. Convoys, however, will have to be driven.
    Total: in the event of the capture of the straits, we have a large garrison and a fleet that must be supplied, and with a disloyal city in the near rear, and this is not counting foreign policy consequences.
    1. ViacheslavS
      ViacheslavS 25 August 2021 17: 35
      0
      Yes, to seize control does not mean that this control could have been preserved for a long time with the Ottoman Empire close at hand within walking distance.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 25 August 2021 10: 12
    0
    The next decades and the reign of three emperors, Russia was preparing ... to seize the straits, which it could take without a fight in 1878.

    Not without a fight, but after a successful fight. Victory should not be overestimated either. Istanbul is a very large city by the sea. It is very difficult to attack with complete domination of the enemy fleet.
    In addition, the main forces of the Ottoman army did not beat destruction and occupied the entire region with the cities and fortresses of Ruse, Shumen, Varna, Silistra deep in the Tila of the Russian army. They could be supplied from the sea, and all the supplies of the Russian army went by land.
  • KOJIXO3HuK
    KOJIXO3HuK 25 August 2021 15: 00
    0
    Throughout the history of modern and ancient, the peoples inhabiting the Black Sea region were not limited in the passage to the Mediterranean Sea. Maybe the bureaucracy or forced as a result of hostilities did not allow the courts to pass in time. But it never happened that the Turks would not release the Russian ships! There and then the question stands squarely: either the Russians will pass in peace, or they will pass with fire and sword. Here we must recall all the articles of the Montreux convention, in which, first of all, the Russians fear not for their passage into the Mediterranean, but for the introduction of the enemy's strategic floating groups. That is, we need to worry about the fact that the Turks, having withdrawn from the convention, would not allow three attack aircraft carrier formations of a potential enemy into our orogod at once. Where are we going to bury them ?! Yes, and the Turks will have to pay off. Perhaps a cross will appear at the Cathedral of St. Sophia, if it (the cathedral) does not burn in a thermonuclear flame.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 26 August 2021 10: 37
    0
    Quote: KOJIXO3HuK
    That is, we need to worry about the fact that the Turks, having withdrawn from the convention, would not allow three attack aircraft carrier formations of a potential enemy into our orogod at once.

    If this happens it is necessary to reward the Russian orders and the Turks and the enemy command. The best way to lose carrier connections is hard to imagine. Aircraft carriers should be located as far as possible from the Black and Baltic Seas.