Military Review

Nicholas II and victory in the First World War

277
Nicholas II and victory in the First World War

The death of four empires



It is said that the First World War destroyed four empires. And it is, of course, so, and you cannot argue with that ... Here are just three other empires: Austro-Hungarian, German and Ottoman - constituted the backbone of the "central states". And it was they who lost the war, after which they collapsed.

Russia, oddly enough, was on the side of the winners, and in February 1917 it was already quite obvious, but this did not save it from disaster and disintegration ... There, Winston Churchill also strongly lamented about this, that, they say, Russia was like a ship, which has almost entered the port, and you have such a "bad luck". How frank was he at the same time? Another question.

The excellent point of view that the bourgeois (imperialist!) War and defeat in it are a good opening chord to the symphony of the social revolution, which should be sincerely welcomed, I don't even want to consider. It's somehow too brutal and uninteresting.

But the fact remains: the First World War became the very "super-crisis" from which the Russian Empire was never able to get out.

Yes, there was a revolution in Germany too. V defeated Germany. Already after actual defeat. As a reaction to this very defeat.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed. As a result of and after defeat. Like the Ottoman Empire, which is quite logical.

But Russia was on the side of the winners, but according to the results it also "went into a deep dive" from which it could not get out.

But even for the "victorious" France and Britain (also, by the way, empires - British and French), the situation at the end of 1918 did not look too rosy: the countries suffered very large losses: both economic and demographic. For France (on the territory of which basically the same "Western Front" was held and where the main part of the battles took place) the situation was generally very sad. A significant part of the state was destroyed.


The proud British Empire, although it did not fight major battles in the metropolis, found itself in the position of a country that was not able to normally pay off the financial obligations assumed during the war. They looked like winners very, very weakly.

After the First World War, Europe as a whole did not at all resemble a "blooming garden", and although the destruction was generally less than after the Second World War, the political, economic and social situation there was very difficult.

Post-war Europe is a Europe in crisis. Europe, which for a very long time came to its senses, but could not do it so completely.

In principle, even Russia's military victory in the First World War and subsequent participation in the Versailles Peace Conference did not solve all of its problems. Of course, this would allow avoiding the most brutal events, however ...

Even in the event of a victory over the Kaiser and the Austrian emperor, we would have a backward, poor country with numerous social and political vestiges, an unresolved land issue, an incomprehensible political system (autocracy does not work here at all). And millions of victorious peasants who came from the "German" war, who would immediately face the patriarchal order.

And what would come of it?

It is very difficult to say, but here is an example of the same (not at war in the First World War) Spain for optimism somehow does not really dispose. Rather, it does not dispose at all.

Spain not only did not suffer losses in the First World War, but even managed to cash in on it a little (it is profitable to sell raw materials and resources with food when everyone is at war!), But then everything went awry - and until the civil war of 1936-1939. And there was chaos, social action and repression. There were a lot of things, including General Franco. The Caudillo of Spain by God's grace ...

In a relatively backward, semi-agricultural Italy, Mussolini came to power (and stood next to the king!) ... In a very backward Portugal, Salazar came to Olympus ...

The recipe for that revolution


That is predictHow exactly the events would develop on our territory after the victory of Russia in the First World War is very, very difficult (this is not a fantasy for you to write).

But the fact remains: tough social contradictions, archaism of the state system, economic (technical) backwardness and military debts would not have gone anywhere. And millions of veterans of the Great War would return from the front, who would hardly fit into the archaic Mother Russia of the 1914 model.

"Whispers" might not have happened. And this is all against the backdrop of chaos in Central Europe. And the growth of fascist parties in Southern Europe ...

In general, the Russian Empire looked very archaic even before the First World War (against the background of the leading powers).

How would she look right after her?

I even find it difficult to say. Somehow I am tormented by vague doubts about the splendor of the all-conquering empire of the Romanovs. You see, the world was rapidly moving forward, and Nikolai Alexandrovich, with his political views on modernity in 1920, at the head of a kind of great power, would have looked completely ridiculous.

Oddly enough, but the First World War greatly accelerated the pace stories, knocking out the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires as unviable in difficult conditions. They left, that's it.

How would tsarist Russia “rapidly develop” in the 20s and 30s?

It's hard to even imagine. On the one hand, yes, there would be no defeat of the empire and the hardest consequences of the Civil War, and this is a huge plus.

On the other hand, the state system of a great power, not similar to the French or German, but very similar to the Romanian-Spanish version (archaic monarchy + large landowners-nobles and impoverished idleness in the fields) is somehow very absurd in the era of scientific industrial revolution?

That is, we can safely say that after the victory over Kaiser's Germany and Habsburg Austria-Hungary, the problems of the Russian Empire could really be above the roof. And the development model was "ilitarian", that is, de facto, very, very clunky, somewhat reminiscent of modern India and very different from the current "totalitarian" China, which has ended poverty.

And there were simply no reasons for a fundamental change in the model of society in the then paradigm of the Russian Empire. After the victory in 1918 (1917?) And the victorious march through Berlin to the imperial throne, there would be a line for awards, ranks and cash (land) distributions. And it would not have consisted of peasants from the plow.

Well, those that "from the plow" would not have offered anything material or political. "Go to work" - that's the whole conversation. And those are lively guys, accustomed to a bayonet attack, baptized by fire, peppery with shrapnel ...

What would come of it all?

God alone knows.

That is, the recipe for revolution (civil war) in victorious Russia after The First World War is very simple: at the front, the peasantry felt that they were "unbelievable", and the elite began to have serious problems ...

Could the crowned bearer Romanov be able to cope with this situation? It is very difficult to say.
Author:
Photos used:
i.pinimg.com
Articles from this series:
The tale of how the Bolsheviks overthrew Tsar Nicholas
277 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 20 September 2021 18: 08
    +14
    On the one hand, yes, there would be no defeat of the empire and the hardest consequences of the Civil War, and this is a huge plus.
    Very doubtful, very much. And the civil war would have taken place in any case, only in the form of a riot, merciless to all sides, but meaningless only in the eyes of those invested with power ... And the author himself writes this, but does not fully understand.
    "Go to work" - that's the whole conversation. And those are lively guys, accustomed to a bayonet attack, baptized by fire, peppery with shrapnel ...
    1. Kayala
      Kayala 20 September 2021 18: 29
      +30
      The article is generally chaotic and about nothing. What victories does the author write about? Where are they? Well, not counting the Brusilov breakthrough. Yes there was heroism, yes there was Osovets, but where is at least one victory that would really change the outcome of the war in our favor? And they are not from the word at all. It is only the stubborn crushers, especially Moldovan ones, who see victory where there is none and never was.
      1. smart ass
        smart ass 20 September 2021 18: 47
        +4
        Article about what?
        1. Private89
          Private89 20 September 2021 20: 07
          -1
          I think that if RI had won in the First World War it would have been like this
          “But their trouble was victory. -
          A void opened behind her. "

          There is an interesting lecture by Fursov you can watch



          This opinion was expressed

          "TOMORROW": - Why did the Februaryists suffer defeat? __ Andrey Fursov: - This question, or rather the answer to it, is related to the specifics of Russia, the Russian government and the Russian people. The remarkable writer Oleg Markeev (died in 2009 under unclear circumstances) wrote:

          Russia's secret lies in the fact that the mass is not capable of generating the pyramid of power. Their cruel hierarchy and completeness were alien to her amorphous nature. The rulers of Russia have always brought the idea of ​​the pyramid from outside, fascinated by the order and splendor of overseas countries. But it was not they, but the mass itself who decided: whether to envelop it with life-giving slime, nourish it to the top with life-giving juices, or reject it, allowing it to live on its own in order to unexpectedly and unexpectedly destroy this pyramid with one powerful push of the bubbling energy of the womb. It is only a matter of time and the patience of the mass ... The mass only from the height of the pyramid seems like jelly. Inside, it conceals a rigid crystal lattice, from which it forges rods that pierce the next pyramid of power brought in from abroad, and only these rods give the pyramid stability and integrity. It is worth removing them - and nothing will save their state pyramid from collapse.
          1. mmaxx
            mmaxx 21 September 2021 03: 55
            +9
            Notably, this Markeev was delusional. Did he have eyes? 1000 years of history are more known. Here they called Rurik. This is the government from Sweden, or was it directly exported? Rurik and his comrades did something completely different from Sweden. As, however, his other colleagues in other countries. Well, and so on. You never know what he set himself as an example?
            Light, yomayo.
      2. Nikon O'Conor
        Nikon O'Conor 20 September 2021 20: 12
        +5
        The author tries to get away from alternative history:
        That is, it is very, very difficult to predict exactly how events would develop on our territory after the victory of Russia in the First World War (this is not a fantasy for you to write).

        But he himself is trying to imagine this AI.
        If the last Romanov could not change anything, the huge clan of grand dukes had their own interests, and they did not correspond to the interests of the Empire.
        Too many interests, capitals, and DEBTS were involved in the collapse of the Empire. And Saint Nicholas ... this is not Peter the Great for you, who personally chopped the traitors to the traitors ...
    2. Olezhek
      20 September 2021 18: 32
      +3
      And the civil war would have taken place in any case, only in the form of a riot, merciless to all sides


      It is difficult to predict such things. request
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 20 September 2021 18: 33
        +3
        Difficult

        Simply, without February, there is no October, the army will suppress any riots without any problems, the question is in the amount of blood.
        1. mmaxx
          mmaxx 21 September 2021 03: 59
          +6
          In the war, the army became different. Order No. 1 was enough and the officers were simply killed. And this means that after a while they would begin to kill even without order number 1. As in Germany, for example.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 22 September 2021 15: 27
          +1
          Quote: strannik1985
          Simply, without February, there is no October, the army will suppress any riots without any problems, the question is in the amount of blood.

          The problem is that the army at the end of WWI is far from the army of 1904-1905. The cadre officer corps has been knocked out and greatly eroded by the "chemical wardens", and the rank and file are already frankly tired of the war. And if during the war it is still possible to refer to the fact that they shoot at German agents who are carrying the death of Russia, then after the end of the war it will not work. And if the same Socialist-Revolutionaries begin agitation that these are not riots, but demands, say, for a fair redistribution of land, then the army itself may blaze.
        3. Curious Katya
          Curious Katya 24 September 2021 13: 57
          +1
          without February there is no October, the army will suppress any riots without problems,


          Who does the army consist of?
          And will she go against her people?
      2. Doctor
        Doctor 20 September 2021 19: 05
        -10
        It is difficult to predict such things.

        What is there to predict. Victory is victory, and defeat is defeat.

        It certainly wouldn't have been worse. wink
      3. ammunition
        ammunition 20 September 2021 19: 19
        +11
        Quote: Olezhek
        It's hard to predict things like that.

        Here in this video there are sensible approaches to answering the question - What would have happened?
        You just need to think about it .. and be able to analyze.
        The approach is either Russian fascism (which already had strong roots) .. or what it was.
        Was the third (kind and harmonious) way possible? We cannot know this.
        1. for
          for 21 September 2021 01: 05
          -5
          Quote: ammunition
          and be able to analyze.

          And everything will be according to Feng Shui.
          Life cannot be analyzed.
          Yes, man is mortal, but that would be half the trouble. The bad news is that he is sometimes suddenly mortal, that's the trick!
    3. paul3390
      paul3390 20 September 2021 18: 43
      +17
      And civil war would have taken place anyway

      As soon as in 1916-17 the spontaneous peasant redistribution of the landlord's land began, the front collapsed. And we were very lucky that the main forces of the Nemchura were occupied in the West. You can imagine the mood in the army - fig for yourself, at home they share the main wealth of the country, the land - and without me! The neighbor cuts himself a piece there, and I, like a woodpecker in the trench, stick out hell knows why? And what will happen when I return home - am I already late for the division? They will leave only worthless scraps ..

      In such a scenario, it was physically impossible to keep the army combat-ready at the front .. This was proved by the useless attempts of the interim government to somehow flutter militarily .. The Republic of Ingushetia no longer had any chances. Mriya is all - to hold out right up to November 1918, when the nemchura still surrendered. A whole year - no one would have tolerated such and such a situation.
    4. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 20 September 2021 20: 30
      -11
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      And civil war would have taken place anyway

      Not a fact. I'll tell you that the rotten tsarist regime was too mild. All Lenins and Stalins were exiled to Siberia and lived there for nothing, occasionally fleeing and starting subversive activities again. But if the Stolypins and Denikins with the Trepovs came to power, then order could be put completely.
      1. sidoroff
        sidoroff 20 September 2021 20: 45
        +9
        Trepov died back in 1906, Stolypin was killed in 1911, Denikin was not a punisher at all.
        and in the conditional 1918 with the tsar all the peasants cannot be confused and the artisans by the Cossacks
        you cannot disperse - millions have gone through the war and they own weapons.
      2. Kronos
        Kronos 20 September 2021 21: 41
        +19
        Well, the whites tried to do this on the lands they captured, which is why they even lost their former supporters in Siberia.
        1. mmaxx
          mmaxx 21 September 2021 04: 02
          +1
          And in Siberia, the people had no reason at all to support Soviet Power. Here the unfortunate Kolchak decided to become such a reason.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 22 September 2021 15: 38
            +5
            Quote: mmaxx
            And in Siberia, the people had no reason at all to support Soviet Power. Here the unfortunate Kolchak decided to become such a reason.

            I immediately remembered the bearded anecdote about awarding Nicholas II with the Order of the October Revolution - for his great contribution to the creation of a revolutionary situation in the country.
            1. mmaxx
              mmaxx 22 September 2021 16: 47
              +2
              So Ilyich noted the great personal contribution of the admiral to the successful establishment of the Sov. Authorities in Siberia.
      3. Region-25.rus
        Region-25.rus 21 September 2021 09: 05
        +9
        Not a fact, I'll tell you that the rotten tsarist regime was too soft
        Lena execution, Punitive expedition of the Life Guards detachment of the Semenovsky regiment on the Moscow-Kazan railway. road, (January 1905. Softness and rushing good Doesn't the Hranian bun get stuck in your teeth?
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 22 September 2021 10: 36
          -7
          Quote: Region-25.rus
          Not a fact, I'll tell you that the rotten tsarist regime was too soft
          Lena execution, Punitive expedition of the Life Guards detachment of the Semenovsky regiment on the Moscow-Kazan railway. road, (January 1905. Softness and rushing good Doesn't the Hranian bun get stuck in your teeth?

          NO does not get stuck. Compare the Lena execution with the execution in Novocherkassk in the 1960s, With the 37th year, and a punitive raid, well, how should we treat terrorists? That's why the Republic of Ingushetia did not collapse in 1905, which was not liberal
          1. Region-25.rus
            Region-25.rus 22 September 2021 11: 20
            +3
            well, so how to treat terrorists
            the desperate people are terrorists? Well, my friend, probably when the National Guard pinches strikes due to non-payment of salaries (think. And they are) probably sit and rub the hands with delight? - "So their bastards! Stupid! Oh, what have you thought of! Rebel against the sovereign! Terrorists!" Taak? Have you worked yourself at least a day in your life? Or "mom is a university warm place in the office"?
          2. Andybuts
            Andybuts 22 September 2021 15: 29
            +2
            compare the Lena execution with the execution in Novocherkassk in the 1960s

            Yes, it is absolutely impossible to compare the largely random turn of events in Novocherkassk with the systematic struggle with the workers who dared to seek better working conditions.

            punitive raid, well, how should we treat terrorists?

            so you can reason if the population of the country is considered terrorists. Although a normal person in his right mind would call the Semenovites terrorists in this case.
      4. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 22 September 2021 15: 35
        +1
        Quote: Pilat2009
        Not a fact. I'll tell you that the rotten tsarist regime was too soft. All Lenins and Stalins were exiled to Siberia and lived there for nothing, occasionally fleeing and starting subversive activities again.

        So they did not overthrow the tsarist regime. smile The tsarist regime fought the wrong ones - the main threat to it came from its own "elite", from respected people from legal parties.

        And, however, can one expect adequate actions from the leadership of the state, in which the agent of the security department organizes and directs the assassination of the governor-general of the second capital, who is also a member of the Surname.
    5. Finches
      Finches 20 September 2021 21: 13
      +2
      If grandma had a cock, she would be a grandpa! laughing And the king-rag had no penis, he had a penis, but no penis - the physiological paradox of the last of the emperors! That's the whole story, to the penny!
    6. Vadim237
      Vadim237 21 September 2021 21: 14
      -4
      The most important thing is that the country would not have been plundered by the Civil War, but after the victory in Germany, its people began to rule and the Russian Empire would have taught everything that Germany and Austria-Hungary had as trophies. Russia would have gained control over the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles - Finland would not have left composition of Russia would most likely become parliamentary and no one that Hitler arranged for us would not have happened. But alas, history has built a thorny and bloody path - the consequences of which are still being disentangled and will be disentangled for a long time to come.
      1. Curious Katya
        Curious Katya 24 September 2021 14: 02
        +1
        > Russia would gain control of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles

        How did you decide that someone would give it to you?
        Do you know the saying "Promising is not yet getting married"?
  2. Alanart
    Alanart 20 September 2021 18: 12
    +9
    After World War II, the British Empire collapsed, as did France. Oh, come on, winners.
    1. Olezhek
      20 September 2021 18: 28
      +2
      The British Empire collapsed during World War II, as did France. Come on, winners


      The USSR and the USA helped.
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 20 September 2021 18: 42
        +8
        Quote: Olezhek
        The USSR and the USA helped.

        As for the "American aid", let me doubt, but as for the influence of socialism, the socialist camp and the USSR, I will say that the beginning of the national liberation movement in the world was laid not by the United States, but by that example of the creation of the world's first socialist country, no matter how they now relate to it.
        1. Alf
          Alf 20 September 2021 20: 26
          +7
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Let me doubt about "American aid"

          How much has Britain paid off American debt? If my memory serves me, Britain gave the Azora states for 50 destroyers during WW1. And this is only at the beginning of the war.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 22 September 2021 15: 40
          +2
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Let me doubt about "American aid"

          Do not hesitate - in the struggle for markets, the United States actively helped to destroy the colonial system with its protectionism. Remember how the USSR and the United States came out together at the UN in condemning the aggression of Britain and France against Egypt.
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 20 September 2021 20: 34
      -1
      Quote: Alanart
      After World War II, the British Empire collapsed, as did France. Oh, come on, winners.

      France? Has disintegrated? Well, you do not confuse the colonies with the metropolis.
      1. Alanart
        Alanart 20 September 2021 22: 17
        +1
        Well, I meant the colonial empire. For everything is clear with the brits - the king, the empire. And these, it seems, have a republic. Regular, numbered
  3. Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 20 September 2021 18: 15
    +16
    Crowned Nikolashka the Bloody could not and could not cope with anything that exists. The article pleases with objectivity, discarding the sighs of the kingdoms.
    1. 210ox
      210ox 20 September 2021 18: 41
      +7
      The Romanov dynasty was degenerating spiritually and physically. They could no longer rule the country any longer.
      1. Alanart
        Alanart 20 September 2021 19: 30
        +8
        Not the Romanovs, but the Holstein-Gottorp. Normal European family, mired in incest and closely related marriages.
        We, tea, not Israel, the family is carried on by the Pope. The Romanovs ended in the 18th century.
    2. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 20 September 2021 18: 47
      +21
      Quote: Victor Tsenin
      Crowned Nikolashka the Bloody could not and could not cope with anything that exists.

      And I'll tell you more, only the establishment of Soviet power made it possible to go through that (not always flawless) path of industrialization. Energy, industry, the beginning of the elimination of illiteracy, vocational training schools, various courses ... How could this have happened under tsarism? There are doubts that WWII could have ended differently ... For the Russian people ...
      1. Victor Tsenin
        Victor Tsenin 20 September 2021 19: 23
        +15
        Quite a well-founded opinion. The Nazis, by the way, judging by the memoirs, were very amazed at the new Soviet system, the resilience of citizens united by the idea and achievements of the transformed state.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 21 September 2021 21: 23
        -2
        Hitler would not have happened in Germany - and industrialization would have passed much faster, since the entire infrastructure would not have been ruined by the civil war, at least the car-building machine-tool aircraft-building engine-building shipbuilding and the rest of the industry, although not numerous in the country, was already developing and, by the way, tractor building is the same appeared with the same Western participation - as during industrialization in the USSR.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 22 September 2021 15: 42
          +2
          Quote: Vadim237
          Hitler would never have happened in Germany

          Would be different. Foch was not in vain talking about 20 years of armistice: the humiliation of Versailles inevitably gave rise to revanchism, and the blindness of the guarantors of Versailles and direct infusions into Germany - the basis for the revival of the Reich.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 22 September 2021 19: 55
            -1
            At least this new vryatli would have gone like Hitler.
        2. nickname7
          nickname7 26 September 2021 03: 35
          +2
          [quote]. since the entire infrastructure would not have been ruined by the civil war, at least car-building machine-tool aircraft manufacturing [quote]
          Once again, you are thinking from the point of view of an industrial society, but monarchy is feudalism, which is not interested in your reasons. The economic system is important, not pure wealth. The tsar, being the richest man in the world, could buy a tractor plant in the states, build the Dnieper hydroelectric power station and carry out electrification, at least in St. Petersburg, without spending a ruble from the treasury, how rich he was, but the landowner Nikolai simply did not enter into his head why he needed a tractor after all, the peasant replaces the tractor. Feudal lords do not need a mass industry. Actually, other countries were able to develop only by overthrowing or separating the feudal lords from power.
          The feudal economic system could not industrialize and the wealth of the Republic of Ingushetia was useless.
      3. Dwellernet
        Dwellernet 23 September 2021 12: 49
        +3
        Before the revolution there was a total rampant corruption. They robbed everyone, starting with the peasants and ending with supplies to the army. All competent specialists were removed (destroyed) from governing the country, replacing them with "our own", according to the principle of friendship and loyalty, who were only engaged in fraud and theft. Doesn't it look like anything?
  4. alavrin
    alavrin 20 September 2021 18: 17
    +9
    It also depends on human qualities. For me, Nicholas II was the worst tsar after ... well, I don't know, Anna Ioannovna, or something. Organically incapable of leading. I remembered Blok's: "I renounced - as if the squadron had surrendered."
    1. Andrey Chizhevsky
      Andrey Chizhevsky 20 September 2021 18: 28
      +5
      The last emperor was not able to lead from the word "absolutely". He would have to command some reserve regiment in the district Zakhryukinsk ... And here is an empire - and what an empire! He had a good prime minister - Stolypin - and that was devoured by the courtier's camarilla, not without the help of the tsar. The rest is natural.
      1. Victor Tsenin
        Victor Tsenin 20 September 2021 19: 26
        +5
        Such as Nicholas 2 categorically can not lead anything, mediocrity in everything.
        By the way, the fact that it is still a so-called. a holy martyr, an indicative marker and a bad decision of the ROC, with all due respect to the ROC.
        1. Andrey Chizhevsky
          Andrey Chizhevsky 21 September 2021 06: 23
          0
          The point is not that Nicholas was shot in the basement of the Ipatiev house - but that the entire family of the last emperor was killed. What were the children guilty of? And if they were included in the rank of great martyrs, then dad was also included. According to the list, so to speak.
          1. Victor Tsenin
            Victor Tsenin 21 September 2021 10: 59
            +3
            The family is certainly not to blame, but we are still talking about a specific person. Do you know how it would be fair to mark, under the auspices of the church, a memorable date for the victims of Bloody Sunday, no less people and no less innocent.
            1. Andrey Chizhevsky
              Andrey Chizhevsky 21 September 2021 11: 06
              +3
              Forgive me - but we are discussing Nicholas. And you expressed doubts about his "sanctity" with which I absolutely agree. Even the very title of the article talking about the victory of the Republic of Ingushetia with such a king is absurd.
              1. Andrey Chizhevsky
                Andrey Chizhevsky 21 September 2021 11: 24
                +2
                But if I delve a little deeper into this topic about recognizing Nicholas as a great martyr, I believe that the decision made by the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church was then somewhat politicized. Imagine the years when the West believed that the fate of Russia was the same - to pay and repent. To repent and pay. As, however, they still think so on the same "civilized" to nausea West.
          2. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid 21 September 2021 12: 00
            +4
            Quote: Andrey Chizhevsky
            ...... What were the children guilty of? And if they were included in the rank of great martyrs, then dad was also included. According to the list, so to speak.
            the children of the tsar --- children were no longer according to the standards of that time. And for adults --- everything according to an adult. At that time, the children of workers worked the same working day as adults, only paid less.
            ... What were the children to blame for? ..
            yes, what? And they were crippled and died.
            1. Andrey Chizhevsky
              Andrey Chizhevsky 21 September 2021 15: 55
              -3
              I understand that killing teenagers just because their daddy was the king is normal for you? Did I understand you correctly? With such judgments, you can go far.
              1. Reptiloid
                Reptiloid 21 September 2021 16: 50
                +1
                Is it that the first Russian reigning persons were killed? Learn materiel. And the French? How many killed? Somehow nobody repents
                The son of Nicholas II, the former heir to the throne, yes, a minor .. The rest are adults. The archives --- haven't been opened yet, by the way. In general, the Bolsheviks were planning a trial.
                Should I repent of this? Somehow about the children of workers, who before the age of majority begin to work at that time, no one repented .... Crippled, died .... You are not indignant, .... And H2 himself? Abdicated the throne, lost the opportunity to save the lives of his loved ones.
                How many mistakes have been written about him ...
                1. Andrey Chizhevsky
                  Andrey Chizhevsky 21 September 2021 17: 07
                  -6
                  Did the Bolsheviks plan a trial? Don't tell me! The trial (even in those critical years) meant that the defendant (in this case, Nikolai) should have protection, and his children should be tried ... And for what crimes? How were they sinful? Or do you think that all their fault is that their father was a king? So you think once Romanov - so to the wall? If there would have been a trial - so they would have tried one tsar. Well, for sure, the tsaritsa. But there are no children. blue bloods "were. What will you say to our philanthropist?
                  1. Reptiloid
                    Reptiloid 21 September 2021 17: 36
                    0
                    Remember the Russian tsars who were killed in past centuries. Repent
                    1. Andrey Chizhevsky
                      Andrey Chizhevsky 21 September 2021 18: 53
                      -2
                      Why on earth should I repent? If you understand that my surname is not Yurovsky. laughing And I also have nothing to do with the death of other emperors ... But back to the question I asked - do you think that the murder of the children of the last king was legal? I repeat - it was murder, not execution. I hope you understand the difference.
    2. 210ox
      210ox 20 September 2021 18: 43
      +1
      You can also compare with Peter II .. But he disappeared in his youth.
      1. Alanart
        Alanart 20 September 2021 19: 35
        +1
        Well, you know, you can certainly compare. But Peter Alekseevich number 2 died at the age of 14. Somehow there was no chance for the guy to prove himself practically.
        By the way, this was the last Romanov. After him there were no longer the Romanovs
    3. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 20 September 2021 18: 55
      +6
      Quote: alavrin
      It also depends on human qualities. For me, Nicholas II was the worst tsar after ...

      And they, kings, were God's anointed only on paper. But in fact, they got involved in such adventures with their subjects, which is surprising how, at the same time, something was possible in Russia without this royal court, for whom it was more important:
      How delightful evening in Russia
      Love, champagne, sunsets, alleys
      Ah, summer is red, fun and walks
      How delightful evening in Russia

      Balls, beauties, lackeys, cadets
      And the waltzes of Schubert (or is it Strauss?) And the crunch of a French roll
      Love, champagne, sunsets, alleys
      How delightful evening in Russia

      Sorry, but the social status after birth ... There is something vile in this, and ... is already being established again.
      1. Non-fighter
        Non-fighter 20 September 2021 23: 04
        +9
        It has already been established. These are closed neighborhoods with checkpoints at the exit with a personal traffic light on the public road, with their own shops, hairdressers, gyms and other things, and a bus that takes children to school with the inscription "English school" and orange flashing lights. Every day I see: (This is no longer our elite.
      2. Andrey Chizhevsky
        Andrey Chizhevsky 21 September 2021 06: 29
        +2
        Silly song ... Champagne ... Juncker ... Crunch of a roll ... Read Gilyarovsky - with his sharp pen and sharp eyes. Not everything is romantic. Rather the opposite.
        1. Ross xnumx
          Ross xnumx 21 September 2021 07: 16
          +2
          Quote: Andrey Chizhevsky
          Read Gilyarovsky - with his sharp pen and keen eyes ...

          ... many articles and books have been written about the phenomena and events of which he was or was a contemporary. What he described as "far from romantic" had nothing to do with the royal court (however, like the words of the song "White Eagle").
          ==========
          I had to read it too, I have been reading it since the age of six. Sometimes at school in the first grade I got to read a book for reading to the students, while the teacher went out on business ... Some were very annoyed.
          hi
          1. Andrey Chizhevsky
            Andrey Chizhevsky 21 September 2021 08: 11
            +1
            It had nothing to do with the royal court. If you do not take into account the regime that existed at that time - namely, the autocracy. So the issue is controversial ..
            1. Ross xnumx
              Ross xnumx 21 September 2021 08: 18
              +1
              Quote: Andrey Chizhevsky
              It had nothing to do with the royal court. If you do not take into account the regime that existed at that time - namely, the autocracy. So the issue is controversial ..

              If you were attentive, then mine:
              Quote: ROSS 42
              But in fact, they got involved in such adventures with their subjects, which is surprising, how, at the same time, in Russia something was possible without this royal court

              This is my personal (and not only) opinion that the king (king) is played by the retinue (in our case, the royal court), which is not always perfect ... That's all.
              hi
              1. Andrey Chizhevsky
                Andrey Chizhevsky 21 September 2021 09: 08
                +1
                It is also a controversial issue. The fact that the court camarilla is often just scoundrels and careerists is not even discussed. But the role of the crown bearer is also important. For example, the same Peter at number one ... Or John Vasilyevich ... And the last tsar we are discussing was a worthless ruler.
                1. Ross xnumx
                  Ross xnumx 21 September 2021 09: 10
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey Chizhevsky
                  For example - the same Peter at number one ... Or John Vasilievich ..

                  The role of personality in history has always been and is ... Yes
          2. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid 21 September 2021 12: 06
            +1
            Quote: ROSS 42
            ....... ==========
            I had to read it too, I have been reading it since the age of six. Sometimes at school in the first grade I got to read a book for reading to the students, while the teacher went out on business ... Some were very annoyed.hi
            respect! hi I have been reading since 4,5 years. lol in kindergarten I read a book to read at the request of the teacher.
            1. Ross xnumx
              Ross xnumx 21 September 2021 12: 20
              +1
              Quote: Reptiloid
              respect! I have been reading since 4,5 years. in kindergarten I read a book to read at the request of the teacher.

              As one friend said: "We lived poorly, and if I had not been born a boy, there would be no toys at all ..." lol
              1. Reptiloid
                Reptiloid 21 September 2021 12: 43
                +1
                Class! good I had this - at 4,5 years old, my parents from the Far East sent me for the summer to my grandmother, a retired teacher. There she had cubes with letters and picture cards. And also the box office of letters and syllables. I was delighted and things went quickly. At home, my parents did not have this. Didn't get it in advance In the taiga, on the site, in geology, in a house with no conveniences with a stove ...... During a shortage, intensified by a period of navigation.
                I quickly learned to read "to myself" ..... I don’t remember exactly about arithmetic .... But I counted up to 300 small 2 years old ..... the preschooler got the book "In the maze of numbers." This is about arithmetic operations, also a little algebra and geometry. Progress started immediately laughing hi
              2. Reptiloid
                Reptiloid 21 September 2021 12: 51
                +1
                I re-read everything. There was also such a thing --- they lived in a barrack --- on the seashore. Water was brought in, poured into a barrel once a week. Heating, however, was.
    4. Olkhovsky
      Olkhovsky 20 September 2021 19: 14
      +7
      For me, Nicholas II was the worst tsar after ... well, I don't know, Anna Ioannovna, or something

      Here! Here, comrades, the main problem of the monarchy is that if a worthless tribe reigns on the throne, then it will be very difficult for the people. And to throw off / change the monarchical system is much more difficult than other types of government. Our current squalid bourgeois system pleases me with only one thing - it will collapse faster than many people think.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 20 September 2021 20: 38
        -6
        Quote: Olkhovsky
        Our current squalid bourgeois system pleases me with only one thing - it will collapse faster than many people think.

        Why would he collapse? The President is eternal, In the Duma there is an eternal majority. All ruffled in the Civil and 37m were massacred. The people live with thoughts if only there was no war ...
        1. Olkhovsky
          Olkhovsky 20 September 2021 20: 59
          +3
          the majority. All rough in the Civil and 37m cut out

          But I do not agree with this. At 37, they put things in order, and did not get rid of dissent. The civilian was given class enemies, the old-regime dinosaurs.
        2. Drago
          Drago 21 September 2021 17: 59
          0
          Under the weight of their own stupidity and systemic bugs of capitalism.
      2. Dart2027
        Dart2027 20 September 2021 21: 21
        -5
        Quote: Olkhovsky
        Our current squalid bourgeois system pleases me with only one thing - it will collapse faster than many people think.

        How many centuries faster?
    5. Alf
      Alf 20 September 2021 20: 29
      +6
      Quote: alavrin
      I remembered Blok's: "I renounced - as if the squadron had surrendered."


      Pay attention to the year of pronunciation, even then it was clear to many.
  5. Bogalex
    Bogalex 20 September 2021 18: 25
    +3
    "Russia, oddly enough, was on the side of the winners, and in February 1917 this was already quite obvious <...>"
    A highly controversial statement. Just in February 1917, everything was far from obvious.
    1. tatra
      tatra 20 September 2021 19: 45
      0
      And after the February Revolution, it became clear that the Russian army would never win, and here is the notorious order No. 1, and the bacchanalia that was happening in the army under the Provisional Government, and the fact that the soldiers did NOT want to fight and die for no reason. And the summer offensive of the Russian army failed.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 20 September 2021 20: 43
        -5
        Quote: tatra
        And after the February Revolution, it became clear that the Russian army would never win

        She didn't have to win; she just had to be patient.
        1. mmaxx
          mmaxx 21 September 2021 03: 35
          +1
          Well, well .. I myself would like it to be so. But how many times did the "winners" or those who were not involved in general cheat on the winners? Yes, all the time. In the circle of friends, you must have iron teeth. And what could Russia oppose England and France? The question of the straits was for the "allies" absolutely opposite to the interests of Russia. The maximum would be given some junk, such as Galicia.
          1. Olezhek
            21 September 2021 06: 11
            +2
            In the circle of friends, you must have iron teeth. And what could Russia oppose England and France? The question of the straits was for the "allies" absolutely opposite to the interests of Russia. The maximum would be given some junk, such as Galicia.


            I am afraid that after the war Russia would have faced big diplomatic surprises.
            And, most importantly, the first question: when will we repay the debts, dear ones?
            1. mmaxx
              mmaxx 21 September 2021 10: 33
              0
              Those partners did not just give something, but they would also take it away. Suffice it to recall their conditions for whites. With the victory of the whites, the country would become a semi-colony. The very thing is to dream of Constantinople.
              That is why V. I. Lenin helped the Turks from the bottom of his heart. All claims were forgotten.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 22 September 2021 15: 55
            +1
            Quote: mmaxx
            The question of the straits was for the "allies" absolutely opposite to the interests of Russia. The maximum would be given some junk, such as Galicia.

            And they would have demanded broad autonomy for Poland up to independence. For on the Polish question, the Empire was pressed quite hard during the war.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 21 September 2021 08: 21
          +1
          And then hope that they will be invited to sign the surrender, like the French in the 45th.
  6. Gardamir
    Gardamir 20 September 2021 18: 25
    +15
    I read it twice. Here the communists are accused of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Well, the Russian Empire collapsed on the same principle. The then Politburo forced the Tsar General to abdicate. The difference is that there were many forces in the Empire then, and one (the Bolsheviks) of them was able to save the country. And in 1991-93, on the contrary, there was only one force that wanted to destroy for the sake of momentary pleasure.
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 20 September 2021 18: 33
      +12
      wanted to destroy for the sake of momentary pleasure.

      Fuck yourself momentary, they have been fattening for thirty years. laughing
      1. Gardamir
        Gardamir 20 September 2021 18: 39
        +14
        fatten
        It would be okay to fatten themselves. So people pull the last piece out of their mouths
        The country's Supreme Court (SC) has banned the Russians from breeding farm animals in their garden plots.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 20 September 2021 18: 54
          +7
          I haven’t heard about it yet. Hmmm, the further into the woods - the better the hell it is. negative
        2. faiver
          faiver 20 September 2021 19: 20
          +5
          The fine for a chicken is from 10 thousand ..., this is some kind of star ...
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 21 September 2021 21: 30
            -2
            This fine is for those who will breed livestock in areas where people do not live permanently - that is, dachas where they come to rest and leave - but on the sites of their private houses, please breed.
            1. faiver
              faiver 21 September 2021 22: 03
              0
              (from Cipollino) For ordinary rain - 100 lire, for pouring rain - 200 lire, with thunder and lightning - 300 lire ... feel
        3. EvilLion
          EvilLion 21 September 2021 09: 20
          0
          Absolutely correct prohibition, firstly, veterinary standards, who will comply, secondly, if you are engaged in such a business, then register as an individual entrepreneur. At the same time, in relation to vegetable gardens and grandmothers with buckets of tomatoes at stores, the legislation is extremely loyal, in the same EU you will not sell anything from your personal plot, because you are not fiddling, everything is already under quotas there, and there should be no shadow production.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 22 September 2021 15: 58
            0
            Quote: EvilLion
            in the same EU, you will not sell anything from your personal plot, because you are not fiddling, everything is already under quotas there, and there should be no shadow production.

            EMNIP, it is still possible to sell, but subject to the availability of certificates for products and production and full compliance with all standards and norms. Well, this is about how to make a single handicraftsman requirements similar to a large enterprise. smile
    2. tatra
      tatra 20 September 2021 19: 48
      -1
      And a very indicative fact. The enemies of the communists not only captured the USSR, but also proved that they did not want to live with each other in the same country, therefore, they divided the USSR into their "independence-self", and made their dismemberment of the USSR their main state holiday in all the republics of the USSR that they captured ... Only Putin later "hesitated" and renamed "Independence Day".
    3. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 21 September 2021 12: 15
      +1
      Quote: Gardamir
      ...... The then Politburo forced the Tsar General to abdicate. The difference is that there were many forces in the Empire then, and one (the Bolsheviks) of them was able to save the country. And in 1991-93, on the contrary.? ....
      Most importantly, the Bolsheviks took responsibility for preserving the country and everything that happens in it. Nobody represents the issue of responsibility for the country from 91. Even
      Doesn't think about it. Still. Completely different goals --- personal wealth
    4. Vadim237
      Vadim237 21 September 2021 21: 27
      -1
      No, in the 80s and early 90s, the USSR as a system completely fizzled out and collapsed dead, and communism with its ideas became a clear unattainable utopia for society, which almost everyone gave up on.
  7. faiver
    faiver 20 September 2021 18: 28
    +10
    On the mind, if the autocrat was smarter, the Russian Empire in general should not have participated in this quarrel. After the Russian-Japanese war, Nikolashka had to break the allied treaty with both the French and the British, so you look and in general the First World War would not have happened. But alas and ah, Nikolashka first provoked a war with Japan, shamefully lost it, retained allied relations with England, which provided all-round support to the Japanese, and as a result, the French and British substituted him under the First World War and brother George threw Nikolashka already after the revolution, refusing that in the shelter, so as not to return the gold and not to answer for unfulfilled military orders. I will not be surprised if the events in the basement of the Ipatiev House are paid for in pounds ...
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 20 September 2021 18: 43
      +2
      Quote: faiver
      The Russian Empire was not supposed to participate in this quarrel at all

      Like this? And who will solve British problems on the battlefield? wassat

      very different from the current "totalitarian" China that has ended poverty.

      There are now many, many billionaires in China, but they have not yet conquered poverty ...
      1. faiver
        faiver 20 September 2021 18: 46
        +1
        Like this? And who will solve British problems on the battlefield?
        - why have the French been forgotten?
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 20 September 2021 19: 20
          +1
          Quote: faiver
          why have the French been forgotten?

          The Anglo-Saxons have always been the first violin, and the French are "in the wings" ...
      2. Alf
        Alf 20 September 2021 20: 33
        +1
        Quote: Doccor18
        And who will solve British problems on the battlefield?

        Someone from the British said Britain will fight Germany to the very last drop of blood of the last Russian soldier.
    2. Olezhek
      20 September 2021 18: 46
      +3
      On the mind, if the autocrat was smarter, the Russian Empire in general should not have participated in this quarrel. After the Russian-Japanese war, Nikolashka had to break the allied treaty with both the French and the British, so you look and in general the First World War would not have happened


      Handsomely... wink
    3. paul3390
      paul3390 20 September 2021 18: 50
      +5
      Nikolashka had to break the treaty of alliance with both the French and the British

      Then - without options, nemchura would have rolled over to the frogs and naglich people, and RI - would have been left alone with Germany and Austria. Actually, this is exactly what happened 20 years later. But the mighty Soviet Union managed to withstand the onslaught of the EU 1.0, and even won. Would Romanov's RI hold up? No way! She could not resist even with her allies .. With all the consequences for us ..
      1. faiver
        faiver 20 September 2021 18: 57
        0
        It is possible for the French, but the British do not, do not forget about the fleet ... And about the loss of the Germans in the French company, and Austria-Hungary is not a player against the Republic of Ingushetia ...
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 20 September 2021 19: 02
          +2
          The French are pretty good. Just imagine that in 1914 the Germans on the Western Front will have an extra ten corps - and everything will become very clear. Naglich people - well, what would they do without France? In addition, do not forget that the Kaiser, unlike Aloizievich, had a rather sickly linear fleet, and all the possibilities for its further strengthening.

          Austria is certainly not a player alone, but in an alliance with Germany it is still some kind. The extra 3 million bayonets, even not very high quality ones, are not a joke to you. In addition, Austria-Hungary still possessed a decent industry then, some Skoda factories were worth what .. Did RI have a lot of equal value?
          1. faiver
            faiver 20 September 2021 19: 13
            0
            there was still a sickly linear fleet,
            - AND? The British took in a mass and slapped that fleet on the shchs ...
            During the showdown with the French and British, the Germans had considerable losses, which is of no use to the industry of Austria-Hungary, if our troops drove them to the tail and mane. Yes, and the Kaiser would not have climbed into Russia after the capture of France, the trophies must not only be captured, but also digested, and then a showdown with the British for the French colonies. After all, if there is no threat to Germany from the land, why pull the cat's personal belongings?
            1. paul3390
              paul3390 20 September 2021 19: 26
              +5
              Can you remind me - when did the British defeat the Germans at sea ?? And - in the event of a quick victory over France, Germany had every opportunity to significantly increase the line fleet. It is enough to see what and how much they had on the stocks.

              What are the losses? If by the time of the battle on the Marne there would have been at least three more German corps, the war would have ended there. Together with losses.

              Well, you give .. Why did the nemchura climb to us for a thousand years? In addition, two such empires will definitely not be able to get along side by side. For each - by definition, will consider a neighbor as an adversary. And sooner or later, they will try to eliminate this threat.

              As for the Austrians they chased - you are somehow very optimistic .. Yes - the 1914 campaign ended in general in our favor, but - read what it cost! And how many times they broke into us robustly during this time .. In general - the Battle of Galicia at times really hung in the balance .. If everything was so simple - why didn’t we occupy Vienna on New Year's Eve 1915?
              1. faiver
                faiver 20 September 2021 19: 37
                -1
                when did the British defeat the Germans at sea?
                - Jutland, but the losses of the British were greater, but the Kaiser's linear fleet after the battle could no longer conduct full-fledged hostilities, unlike the British ..
                1. paul3390
                  paul3390 20 September 2021 19: 45
                  +2
                  What is this ?? Having lost only one undercruiser Blucher, did he sharply lose his combat capability ??
                  1. faiver
                    faiver 20 September 2021 19: 50
                    0
                    read about the damage to the rest of the ships ...
                    1. paul3390
                      paul3390 20 September 2021 20: 08
                      0
                      So what? They were not able to fix them until the end of the war ??
                      1. faiver
                        faiver 20 September 2021 20: 17
                        0
                        They could fix it, but ..., but the British did not go to the general battle anymore, and Scheer, if my memory serves me right, refused the nobility granted by the Kaiser ...
                      2. paul3390
                        paul3390 20 September 2021 20: 20
                        0
                        Duc who argues something? But Jutland was definitely not a victory for the British, despite the twofold superiority. Now think - what would happen if the Germans were able to quickly finish building everything that stood on the stocks? And in the event of the fall of France, they would still be able to. And - how would they behave in the future ..
                      3. faiver
                        faiver 20 September 2021 20: 45
                        +2
                        definitely not a victory for the British
                        - for whom is the sea left? For the British, despite the losses, so who will win then? Let me remind you that the losses of the USSR in the Battle of Kursk significantly exceed the losses of Germany, but the victory is ours ...
                        After the fall of France, the trophies still have to be digested ...
                      4. mmaxx
                        mmaxx 21 September 2021 04: 16
                        0
                        When people count the tanks near Prokhorovka, they forget that the victorious Germans then skidded to the Dnieper without a break, and in some places for it. It is usually not enough to look at the globe of the mind. laughing
                      5. mmaxx
                        mmaxx 21 September 2021 03: 39
                        +2
                        After Jutland, the sea finally became English. On this fact, it is clear whose victory.
                  2. Sergey Valov
                    Sergey Valov 20 September 2021 20: 34
                    +1
                    Did Blucher die at Jutland?
              2. strannik1985
                strannik1985 20 September 2021 20: 07
                +3
                Maybe remind

                In the sense? British by sea owned, the Germans challenged English domination, and unsuccessfully. The domination of the sea ensured the success of the blockade, which caused a sharp resource hunger, a bunch of hunger deaths and, ultimately, a revolution. wink
                1. paul3390
                  paul3390 20 September 2021 20: 10
                  +1
                  Yes. But we are talking about a situation when the Schlieffen plan did work and France was withdrawn from the war? Well, think about how much and what the Germans could have launched into the water .. And in what time frame ..
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 20 September 2021 21: 04
                    0
                    But we're talking about the situation

                    Then it makes no sense for the Germans to rush to the war at sea, after France there will be Russia, most likely Italy will join the bloc, 5-10 years and the Kaiser will have a fleet that is really capable of creating a threat to the British, but the latter (most likely) will agree on help with the Americans ...
                    1. faiver
                      faiver 20 September 2021 21: 22
                      +1
                      after France there will be Russia
                      - why, if Russia is neutral?
                      1. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 20 September 2021 21: 31
                        0
                        At the time of the hypothetical defeat of France, RIA will have time to invade East Prussia and AVI request
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 20 September 2021 21: 39
                        0
                        And if there is no "Consent", then there will be contradictions with Austria-Hungary, at that time the closest ally of Germany. In real life, H2 started the war covering Serbian terrorists.
                      3. faiver
                        faiver 20 September 2021 21: 48
                        0
                        So if there was no "Consent" then maybe the situation with the Serbs was different ...
                      4. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 22 September 2021 16: 08
                        0
                        Quote: faiver
                        - why, if Russia is neutral?

                        Because challenging dominance at sea is a lengthy process. And Germany has a victorious army here and now, capable of removing a possible threat from the East. Well, how will the British come to an agreement with Russia and sign a "Russian steam roller" for themselves?

                        In general, what to say - the arguments will be the same as those of Hitler in 1940 at a meeting in the Berghof. Fortunately, the ideology of the Third Reich stood on the foundation of the ideology of the Second Reich. The same term Lebensraum appeared long before Adolf. And it was not them or his followers who were told that Lebensraum for Germany is the East directly bordering on the German Fatherland. Destiny leads us there. The compass of the Germans points to the East.
                      5. faiver
                        faiver 22 September 2021 16: 12
                        0
                        I seem to have read that the Kaiser was more sane ...
                      6. Olezhek
                        22 September 2021 18: 53
                        0
                        So if there was no "Consent" then maybe the situation with the Serbs was different ...


                        I seem to have read that the Kaiser was more sane ...


                        You see, my dears: the people of the West fundamentally do not understand what "peaceful coexistence" is.
                        Well, the Germans have a very specific attitude towards Russians.
    4. strannik1985
      strannik1985 20 September 2021 19: 33
      0
      According to the mind

      I could not, the gold standard did not allow.
      1. faiver
        faiver 20 September 2021 19: 45
        0
        I wrote - be the autocrat smarter, but he was not smarter ... hi
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 20 September 2021 20: 05
          0
          Then not after RYAV, late.
          1. faiver
            faiver 20 September 2021 20: 19
            0
            well, there are options ...
    5. Kronos
      Kronos 20 September 2021 21: 48
      0
      It was impossible. Russia has gained credits and in the economy the British and French have already bought up a lot.
  8. antivirus
    antivirus 20 September 2021 18: 29
    -5
    business is a bunch ---- what would have happened AFTER VICTORY IN PMV ?? - everything is clear and at once - TAKE SOCIAL POLL AT THE MIDDLE AGE 25 (???????? - CM LIFE IN RI).
    AND WE GET ---- HA-HA, BLOCH. HA HA BLOKH
    what to do with Poland, Finland and the Turks in Erzerum and further to Constantinople (would the Angles give it ??)?
    Wed Asia there was an uprising,
    Zheltorosiya to Yapam departs?
    The Cossacks are a separate people, what trophies will they get, but the peasants of the Volgodskoy do not?
    the cunning category "self-awareness of the people" of the outskirts and Carpathians "(Przemysl and Lvov - ours?)

    and the last - how much champagne can you lead to the princes until the illiterate peasants, the winners, learned to read and write?
    for the latter - how to pay off military debts - why? in kind-manganese, lumin and coal with oil? and what to their peasants? -these are contradictions within the ruling class, the feeders.

    PS: how long will it take to solve those problems (if they will be solved, who will?), Not even money, which is not there for 20 years in advance.
  9. paul3390
    paul3390 20 September 2021 18: 34
    +15
    RI had an insoluble problem - the peasant question .. For the peasants on their scraps with the help of a plow and some kind of mother - produced negligible little marketable grain .. In fact, a huge part of the empire's population worked only for their own food. This means that there is nowhere to take resources for industrialization. Neither human, nor food, nor financial. The factories could not be provided with workers, for they could not be fed. And - no money. A vicious circle, which is not solvable by the Romanov empire in principle. With all the future options that follow from here ..

    It was possible to follow the path of the West - simply take away the allotments from the peasants and force them to work for rations in the cities. And the land should be significantly enlarged and the agricultural mechanization carried out in order to increase productivity and provide workers with food. But - this did not solve the issue of finance, which the West resolved through the total plunder of the colonies. Whom would the Romanovs begin to rob?

    And only the Bolsheviks found confidence and courage in themselves, having carried out industrialization and collectivization under Stalin's leadership. Thereby - providing the industry with human resources and means of feeding them.

    How did they do it? Yes, elementary! They robbed the country to the thread, and first of all - the peasantry! Which, to their credit, was never hidden. Actually - the same is done by the nonesh authorities, the only question is where did the loot go .. The Bolsheviks let everything go to the rise of the country, and after 10 years we won the greatest war, and 30 years later we were the first to fly into space, becoming one of the two superpowers on the planet. Now - everything is stupidly pushed into the bottomless pockets of Putin's nukers ..

    Could the RI of the Romanovs have done something similar to the act of the Bolsheviks? Yes, not in life! It is a little guts to think about the country, and not about your own well-being. Just like the others ..

    The conclusion is simple - we would all be khan if RI had survived after WWI. For the inevitable WWII - it would not have survived one hundred percent, the chances of winning are zero. And most likely, it would have collapsed even before that, under the weight of contradictions that have not been resolved for centuries and the complete inconsistency of the internal order with modern realities ..
    1. Overlock
      Overlock 20 September 2021 21: 07
      -2
      Quote: paul3390
      For the peasants on their plots, with the help of a plow and some kind of mother, produced negligible little marketable grain .. In fact, a huge part of the empire's population worked only for their own food.

      Not certainly in that way. The Russian Empire occupied a leading position in world agriculture: in the first 14 years of the 15th century, the area under crops increased by 10%, grain yield by 20%, grain harvest per capita by more than 5637%. Gross grain harvest - 92,5 million poods (1 million tons) - 1st place in the world (half of the world rye harvest, second place in wheat harvest), as well as 647,8st place in grain exports - 10,61 million poods (651 million tons) of cereals. The total volume of grain exports amounted to 1 million rubles. Russia ranked 77576st in the production and export of butter (exported XNUMX tons of butter).
      But an unnecessary war demanded soldiers and in the first 2 years of the war, 6 million were called up. peasants. In the provinces, there were no men left: in Moscow - 44%, Amur - 43%, Tomsk - 42%, Ufa - 30%, Perm - 29%. How many horses were taken! Next is a snowball.
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 21 September 2021 18: 46
        0
        Eh .. You should have seen exactly who gave the marketable crop .. And they gave it - in the mass large landowners' farms. The average peasant - gave about 6 centners a year. And this is the average for RI. The bulk - and did not hold up to that ..
      2. Usher
        Usher 22 September 2021 02: 32
        -2
        Quote: Overlock
        Quote: paul3390
        For the peasants on their plots, with the help of a plow and some kind of mother, produced negligible little marketable grain .. In fact, a huge part of the empire's population worked only for their own food.

        Not certainly in that way. The Russian Empire occupied a leading position in world agriculture: in the first 14 years of the 15th century, the area under crops increased by 10%, grain yield by 20%, grain harvest per capita by more than 5637%. Gross grain harvest - 92,5 million poods (1 million tons) - 1st place in the world (half of the world rye harvest, second place in wheat harvest), as well as 647,8st place in grain exports - 10,61 million poods (651 million tons) of cereals. The total volume of grain exports amounted to 1 million rubles. Russia ranked 77576st in the production and export of butter (exported XNUMX tons of butter).
        But an unnecessary war demanded soldiers and in the first 2 years of the war, 6 million were called up. peasants. In the provinces, there were no men left: in Moscow - 44%, Amur - 43%, Tomsk - 42%, Ufa - 30%, Perm - 29%. How many horses were taken! Next is a snowball.

        crunchy baker?
      3. Andybuts
        Andybuts 22 September 2021 15: 39
        0
        The total volume of grain exports amounted to 651 million rubles. Russia ranked 1st in the production and export of butter (exported 77576 tons of butter).


        and also the first place in Europe for hunger, repeated consistently every 5-7 years. "We will not finish eating, but we will take out" was the motto of that time, since grain and food for the Republic of Ingushetia meant the same as oil and gas for the Russian Federation.
      4. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 22 September 2021 16: 22
        0
        Quote: Overlock
        Not certainly in that way. The Russian Empire occupied a leading position in world agriculture: in the first 14 years of the 15th century, the area under crops increased by 10%, grain yield by 20%, grain harvest per capita by more than 5637%. Gross grain harvest - 92,5 million poods (1 million tons) - 1st place in the world (half of the world rye crop, second place in wheat harvest), as well as 647,8st place in grain export - 10,61 million poods (651 million tons) of cereals. The total volume of grain exports amounted to XNUMX million rubles.

        The problem is that in terms of yield, Russia still lagged behind European countries - by 2-3 times. But worst of all, agriculture absorbed a disproportionately large number of the country's population, more than 75%. We have already written to you about the marketable crop.
        There was also an ambush with agricultural machinery. In the European part of the Empire, a third of the plows are wooden, 98% of the harrows are wooden (less than a third) or wooden with iron teeth (more than two-thirds). But there was also a plow, of which in the same part there were about the same number as plows - 6 pieces.
    2. Drago
      Drago 21 September 2021 18: 07
      -1
      I agree with you. I just want to remind you of one more point that helped
      Europe to solve the peasant problem. This is immigration to the United States. According to some sources, only from Germany in the period 1880-1900 immigrated to the United States.
      7 million people.
  10. stafford41
    stafford41 20 September 2021 18: 37
    +1
    The author, on what basis does he believe that if Russia won the First World War, there would be a Versailles Peace Conference?
    1. Olezhek
      20 September 2021 18: 40
      0
      The author, on what basis does he believe that if Russia won the First World War, there would be a Versailles Peace Conference?


      Tsarskoye Selo?
      1. stafford41
        stafford41 20 September 2021 18: 41
        +2
        Yes, even Berlin. It would be fundamentally different if Russia participated in it as a victorious power
        .
        1. faiver
          faiver 20 September 2021 18: 44
          +3
          In general, Russia had nothing to do in the First World War ...
          1. svp67
            svp67 20 September 2021 18: 56
            +1
            Quote: faiver
            In general, Russia had nothing to do in the First World War ...

            Russia had an interest ... to return Constantinople and Hagia Sophia to Orthodox Christianity, and then take control of the straits with access to the Mediterranean Sea
            1. faiver
              faiver 20 September 2021 19: 01
              +1
              There was interest, but there was no opportunity, the Russian-Japanese was clearly shown. I don’t understand at all how you can be in allied relations with a country that is an ally of your enemy ...
              1. svp67
                svp67 20 September 2021 19: 04
                -2
                Quote: faiver
                There was interest, but there was no opportunity,

                And here I will disagree. Well, that's something, but on this front the Russian army acted more than successfully. They even carried out a landing on the territory of Turkey, a successful
                1. faiver
                  faiver 20 September 2021 19: 15
                  +5
                  The success of one operation and the success of a military campaign as a whole are two different things ...
            2. paul3390
              paul3390 20 September 2021 19: 08
              +9
              the straits with access to the Mediterranean take control

              Who would have given them to take something! Even if they held out until victory. England would lay down with bones - but would not allow any Straits. And with the British fleet - it was not Romanov's RI to butt.
            3. Eug
              Eug 20 September 2021 19: 12
              +4
              The British were (and are) strongly disagreed. According to them, the straits were supposed to be Greek, under the tight control of the British themselves. But they promised, realizing that it would be very difficult to involve Russia otherwise. And there - they solved the most difficult geopolitical task, however, greatly facilitated by the Russian government itself ...
            4. tatra
              tatra 20 September 2021 19: 53
              0
              From the "book of memoirs" by Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich
              About the beginning of the war: "In a conversation with me, he escaped a confession that he could have avoided war if he had decided to change France and Serbia, but that he did not want this. No matter how fatal and one-sided the Franco-Russian alliance was, Russia wanted to comply with the accepted commitments ".
              Are you saying that the First World War was an invasive one for the Russian Empire?
              1. Olezhek
                20 September 2021 19: 56
                0
                that he could have avoided war if he had dared to change France and Serbia,


                Yes? And what would Germany do after defeating France in the West?
                1. tatra
                  tatra 20 September 2021 20: 04
                  -2
                  I, unlike you, do not like to guess. I gave proof that Nicholas II was able to refuse to participate in the First World War, which in many ways led him, the Romanov dynasty, and the Russian Empire to death.
                  1. smaug78
                    smaug78 20 September 2021 20: 44
                    -2
                    Slogan woman in her repertoire. The example of Austria-Hungary, which fell into dependence on Germany, the pseudo-elite does not know laughing
                  2. Overlock
                    Overlock 20 September 2021 20: 59
                    +3
                    Quote: tatra
                    Nicholas II MTF refuse to participate in the First World War

                    Refusal to support Serbia would mean that Russia is not responsible for its obligations - and this, in turn, would entail its expulsion from world politics. Compliance to external pressure not only does not relieve this pressure, but, on the contrary, strengthens it, forces geopolitical opponents to seek more and more concessions. Imperial show-off did not allow Nicholas to get away from the war, although the internal political problems in the country were more dangerous.
                    1. Foul skeptic
                      Foul skeptic 22 September 2021 15: 08
                      0
                      Refusal to support Serbia would mean that Russia is not responsible for its obligations

                      Did Russia have obligations to Serbia?
                2. Alf
                  Alf 20 September 2021 20: 38
                  +2
                  Quote: Olezhek
                  that he could have avoided war if he had dared to change France and Serbia,


                  Yes? And what would Germany do after defeating France in the West?

                  I would have taken up Britain closely. A submarine fleet would allow, and a surface one, with a supply base nearby, repair facilities and an open exit to the ocean.
  11. 547807955
    547807955 20 September 2021 18: 37
    -7
    Millions of Orthodox souls would not have been burnt in the Civil War - at least, thousands of churches would have stood, not mosques.
    1. faiver
      faiver 20 September 2021 18: 42
      +5
      Aren't there thousands of them now?
    2. know
      know 20 September 2021 19: 03
      +8
      And what would give, and what do thousands of churches give today? Maybe thousands of schools, hospitals, kindergartens, etc. should be built?
    3. tatra
      tatra 20 September 2021 19: 59
      -2
      Yes, if the internal and external enemies of the Bolsheviks had not been unleashed in order to capture Russia by them, millions of Russian people would not have perished in it.
      Likewise, if you, the enemies of the Bolshevik communists, had not captured the RSFSR, there would have been no supermortality rate of more than 1991 million people after 15.
      But you, as always, "have nothing to do with it", and your "great philanthropy" does not apply to the victims of the people either in the pre-revolutionary or in your post-Soviet period.
    4. mmaxx
      mmaxx 21 September 2021 03: 45
      +1
      Well, they instructed the churches again. Has it gotten better? The culture has risen incredibly? To an unattainable height? Something imperceptible .... And there are not enough schools and kindergartens. And the rest.
      The little ones are the last thing. Under the king, look, how many there were ...
  12. stafford41
    stafford41 20 September 2021 18: 48
    +1
    Quote: faiver
    In general, Russia had nothing to do in the First World War ...

    Perhaps. Especially after the fact. But its (World War I) Russian contemporaries wanted to participate in it, right from the moment of the conclusion of the Franco-Russian military alliance directed against Germany. And this is 1893.
  13. Evil troll
    Evil troll 20 September 2021 18: 53
    +8
    Selected quotes.
    And what would come of it?

    It's very difficult to say

    That is, it is very, very difficult to predict exactly how events would develop on our territory after the victory of Russia in the First World War (this is not a fantasy for you to write).

    How would she look right after her?

    I even find it difficult to say.

    How would tsarist Russia “rapidly develop” in the 20s and 30s?

    It's hard to even imagine.

    What would come of it all?

    God alone knows.

    Could the crowned bearer Romanov be able to cope with this situation? It is very difficult to say.


    How good it is to read an in-depth analysis of the historical situation from a person who is well versed in history!
  14. Seld
    Seld 20 September 2021 19: 00
    +3
    That's interesting.
    I would add that the author did not mention the US involvement. The contribution of which, according to the mumuars of Marshal Foch, was decisive. Without amers, the situation developed so-so ...
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 20 September 2021 19: 11
      +2
      Come on - the last offensive near Amiens was repulsed by the Germans without any Americans .. And after it - Germany stupidly did not have the resources for at least some activity .. Everything became extremely obvious. In fact, Germany has already undertaken this offensive not for the sake of victory, but in order to bargain for acceptable conditions of peace ..

      So - the Americans, as always, came to the shaposh analysis. Not forgetting to proudly stick out the tail - it's like it's only thanks to us that everyone won .. Ha!
      1. Alf
        Alf 20 September 2021 20: 41
        +2
        Quote: paul3390
        Come on - the last offensive of the Germans near Amiens was repelled without any Americans.

        Without MILITARY Americans, and without INDUSTRIAL?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 22 September 2021 16: 25
          0
          Quote: Alf
          Without MILITARY Americans, and without INDUSTRIAL?

          And the non-participation of industrial Americans in the World War is fantastic. So that capital, yes, give up such profits?

          US isolationism did not mean withdrawal from all areas. The same isolationists of the Roosevelt II era protested only against the direct participation of the United States in the war, but no one was against the supply of the warring parties. smile
          1. Olezhek
            22 September 2021 18: 45
            0
            And the non-participation of industrial Americans in the World War is fantastic. So that capital, yes, give up such profits?


            How to say ... in their place, I would not help the Entente much.
            That is, the Entente must win, but at the cost of incredible efforts.
            Germany must be defeated, but the state of the British Empire must be catastrophic (what is there with Russia-France is no longer so important).

            The collapse of the British Empire after the First World War - pays for any losses from the shortage of military materials.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 23 September 2021 15: 45
              0
              Quote: Olezhek
              How to say ... in their place, I would not help the Entente much.
              That is, the Entente must win, but at the cost of incredible efforts.
              Germany must be defeated, but the state of the British Empire must be catastrophic (what is there with Russia-France is no longer so important).

              Do you propose not to prolong the World War, the demolition of the colonial world and the global redistribution into two acts with a twenty-year interval? wink
              1. Olezhek
                23 September 2021 21: 24
                0
                It's tempting. Everything at once. request
  15. Seld
    Seld 20 September 2021 19: 02
    +2
    Quote: faiver
    In general, Russia had nothing to do in the First World War ...


    Look, pzhlsta, the conditions under which Russia, in the event of the Entente's victory, got an interesting "piece" of land. Cardinal, I would even say
    1. faiver
      faiver 20 September 2021 19: 18
      0
      Nicholas had already tried to smudge some of the "backward" and did it to the fullest, greed does not lead to good, the result is known - the basement of the Ipatiev house ...
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 21 September 2021 02: 51
      0
      Something I can't believe that this piece was given to us for no reason. It never happened and now again laughing
    3. Foul skeptic
      Foul skeptic 22 September 2021 15: 10
      0
      Look, pzhlsta, the conditions under which Russia, in the event of the Entente's victory, got an interesting "piece" of land. Cardinal, I would even say

      Are you talking about?
  16. Eug
    Eug 20 September 2021 19: 09
    +3
    If Russia (then the USSR), led by the Bolsheviks, despite all the difficulties, actively tried to become a country - a world leader, while offering an alternative to the generally accepted path of socio-economic development, then, while remaining at least monarchical (although they would not have been given), at least bourgeois-democratic , Russia would most likely have disintegrated or huge territories would have "disappeared" from it, which is essentially the same thing. As for me, of course.
  17. parusnik
    parusnik 20 September 2021 19: 09
    +9
    An article in the spirit of "Sometimes, looking from the porch to the courtyard and to the pond, he said how nice it would be if suddenly an underground passage was made from the house or a stone bridge was built across the pond, on which there would be shops on both sides, and so that merchants would sit in them and sell various small goods needed for the peasants. "(c)
    1. Olezhek
      20 September 2021 19: 40
      +2
      Duck this is a classic comrade, a real classic!
      Mr. Manilov looked far away and saw everything clearly ...
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 20 September 2021 20: 04
        +4
        You have successfully conveyed to the reader how good it would be if suddenly an underground passage was made from the house. smile
  18. bober1982
    bober1982 20 September 2021 19: 50
    +1
    France was not an empire, the author of course got excited, putting it on a par with the British empire.
    In February 1914, Pyotr Nikolaevich Durnovo submitted a note to Nicholas II, in which he predicted with great accuracy the future world war and its consequences for Russia
    Very briefly, so as not to tire: 1. Armed rivalry between England and Germany, which turns into a military clash between two groups of countries. 2. After the Russo-Japanese War, Russia went to a rapprochement with England, which was a big mistake. 3. Friendly relations with Germany were broken. 4. The main burden of the war will fall on the lot of Russia, it will be a kind of battering ram. 5. Russia is not ready for war. 6. The interests of Russia and Germany have never contradicted. 7. Even in the event of a victory over Germany, there will be no benefits. 8. The war itself is not beneficial to either Russia or Germany. 9. As a result of the war, Russia will be in a state of complete anarchy. 10. One of the main culprits of the war - England
    The king did not listen, it was a gross mistake.
    1. Olezhek
      20 September 2021 19: 58
      0
      The interests of Russia and Germany have never contradicted


      It may be so, but having defeated France, Germany would inevitably turn to the east ...
      No options. And what have they to lose? request
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 20 September 2021 20: 08
        +1
        Quote: Olezhek
        but having defeated France, Germany would inevitably turn to the east ...

        Since the time of Alexander III, Russia has been in a strong defensive alliance with France, with the Germans - in family relations.
        There was a kind of balance.
        1. faiver
          faiver 20 September 2021 20: 27
          0
          We didn't need this defensive alliance with France ...
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 20 September 2021 20: 46
            0
            Quote: faiver
            We didn't need this defensive alliance with France ...

            Yes, as Durnovo pointed out, this ruined, as did the rapprochement with England.
      2. faiver
        faiver 20 September 2021 20: 25
        0
        Germany would inevitably turn east ...
        - the question is very controversial, I think not, why?
        1. Karabin
          Karabin 20 September 2021 21: 00
          0
          Quote: faiver
          I think not, why?

          Expansion of living space. The topic was popular in Germany in the XNUMXs, long before the arrival of the Nazis.
          1. faiver
            faiver 20 September 2021 21: 17
            -1
            Expanding living space
            - the seizure of France and possibly its colonies for expansion does not roll?
            1. Karabin
              Karabin 20 September 2021 21: 37
              -1
              Quote: faiver
              capture of France and

              What did the Entente do with Germany and Austro-Hungary after the victory? The second was torn to pieces, creating many new states. Colonization was not envisaged. From Germany departed to the French
              disputed territories. Well, and indemnity. No occupation and dismemberment. If the Germans had been defeated, it would have been the same. Disputed pieces of land and money. "Civilized" nations however. Another thing is the Russian barbarians in the east, the European concept does not apply to them, and there is a lot of space.
              1. faiver
                faiver 20 September 2021 21: 45
                -1
                well, this is your opinion, my opinion is different ...
              2. EvilLion
                EvilLion 21 September 2021 08: 18
                0
                Land in France is more valuable than the troubles in the east. However, if the Germans beat the French on the face, it would be a half-trouble for the neighbors, for the first time or something. If Germany began to threaten to become a power from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, then everyone would be scared, as in WWII, when the victory of Germany over the USSR was unprofitable to anyone in the world, that there would be another question from the USSR, but with the Germans on the Eurasian field to do something- that would be difficult.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 22 September 2021 16: 26
              0
              Quote: faiver
              - the seizure of France and possibly its colonies for expansion does not roll?

              Not okay. Only the East directly bordering on the German Fatherland. Destiny leads us there. The compass of the Germans points to the East.
          2. Foul skeptic
            Foul skeptic 22 September 2021 15: 21
            +1
            Ostforschung is not equal to Drang nach Osten. Slavic nationalists in the middle of the 19th century created this horror story based on the idea of ​​the 19th century, which was not relevant for Germany in the late 20th and early 13th centuries.
      3. Alf
        Alf 20 September 2021 20: 42
        +1
        Quote: Olezhek
        The interests of Russia and Germany have never contradicted


        It may be so, but having defeated France, Germany would inevitably turn to the east ...
        No options. And what have they to lose? request

        With unconquered Britain and its industrial workshop overseas behind it?
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 20 September 2021 20: 59
          0
          Having behind

          It does not have a strong ground army to fight alone on land.
          1. Alf
            Alf 20 September 2021 21: 03
            0
            Quote: strannik1985
            Having behind

            It does not have a strong ground army to fight alone on land.

            It's right. But having behind all the industrial power of the USA, plus the manpower reserves of the entire empire, together with the USA and Germany, turned its back and got into the war in Russia ... It would be foolish to miss such a moment.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 20 September 2021 21: 18
              0
              It's right.

              That's right, but to realize this power, it takes time, at least a year, to assemble, arm, wean the army to replace the French, and then land it in Europe.
              1. Alf
                Alf 20 September 2021 21: 21
                0
                Quote: strannik1985
                It's right.

                That's right, but to realize this power, it takes time, at least a year, to assemble, arm, wean the army to replace the French, and then land it in Europe.

                And again it is true. And Germany will crush Russia in a month? Having met a normally and calmly mobilized army?
                1. Olezhek
                  21 September 2021 10: 10
                  0
                  And Germany will crush Russia in a month? Having met a normally and calmly mobilized army?


                  Having defeated France, Germany, in principle, in one snout could take the Russian army off the map
                  Alas and ah. Well, even if for six months, but I could.
                  There, the technical level of the countries is not comparable.
                  In real life, in the 14th, most of the Germans are in the West.
                  But even less was enough for us in East Prussia.
                  When would all the German artillery come to the Eastern Front.
                  And all aviation, including the Zeppelin, who would have nothing to shoot down with.
                  And together with Austria-Hungary and Turkey ... well, I beg you.


                  "normally and calmly mobilized army" yeah.
                  1. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 21 September 2021 13: 58
                    0
                    For half a year it is unlikely, those level of war is not the same and the mob. stocks. For a year for sure. Only the Germans would not have been given this, even though Cyberia remains unsettled, and the Russians have no special forces for it.
                  2. faiver
                    faiver 21 September 2021 15: 19
                    +1
                    Having defeated France, Germany, in principle, in one snout could take the Russian army off the map
                    - for what purpose? The war with Russia requires enormous resources, both human and material, and it still takes a lot of time. Is the Kaiser ready to get stuck?
                    1. Olezhek
                      22 September 2021 18: 30
                      0
                      Having defeated France, Germany, in principle, in one snout could take the Russian army off the map
                      - for what purpose


                      Complete dominance on the European continent
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 22 September 2021 16: 33
              +1
              Quote: Alf
              It's right. But having behind all the industrial power of the USA, plus the manpower reserves of the entire empire, together with the USA and Germany, turned its back and got into the war in Russia ... It would be foolish to miss such a moment.

              On the other hand, is it worth, having already mobilized and having combat experience and not having an enemy on land in the coming year, leave behind Russia, which the British can sign to fight for themselves - as under Napoleon? Isn't it better to resolve the issue with this "a colossus with feet of clay"and calmly demobilize most of the army, which would otherwise aimlessly guard the border with Russia? This will restore agriculture and give an impetus to the same shipbuilding industry. And then you can calmly prepare for war at sea and carry out" Plan Z "... oh, stop , this is in the next Reich. smile
              In short, the arguments for a ground war are well known: we have an army, the army will not take the Island, to build a fleet it is necessary to demobilize the army, but this does not give a threat from the East. The conclusion is, as it were, obvious.
              1. Olezhek
                22 September 2021 18: 29
                0
                On the other hand, is it worth it, having already mobilized and having combat experience, and not having an enemy on land in the coming year, leave Russia behind?


                Exactly! Historical chance of "final solution of the Russian question".
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 20 September 2021 21: 34
      0
      Quote: bober1982
      The interests of Russia and Germany have never contradicted.

      Germany, yes, but there was also AVI, and here the difficulties began. As a matter of fact, if Emperor Franz Joseph died after ruling for 10 years less, then there would be options. The problem is that the man whom the Russian army rescued from at least the loss of the crown was a hardened Russophobe and was conducting a policy hostile to her all the time.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 September 2021 16: 38
      0
      Quote: bober1982
      6. The interests of Russia and Germany have never contradicted.

      Yeah ... especially in terms of grain exports / imports (German rye expansion 1913-1914) and in the Straits. smile
      Thus, over the past year, the import of rye almost doubled the import of 1912 and the average for 1908-1912. This phenomenon is explained by the absence in our country of taxation of this grain, as well as the establishment by Germany of export bonuses on grain in the form of a return of duties. The import of grain from abroad, with sufficient growth within the Empire, seems all the more undesirable since the vast majority of it is ground in mills located in border areas, and the bran is exported back to Germany, while flour is released to consumer markets - within the country. Thus, the import of grain from Germany is, in essence, the import of flour in a form that allows the German importer to avoid paying a heavy duty on flour. In order to eliminate these undesirable phenomena, a law was issued imperially approved on May 1, 1914, on the imposition of customs duties on imported grain.
  19. Seld
    Seld 20 September 2021 19: 57
    0
    Quote: paul3390
    Come on - the last offensive near Amiens was repulsed by the Germans without any Americans .. And after it - Germany stupidly did not have the resources for at least some activity .. Everything became extremely obvious. In fact, Germany has already undertaken this offensive not for the sake of victory, but in order to bargain for acceptable conditions of peace ..

    So - the Americans, as always, came to the shaposh analysis. Not forgetting to proudly stick out the tail - it's like it's only thanks to us that everyone won .. Ha!


    Look, pzhlsta, the format of American participation. Not everything was so simple .... The Entente, without amers. There are simply historical facts. Indisputable. It is possible to interpret and draw conclusions from which, indeed, in different ways. But, at least, it is still worth looking at the facts and factors of US participation. This is really interesting.
  20. Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev 20 September 2021 20: 10
    +3
    The idea of ​​the article is clear.
    As for me, the only thing missing is the answer to the question - what should have happened to prevent a revolution in Russia? What factor to throw away?

    These are the factors that made the revolution:
    1. The sentiments of the liberal "ilya" who decided to replace the autocracy with a republic.
    2. An objective understanding by the military-technical intelligentsia of the need for changes in the country and the need for an industrial leap forward.
    3. Problems of industry and supplying the army and cities with food.
    4. Success of revolutionary agitation in the army and in the rear.
    5. Wild social inequality against the background of a sharp "wisdom" of the people during the war.

    All this was, and none of this could be thrown away. Neither the tsar nor the few monarchists.
    The revolution was inevitable.
    1. Overlock
      Overlock 20 September 2021 20: 54
      -1
      Quote: Bogatyrev
      As for me, the only thing missing is the answer to the question - what should have happened to prevent a revolution in Russia? What factor to throw away?

      These are the factors that made the revolution:
      1. The sentiments of the liberal "ilya" who decided to replace the autocracy with a republic.
      2. An objective understanding by the military-technical intelligentsia of the need for changes in the country and the need for an industrial leap forward.
      3. Problems of industry and supplying the army and cities with food.
      4. Success of revolutionary agitation in the army and in the rear.
      5. Wild social inequality against the background of a sharp "wisdom" of the people during the war.

      All this was, and none of this could be thrown away. Neither the tsar nor the few monarchists.
      The revolution was inevitable.

      I agree with the higher position, except for the last one, the revolution became inevitable because of the war. Stolypin foresaw this and opposed the war, and Lenin was just happy for the defeat of Russia in this war. Although the main one, after all, was the conspiracy of the elites, on February 25, 1917, Nicholas II dissolved the State Duma.
      The Duma refused to dissolve, actually starting a coup d'etat. Troops were called to St. Petersburg. Immediately, suddenly, bread in the city disappeared, and grain riots began, chaos began. Against the backdrop of the palace (grand dukes), general (army), intelligence conspiracy of England and France and the Masonic (Duma deputies, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks), the Empire collapsed.
  21. IgorIP
    IgorIP 20 September 2021 20: 11
    +7
    Quote: saber
    And what would give, and what do thousands of churches give today? Maybe thousands of schools, hospitals, kindergartens, etc. should be built?

    The church and the tavern bring much more profit than some schools and hospitals!))
  22. Seld
    Seld 20 September 2021 20: 13
    +3
    Quote: bober1982
    France was not an empire, the author of course got excited, putting it on a par with the British empire.
    In February 1914, Pyotr Nikolaevich Durnovo submitted a note to Nicholas II, in which he predicted with great accuracy the future world war and its consequences for Russia
    Very briefly, so as not to tire: 1. Armed rivalry between England and Germany, which turns into a military clash between two groups of countries. 2. After the Russo-Japanese War, Russia went to a rapprochement with England, which was a big mistake. 3. Friendly relations with Germany were broken. 4. The main burden of the war will fall on the lot of Russia, it will be a kind of battering ram. 5. Russia is not ready for war. 6. The interests of Russia and Germany have never contradicted. 7. Even in the event of a victory over Germany, there will be no benefits. 8. The war itself is not beneficial to either Russia or Germany. 9. As a result of the war, Russia will be in a state of complete anarchy. 10. One of the main culprits of the war - England
    The king did not listen, it was a gross mistake.


    And what about the French colonies at the time of 1914? Cross out?
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 20 September 2021 20: 23
      -3
      Quote: seld
      And what about the French colonies at the time of 1914? Cross out?

      The French had overseas territories, and they also had freedom, equality and brotherhood, since 1870.
  23. smaug78
    smaug78 20 September 2021 20: 35
    0
    The proud British Empire, although it did not fight major battles in the metropolis
    Another narrow-minded epigone of Samsonov or just a hurray-victim of the exam laughing
  24. Overlock
    Overlock 20 September 2021 20: 39
    0
    In general, the Russian Empire looked very archaic even before the First World War (against the background of the leading powers).

    A highly controversial conclusion. If you take serious research, the picture is not so depressing:
    1. Gross grain harvest - 5637 million poods (92,5 million tons) - 1st place in the world (half of the world rye crop, second place in wheat harvest), as well as 1st place in grain export - 647,8 million poods (10,61 , XNUMX million tons) of cereals;
    2. Russia ranked 1st in the production and export of butter (exported 77576 tons of butter);
    3. On the eve of the revolution, the country's national income amounted to 16,4 billion rubles (7,4% of the global total) - fourth place after the United States, Germany and the British Empire;
    4. In terms of growth rates of national income, the Russian Empire was ahead of many countries, and in some periods, for example, from 1908 to 1917. they were among the highest in that period, over 7% in some years;
    5. The share of Russia in world industry in 1913, according to various estimates, from 5,3% (fifth in the world) [81] to 12,73% (third in the world);
    6.From 1894 to 1914 in the Russian Empire, coal production increased by 306%, oil - by 65% ​​(growth stopped in 1901, since then there has been no increase), gold - by 43%, copper - by 375%; cast iron - by 250%; iron and steel - by 224%. Russia supplied 50% of world egg exports; it owned 80% of the world's flax production.
    7. State budget from 1031 million rubles. in 1894 increased, in 1916 almost fourfold - 4 billion.
    As you can see, the economy worked very well. The question was how this affected the well-being of ordinary people - very mediocre. It was for this reason that the number of strikes among workers increased, although only 27% of the country's population lived in the city.
    Corruption, poor management of the administrative apparatus, and an unsuccessful war were the trigger of the Russian revolution. And when the process started, everything collapsed.
    1. Kronos
      Kronos 20 September 2021 22: 15
      +2
      85% were peasants, that is, the only developed country at that time with such a low level of urban population, which in turn made it impossible for an industrial breakthrough and the development of the country as a whole.
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 21 September 2021 02: 49
      +2
      If you look at this picture, then it looks exactly archaic.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 21 September 2021 21: 44
      -3
      The trigger of the revolution in St. Petersburg was misinformation for the population that food shortages would begin in stores, liberals conspirators against this background and the background of failures in the war, the revolution and unleashed, but they turned out to be absolutely incapable of running the country and fighting, which killed them leading to power of the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Kaiser's Germany, it was necessary that someone would bring Russia out of the war, and Lenya coped with this role brilliantly.
  25. Cipollino
    Cipollino 20 September 2021 20: 55
    +1
    Nicholas II ... the passion-bearer ... the bloody one was distinguished by feeble-mindedness, alcoholism and cynical arrogance. He treated well only those whom his wife Alix of Hesse-Darmstadt loved ... both were related to the British Queen Victoria and swore even in English.
    Warmed up Rasputin and similar crooks ...
    The peasantry and workers for Romanovich were not people from the word - at all. And this is more than 80% of the population of the Republic of Ingushetia.
    RI with such a "leader" could not have any prospects.
    The civil war was unleashed by the Entente through assistance to the "white movement". And in fact, in many ways, by shaping it.

    The author needs to study more deeply the factors that influenced the further development of events. Including on the influence of socialist ideas on the world proletariat and on the mass consciousness of entire nations.
    Then the article will become more objective and deeper.
    So ... for figurative understanding ...

    Abd Al-Wahhab Al-Bayati
    LENIN (translated from Arabic, Iraq)

    Lenin's voice is clear and deep, like a mountain stream.
    Like a sunbeam it flies around the planet
    Stretches the banner towards the dawn ...
    Flowers are burning on the awakened earth.
    Brothers! In your pupils show through
    New world features ...
    Etc...
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 20 September 2021 21: 10
      -2
      Quote: Cipollino
      Nicholas II ... the passion-bearer ... the bloody one was distinguished by feeble-mindedness, alcoholism and cynical arrogance.

      Interested.
      For the first time I hear about the alcoholism of Nikolai Alexandrovich, from what sources such information?
      Cynical arrogance, too, did not differ, was easy to communicate.
  26. north 2
    north 2 20 September 2021 20: 55
    -1
    History does not recognize the subjunctive mood of what would have happened, therefore it should be noted that in addition to the spineless Nicholas II, Western liberals, decrepit generals were already raging in Russia, and it all started with them from the lost war of Turkey and from the Tsushima catastrophe.
    Glory to "Varyag" and Rudnev, but how many ships then surrendered to the Japanese virtually without a fight. There has never been such a shameful amount in the Russian Navy, in a thousand years of its history. And the Bolsheviks simply picked up the power, which was thrown by both the liberals and Nicholas II. And it was not the Bolsheviks who forced Nicholas to abdicate from power. Consequently, Nicholas, even during the First World War, was not very capable of ruling in the name of the victory of Russia. Weakness doesn't just come. Ripens for years.
    But still, one can guess what would have happened to Russia if such a ruler as, say, Catherine the Great ruled, and not Nicholas II. Firstly, Russia, perhaps, might not have entered the war. And if they did, then today the Bosphorus and the straits to the Sea of ​​Marmara would be Russian, Constantinople would be Russian and Russian Cossacks would live on the shores of the Bosphorus, and the Turks would live in Asia Minor, who would not want to live on the Russian coast of the Bosphorus. Liberasts and Nicholas II then simply profited from the Russian Empire. What else is the Bosphorus and Constantinople. It's good that even the Great Stalin gathered the Empire by 1940, in the person of the USSR, in fact, within the borders of the liberals and Nicholas of the profaned Empire
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 20 September 2021 21: 37
      -4
      Quote: north 2
      lost war to Turkey

      What is it?
      1. north 2
        north 2 20 September 2021 21: 53
        +1
        Quote: Dart2027
        Quote: north 2
        lost war to Turkey

        What is it?

        My mistake . There must be "Japan's lost war". I apologize for my carelessness and mistake.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 20 September 2021 22: 36
          -3
          Ahhh, OK. And then I was very surprised.
  27. abc_alex
    abc_alex 21 September 2021 03: 19
    +2
    Yes, there was a revolution in Germany too. In defeated Germany. After the actual defeat. As a reaction to this very defeat.


    ??? Why did it happen? It is enough to look at the map of the deployment of the troops of the belligerent states to understand that the German Empire did NOT lose the war. Yes, she did not have the strength to win the war. But at Compiegne, a truce was concluded, not a surrender. And if not for the revolution in Germany, everything could have ended in the redivision of Europe.
    But Russia lost the war. Even from a military point of view. German troops were stationed on its territory.

    In principle, even Russia's military victory in the First World War and subsequent participation in the Versailles Peace Conference did not solve all of its problems. Of course, this would allow avoiding the most brutal events, however ...


    Put it mildly. He CREATED them. It is enough to read on what conditions Russia received loans from France and Britain and imagine into what financial hole the "allies" would drive the Russian economy on the basis of debt obligations. And there is no need to count on reparations. The allies and the Germans would have been robbed and the Russians would have had enough appetite.

    "Whispers" might not have happened. And this is all against the backdrop of chaos in Central Europe. And the growth of fascist parties in Southern Europe ...


    Not "would". Without any doubts. Surplus allocation has been introduced in Russia since 1916. This means that the exchange of goods between town and country is paralyzed. There is hyperinflation in the country. And practically the entire industry is reoriented to a military order and needs conversion. For which the government has no money. And if you put everything, as H2 was customary, "on the community", that is, hammer the bolt, in the hope that maybe God will help, then inflation in the country will accelerate to unprecedented heights and the revolution will begin not for political, but for purely economic reasons ...
    And then the "allies" will come with IOUs. And in France they were not in rubles, but in GOLD.

    You see, the world was rapidly moving forward, and Nikolai Alexandrovich, with his political views on modernity in 1920, at the head of a kind of great power, would have looked completely ridiculous.

    He looked no better in 1902 either. His views and actions were inherent in the turn of the 18-19 centuries. Not just like that, in February, he was thrown out of the throne not by the "Carbonari" and "Jacobins", but by his "kindred" generals and courtiers. He got everyone. Himself and his wife. For a couple. Moreover, back in 1916.

    And there were simply no reasons for a fundamental change in the model of society in the then paradigm of the Russian Empire.

    Why not? The Russian nobility is a volu-eyed insignificance on the battlefields put down a downright dramatic amount. The officer corps of the imperial army changed the class character very strongly. And there were reasons for the paradigm shift. Both economic and social. But H2 could not carry them out for sure. And he hardly realized them at all.


    What would come of it all?
    God alone knows.
    That is, the recipe for a revolution (civil war) in victorious Russia after the First World War is very simple: at the front, the peasantry felt that they were "unreal", and the elite began to have serious problems ...
    Could the crowned bearer Romanov be able to cope with this situation? It is very difficult to say.


    Where does this uncertainty come from? Here everything is just extremely clear. Romanov The latter could not cope with the situation. I repeat, he was removed from power by "his own", those who knew him better than any modern historian. It was clearly explained to him that he was a nonentity and was not capable of running the country. "He cried...". In a situation when your neighbors do not put you in a penny, and the distant ones generally consider you a traitor, nerves of steel and a clear understanding of the situation are needed. And H2 never had either one or the other.
    Moreover, in post-war Russia, he did not even have a way to govern the country. Tools. Economic problems were not solved within the framework of the existing political system. Mass repressions were required either against the peasantry, in order to force them to endure all the burdens on their backs, or against the landowners, in order to confiscate their land and transfer it to the peasantry.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 21 September 2021 08: 09
      0
      And what reparations, with all the desire not to rip off the Germans more than they have, and for this pie, the rest. In fact, all the participants in WWI remind 2 Jews from that joke where they "both ate g ... and got nothing from it." The lesson, however, did not go for the future, and after 20 years France and Britain sat down on the same chair, after which their empires simply fell apart.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 21 September 2021 08: 11
      -1
      And the Bolsheviks took away the land, there was 25 percent of it, the peasants ate a little, but in principle, before collectivization, the land issue was not resolved, and could not be resolved, since it was 100 years late with it.
  28. EvilLion
    EvilLion 21 September 2021 08: 02
    0
    "The goal of any war is peace, preferably a better peace than before."

    If we assume that RI would have survived until the surrender of the central powers, then for whom would this world be better in it? The funny thing is that I can’t even find such, except for the generals. Russia would not have given any straits, so even to export the last marketable bread with its own starving population (but we will remember 1 million tons of grain, which the USSR delivered to France in 1947, when they themselves had some famine) would have to be exactly like this the same, by rail. And against the backdrop of all this, several million men, accustomed to kill, many of whom returned to their wives, who, like Sholokhov had it, "cannot be with a dog," but have not had husbands for a year.

    And also the mechanization of landlord farms and the pushing of the peasants who had become superfluous to the cities, where no one was waiting for them, and there was no work.
  29. Seld
    Seld 21 September 2021 08: 38
    0
    Quote: bober1982
    Quote: seld
    And what about the French colonies at the time of 1914? Cross out?

    The French had overseas territories, and they also had freedom, equality and brotherhood, since 1870.

    We know, we read it.
    Fraternite, liberte, egalite ...
    But best of all - Aligote
  30. Seld
    Seld 21 September 2021 08: 43
    0
    Quote: abc_alex
    Yes, there was a revolution in Germany too. In defeated Germany. After the actual defeat. As a reaction to this very defeat.


    ??? Why did it happen? It is enough to look at the map of the deployment of the troops of the belligerent states to understand that the German Empire did NOT lose the war. Yes, she did not have the strength to win the war. But at Compiegne, a truce was concluded, not a surrender. And if not for the revolution in Germany, everything could have ended in the redivision of Europe.
    But Russia lost the war. Even from a military point of view. German troops were stationed on its territory.

    In principle, even Russia's military victory in the First World War and subsequent participation in the Versailles Peace Conference did not solve all of its problems. Of course, this would allow avoiding the most brutal events, however ...


    Put it mildly. He CREATED them. It is enough to read on what conditions Russia received loans from France and Britain and imagine into what financial hole the "allies" would drive the Russian economy on the basis of debt obligations. And there is no need to count on reparations. The allies and the Germans would have been robbed and the Russians would have had enough appetite.

    "Whispers" might not have happened. And this is all against the backdrop of chaos in Central Europe. And the growth of fascist parties in Southern Europe ...


    Not "would". Without any doubts. Surplus allocation has been introduced in Russia since 1916. This means that the exchange of goods between town and country is paralyzed. There is hyperinflation in the country. And practically the entire industry is reoriented to a military order and needs conversion. For which the government has no money. And if you put everything, as H2 was customary, "on the community", that is, hammer the bolt, in the hope that maybe God will help, then inflation in the country will accelerate to unprecedented heights and the revolution will begin not for political, but for purely economic reasons ...
    And then the "allies" will come with IOUs. And in France they were not in rubles, but in GOLD.

    You see, the world was rapidly moving forward, and Nikolai Alexandrovich, with his political views on modernity in 1920, at the head of a kind of great power, would have looked completely ridiculous.

    He looked no better in 1902 either. His views and actions were inherent in the turn of the 18-19 centuries. Not just like that, in February, he was thrown out of the throne not by the "Carbonari" and "Jacobins", but by his "kindred" generals and courtiers. He got everyone. Himself and his wife. For a couple. Moreover, back in 1916.

    And there were simply no reasons for a fundamental change in the model of society in the then paradigm of the Russian Empire.

    Why not? The Russian nobility is a volu-eyed insignificance on the battlefields put down a downright dramatic amount. The officer corps of the imperial army changed the class character very strongly. And there were reasons for the paradigm shift. Both economic and social. But H2 could not carry them out for sure. And he hardly realized them at all.


    What would come of it all?
    God alone knows.
    That is, the recipe for a revolution (civil war) in victorious Russia after the First World War is very simple: at the front, the peasantry felt that they were "unreal", and the elite began to have serious problems ...
    Could the crowned bearer Romanov be able to cope with this situation? It is very difficult to say.


    Where does this uncertainty come from? Here everything is just extremely clear. Romanov The latter could not cope with the situation. I repeat, he was removed from power by "his own", those who knew him better than any modern historian. It was clearly explained to him that he was a nonentity and was not capable of running the country. "He cried...". In a situation when your neighbors do not put you in a penny, and the distant ones generally consider you a traitor, nerves of steel and a clear understanding of the situation are needed. And H2 never had either one or the other.
    Moreover, in post-war Russia, he did not even have a way to govern the country. Tools. Economic problems were not solved within the framework of the existing political system. Mass repressions were required either against the peasantry, in order to force them to endure all the burdens on their backs, or against the landowners, in order to confiscate their land and transfer it to the peasantry.


    Peace in the Forest of Compiegne .... October 1918. If memory serves.
    And in fact, it happened funny: a defeated, like Germany, signs papers in ..... FRANCE !!!!! Not in the Reich, but in enemy territory. The Entente, as a winner, was not allowed into the territory of the Reich.
  31. Seld
    Seld 21 September 2021 08: 48
    -1
    Quote: Kronos
    85% were peasants, that is, the only developed country at that time with such a low level of urban population, which in turn made it impossible for an industrial breakthrough and the development of the country as a whole.


    It's worth looking at the loading of the St. Petersburg shipyards with new warships after Tsushima. And this is a fact! And this naval fleet nailed the kriegsmarines in the Baltic. Therefore, I would not say that RI was exclusively agrarian.
  32. Seld
    Seld 21 September 2021 08: 50
    0
    Quote: EvilLion
    And what reparations, with all the desire not to rip off the Germans more than they have, and for this pie, the rest. In fact, all the participants in WWI remind 2 Jews from that joke where they "both ate g ... and got nothing from it." The lesson, however, did not go for the future, and after 20 years France and Britain sat down on the same chair, after which their empires simply fell apart.


    Archives on this topic are still reluctant to open. They found a lot there.
  33. Detnix
    Detnix 21 September 2021 09: 51
    +1
    In general, the message is correct, there were no more options for evolutionary changes, and rather the point of no return passed even before the reign of Nicholas ...
  34. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 21 September 2021 10: 22
    +1
    Russia, oddly enough, was on the side of the winners, and in February 1917 this was already quite obvious, but this did not save it from catastrophe and disintegration.

    She beat on the side of the winners, but did not beat among the winners, so it suffered an economic, military and political defeat (in this order) by the beginning of 1917, long before the victory. The victory was won by the United States after the defeat of Russia. The same thing happened in the Pacific Ocean in World War II, where China fought on the side of the victors, but because of its defeat and backwardness, the United States treated it as a protectorate and fomented a civil war.
    In the state in which the Russian Empire was by the middle of 1917, even worse awaited it, if the Bolshevik revolution did not hit.
  35. vvnab
    vvnab 21 September 2021 12: 24
    +2
    And whose victory was close? Imperial House? Heaps of capitalists? Why did the bulk of the population of the Russian Empire need to participate in this war and win it? Did Russia fight for independence, for vital resources, for new colonies that would significantly raise the standard of living of at least part of the peasantry? No! So the victory would not have changed anything. The empire was ready for disintegration and would disintegrate regardless of the outcome of the war.
    1. Olezhek
      22 September 2021 18: 26
      0
      And whose victory was close? Imperial House? Heaps of capitalists?


      During WWII, the Germans in France launched similar propaganda.
  36. sleeve
    sleeve 21 September 2021 13: 45
    +1
    By the way, fascism in Ingushetia (of course, in its formation) could well be possible. After February 1917, in the absence of the October Revolution, for sure. In fact, as a stabilizing factor in state history, the course of events in 1917 turned out to be the most rational. The price paid is incredible. Unfortunately, idealism immediately turns into a fog, colliding with the cynicism of a "special case on the ground" that can "recolor" any ideological palette with thousands and millions of small strokes. But one way or another, further history has shown the correctness and ... unfortunately, the dependence of the Russian history of crises on the individual. The attempt to deduce the thesis that the Stalinist USSR was akin to the Nazi Reich is not just immoral or erroneous. It is criminal because it interferes with "two big differences" and is based on the very "strokes" that were enough everywhere. But the "gamble" of the October Revolution such a feeling was well calculated.
  37. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 21 September 2021 15: 00
    +1
    Nicholas II is the most mediocre ruler of the Russian Empire. Under the current ruler - history has made one round - 20 years down the drain. But there are no "violent" ones - not by washing, so the authorities got rid of them by rolling. There are still 5 years of swamp ahead.
    1. Olezhek
      22 September 2021 18: 26
      0
      Nicholas II - the most mediocre ruler of the Russian Empire


      The conversation is not so much about the personality itself as about the system, the symbol of which was Nicholas II.

      Under the current ruler -


      Sorry - he is anyone but NOT Nicholas II.
      A completely different personality.
  38. Sergei Khukharev
    Sergei Khukharev 21 September 2021 16: 18
    +1
    A revolution and a violent change in the social system in Russia after the First World War was inevitable. The tsar missed the opportunity to peacefully change the social order after the first revolution of 1905. The future eagle could no longer remain in the shell of the egg of feudalism. Russia demanded development and growth in all areas of the economy, education, medicine, agriculture, energy, mechanical engineering, etc., and the framework of autocracy was all severely limited and restrained. Even the closest relatives of Nikolai Romanov understood this, but not he. All his entourage happily greeted the February Revolution of 1917, putting on red bows, and you accuse Soros of color revolutions, we knew how to make them even without him.
  39. boris epstein
    boris epstein 21 September 2021 16: 34
    +1
    Patriotic War of 1812. After Napoleon's defeat in Russia there were a number of battles and the final victory of the allies, in which Russia really played the main role. And the Russian army was in Paris. In inheritance from this victory, monarchist Russia received the Decembrists. But the Decembrists are far from Bolsheviks, but the same noblemen cut off from the people. Therefore, Nicholas I managed to suppress the uprising with relatively little blood. In 1917, the situation was much worse. for Nicholas II. The lost Russo-Japanese war, the loss of the Kuriles, Port Arthur and half of Sakhalin, three-quarters of the navy. And the First World War did not add laurels to Russia, except for the actions of General Yudenich against Turkey.
  40. sash-sash
    sash-sash 21 September 2021 17: 29
    -1
    In any case, there would be no fratricidal war, hunger, devastation, incomprehensible repression. There would be no "philosophical steamers", and at the same time "scientific and engineering", there would not be a monstrous outflow from the country of people so necessary for it.
    What would happen?
    Intuitively: "Anything is not worse"
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 21 September 2021 21: 46
      -3
      Most importantly, there would be no Hitler in Germany and 41st for us with all its horrific consequences.
      1. sash-sash
        sash-sash 21 September 2021 21: 57
        0
        I'm not sure, but I can't argue
    2. Usher
      Usher 22 September 2021 02: 36
      -1
      Quote: sash-sash
      In any case, there would be no fratricidal war, hunger, devastation, incomprehensible repression. There would be no "philosophical steamers", and at the same time "scientific and engineering", there would not be a monstrous outflow from the country of people so necessary for it.
      What would happen?
      Intuitively: "Anything is not worse"

      Come on!? Are you seriously?
      1. sash-sash
        sash-sash 23 September 2021 19: 42
        -1
        Can you imagine ?! - Seriously
        1. Usher
          Usher 23 September 2021 20: 36
          -1
          Quote: sash-sash
          Can you imagine ?! - Seriously

          I sympathize
  41. looker-on
    looker-on 21 September 2021 22: 19
    -1
    You see, the world was rapidly moving forward, and Nikolai Alexandrovich, with his political views on modernity in 1920, at the head of a kind of great power, would have looked completely ridiculous.

    Nothing has changed, except for the name of the ruler
  42. militarist63
    militarist63 22 September 2021 02: 34
    0
    Well, those that "from the plow" would not have offered anything material or political.
    on Khadinka, people would have gathered again, as in 1897 to distribute "royal gifts" and would have strangled and crippled thousands again!
  43. know
    know 22 September 2021 11: 39
    0
    Yes, the victory of WWI would not eliminate social contradictions, and perhaps even exacerbate them, since the peasants and workers who returned home would find that their owners (again!)) Used the fruits. And people they would have already shot and without sentimentality. So it would soon have been rattling like Spain - that's right. The problem is that Russia could not win in principle. It's a myth that the Bolsheviks staged a revolution - for them it was like a bolt from the blue. There is a revolution in Petrograd, and the leaders of the Bolsheviks - some in Siberia, some in exile. The Russian bourgeoisie has long been burdened by the tsar, "as in England" it wanted, but did not understand that Russia was not England, which had already survived Cromwell. And in Russia, during the revolution, he is only destined to appear.
    1. Olezhek
      22 September 2021 18: 24
      0
      Yes, the victory of WWI would not eliminate social contradictions, and perhaps even exacerbate them,


      Something like that. There is no evidence that Nicholas II was going to give something to millions of victorious peasants.
      There is no mention of "gingerbread bags" for the gray infantry.
      And having taken Berlin, the Russian peasants could have gone to St. Petersburg ...
  44. Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev 22 September 2021 13: 07
    0
    Quote: Overlock
    revolution became inevitable due to war

    Yes, but after all, war is an integral part of the historical process. It cannot be avoided. War is precisely the test of the system's survival. The exam for the sake of which the industrial leap and all the transformations in the country and the economy are being made. This is all done for the survival of the country, and the question of the survival of the country usually arises during a war.
    Therefore, we cannot throw war off the list of factors of revolution.
    1. Olezhek
      22 September 2021 18: 22
      0
      Yes, but after all, war is an integral part of the historical process. It cannot be avoided. War is precisely the test of the system's survival.


      Reasonable.

      The exam for which the industrial leap and all the transformations in the country and the economy are being made


      Not only for this.
  45. deddem
    deddem 22 September 2021 14: 15
    +2
    Quote: Vadim237
    Most importantly, there would be no Hitler in Germany and 41st for us with all its horrific consequences.


    There would be no Hitler - there would be Strasser or someone else.
    The national humiliation was too great to discourage revanchism, a specific bloodletting was required, something that the French had gone through one stage earlier.

    "This will not be peace, but a truce, for twenty years" (c) Foch's comment on his refusal to accept his proposal to dismember Germany
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 September 2021 19: 59
      0
      At least this Strasser was not the same Nazi who went as Hitler - and did not start a war with the USSR.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 September 2021 20: 06
      -1
      But having defeated the Kaiser Germany, Russia would have agreed with Focham to divide it, and then all the more so no World War II and 41st would have happened for us. The year 1917 is just an accident that cost our country and tens of millions of our citizens a huge price.
  46. Andybuts
    Andybuts 22 September 2021 16: 00
    0
    Yes, there was a revolution in Germany too. In defeated Germany. After the actual defeat. As a reaction to this very defeat.


    actually, on the contrary, first the revolution, then the defeat. The revolution was not yet in defeated Germany. The fighting has not yet spread to Germany. Hitler insisted on this that the revolutionaries stabbed the victorious army in the back, so they must be destroyed in advance.
    Although Germany no longer had a chance, why twist the facts?
    1. Olezhek
      22 September 2021 18: 21
      0
      Although Germany no longer had a chance


      There, the front of the Germans was slowly beginning to crumble.
      That is why the idea of ​​concluding a hasty peace arose.
      1. Andybuts
        Andybuts 22 September 2021 18: 51
        0
        It was beginning to crumble, but the bottom line was that a hasty peace was a hasty peace, but the revolution happened before the defeat.
        You never know there were promising breakthroughs in WWI that ended in a bloodbath. Without the revolution on 9.11 there could have been no truce on 11.11, not to know now. And formally, the revolution took place in an undefeated country. Not as a reaction to defeat in WWI, as the article says
        1. Olezhek
          22 September 2021 19: 06
          0
          And formally, the revolution took place in an undefeated country.


          Germany by that time had already been starving for far from the first year.
          It's just that the safety margin is over.
          The Germans endured ... endured ...
          And then patience ran out.
          Germany (unlike Russia) really starved during the war.
          Positional impasse. By the fall of the 18th - a very heavy defeat at the front.
          And hunger.
          Although yes, not a single square kilometer of the Second Reich was occupied by the Allies.

          But although Adolf Hitler spread right and left about the "stab in the back" during WWII
          he tried to feed the Germans their fill, no matter what.
          1. Andybuts
            Andybuts 23 September 2021 10: 00
            0
            I say that the revolution had other reasons: hunger, fatigue from hardships, losses at the front and in the rear. But not defeat in WWI.

            Germany (unlike Russia) really starved during the war.

            There was famine in Russia, not everywhere, but there was. Because of the decline in yields, and because of tens of millions of peasants put under arms, and because of the collapse of the transport system in the country, and because the farms began to hold on to grain, expecting a rise in prices. It was not in vain that the food appropriation was announced by the crown bearer. The revolution began as bread riots.
  47. Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev 22 September 2021 19: 51
    0
    Quote: Olezhek
    Not only for this.

    All over the world, yes. Countries are developing technologies for new benefits. But not Russia. If there were no wars and the need to defend the country from conquest, Russia would have preserved the patriarchal order forever and would not have developed or researched anything.
    It is precisely this process of the forced necessity of reforms and catching-up leaps in development that is the whole of Russian history from the earliest times to the present day.
    Only the degree and depth of the breakdown of the old way of life (the so-called "antiquity") changes.
    These include:
    - reforms of Peter the Great,
    - adoption of Christianity, reforms of Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise,
    - reforms of Ivan the Terrible,
    - reforms of the Moscow princes starting from Kalita and Bogolyubsky,
    - reforms of Catherine the Great,
    - reforms of Alexander the Liberator,
    - industrialization and the USSR.
    And even (as crazy as it may sound), to some extent, Gorbachev's reforms (albeit unsuccessful).
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 September 2021 20: 08
      -3
      "Russia would have preserved the patriarchal order forever and would not develop or research anything." Did you invent this nonsense yourself?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Galina Bazhenova
        Galina Bazhenova 24 September 2021 12: 44
        -1
        The author of the article did not invent anything, he just gave the ordinary reader a reason to reflect.
  48. Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev 22 September 2021 20: 25
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    Did you invent this nonsense yourself?

    Thank you for your directness and incontinence in expressions))
    On occasion, I will not remain in debt, and, in turn, I will advise you to monitor your speech more.

    For hundreds of years, this has been the case, especially in the post-Mongol period - the classical era of the heyday of Orthodoxy.
    Reforms began only when the state's martial law became bad due to the lag in military technology. For example, defeat in the Crimean or Russian-Japanese war.
  49. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 24 September 2021 09: 51
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    Most importantly, there would be no Hitler in Germany and 41st for us with all its horrific consequences.

    Rather beat Hitler, but not beat the USSR with all the consequences. The military incitement and disintegration of the Republic of Ingushetia began long before the end of the war, and the allies of the United States, France and Britain looked at it with joy. Nobody wanted to save the "ally" not only during the war, but also after its end. Much like the fate of China in World War II.
    The coming to power of Mussolini and then Hitler was allowed by the winners in WWI.
  50. Galina Bazhenova
    Galina Bazhenova 24 September 2021 12: 39
    0
    There is no subjunctive mood in history. The revolution of 1917 happened. And there were plenty of prerequisites for its accomplishment. She showed the world that a plow and a shovel can turn into a technologically advanced tool. Russia has really made a leap forward, a leap not virtually, but in reality. And today Russia is turning into a virtual space. The soil has been removed from under the feet of a person, a person lives for one day, he does not know what will happen tomorrow. Today's power (the president's messages), somewhere, whether they fly into space, or, somewhere, they settle in dark corridors. Even with yesterday's conversation between the prime minister and the oligarchy. What was it? If you open your mouth, your hands should echo.