How England loved Russia

England has long dreamed of cracking down on Russia. But almost always she tried to do it with someone else's hands.

All the XVII-XIX centuries, the British attacked us on the Turks. As a result, Russia fought with Turkey in the Russian-Turkish war 1676-81, in the Russian-Turkish war 1686-1700, in the Russian-Turkish war 1710-13, in the Russian-Turkish war 1735-39, in the Russian-Turkish war 1768-74 , in the Russian-Turkish war 1787-91, in the Russian-Turkish war 1806-12, and in the Russian-Turkish war 1877-78. In addition, Turkey fought against Russia in the Crimean and in the First World War. Thus, a total of 10 times.

At the beginning of the XIX century, they incited Napoleon against us, with whom, like with Germany in 1939, we had the Treaty of Tilsit, concluded in the year 1807. In 1805, he almost invaded England, but then the British were able to draw Austria and Russia into the war against Napoleon. The Russian-Austrian attack forced Napoleon to move to Bavaria, and then to Bohemia, in order to defeat the allies 20 November (2 December) 1805 of the year at Austerlitz. But in 1812, through the efforts of agents of British influence, Napoleon decided to invade Russia.

How England loved Russia

Pavel Vasilyevich Chichagov

We were forced by the British to perform on the 1813-14 Foreign Campaign. What have we gained from this campaign? Everlasting rebellious Poland? Strengthening Austria and Prussia, who have become our enemies in a century? Moreover, all this was paid for by several tens of thousands of Russian lives. After 1812, Napoleon would hardly go to Russia again. But he would have to concentrate all his efforts on England. Many laugh at Admiral Chichagov, who missed Napoleon on the Berezina (details on this here). In fact, Pavel Chichagov acted on the secret instructions of Kutuzov, whose plans did not include the capture of Napoleon. If Kutuzov needed this, he would have captured Napoleon in Smolensk at the beginning of November, where, after leaving Moscow, he would leave through Borovsk, Vereya, Mozhaisk and Vyazma after the defeat at Maloyaroslavets. Kutuzov was a supporter of Russia's withdrawal from the war immediately after the restoration of Russian borders. Anglophobe Kutuzov believed that the elimination of Napoleon as a political figure pours water primarily on the British mill.

In 1807, Mikhail Illarionovich was a supporter of the Peace of Tilsit and joining the Continental Blockade. In December, 1812 he opposed the foreign campaign, and when he was forced to obey the orders of the emperor, he was upset, ill and died.

Napoleon’s successful flight put an end to Chichagov’s reputation. Offended by public opinion, but shackled by an oath not to disclose Kutuzov’s plan even after his death, Chichagov was forced to go abroad on 1814. He died in Paris 1 September 1849 of the year.

Vasily Stepanovich Zavoyko

And in the 1853-56 years, the British themselves, in alliance with France and Sardinia, landed in the Crimea, blocked Kronstadt, 6-7 in July, 1854, subjected Solovetsky Monastery to nine-hour shelling by ship artillery. And 18-24 August 1854 squadron of Admiral Price (3 frigate, 1 corvette, 1 brig, 1 steamer, all - 218 guns) tried to seize Petropavlovsk. The city was defended by a Russian garrison under the command of Major General Zavoyko, numbering several hundred people with 67 guns.

On August 20, after suppressing the fire of two batteries, the British landed an assault force of 600 people south of the city, but a Russian detachment in 230 soldier counterattack threw him into the sea. On August 24, an allied squadron crushed 2 batteries on the peninsula and landed a large landing force (970 people) to the west and north-west of the city. The defenders of Petropavlovsk (360 people) detained the enemy, and then a counter-attack threw him away. The British and their allies lost about 450 people, the Russians - about a hundred. After being defeated, 27 August Allied squadron left the area of ​​Petropavlovsk. Failure ended and the landing of the British in the Gulf of De-Kastri.

British Guards Grenadiers

Only in the Crimea, the English managed to succeed: 27 August 1855, the Russian troops, who had not yet exhausted all the possibilities of defense, left the heavily destroyed southern part of the city of Sevastopol, the defense of which lasted almost a year - 349 days. It should be noted that the siege of Sevastopol was led by Anglo-French-Turkish-Sardinian troops totaling 62,5 thousands of people. The number of defenders of Sevastopol was 18 thousands of soldiers and sailors. So it’s not the rottenness of the tsarist regime and not the technical lag that caused the defeat of Russia near Sevastopol, but the numerical superiority of the enemy three and a half times. The enemy’s numerical superiority explains the defeat of the Russian troops in the battle on the Alma River - 55 thousands of Allied soldiers against 34 thousands of Russians, that is, less in 1,6 times. This, taking into account the fact that the Russian troops were advancing. In a similar situation, when the Russian troops attacked, having a numerical superiority, they won victories. So it was in the Balaklava battle, which the Russians won, having suffered less losses than the enemy.

Balaklava battle won by Russian troops.

The Russian command is being scolded for not quickly introducing technical innovations - at a time when our opponents were armed with rifles, our troops continued to use smooth-bore guns. However, few people know that the rifled guns of our army were then not needed - Nicholas I himself invented a bullet, the rotation of which gave the oncoming air flow. Such a bullet in range was one and a half times as large as the range of a flight of the Minier bullet fired from rifles. And if not the premature death of the emperor, then the development weapons could go a completely different way.

British Enfield rifle model 1853 of the year

But, despite the fall of Sevastopol, the British did not succeed in repelling the Crimean Peninsula from Russia.
Attempts to overcome Russia, the British continued in the twentieth century. At the very beginning of the century, they supported Japan, which without this support could not have defeated Russia. Shortly after the revolution, 23 December 1917, an Anglo-French agreement was concluded on the division of future military operations and, therefore, spheres of influence in Russia: the Caucasus and Cossack regions entered the UK zone, Bessarabia, Ukraine and the Crimea entered the zone of France. In an environment where the old army, by the efforts of the Bolsheviks, had already collapsed, and the Red Army had not yet been created, the British tried to seize important key points from Russia in order to use them as initial positions for further expansion. For example, on March 6, English troops landed in Murmansk, on August 2 of the same year, British troops landed in Arkhangelsk, and on August 4 Baku was occupied by British troops.

But the Englishmen were closest to the war with the Russians in the first months of World War II - between Hitler’s attack on Poland and the defeat of France. After the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the British began to consider the Soviet Union an accomplice of Hitler and, therefore, their enemy.
Almost immediately after the start of the war between Germany and Poland, in which the USSR took part from 17 in September of 1939, the Anglo-French allies paid attention to the Baku oil fields and searched for possible ways to disable them.

By the beginning of World War II, the Baku oil industry produced 80% high-grade aviation gasoline, 90% naphtha and kerosene, 96% autotractor oils from their total production in the USSR. The theoretical possibility of an air attack on Soviet oil fields was first considered in September by an 1939 liaison officer between the General Staff and the French Foreign Ministry, Lieutenant Colonel Paul de Willelume. And on October 10, French Finance Minister Paul Reynaud asked him a specific question: Can the French Air Force "bombard oil development and oil refineries in the Caucasus from Syria?" In Paris, it was meant that these plans should be carried out in close cooperation with the British. The US Ambassador to Paris, William C. Bullitt, who was, incidentally, the first time the first US ambassador to the USSR, was also notified of these plans by the head of the French government Edouard Daladier and other French politicians in connection with the signing of the mutual assistance agreement on October 19 between England, France and Turkey. He telegraphed to Washington about a discussion in Paris of the possibility of "bombing and destroying Baku." Although the French agreed on their plans with the British, the latter were not far behind them in developing their similar projects.

11 January 1940, the British embassy in Moscow reported that the action in the Caucasus could “bring Russia to its knees as soon as possible,” and the bombing of the Caucasian oil fields can inflict a knockout blow on the USSR.

Edwin Ironside

On January 24, the chief of the imperial general staff of England, General Edwin Ironside, the same one who led the British mission in Arkhangelsk during the years of military intervention, presented to the military cabinet a memorandum on "The main strategy of the war", which indicated the following: "in determining our strategy in the current situation, there will be only the right decision to consider Russia and Germany partners. " Ironside emphasized: "In my opinion, we can provide effective assistance to Finland only if we attack Russia from as many directions as possible and, most importantly, strike in Baku, the region of oil production, to cause a serious state crisis in Russia " Ironside was aware that such actions would inevitably lead the Western Allies to war with the USSR, but in the current situation considered this to be completely justified. The document emphasized the role of English aviation for the implementation of these plans, and in particular it was indicated that "economically Russia is heavily dependent on the supply of oil from Baku in the war. This area is within the reach of long-range bombers, but provided that they have the ability to fly over the territory of Turkey or Iran" . The question of the war with the USSR moved to the highest military-political level in the leadership of the Anglo-French bloc. On March 8, a very important event took place in the context of the preparation of the war with the Soviet Union of Great Britain and France. On this day, an English committee of chiefs of staff presented to the government a report entitled "The military consequences of hostilities against Russia in 1940."

Halifax bomber was originally created specifically for the bombing of our oil fields, but their entry into the troops began only in November 1940 year.

By the beginning of World War II, the Baku oil industry produced 80% high-grade aviation gasoline, 90% naphtha and kerosene, 96% autotractor oils from their total production in the USSR.

British generals are discussing a plan for an air attack on the USSR.

30 March and 5 April 1940, the British carried out reconnaissance flights over the territory of the USSR.

20 March 1940 was held in Aleppo (Syria) a meeting of representatives of the French and English commands in the Levant, which noted that by June 1940 the construction of the first category 20 airfields would be completed. 17 April 1940 Mr. Weygan informed Gamelin that the preparation of the air strike would be completed by the end of June - the beginning of July.

30 March and 5 April 1940, the British carried out reconnaissance flights over the territory of the USSR. Shortly before sunrise 30 March 1940, the "Lockheed 12" rose from the Habbania base in southern Iraq and headed for the northeast. At the helm sat the best Royal Air Force scout pilot Australian Sydney Cotton. The task assigned to a crew of four, commanded by Hugh McFail - Cotton's personal assistant - was to air reconnaissance of the Soviet oil fields in Baku. At an altitude of 7000 meters, Lockheed did circles above the capital of Soviet Azerbaijan. The shutters of automatic cameras clicked, and two crew members - photographers from the Royal Air Force - took additional pictures with hand-held cameras. Towards noon - after 10 hours - the spy plane landed in Habbania. Four days later, he again took to the air. This time he made a reconnaissance of oil refineries in Batumi.

However, the plans of the Anglo-French command were destroyed by the German offensive against France.

10 May, on the day of the outbreak of hostilities in France, Churchill became the prime minister. The British consider him the savior of the Kingdom, who at a difficult moment decided to resist Hitler. But the facts show the opposite: Churchill did not sign the surrender only because Hitler did not offer it. Churchill was going to capitulate before leaving not only France, but also Belgium. So also 18 in May, when the Anglo-French forces in Belgium were not yet cut off and pressed to the sea, Churchill put to the Parliament’s discussion the question of where to evacuate the royal family: to Canada, India or Australia (House of Commons, Debates, 5th Series , Vol. 360, Col. 1502). He himself insisted on the last two options, since he believed that Hitler would capture the French fleet and, in a short time, would reach Canada (Gilbert M.Winston S. Churchill. Vol. VI. Lnd. 1983, p. 358). And on May 26 in a conversation with the head of the Foreign Office, Lord Edward Frederick Lindley Wood Halifax, Churchill said: "If we could get out of this conversion, giving Malta, Gibraltar and several African colonies, I would have seized the opportunity" (Chamberlain Papers NC 2 / 24A). But besides Churchill, there were more active defeatists in the government. On the same day, May 26 Halifax suggested contacting Mussolini for mediation in signing a truce (Hickleton Papers, A 7.8.4, Halifax Diary, 27.V.1940).

The press of neutral countries added fuel to the fire of defeatism. So 21 in May, the Swedish press wrote that Germany does not have a 31 torpedo boat, as it was in reality, but more than a hundred, each of which will allow her to land on the British coast along 100 people. The next day, the same newspaper, referring to a source in the German generals, wrote that the Germans were installing long-range guns on the banks of the English Channel, under the cover of which they intend to disembark from day to day. The source of this, most likely, threw the Swedes dezu, fabricated in the office of Walter Schellenberg. But the psychological effect was huge. The Canadian Prime Minister even suggested that England should evacuate all English children from 5 to 16 to this dominion. The offer was only partially accepted, since all English transport was already busy evacuating from Dunkirk. In Canada, they decided to send only 20 thousands of children from the most noble families.

The position of the British was more than unstable. There were only 217 in England tanks, and aviation had 464 fighters and 491 bombers. In addition, only 376 aircraft were manned (Liddell Hart B. History of the Second World War. New York, 1971, p. 311). If the Germans had not even landed, but simply offered England unconditional surrender, then at the end of May 1940 it would have been accepted by the majority of the British Parliament. But the Germans missed a moment.

It is no secret to everyone that the respected Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill inherited from his father Randolph Henry Spencer Churchill (1849-1895), among other things, a manic-depressive psychosis. This disease manifests itself in occasionally advancing mood disorders. In typical cases, it takes the form of alternating phases - manic, expressed unmotivated, cheerful mood, and depressive. Usually the attacks of the disease are replaced by intervals of complete health. So, over the period of full health in early June, Churchill had a depressive phase. 4 June he wrote to former premier Stanley Baldwin (1867-1947): “We are unlikely to live to better days” (Cambridge University Library, Stanley Baldwin Papers, Vol. 174, p. 264). And the 12 numbers, departing from Paris after another meeting with Raynaud and Weygun, he told Hastings already mentioned here Lionel Ismeyu (1887-1965), the future general (with 1944), the baron (with 1947), and the NATO Secretary General (in 1952) 57: "We'll die in three months" (Harvard University, Houghton Library, Sherwood Papers, fol. 1891).

It was Churchill’s depressive mood that was the last blow to Weigan’s hopes to organize resistance to the Germans on a narrow strip of the coast of the Bay of Biscay with the support of naval artillery of a strong French fleet. It was guided by this plan that Weygan recommended transferring the government not to somewhere else, namely to Bordeaux - just on the coast of the Bay of Biscay.

Soon, the depressive phase in Churchill was over by the twentieth of June. Began manic. And so, Churchill, speaking in the Parliament of June 23, declared to the stunned deputies that England would fight the war to the bitter end. What was Churchill's confidence in winning based on?
The fact is that these days a brilliant idea has come to his head: once again try to make Stalin think that Hitler, having dealt with France, will attack Russia. Even 20 May 1940, the Soviet side was informed of the intention to send to Moscow with the "research" mission "Special Commissioner" Sir Stafford Cripps. Soon Cripps becomes the ambassador instead of the previous Sir who left for 2 January, the previous Sir, Sir William Seeds. And already 25 of June, Stalin, through Cripps, receives Churchill's letter, in which the Prime Minister of a defeated country, possessing an unarmed, demoralized army, offers not to anyone, but to Stalin, a hand of friendship.

Stalin did not accept it, but Churchill did not calm down on this. He decided to provide Hitler with information that Stalin was preparing to stab him in the back. Such information is the British. Mainly through the French and neutral press, they unobtrusively tried to throw Hitler from the very moment of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. So also 15 of October 1939, in an editorial of the French newspaper "Temps", stated that "the positions won by Russia pose a constant threat to Germany" ("Temps", 15 octobre, 1939). A little later, in December 1939, "Epoque" literally wrote the following: "The plan of Russians is grandiose and dangerous. Their ultimate goal is the Mediterranean Sea" ("Epoque", 4 decembre, 1939). One of the episodes of this propaganda campaign was the aforementioned distribution by the Havas agency of the false protocol of the Politburo meeting.

The overseas press did not lag behind their French colleagues. The following lines appeared in the January issue of the State Department’s official journal: “Turning troops from east to west, Hitler must be constantly on guard” (“Foreign Affairs”, January, 1940. P. 210). But a truly wide scale such statements in the neutral press reached between the end of hostilities in France and the German attack on the Soviet Union. Hitler tried with all his might to convince Stalin that he wanted to attack him. And Hitler believed it. Already 8 January 1941, Hitler told Ribbentrop: “England is holding on only with the hope of America’s help and Russia. The British diplomatic training in Moscow is clear: England’s goal is to throw the USSR at us. Simultaneous intervention by Russia and America would be too heavy for us. Therefore destroy the threat back in the bud. " Therefore, the main reason for Hitler’s violation of the nonaggression pact is precisely the efforts of the British. It was England, saving itself from inevitable defeat, that was able to redirect Hitler’s aggression to the east.
Our news channels

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

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Beck
    8 December 2012 09: 25
    Again. Well, in any place where Russia stumbles, England and the West are to blame. You read such articles you might think that Russia went all its history in fools. Either England engulfed her, or the West deceived. That Russia did not have its own head? It was of course. And Russia acted in accordance with its interests. And as a law, in international relations, always, in any situation, there are obvious enemies, faithful allies, secret ill-wishers and hidden sympathizers. And each has its own interests. Everything on the heap, this is international politics.

    When England fought with France, either with Holland or with Spain, who encouraged her? Here the British will now begin to say that in the centennial war with France Sweden swept her up or someone else. Laughter and more.

    A series of Russian-Turkish wars, this is a logical course of development of the colonial era. Two neighboring imperial powers fought, observing their interests, for their colonial influence, first in the Crimea, then in the Balkans.
    1. Brother Sarych
      8 December 2012 13: 50
      And here I almost agree with you ...
      1. Beck
        8 December 2012 14: 19
        To Brother Sarych.

        Accepted. The ice is hiding.
        1. mda
          8 December 2012 16: 43
          beck, I'm on your post in the article Vladimir Putin visited Turkey and explained to journalists that Syria has no atomic bomb answered
          1. Beck
            8 December 2012 19: 49

            And good, and do not need them. They are all crazy there. They can break houses and glass.
      2. Brother Sarych
        9 December 2012 08: 32
        The glint of "your glory" fell on me too ...
        Funny to me - worse than small children ...
        1. Beck
          9 December 2012 12: 46
          To Brother Sarych.

          I see. It's funny too. Someone wrote to you for a bunch of minusanuli.
    2. +16
      8 December 2012 16: 57
      Politics is not politics, but England is to blame for many of our troubles and falls, and this is what the article wants to say - Britain is a vile country.
    3. smprofi
      8 December 2012 17: 13
      Quote: Beck
      And Russia acted in accordance with its interests.
      - it was just that.

      but the fact that for normal comments they threw minuses to a person is in vain.
      or just out of habit?
      1. +13
        8 December 2012 17: 42
        Hello, how was it? What did you live then? And why is England so afraid for its secret archives? If Russia acted in conformity only with its own interests, it would have laid the whole of Europe under itself since the time of Napoleon. Your comment puts us on a par with Britain. Do not dare to compare Russia with them, on our conscience is not so much blood.
        1. smprofi
          8 December 2012 21: 15
          Quote: Alexander Petrovich
          Your comment
          I can "upset" further.
          everyone believed that the poet Pushkin was shot dead by the reptile Dantes. sort of the way it really is. only the moment that Pushkin had a duel with Dantes was 27th in a row. those. Pushkin fired before with the 26th. what happened to them? read the letters of Pushkin himself. especially his visit to Bessarabia. daily routine: woke up, got up, did not wash, went to the cellar to train in shooting from dueling pistols. after all this: Dantes is a bastard, Pushkin is an innocent victim.
          another example. Griboyedov, Alexander Sergeevich. by the way, the article did not mention him in any way, although at one time they liked to mention that the British emissaries were to blame for his death. Well, in a not very widespread "version" it is described that the capital's whip hit on a local beauty. well, he succeeded in something. dear Alexander Petrovich, do you need to explain what a woman is in the East? especially in those days? and that such an "innocent" flirtation by no means adorns a Russian representative, let alone a diplomat. it is not surprising that the British took advantage of this and did not incite the local sheep to storm the Russian mission.
          You certainly will not like such a story.
          Well, okay.
          one can still recall at least the "voluntary" annexation of Siberia, during which Yermak died. and there is still a lot to be found. but let historians write about it.
          only here are not like Volkogonov, for example. during the Union he sang what was required of him. received a doctor, Colonel General, nightingale at party congresses. after the 91st became ... (insert the desired) is completely different. which of his "scientific works", of what period, can you believe?
          1. +6
            8 December 2012 22: 46
            you can still recall at least the "voluntary" annexation of Siberia - it is possible, but there is a small remark here, you compare the colonial policy of Britain with Russian. I don’t have to explain anything, as they say, live and learn, and you will die a fool, and despite this I do not think from scratch my point of view is correct, unlike yours. Each country has interests, but there are no more dirty and cruel interests than Britain (the United States - in my opinion this is one hell).
            1. smprofi
              8 December 2012 23: 22
              Quote: Alexander Petrovich
              more dirty and cruel

              it's ... lyrics.
              for example, on November 25-26, 1950, 2 Chinese armies attacked the US 38th Infantry, 9th Infantry, 2 Infantry Divisions in the Ch'ongch'on Valley and by noon on the 26th ROK II Corps' 7th and 8th Divisions were overturned and fled. and this is at -30 ° C.
              from the point of view of the participants and "historians" on the part of the gringo - it was SUCH BARBARRY! be piled on by such superior forces and at such a temperature! just awful!
              So what? should we believe and sympathize with them? or just a laugh?
      2. Beck
        8 December 2012 19: 57
        Quote: smprofi
        but the fact that for normal comments they threw minuses to a person is in vain. Or just out of habit?

        I already get used to it. It’s like an out of turn order for me. As if I said that Russia did wrong then. It was a colonial era. The interests of countries clashed, grew into wars because of spheres of influence. But also a story. And in the story, everything was and brother went to his brother with an ax. But now, today we live nearby. Down below, it is already said to me, whether to you, or to both, not to dare.
        1. smprofi
          8 December 2012 21: 29
          Quote: Beck
          below already said

          life cycle with nails?
          and by ... and by ... (insert the desired) naykh get outweighed.
          you can also be banned (on one site it was already) for "a discrepancy with the general line." passed.
          this is not the case. you need to know the story. and you need to remember what happened. when and in what conditions. so as not to make mistakes and not step on the rake.
          but for some reason, some civilians, and not only, due to either limited knowledge, or something else, are ready to easily slide into the position of chauvinism. moreover, for example, they gladly accept the official statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or top officials of the state "NATO is the enemy" and at the same time do not want to accept reality, which is that Russia, i.e. Kremlin, voluntarily and on their own initiative helps this NATE, i.e. to your sworn enemy.
          Well, for example:

          Royal Navy Lynx Mk9A helicopters from 847 Naval Air Squadron being loaded onto a Russian Antonov 124 cargo plane for transportation back to the United Kingdom

          I can only clarify: the British were training in the United States. and Russian "Ruslans" are taking out British helicopters from the USA.

          now let's go in chorus:
          NATO is the enemy!
          the English are enemies!
          USA is the enemy!
          1. +7
            8 December 2012 22: 58
            Basil, be realistic, pacifism is not relevant now. The people are angry at the USA and NATO for the collapse of the USSR and not only, naturally, the leadership played the main role in the collapse, but now we will not talk about that. The endless blackening of Soviet, Russian history. Russian and Soviet merits to the world, the slow encirclement of Russia with missile defense systems and the support of Chechen fighters and Nazis (Baltic, Galichina), by the way I live in Moldova and it smells like Russophobia, I know very well the point of view of local Russophobes, I studied for 12 years in a Romanian school and I taught Russophobic history, which was written by Romanian historians, I may be younger than you and I don’t know much, but I know that Romania is a member of NATO and if, judging by the textbooks, it considers us enemies, then how should we consider it? I am sure all this is beneficial to the Americans and all this makes us wonder - who is NATO to us then?
            1. smprofi
              8 December 2012 23: 36
              Quote: Alexander Petrovich
              and who is NATO to us then

              personally for me always always ENEMY
              only the question is different in this case: behind what demon was the Tsar-Ampirator of All Gazprom on his own initiative proposed a transport corridor to Afghanistan through Russia? Why have Russian transport workers been involved in NATO's SALIS program (Strategic Airlift Interim Solution) since 2006? and passing through, through through, through ... and at the same time from the Kremlin, "NATO is the enemy! We will not allow ..." are heard from the Kremlin and "approvals" are heard throughout the country. and against the background of this friendly chorus, exercises (some have already become regular) are taking place on land, sea and in the air ...
              so enemy or not? if the enemy - why cooperation?
              Quote: Alexander Petrovich
              The people are angry with the United States and NATO
              Oh yeah! and in this regard, the people are thrown another bone in the form of slogans in order to distract from another.
              Well, who after that is a big bastard?
              1. +2
                8 December 2012 23: 46
                And behind such that in the top management sit not patriots such as you and me.
              2. vyatom
                9 December 2012 02: 46
                If only they paid well. And for a long time stuck in Afghanistan.
            2. Brother Sarych
              9 December 2012 08: 35
              Why get angry with the US and NATO for the collapse of the Union? But the angry themselves do not want to turn around? Who ran to rallies? Who rejoiced at Yelkin? And in the same Moldova, who fought with the Center?
              1. +1
                9 December 2012 17: 28
                Many Moldovans were simply deceived, then the bulk of it was Soviet thinking, and when there was a referendum on the separation of the MSSR from the USSR, a very simple question was asked - are you for independence or for dependence, and no one said for independence, and the majority voted for independence, very cunning people arranged it all. And those who fought with the center are actually not as many as they seem, even now there are not as many Russophobes as they would like.
              2. vyatom
                9 December 2012 22: 41
                Yes, everyone in the Union was "waiting for changes." Here in the 91st year they got it. Everyone wanted to live well like In the States. Freedom, democracy and how sweet life is like in the West.
                1. 0
                  10 December 2012 16: 12
                  blew them for ruining the country.
          2. 0
            10 December 2012 02: 58
            and what, now kissing them passionately, as they say: nothing personal, just business
    4. +3
      8 December 2012 18: 31
      In the First World War, the allies (the British Mediterranean squadron) somehow overlooked the German cruisers "Goeben" and "Breslau", which caused trouble in the Black Sea.
      1. vyatom
        9 December 2012 02: 46
        So they were screwed up in Galipoli.
      2. Brother Sarych
        9 December 2012 08: 40
        Why overlooked? The war was just beginning and the ships went to still neutral Turkey and were included in the Turkish fleet ...
      3. vyatom
        9 December 2012 22: 43
        Why did the British have to catch these cruisers. We had a huge and dumb fleet on the Black Sea that did nothing to overwhelm these cruisers. They must reproach themselves, not the Entente.
    5. 11Goor11
      8 December 2012 20: 27
      Again. Well, in any place where Russia stumbles, England and the West are to blame.

      But it was not even the Russians who came up with the term "Great Game" - just about the confrontation between the British and Russian empires.
      Which has always been. Even Ivan the Terrible (Ivan the Terrible) Ivan the Terrible - that is what the British called it, even then there was an information war and all our kings were cannibals in their writings.
      The very fact that in big politics Britain constantly tried to pit others for the sake of her interests does not seem to fit into your worldview. They are so cute and fluffy: they probably did not have the cruelty of religious wars and crazy laws (death for stealing a chicken), the meanness of kings (constant murders for succession to the throne) and official slavery.
      This is CIVILIZATION (all in capital letters), as opposed to wild barbarians worthy only of slavery !!! wassat
      Pink glasses ever take off?
      1. smprofi
        8 December 2012 21: 52
        Quote: 11Goor11
        doesn't seem to fit into your worldview

        yes fits, fits.
        only colleague Beck encourages you to think and look at the world realistically. any state has its own interests. and any state protects them.
        Quote: 11Goor11
        Pink glasses
        invited to remove you. and sometimes think all the same.

        PS I do not know why, but for the comment set +
        1. 11Goor11
          8 December 2012 23: 22
          only colleague Beck encourages thinking and looking at the world realistically. any state has its own interests. and any state protects them.

          After all, am I talking about the same thing, or did you comment without reading?
          But your (colleague?) Beck, in all your previous statements, describes the "West" as a true champion of "democracy" and in general all the best. Although in reality it turns out to be just a war of economic interests?
          invited to remove you. (pink glasses) and sometimes think all the same.

          Oh, the second time about the lack of mental activity laughing
          So at least tell me the right direction of thoughts that I don’t think you have,
          Or is it unfounded calls for what you don’t have?
          1. smprofi
            8 December 2012 23: 41
            Quote: 11Goor11
            Beck in all previous sayings

            I get it now. out of habit
            but here and now there is nothing like it!
            okay, if we are talking about the same thing, but in slightly different words, it’s not necessary to grab each other’s breasts
            1. 11Goor11
              9 December 2012 00: 06
              And to you, all the best! hi
          2. Beck
            9 December 2012 15: 12
            Quote: 11Goor11
            But your (colleague?) Beck, in all your previous statements, describes the "West" as a true champion of "democracy" and in general all the best.

            You do not interpret my previous statements or deliberately distort them.

            When the Kremlin supports bloody dictatorial regimes, shooting, bombing and poisoning their own peoples - Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad with military agents. (And don't say they're legal, especially Gaddafi's "kind, sweet, helpless" grandfather).
            I'M AGAINST.

            When the West supports the bleeding nations I am FOR.

            When the West refuses to limit its industrial emissions, I am AGAINST.

            And so in each case.
            1. +2
              9 December 2012 18: 36
              Give evidence of the "bloody" "regime" of Assad. I will not say anything about Hussein and Gaddafi. (Gaddafi, by the way, has a better social policy in some areas).
              1. Beck
                9 December 2012 19: 27
                Quote: Tempest
                Give evidence of the "bloody" "regime" of Assad.

                Bombing their cities. And to finish all this you can do one thing - leave Assad. A normal person would do that. If Russian cities would be bombed because of your ambitions, I think you would just leave so that the bombing stops.

                If you put on a golden chain and feed delicacies from a teaspoon. Will you be satisfied? You do not want freedom?
            2. vyatom
              9 December 2012 22: 45
              I think few people are interested in your opinion
        2. vyatom
          9 December 2012 02: 51
          When the British wanted to fight, the Germans broke them very notably on the Somme.
          And according to the article, I have only one conclusion - only our interests should be observed. And do not care about all sorts of ... hers like Margaret Thatcher and others like them.
          England has long been no longer an empire, but a small, decisive country. What Churchill was given to understand even in Tehran, Stalin and Roosevelt.
          1. +1
            10 December 2012 03: 05
            Well, don’t tell brother, they masterfully grind into quiet and strive for the most painful, and Americans are just a big club
    6. vyatom
      9 December 2012 02: 43
      Why are you minus. He writes everything correctly. Each country has its own interests. Our weapons helped the Boers, where they broke the British with dignity. Also, the Austrians did all kinds of dirty tricks to us. Well, we answer them. This is a big policy. Everyone pursues their own interests, and it’s stupid to be offended by this.
      We also behaved when the British were removed from Central Asia (the British fought in Afghanistan in the 19th century). In the 40s, they clearly contributed to the secession of India from Britain. So the British can also be offended by us.
  2. +4
    8 December 2012 10: 04
    Thanks to the author or authors for a very interesting material !!!!
    1. Baboon
      9 December 2012 15: 39
      The material is very raw and one-sided, the author needs to specifically learn world history. Spain, France, Austria, Germany can write exactly the same against England.
  3. +1
    8 December 2012 10: 45
    Boldly. But basically (if not to say everything) I agree.
    1. +6
      8 December 2012 11: 51
      Yes, who would doubt that Britain is a big cesspool, and all the shit of the world is concentrated there
      1. Yarbay
        8 December 2012 15: 29
        **** He telegraphed to Washington about the discussion in Paris of the possibility of "bombing and destroying Baku." Although the French and the British coordinated their plans, the latter were not far behind them in the development of their similar projects.
        On January 11, 1940, the British embassy in Moscow reported that the action in the Caucasus could "bring Russia to its knees in the shortest possible time," and the bombing of the Caucasian oil fields could inflict a "knockout blow" on the USSR. ****
        *** Ironside stressed: "In my opinion, we will be able to provide effective assistance to Finland only if we attack Russia from as many directions as possible and, which is especially important, strike at Baku, the oil production region, in order to cause a serious state crisis in Russia ". Ironside was aware that such actions would inevitably lead the Western allies to war with the USSR, but in the current situation he considered it completely justified. The document emphasized the role of British aviation for the implementation of these plans, and in particular it was indicated that "economically Russia is highly dependent in the conduct of the war on the supply of oil from Baku. **** - these statements, in my opinion, very clearly show how important it was for the USSR in that time Azerbaijan!
  4. Serg_Y
    8 December 2012 11: 14
    Yes, the land route of trade with Asia, England certainly did not suit.
  5. +8
    8 December 2012 11: 49
    They say that on the day of the Nazi attack on the USSR, England had a holiday, a day of popular rejoicing ...
    1. Brother Sarych
      8 December 2012 13: 49
      And for what reason do not remember? They were generally happy that there was a chance of salvation ...
      1. +6
        8 December 2012 17: 03
        Like, let them kill someone else, and you see, they will leave us behind.
      2. +3
        9 December 2012 05: 42
        Yes, good joy. Hurray will now kill Soviet people, but ours will not touch. And is that an excuse?
        1. Brother Sarych
          9 December 2012 08: 44
          They believed that they fought alone with the Germans and the prospects were gloomy, a new ally appeared - big and powerful - did they have to grieve?
          In an incomprehensible hatred of the line to whom, convolutions completely atrophy in people, or what? Someone is to blame, but yourself?
          1. 0
            10 December 2012 04: 42
            I understand the most twisty on this site is the buzzard of course. What were we suddenly to blame? Did Hitler attack the Soviet Union? And what does it mean in an incomprehensible hatred of the devil to whom. Specifically to England, as to the country, eternally building intrigues of Russia.
  6. Horde
    8 December 2012 12: 04
    while the impudent ALWAYS were our enemies for a long time no one doubts (except perhaps Beck), but to understand the background of historical events, there are already few facts from the history textbook. The enemies of Russia were always Germans, French, and probably all of Europe and not only Europe, except for the Serbs (we never fought with the Serbs).
    Now, with the advent of a new historical paradigm, the reasons for our difficult historical path become clear. The main thing is that Russia has always had an enemy and this is the ENEMY OF THE INTERNAL. Tsars Romanovs were never Russian tsars, almost any circumstances, any illogical or inexplicable act in Russian politics is possible (for example Japan’s concession to our territories with the complete and overwhelming potential EXCELLENCE of Russia in the 1905 war) can be explained by the neglect of the Romanov interests of Russia. The Roman usurpers, an alien conquering dynasty, brought the Russian people only grief and misfortune.
    After the revolution, the policy of our state was directed or diverted from the right direction by Zionist Jews, of whom there was always an unacceptable amount in power. It was worth having such a person in power who was not connected with the Jewish-Masonic circles, like Stalin, then immediately Russia was able to win wars and was able to stand up to the corresponding place of the GREATEST POWER OF THE WORLD. After the death of Stalin, everything began to return to its former treacherous path.
    1. Horde
      8 December 2012 14: 19
      minus one lean out at least to look at what ...
      1. +2
        8 December 2012 14: 24
        Quote: Horde

        minus one lean out at least to look at what ...

        IT DO NOT YOU LIKE negative I will correct my plus hi
        1. Horde
          8 December 2012 14: 37
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          IT DO NOT YOU LIKE Correct my plus

          Hello Alexander! Thank you for participating. May you, as a moderator, consider such a decision as RATINGS CAN PUT ONLY RESPONSIBLE TALKERS - this would be fair if the technical capabilities allow.
          1. +3
            8 December 2012 14: 50
            And hello to you, I do not have the authority and technical capabilities, with such proposals you need to contact the administration of the site. And just do not pay attention to the minuses, there are much more sensible people. hi
            1. +3
              9 December 2012 10: 18
              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              .And just do not pay attention to the minuses, sane people are much more.

              I didn't even know until now how much my minus "costs", for example. Sasha, I checked on you (as they say, it won't lose it) it turns out to be 40 points. winked
          2. Yarbay
            8 December 2012 17: 38
            Quote: Horde
            Hello Alexander! Thank you for your participation. Maybe you, as a moderator, should consider such a decision as ESTIMATES CAN PUT ONLY RESPONSIBLE TALKERS - such would be fair if I allow technical capabilities

            Then this would not be a discussion but a bazaar))) imagine, you have already been answered and I completely agree with the answer, then in order to evaluate you and your opponent I have to repeat his comment ????
            1. Horde
              8 December 2012 17: 58
              Quote: Yarbay
              Then this would not be a discussion but a bazaar))) imagine, you have already been answered and I completely agree with the answer, then in order to evaluate you and your opponent I have to repeat his comment ????

              nothing like you, as a third party, in order to evaluate the statement, you must make your comment from which it becomes clear "plus" you or "minus" thus you manifest yourself out of nothingness, and do not remain invisible. That will be honest and to the point. For example - "stool-goat", you showed up, "agree" from which it becomes clear where the plus comes from. And if you want to quietly put an assessment, then this practice will not work.
              1. Yarbay
                8 December 2012 19: 10
                Quote: Horde
                nothing like you, as a third party, in order to evaluate the statement, you must make your comment from which it becomes clear "plus" you or "minus" thereby you manifest yourself from nothingness, and do not remain invisible

                I mean, do you suggest writing that I agree or not, then give a rating ???
                Anyway, the market will be, there is not enough space !!
                It’s easier to just do, so that you see who gave you what marks, technically it will not be difficult for administrators to do it, only then many will avenge each other, there will be another war)))
                Nothing offends people like hurt pride))))
                1. Horde
                  8 December 2012 19: 43
                  Quote: Yarbay
                  I mean, do you suggest writing that I agree or not, then give a rating

                  again, not so, at first, in order to rate you need to take part in the conversation, you do not necessarily "agree, disagree" answer the case, as a result, it is clear that only those who participate in the discussion are evaluated, and those who do not participate can only read the comments, but do not give marks.
                  It’s just that it’s very often seen especially at the beginning of the discussion that we’ll say only a couple of comments, and the ratings are already much larger, this is not right. As for the explicit rating (not without a personal one), I did not find another word, then I agree.
    2. Beck
      8 December 2012 15: 19
      Here's how to live, if you remember all the enemies of history? After all, then it will be impossible to smile at a neighbor. Because with the neighbor most of all there is friction. Let’s swear with you over the Golden Horde. We will recall who drove whom, who broke whom. And we will poke it in the eyes of each other. I dont need it. Do you need to? History is all that.

      What Eurasian Union will we build then? Yes, no.
      1. Horde
        8 December 2012 15: 45
        Quote: Beck
        Here's how to live, if you remember all the enemies of history? After all, then it will be impossible to smile at a neighbor

        you Beck, probably an altruist, such a forgotten word already. It is not evil in the traditions of the Russian people, but history cannot be forgotten, because it has already been estimated that over the past five hundred years of the existence of Russia, more than five hundred million people died in all kinds of wars — this is already statistics. forget our enemies? They always kept cookies in their pocket, even in the best of times.
        1. Beck
          8 December 2012 16: 09
          Across the world, in all wars, more people have died. Now, if Europe historically introduced the facts of the past in the form of hostility today, then they would not have created any European Union. Because in world history it was in Europe that the most wars took place. Where each other was pounded mercilessly and more than once. If they experienced past historical faky as a tragedy of today, they would now pound each other.
    3. +2
      8 December 2012 17: 49
      I don’t agree about the Romanovs, it’s hard to somehow believe that Peter 1 destroyed Russia, the most terrible enemy of our state were always fools, this is a personal opinion, he put a plus.
      1. Horde
        8 December 2012 18: 12
        I don’t agree about the Romanovs, it’s hard to somehow believe that Peter 1 ruined Russia,

        not from textbooks, maybe they heard that the people of Peter were nicknamed "Antichrist" - it is very serious that the Russian people did not like him very much. This is the observation that the more the West likes the ruler, the more harm and misfortune he did in Russia and, accordingly, vice versa, the more they bark in the West and our political strategists like Svanidze, the more the ruler did good for Russia, examples are Stalin and Gorbachev. In general, read Fomenko Nosovsky "Fictional Tsar and Fake Tsar" and find out who and what Peter is.
    4. vyatom
      9 December 2012 02: 53
      Plus, Plus and again Plus. Well done, he said everything correctly.
  7. +4
    8 December 2012 12: 23
    Wishing the author to dive deeper into the centuries. The Angles began to stretch their arms back under Ivan the Terrible.
    1. mda
      8 December 2012 15: 45
      Quote: sedoii
      Wishing the author to dive deeper into the centuries. The Angles began to stretch their arms back under Ivan the Terrible.

      What can we say how the Anglo-Saxons were a dead end branch of evolution, so they remained.
    2. +5
      9 December 2012 02: 43
      Quote: sedoii
      Wishing the author to dive deeper into the centuries. The Angles began to stretch their arms back under Ivan the Terrible

      It was in the period 1553-1554 that appeared in Russia The first British spy merchant Richard Chanslor is a confidant of the English court, as well as a graduate of Cambridge who became a personal doctor of Ivan the Terrible, a doctor, astrologer, magician and sorcerer (and at the same time a spy) Eliseus Bomelia, by nationality, apparently, a Dutchman. Some historians attribute it to him that he poisoned the king and his loved ones with mercury.
      In 1963, after the commission of the USSR Ministry of Culture opened the tombs of Ivan the Terrible, his sons — Ivan Ivanovich, Fyodor Ivanovich — and the governor Skopin-Shuisky, a terrible picture was revealed. An excessively high concentration of one of the most toxic metals for the human body, mercury, was discovered in the remains of Ivan IV the Terrible! Moreover, its content reached 13 grams per ton, while usually in a person the mercury content does not exceed 5 milligrams per ton! The difference is 2600 times!

      The conclusion that Chancellor made about Russia was unique and went down in history:
      “If the Russians knew their strength, then no one could compete with them, but they do not know it”
      . That is what he reported to London. And then, obviously, so that the Russians would never know their strength, the "healer" Bomelia entered into the matter.
      It was he who was hated in Russia by fierce hatred, believing himself guilty of the savage, unbridled cruelties of the tsar, who, as it were, was reborn from a normal person into a fierce king on the throne. Bomelia was called so - “a fierce magician”, that is, a fierce, evil sorcerer, and it is under this definition that he appears in the chronicles. And only a quarter of a century later it befell, albeit barbaric by modern standards, but absolutely deserved punishment: the most experienced executioners of Malyuta Skuratov blew blood from him, and then they roasted him live on a spit
      Cheslor found himself in Russia as a result of the unfolding geopolitical in essence, but religious and civilizational in appearance signs of a confrontation between intensely Protestantized England and the rest of the Christian world, which was then mostly Catholic. His conclusion about Russia was geopolitical - after all, at the beginning of his reign, Ivan IV already “overshadowed his ancestors with both power and virtue,” it was the British who noted in their reports to London.
      The hellish design of the “aglitsky” peasants of trade was as follows.
      Knowing about the most severe medical, especially mental consequences: depression, insomnia, depression, persecution mania, hallucinations, crazy ideas, violent attacks of madness (all this later appeared in Ivan the Terrible in abundance), to undermine the faith of the environment and, most importantly, the people in the king as the Anointed of God. Thus, breaking the ties so necessary for the strength of any state at that time between the autocrat and the people, forcibly nurturing a delirious idea in his subjects, as if all power is criminal and then, moving along the links of the inevitable chain reaction, to nurture and cultivate treason, as just opposing the craziness of power, to glorify this “craziness” for centuries to come, discrediting the very name of this state, as supposedly the center of evil, violence and countless vices, which should be destroyed Doesn’t resemble anything? Everything that is happening now was already in history ..
      Long on European soil,
      Where the lie has grown so magnificent,
      A long time Pharisee science
      The double truth has been created:
      For them - the law and equal rights,
      For us - violence and deception ...
      And secured the old age
      Them, as the legacy of the Slavs.
      F.I. Tyutchev
  8. +4
    8 December 2012 12: 50
    I remember the Naglosaksov medal was for the Crimean War
    its owner enjoyed very strong respect in society
    still would!!! he fought with the Russians and returned alive (and even managed to not put fear into his pants laughing )
    it seems like since then the impudent ones have drawn conclusions and decided to fight with us with the wrong hands
  9. +6
    8 December 2012 13: 18
    And Peter1 for the desire to be friends with Germany, Paul1 for understanding with Napoleon. And the support of Basmachi ... For England, which claimed world domination, Russia has always been like a "bone in the throat." The mistress of the seas did not need either a reactionary Russian empire or a revolutionary Soviet republic. The rare attacks of love for Russia by the British cabinet did not coincide with the critical situations on the European continent when cannon fodder was urgently needed to fight Napoleon, William II and Hitler.
    1. Horde
      8 December 2012 14: 28
      Quote: knn54
      And Peter1 for the desire to be friends with Germany,

      there was no germany then 1700 was Alemania

  10. +2
    8 December 2012 13: 19
    England has always seen Russia as its main geopolitical adversary, which hindered her - a great colonial power in its quest for world domination, establishing control over regions and countries located tens of thousands of kilometers from England, incl. bordering on Russia, i.e. located in the zone of her natural interests. At the same time, an openly aggressive policy was pursued against Russia using all means (from the physical elimination of Emperor Paul to military interventions: the Crimean War, the landing of British interventionists in Arkhangelsk), while Russia was forced to pursue a purely defensive policy. This cave-like hostility of the Naglo-Saxons towards Russia has survived to this day. At the same time, seeing that despite their centuries-old gigantic efforts, Russia still stands and interferes with them, they are in a poorly concealed fury, reorient their policy not just to change the leadership in Russia, but declare that it is impossible to change the mentality of the Russian people altogether, to introduce it to GAYROPEAN SHITTED values. Therefore, in fact, they call for the ELIMINATION of Russians as a state-forming nation and are actively "working" in this direction. After all, how else can one interpret the statement attributed to Margaret Thatcher that in Russia it is enough to have a population of 15 million people? and, unfortunately, there are numerous signs of such a policy being implemented.
    1. vyatom
      9 December 2012 02: 56
      Maragaret Thatcher - stupid s..ka
  11. brush
    8 December 2012 13: 35
    In Soviet times, the United States was the main culprit. Now Great Britain.
    Not tired of looking for the devil country?
    1. +8
      8 December 2012 13: 44
      And the USA and the same Albion and others are not tired of making Russia / USSR an "Evil Empire"?
    2. Brother Sarych
      8 December 2012 13: 47
      Without the search for shaitans it’s boring to live in the world ...
  12. Brother Sarych
    8 December 2012 13: 46
    Something seemed to me that the author is a big fan of alternative history!
    And how does the author relate to cooperation with England somewhat earlier than the described period? Why did you suddenly find names, very resembling English, in the description of the battles of the Cossacks with local residents, when the development of Siberia took place? Who traded niconian grass? Who are the Stroganovs?
    1. Brother Sarych
      8 December 2012 21: 56
      Along the way, I mentioned something that most did not hear about?
      This is a difficult question, very difficult ...
  13. +3
    8 December 2012 14: 06
    Okay, I’ll persuade that our friends and amer shavers smile
    only with such friends and enemies stop
    but because a couple of our core loaves should always be present
    off the coast of small britain
  14. +1
    8 December 2012 15: 25
    I heard somewhere that Paul the first was killed at the instigation of an English agent. Allegedly, Pavel sent Cossacks to India to conquer, and then such a tragedy turned them home, somewhere in the Orenburg steppes. There is a version that Prince Yusupov, an assassin of Rasputin, was recruited by English intelligence. The Dunkirk miracle, again ... what is this if not a conspiracy with Hitler? I, I believe that the British still think and act like colonizers and it is not always useful to cooperate with them.
    1. Centaurus
      8 December 2012 20: 56
      So it most likely was. I also read this.
      But Paul had to be removed and replaced with a good-natured and gentle Alexander, so that Russia would in no case introduce laws that were not beneficial for England regarding its domestic market.
      Britain has always had a weakly developed domestic market. They lived solely due to foreign trade with Europe and their colonies.
      Now, if they had cut off the air even in Russia, it would have been "fun" for them there am .
  15. bart74
    8 December 2012 15: 30
    Impudent Saxons have always been the main geopolitical enemies of Russia (these are Britain and later the USA). These are famous things. This is always mentioned wherever possible. Nevertheless, the author plus for knowing the topic. At first there was a precipitate that the West was always to blame for all Russian troubles. Nevertheless, it is a fact! And do not downplay what is obvious. Initially, the West is always aggressive, not only towards Russia, but also towards other cultures. Weaker ethnic groups have already disappeared, even Japanese civilization during the years of occupation has been Americanized (this is not only about the popularity of baseball on the islands). American impregnations can no longer be erased from Japanese culture. Next in line is Iran, then China and India. In the West, there is no tradition of tolerance and respect for an alien culture and values. History is a confirmation of this.
    1. 0
      8 December 2012 16: 52
      .............. you give Islam to Europe, these guys will remember everything and the Britons, and the French, and the Belgians, and the Germans.
  16. +3
    8 December 2012 17: 17
    "In conditions when the old army, through the efforts of the Bolsheviks, had already collapsed ..." Insignia and officer ranks were canceled by the Provisional Government. Everyone did their best.

    "Russia has two allies - the army and the navy." Walk along the borders, which of the neighbors has no territorial claims to us? Only strength is respected. And the shitty dancer you know what is in the way. It's stupid to look for enemies.
    1. vyatom
      9 December 2012 22: 52
      You said correctly. And we have only 2 allies - the army and the navy. Well, aviation still.
  17. +1
    8 December 2012 19: 46
    My personal opinion: in the article everything is in a heap, both holy and sinful.
    and when he was forced to obey the orders of the emperor, he was upset, ill, and died.

    Nitsche, that he had a head twice for a shot shot by a bullet weighing 49 grams? 68-th Kutuzov caught a cold and died of being upset?
    1. +2
      8 December 2012 20: 49
      ... On 27 of August 1855 of the year, Russian troops, who had not yet exhausted all the possibilities of defense, on the orders of the command left the heavily destroyed southern part of the city of Sevastopol ....

      is the author generally aware of the reasons for leaving Sevastopol? loss of the Malakhov Kurgan, huge losses in the last days of defense?

      ... So it was not the decay of the tsarist regime and the technical lag that caused the defeat of Russia near Sevastopol ...

      Oh really?! Cap recalls:
      The state of affairs in industry at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas I was the worst in the history of the Russian Empire. An industry capable of competing with the West, where the Industrial Revolution was drawing to a close at that time, did not actually exist. In the export of Russia there was only raw materials, almost all types of industrial products needed by the country were purchased abroad.

      ... However, few people know that the rifled guns of our army were not needed then - Nicholas I himself invented a bullet, the rotation of which gave an oncoming air stream ...

      I'm a fool without a fight request how could a superwaffle help in the Battle of Sevastopol if it was not in the army?
      all the British were armed with an infantry rifle Anfield arr. 1853
      The main weapon of the British army was the Anfield percussion rifle of the 1853 model of the year. Anfield appeared in the troops literally on the eve of the Crimean War and in a very short time forced out the previous British rifle Brunswick from the troops, which had served Britain for 15 years. At least, all British soldiers traveling to the Crimea were armed with the latest Anfield. It was a very reliable and powerful weapon. Anfield was charged with a .577 caliber Mignier bullet, which he was capable of sending at a distance of 1700 m, and aimed fire could be fired from 853 m. This rifle was quite massive - 1397 mm long without a bayonet and 1842 mm with a bayonet. At the same time, the bayonet axis was deviated for convenience from the axis of the barrel, which allowed the soldier to reload without bumping his hand on its tip. In the battles of the Crimean War, the Anfield rifle showed its best side; it was this weapon that Russian soldiers and sailors sought to capture as a trophy and turn it against the enemy.

      as for the French:
      By the beginning of the Crimean War, the French army for financial reasons had not yet completely switched to rifled weapons: about 2 / 3 infantry of the empire were armed with smoothbore percussion rifles while only 1 / 3 (mainly huntsmen) were rifled fittings. However, France sent to Crimea only those soldiers who were armed with rifles - to maintain the prestige of the "great power" and achieve technical superiority over the enemy army.
      1. +1
        8 December 2012 20: 51
        Tuvenen rod fitting
        The main example of the rifled small arms of the French army was the fitting of Tuvenin, which was considered one of the best "trunks" of that time.
        In 1842, Colonel Tuvenin proposed a new type of rifle with a new device that accelerated reloading: a steel pointed rod was screwed into the bottom of the barrel of his weapon. Thanks to him, a little smaller caliber could be inserted into the Tuvenen rifle, which quickly and easily slipped into the barrel, without requiring effort to drive it through the rifling. Then one blow of the ramrod planted a bullet on the rod, expanding it, and filling the grooves. The fitting of Tuvenen proved to be durable and practical, as it allowed a cheap alteration of old rifled guns. As a result, this fitting was adopted by many European states (France, Belgium, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony). Tuvenen's system was superior to all old rifled guns, but it also had drawbacks: over time, the rod shook as a result of ramrod strikes, in addition, it made it difficult to clean the barrel around itself.

        Despite the considerable efforts undertaken by Russian gunsmiths in those years, the introduction of rifled weapons in Russia lagged far behind the West. As a result, during the Crimean War, the Russian army was armed with mostly smooth-bore muzzle-loading percussion capsule guns; only 5% of the infantry weapons were rifled. As a result, the Russian infantry could target the enemy only at distances of up to 200 steps (the bullet retained the lethal force of up to 300 steps), while the French and British shot Russians at ranges of up to 1200 steps! This is what primarily determined the failure of the Russian troops in all the battles of the Crimean War.

        didn’t we really need rifled weapons? belay
        1. +1
          8 December 2012 20: 58
          I ask the knowledgeable comrades to explain to me ignoramus:
          we take a Russian shotgun firing at 200-300 steps, load the super wafer, pah, forgive the cartridge with a bullet that the oncoming stream gives rotation, shoot and WHAT ?! will it fly further 1700 meters? belay
          What kind of bullet is this?

          On the whole, I agree with the article, if England, following Atlantis, were interested in how it was down there, I would only be glad, but the confusion in the article is very embarrassing.
  18. +3
    8 December 2012 20: 02
    Minus Beck. Britain is our enemy.
    1. Beck
      8 December 2012 21: 37
      Quote: Setrac
      Minus Beck. Britain is our enemy

      What are the current reasons why Britain is an enemy? Not historical. According to historical and you and I can become enemies by treating 300 years of rule in Russia, the Horde, each in its own way, but always with chauvinistic positions. Do you need this? I don’t.

      So England for today. She is occupying some part of Russia. She locked the Baltic Sea in the Skagerrak and Kattegak straits and does not release Russian ships. She does not recognize Russia as a sovereign of international law. She closed the Russian embassy. She that imposed a trade embargo. What is there to consider England an enemy?

      A disagreement in approaches to morality, morality is not an excuse to consider England an enemy. This is a subject of discussion.
      1. +2
        9 December 2012 01: 47
        Quote: Beck
        On historical and we can become enemies by treating 300 years of domination in Russia Horde each in its own way, but always from a chauvinistic position. Do you need this? I don’t.

        from the point of view of the Russian imperialist chauvinist, of course taking out the yoke of the 300-y summer yoke of all the dead who were driven into slavery, I personally consider the coming of the Horde to Russia a great success. The thought may seem seditious, but I will try to explain why I think so, so:
        1 the coming of the Horde helped to consolidate Russia, and after the rash decision of Yaroslav the Wise, Russia gradually became united;
        2 without getting out of our steppes, forest-steppes, forests and swamps, we were able to join the world culture, as the Horde, who conquered the continent from the Pacific, North and Indian Ocean to the Black Sea, were a kind of peddlers of human knowledge, as an example: the Russian cavalry is one from the first in the world, if not the first, she was able to adopt not only tactics, but also weapons, namely the transition from swords to sabers (the ancestors of the Russian light cavalry - ulans, hussars, horse rangers); the Russian postal service (which is important for the size of our territory) is the heiress of the Horde mail (iambic, coachman - all from there); the Russians inherited the tolerance of the Horde, which predetermined the civilizational difference between the British and Russian empires; I can list a lot more, but I will limit myself to this.
        3 Although it is shameful to realize, but when our princes went to the Horde to legitimize their power, they had to unwittingly learn and expand their horizons as rulers, which certainly affected the formation of statehood, and in the Horde they had the opportunity to communicate with representatives of all the peoples of Eurasia;
        4 The crystallization of Vera, it is the Orthodox Church that is the heiress of the Church of Christ (no matter how strange it sounds from the lips of a communist), the Catholic Church is heretics who broke away due to the ambitions of the Roman bishop, but this is another long story, it’s important for us that under the yoke of the Horde the institute of the Orthodox Church has become a truly influential public center of power;
        5 Due to the specifics of the states founded by the nomads, after the death of Genghis and his grandson Batu, we are Russians, despite the fact that we have always been a small people, we were able to build up the Horde heritage (since from a communist point of view, all the other peoples around us did not have such a historical as we do (I said that I’m a chauvinist wink )) and created the largest country in the world, possessing the largest resources in the world (I repeat - this is despite the fact that there have always been few of us Russians) example: Ermak Timofeevich with a detachment, according to some sources in 840, according to others more than 900-t the man conquered Siberia, where he was confronted by the khan of the Blue Horde (whom the stupid vetch calls the khan of the Big Horde) Kuchum with the 10 000 m army --- a Tyumen and mobilization reserve of about 40 000 people; Erofei Khabarov with the 70 th Cossacks seized the land from Yakutsk to Dauria;
        I’ll probably end there.
        The main conclusion --- Russia is not only the successor of the Byzantine Empire, but also the empire of Genghis.
        Quote: Beck
        What are the current reasons why Britain is an enemy?

        easy! The United Kingdom is a mongrel mongrel of the United States and its proximity to our borders, and therefore the military bases aimed at us, make it our potential adversary, and every taxpayer in England - our enemy.

        1. +5
          9 December 2012 01: 57
          Quote: Beck
          She locked the Baltic Sea in the Skagerrak and Kattegak straits and does not release Russian ships. She does not recognize Russia as a sovereign of international law.

          England did not miss our ships sailing to Iran, in neutral waters, which is a gross violation of international law.

          Quote: Beck
          What is there to consider England an enemy?

          Russophobia was born precisely in England, it was the British who cultivated it and cultivate it in Europe. From the time of the Great Game, England has ALWAYS been our adversary and has done everything possible to harm Russia, this continues now.
          I can only name one country, to which I, as a Russian, have more complaints - Poland, but Poland, after the 17 century, has always walked in the sixes, and England has always harmed with all its might.
          1. Beck
            9 December 2012 13: 41

            Well, according to your letters, you are more a Patriot than a chauvinist. The fact that you have some justification, and not unfounded Hurray. I will answer briefly with my opinion.

            Civilization developed from bad to good and from small to large. And this can not be stopped. To a large extent, all wars and misunderstandings on the planet are attempts to stop, to suspend the development of human civilization to good and great. Visibility of the process: earlier slavery - now freedom and equality, before inheritance, estates - now territorial political and economic formations. EU, Asia-Pacific, SCO, Eurasian Union, etc.

            More specifically for a Russian person. Once the blood feud of Novgorod and Vladimir is now United Russia. Now, if you now remember who burned and robbed someone in the earlier Middle Ages, then now you can declare the Vladimir campaign to Novgorod.

            In history, England has vowed for her interests and created her empire. Russia also blued and created its own Russian empire. And it is natural that the interests of the two empires were in conflict. England did not want to give Australia to Russia, and Russia did not want to give the Far East to England. But this is a story. When the motivating motives for action were completely different. Now there are no motives. True, there is one that has been at all times - ENVY. That's why they have better, and if it’s better, it’s already an enemy. Out of envy, postulates are born, but we are not people like everyone else, we are better. Although without high technology and other things, but better.

            If you look at the natural, self-organizing processes of globalization of economies, politicians, morality and morality, you logically come to the conclusion that in the future there will be one state - planet Earth and one nation - humanity. Aliens for us will be aliens and other states of other planets. If this is so, and this is so, the only question is time, 500 years, 1000 years, there is no difference. What is now grabbing at the ax, what is now spread rot for their own kind.

            The cold war is over. There is no threat of spontaneous destruction of the world. What is left? There remains a different interpretation of morality, morality, justice. So over time they average out.

            Something like that. And this is short. Develop in more detail does not give the site format.
            1. +2
              9 December 2012 14: 05
              Dear Beck, do you sincerely believe in what you wrote?
              Is Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria Good? If there is anything good on this planet, it did not appear in Europe or the United States.
              Mind you, England staged uprisings and revolutions in Russia, not Russia in England, England tried to tear part of Russia in its favor, and not vice versa.
              The Cold War is not over; a new redivision of the world is coming.
        2. +2
          9 December 2012 13: 41
          The history of the Golden Horde is dark and confusing, let's rely on a less proven history, and not on myths.
          1. Beck
            9 December 2012 18: 35
            Quote: Setrac
            The story of the Golden Horde is dark and confusing,

            For me it’s not dark. This is the story of my ancestors.

            Quote: Setrac
            Dear Beck, do you sincerely believe in what you wrote? Is Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria Good? If there is anything good on this planet, it did not appear in Europe or the United States.

            What I wrote at the top is not for tomorrow. In the future, Iraq, Libya, Syria is for the better. They threw off dictators. Now choose their leaders by election. They took a step towards civilization. What is wrong with Iraq and Lebanon besides the fact that there are no dictators? What has Al Qaeda seized power? What is Sharia instead of a constitution? What are foreign troops standing there now? What is now inhuman?
            1. +1
              9 December 2012 20: 36
              The story of your ancestors was told to you by the Russian Germans under the tsar.
              You do not know anything about what is happening there, you only know pro-Western propaganda. Afghanistan can remind you, the main producer of drugs, tens, hundreds of thousands of people killed, Western corporations are predatoryly developing subsoil, in Russia it was like that in the nineties.
              Question to you, do you really not see the difference between Libya and Lebanon?
              1. Beck
                10 December 2012 09: 33
                Quote: Setrac
                The story of your ancestors was told to you by the Russian Germans under the tsar.

                The history of my ancestors was primarily told to me by rummian historians.

                With Lebanon, a typo came out. What was not clear? What is the main argument?

                Afghanistan. The world community is struggling with this evil in the face of the US troops and the Kremlin is very contributing to these troops. By organizing a direct supply corridor of these troops through Ulyanovsk. You do not know the politicians of your state. And the interests of Russia. If there were no Amer troops there, such a Taliban mess would rise that through Tajikistan and Uzbekistan would spread to Russia. Or do you want to send Russian guys to Afghanistan again, to send to death. How do you think? What do you prefer the death of Russian soldiers or the death of Amer soldiers. Well, here you can’t see the benefits of cheering patriotism.

                The bowels of Russia are developed by state-owned companies in Russia with little assistance from foreign companies.
      2. vyatom
        9 December 2012 02: 57
        England harbors criminals who have committed crimes in the Russian Federation. And so she s..uka enemy and what else. Therefore, I minus.
        1. +2
          9 December 2012 04: 40
          I confess, I completely forgot.
      3. 0
        9 December 2012 13: 33
        No need to go back so far, the Russo-Japanese War, World War I, intervention. But let's take our time - the Iron Curtain, Afghanistan, the collapse of the USSR, Chechnya, they do not appear from the air from the air, someone pays them. We can say that not everyone made arrogant Saxons, the amers also highlighted, but this is essentially one people. Kindle anti-Russian sentiment in eastern Europe.
        Thanks to the Naglosaks, Russia has lost the following territories: Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, Manch, the jury, Alaska, Antarctica (by right of the discoverers), I’m not even talking about every little thing.
        1. Beck
          9 December 2012 19: 38
          Quote: Setrac
          Thanks to the Naglosaks, Russia has lost the following territories: Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, Manch, the jury, Alaska, Antarctica (by right of the discoverers), I’m not even talking about every little thing.

          Yes, you are not like last year, you live in the past era. The colonial system has long collapsed. And you have the ambitions of the Great Russian chauvinist over the edge.

          Russia has lost ... England, too, has lost Australia, Canada, the USA, India, a third of Africa, part of the Near East. France lost Indochina, part of the Blanc East, a third of Africa. Holland lost Indonesia. Portugal lost a quarter of Africa. And you know because of whom? Because of the Chukchi.

          SO WHAT???

          The return of colonialism you want. Here's how to build the Eurasian Union with you. It’s good that the RUSSIAN people contain a small part of chauvinism. It is from such people as you that the skinhead movement grows.
          1. +1
            9 December 2012 20: 26
            Russia was losing its territories to which it had rights; England was losing territories to which it had no rights.
            You live in pink glasses, believe in international law, reboot, etc. The colonial system has not gone anywhere, on the contrary it has developed and deepened.
            1. Beck
              10 December 2012 09: 43
              Quote: Setrac
              Russia was losing its territories to which it had rights,

              Well, here's what to call you? Show me the rights of Russia? Where indicated, it is written, voiced, that Russia had the original right to annex Finland, to seize Poland, to conquer the Caucasus, and to colonize Siberia.

              She simply colonized all this from a position of strength. Like England, from a position of strength colonized India.

              Anyway, do not write to me anymore. There, among the Odobryams spin. Among the false patriotic ur. You have no horizons, erudition, well-read, common sense, logic to seriously discuss. Pile one nonsense on another.
  19. +1
    8 December 2012 20: 08
    The British have a wonderful ability - to influence events without getting involved. Lawrence of Arabia is a model in this sense for me - he was already a specialist in playing off the natives to achieve the goals of Great Britain. And here I have a question and a resentment - where are our experts in influence, why are we either trying to solve the issue with money, or (which is worse) laying the country's authority to protect pseudo-friends, if only in opposition to the States and the same Great Britain. Why, for example, Finland swung towards NATO, but we could not embroil them (I’m conditional). Or, what is closer - why in the Baltics we were unable to create an image of Russia as a non-enemy (we would never have pulled on a friend). Or in Central Asia, they did not become an older brother. But what can I say - our Shaimiev outplayed Moscow "once". All this is extremely insulting to me - as if in our MFA-FSB-SVR-GRU and how there are still not professionals sitting there, but the "number" are serving.
    1. +3
      8 December 2012 23: 58
      Yes, damn it, I would not want ours to act in the same vile ways. This is vile. And then, well, England knows how, like this, it’s meanly to pit others against each other and then what? Where is her English greatness? There was a Great Empire, it became a miserable American mongrel on a miserable patch of land, from which Scotland will soon break away. God marks the assault, whatever one may say
      1. -1
        9 December 2012 00: 07
        No, these are not vile methods, this is called - policy wink and we really want to act and try, but we don’t know how. Regarding where she is - but her passionarity has ended, India has also passed to China. We, too, have given slack, unfortunately ...
        1. +1
          9 December 2012 13: 46
          Politics is when two states agree on mutual benefits, and the vile methods remain the vile methods, the murders remain the murders - as it is now in Syria
  20. Centaurus
    8 December 2012 20: 52
    Well, the fact that the British are rare "female dogs." bully This is something that has long been known.
    From time immemorial, they spoil our life.
    Indeed, we could not fight with Napoleon. If Alexander had not yet come to power instead of Paul, the kayuk would have been to Foggy Albion, complete and unconditional. And our troops would not walk around Paris, but would smash the pissing London city.
    But what I don’t understand much is about Hitler.
    The author wanted to say that if it were not for the influence of the British, then the Germans would not have touched us ?! belay
    Yes, Hitler and the Slavs and Bolsheviks hated almost more than the Jews.
    He would have attacked in any case. Not in the 41st, so in another year.
    Another thing is that at the end of the war we did not want to be allowed into Germany, and to the Japanese islands. And they prepared, these Western trash, nuclear strikes.

    But in general, of course, the Anglo-Saxons are perhaps the most cunning * share nation. Where are the Jews! .. what
  21. +2
    8 December 2012 21: 28
    The fact that Russia and Britain have never walked in the homies is a fact. Too many points of intersection of interests - India, Afghanistan, the Balkans, etc. The article is interesting, it will be necessary to dig literature.
    But what politicians do is one thing, and you don’t need to generalize and brand everyone. The vast majority of people here also think, understand, try to live in good conscience, work, study, fall in love and raise children.
    I know a lot of people who, for example, help the children of Chernobyl - and not handouts from second-hand. They took the boy under full guardianship, learned at his own expense in college and then at the university - what can you say?
    1. Centaurus
      9 December 2012 00: 50
      Are you sure that they didn’t share this child?
      And then I heard about such stories. They took a child that was not needed by anyone, but because ... they ordered it at their discretion.
      Forgive me, I’m watering the country in which you live here, but I have too unambiguous opinions about them.
      Of course you can’t fit everyone under one comb ... but I was in England, and ... well, maybe I just had no luck with people, or my English sounds like a mat to them, but I almost didn't find a common language with anyone, if not consider tourists from the Czech Republic.
    2. 0
      9 December 2012 06: 07
      If this kid has become a man and treats Russia well, then I will say that it is very good. And how many of those learned in Saudi Arabia, America, etc. now spoiling their country?
      1. 0
        9 December 2012 22: 56
        My answer is - do not worry, this guy is here, married, working.
        True, he is not from Russia but Belarus, but this does not play a role, and he respects his homeland.
  22. +1
    8 December 2012 22: 30
    They tried to break us in 1917, to whom only Germany was profitable, without any doubt England the collapse of Russia was beneficial, the alliance with England in the First World War was a big mistake. But Russia survived and renewed and became a strong power. The collapse of the Union in 1991. We do not know all the mechanisms and extent of the external (including secret) impact on our country, but we understand who invested in the collapse of the Union.
    But this time we withstood the blow. And I think we’ll come back!
    Obviously, they will continue to try to destroy us. Therefore, we must know about our enemies. Not only England, but also the USA are trying to weaken us with their own hands. And I really want to see our army and our fleet strong, these are really our true friends!
  23. +1
    8 December 2012 23: 28
    What is there to argue, the enemy is England or not ??? Look, all the trash always gathers in London and Washington. New revolutionaries go there for instructions and finances. And if you remember the events before 1917? ... Who sponsored all our revolutionaries ??? Again - England and the USA! And how "allies" helped the White Army in the fight against the Bolsheviks ??? To carry out a landing to seize military warehouses with weapons for immediate detonation and all this so that the weapons do not go to the allies of the White Guards - is this normal ??? They have always had only their dirty interests. And they would have sat and not barked, because they themselves have blood on their hands up to their necks during their centuries-old history ...
    1. vyatom
      9 December 2012 23: 00
      Well, actually, Berlin sponsored our revolutionaries, and was interested in Russia getting out of the war.
  24. +3
    8 December 2012 23: 52
    Quote: Beck
    Well, in any place where Russia stumbles, England and the West are to blame. You read such articles you might think that Russia went all its history in fools.

    yes it was. The article seems to be on the verge of fiction, but the truth is written. Hence the words of Thatcher "it is advisable to live in Russia for 15 million people" And how Churchill begged the Americans to drop a nuclear bomb on us. And Kuprin's memoirs in his "Domes of St. Isaac's Cathedral", where he describes how England, in the midst of Yudenich's offensive against St. Petersburg, put guns without bolts and shells without fuses. Like "accidentally". They also "accidentally" thwarted Kolchak's offensive.
    Their lords at the beginning of the 20th century openly wrote that England was interested in some Russians killing others, thereby weakening their country.
    So the truth is all pure. Of course, one should not blame enemies for all troubles. We are to blame, the people who do not fight against traitors and do not defend the honor of the motherland in daily life. But one must know about enemies and do not need to experience illusions. In the end, God himself ultimately punished England. There was once a great power, but became just a miserable island. Like that woman who has a broken trough.
    1. Beck
      9 December 2012 13: 48
      If Russia walked in the cold, it would not have built such an empire. But such articles and expose Russia malholkoy and offended.
      1. Baboon
        9 December 2012 19: 17
        So you see in World War I how the fighting developed, Paris could have fallen, and we didn’t really have to fight with Germany in fact, and how, as a result, the Entente countries thanked them for intervention. The main thing is that they did not defeat the Reds and the White did not help; But once again they rose, they gave Germany anew to create an army, but they could not have allowed it, it all started with a Munich agreement (they openly hinted that please, no one would interfere with the east and would see that Germany was violating everything international agreements) they empire with pleasure, if not for their meanness, there would be no revolution and civil war, and then there would be no Hitler. If you take the countries that were part of the empire. population losses are just terrible, they helped to ruin the country, and they also made it possible to reduce the population.
  25. Rubik
    9 December 2012 01: 06
    False propaganda as well as 90% of articles on this site. And someone nods to Western propaganda. Yes, Soviet propaganda for children compared to this.
    1. 11Goor11
      9 December 2012 04: 17
      False propaganda as well as 90% of articles on this site

      It was enough for me that the British government harbored as "freedom fighters" bandits who in Chechnya cut the heads of stolen people. Western special services supplied militants there, kindled this fire and then raised a wave of hatred in the media towards Russia that it was stifling the freedom of "Ichkeria".
      What kind of "propaganda against the good West" is there?
      There is so much poison in them that only adherents of the "West is good" religion do not notice this poison.
    2. Baboon
      9 December 2012 19: 08
      Yes? Just we do not remember what the Western civilized countries created. Nazism, racism, everything is rushing from there, a complete robbery of peoples, and it was called a colony. In World War II, the racist state of the United States fought against Nazi Germany. The British thought up concentration camps even earlier; they put the Boers there. It’s time to constantly remember what the good west was doing and is doing now, otherwise we’ll listen and be silent all the time. And the theory of inferiority came from the West, and the attitude of their civilized countries, in relation to others, was appropriate.
  26. +2
    9 December 2012 01: 25
    Angles, Saxons, Franks and others. There are ancient Germanic tribes that destroyed the indigenous population of those places where they now live, including and Slavic along the southern coast of the Baltic.
    To be an Indian, an ally of the French, or an Indian, an ally of the British, one end is a reservation.
  27. +1
    9 December 2012 05: 36
    As England loved Russia, it still loves. I would have the opportunity, I would have loved to death. In the meantime, only warms up those whom the Russians really love (Berezovsky and others like them)
  28. +1
    9 December 2012 09: 15
    In a word, Russia has two allies - the army and the navy. There are no friends around, there are only partners and competitors.
  29. Evgan
    9 December 2012 09: 46
    I will express my humble opinion. Undoubtedly, Great Britain throughout our history of relations between our countries has been our rival. It could not be otherwise - as mentioned above, our interests intersected in too many places. At the same time, I cannot but express respect for the consistency of British governments defending these interests in various parts of our planet and I believe that our statesmen could learn this (for those who criticize British foreign policy methods: learning does not mean must apply).
    As for the expressed idea that the British are shitting on us, wherever they can - it really is. But we, too, at one time did not give them a descent, while we could.
    Comparing the history of the expansion of the Russian and British empires and how it was done, in my opinion, is completely meaningless. For expansion, Russia had huge spaces in the east, sparsely populated and incapable of resistance. England, on the other hand, could expand its territory only by conquering lands. At the same time, I absolutely do not justify the bloodshed that took place at the same time. And although I am not inclined to believe that the current decline of the empire is "God's punishment" and that "they were given what they deserved," such a turn is probably still fair. Here, by the way, it should also be noted that despite the bloodlust attributed to them, the British carried out the dissolution of their colonies quite peacefully.
    There were also a lot of copies broken down on the subject of British aggression at the very beginning of World War II and after its end. So that's it. In 1939-1940, the USSR was indeed "almost an ally" of Hitler's Germany, and therefore an enemy of Great Britain. So the plans (I emphasize - the plans) of the bombing of the Baku oil fields were well founded. At the same time, do not forget about the war with the Finns at the same time, which, whatever one may say, does no honor to us.
    Well, as for Operation Unthinkable ... In my opinion, this is something akin to a staff game. Churchill ordered a plan to be prepared, the British General Staff counted, said "it won't work, Comrade Prime Minister." Those. made a reasonable, balanced decision.
    Now Great Britain has lost the influence on the world order that it had before, and petty dirty tricks, such as Berezovsky, are not worth the heap of words that we said here. In other words, I would consider the confrontation between our countries only from a historical perspective, and not at all in the present, for the guts of the Angles are already small enough to resist us.
    1. +5
      9 December 2012 13: 54
      Have you collapsed from oak? It was Russia that released its provinces without blood, and the British colonies gained independence in the bloody wars.
      Do you feel the difference? Russia has provinces, and Britain has colonies.
    2. 0
      9 December 2012 22: 58
      I completely agree with you.
  30. +2
    9 December 2012 11: 47
    "Small lies give rise to BIG mistrust, Stirlitz."
    I wonder what size of distrust of a country that has for centuries pursued a deceitful, two-faced policy? HUGE!
  31. +1
    9 December 2012 18: 01
    Anglophiles ask the question: "What is it that makes England an enemy?"

    May I for a moment become the co-tribe of the British Prime Minister Disraeli and answer with a question to the question: What is there that allows us to consider England a friend?
  32. 0
    9 December 2012 21: 49

  33. -1
    9 December 2012 23: 02
    All in all Comrades / Gentlemen, the Cold War is dead, Long live the Cold War!
  34. +1
    9 December 2012 23: 18
    Indeed, as small children: I look at the book I see .....! Regarding England, it was not in vain that Bismarck argued that the cultivation of revolutions in objectionable countries became the craft of England! In this article, not everything may be described as it was in reality, but the main thing, the essence of which the author-England always wanted to convey by any means tried, if not to destroy Russia, then at least to subjugate.
    1. Dikremnij
      10 December 2012 03: 50
      Not only Russia. At that time, England was one superpower along with the Russian Empire and France.
      Remember the saying: "England does not have permanent friends, but has permanent interests."
    2. Baboon
      10 December 2012 12: 21
      Why only Russia? Yes, England did so much to all the European powers on it, weakened everyone with the wrong hands.
  35. 0
    10 December 2012 19: 03
    It's okay, another 50 years and there will be no England. The real English were no longer there; everyone was spoiled.
    Coming soon "British IMARAT", IMAMAT?
    How are they all there ??
  36. liachenko
    15 December 2012 10: 57
    Processed by sophisticated propaganda, we all hid our heads in the sand and cannot realize that the demolished, sticking out priest is also deadly, but unlike her head, she cannot think and act while everything is fixable. We do not understand quite simple: current well-being, built on the sand, on the world financial pyramid, which has entered the stage of destruction. Without a strong foundation, any house collapses, and the pyramids always collapse the same way, through the chaos, which in the nuclear world means- p ..., so the life of all of us now hangs in the balance. Article in the journal of the party Just World of CASS, the only uncensored political publication

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

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