Military Review

Tsarev boot again on rake

Tsarev boot again on rakeIn a message to the Federal Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin said: “At our meetings with members of the search squads, we talked about how important it is to protect historical military memory of the fatherland. Is it true that we still do not have a single worthy national monument to the heroes of the First World War? Our ancestors called it a great war, but it was undeservedly forgotten, in fact, for a number of political, ideological reasons, it was deleted from our historical memory and from history. Meanwhile, the fighting spirit of the Armed Forces rests on traditions, on a lively connection with history, on the examples of the courage and self-sacrifice of heroes. ”

It is clear that Vladimir Vladimirovich’s statement about the First World War is not a private opinion, but a guide to action. In less than a day, the helpful media talked loose about the ambitious plans for the massive 20 month-long political campaign. Its apotheosis will be the magnificent anniversary of the 100 anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War. Naturally, this campaign will have nothing to do with the real story. The main emphasis will be placed on the heroism of Russian officers and generals, not all, of course, but only the future heroes of the White movement, and the betrayal of the Bolsheviks, who “stole the victory from Russia”.

Obviously, business will not be limited to one monument. In the Russian Federation and around the world, old ones will be restored and hundreds of new monuments to “white heroes” will be built. The fact is that most of the monuments in the graves of emigrants have fallen into decay, and now they want to entrust their restoration and maintenance to the peoples of Russia, who prosper during the economic crisis.


The process has begun. In Chelyabinsk, Irkutsk and other cities, monuments of White Czechs have already been erected, in fact, from the insurrection of which the Civil War began. All this would be funny if it were not so sad. Drunk Czechs 14 May 1918, at the station in Chelyabinsk, committed a mass brawl with Hungarian prisoners of war returning to their homeland. Recall how a gallant soldier, Schweik, together with the sapper Vodicka, costumed or Magyar Honored. Well, and someone managed to turn this fight into rebellion. Needless to say, at the opening of the monument to the White Czechs, no one remembered about the fight at the station, or about the theft of the Czechs about a quarter of the gold reserves of the empire.

The most curious thing is that none of the most important luminaries of history knows why and how Russia fought in the First World War. No, formally hundreds of books have been written on this topic, and important professors read lectures on all the operations of the First World War: “the first column marches, the second column marches ...” But who will answer why we fought? Because of the Teutons' aggression against Russia? Oh, do not confuse 1914 with the 1941 year, and the royal "cousin Willie" - with the possessed Fuhrer. No doubt, the Kaiser was not “white and fluffy” and during the 1914 – 1917 war he spoke all sorts of nasty things about Russia, encouraging his warriors. But from 1813 to 1914 for a year, for over 100 years, the border with Prussia, and later with the German Empire, was the most peaceful. We did not have and, apparently, there will never be a century of such silence and prosperity on any border. Moreover, Germany in the 1813 – 1913 years was the only country in Europe that favored Russia and supported it in all wars and crises.

1854 – 1855 years. England, France, and then Sardinia attacked Russia. All of Western Europe was opposed to us, but from Prussia guns, gunpowder, steam engines and other strategic cargoes were coming in a huge stream.

1863 year. Polish lords revolted the Kingdom of Poland. The goal - the seizure of Russian lands to the Dnieper and Neman. Britain and France threatened Russia with war. And here again from Prussia there is a stream of guns and gunpowder. The German government orders the army to start clearing its border lands from the rebels and their sympathizers. Many Polish historians still claim that the 1863 uprising of the year was suppressed not by the Russians, but by the German forces operating on both sides of the border.

1877-1878 years. Russia is at war with Turkey. England threatens Russia with war. The Mediterranean British squadron entered the Sea of ​​Marmara. The armada of the metropolis was assembled to attack Kronstadt and St. Petersburg. And through Verzhbolovo, one after another, echelons with Krupp cannons for the Russian army and fleet. It was then that Russia received modern weapons - guns of the 1877 model. Shells from 6-inch cannons of the 1877 model can be fired from Hyacinth and Msta, and, conversely, modern 152-mm shells are suitable for 6-inch cannons of the 1877 model, you just need to choose the right charge. Germany sells to Russia ocean passenger liners for conversion into cruisers for operations on British sea lanes.


If Germany helped us, why did Alexander III enter into an alliance with France in 1891 – 1892? This was due to the underestimation of the king of German power, and most importantly, the alliance with France, Alexander III was going to use not so much against Germany, as against England. He hoped to increase the rivalry between England and France in the Mediterranean, in Africa and Asia.

Alexander II, Alexander III, Nicholas II were well aware that the seizure of Russian German territories inhabited by Poles, or Austrian Galicia would create much more problems for the empire, given the pathological nationalism of Poles and the dominance of the “Ukrainians” in Galicia. Equally, William II was not eager to get hold of the Polish clergy in full.

During the Russo-Japanese War, England actually fought on the side of Japan. And after the “Gulsky incident” the English fleet prepared to attack Admiral Rozhestvensky's 2 Pacific squadron off the coast of Spain. And only a sharp cry from Berlin stopped the "enlightened navigators."

The 2-I and 3-I Pacific squadrons passed by dozens of French ports in Europe, Africa and Asia. But our brave allies didn’t let our ships go to any of them. Russian squadrons managed to reach the Far East solely through the help of German supply vessels, primarily coal miners. Few people know that the German tugboat Roland was sunk by Japanese ships in Tsushima along with our squadrons.

Already in March, 1904, the company "Volcano" in an emergency order began the construction of four 500-ton yachts for the Russian fleet. At the same time, hulls and mechanisms for several more yachts were sent to Revel for assembly. When introduced into the Russian fleet, those yachts were reclassified into mine cruisers.

In September, the first Russian submarine "Trout" arrived in Vladivostok, 1904. It was Krupp's gift to the Russian government. And since April 1904, Krupp’s firm has laid down three large Karp-class submarines for Russia.

Already after the "Gulsky incident" the king enters into secret correspondence with the Kaiser about an alliance with Germany. Finally, on July 11, 1905, Nikolai II and Wilhelm II, signed a treaty of alliance on the yacht Polar Star off the Bjerke Island. However, on his return to St. Petersburg, the king was literally attacked by his ministers, including Prime Minister Witte, Foreign Minister Lamzdorf and others. The king was forced to ask "cousin Willy" to denounce this treaty.

For the second time, Nicholas II wanted to negotiate with Wilhelm during a meeting in Potsdam on October 22 1910. However, Foreign Minister Sazonov, who accompanied the king, refused to sign the treaty. In the end, in 1911, already in St. Petersburg, a truncated part of the contract was signed, which dealt exclusively with the construction of railways in Turkey and Persia.

It is still not known exactly how Russia entered the war. In correspondence with Wilhelm Nicholas II 15 July 1914 of the year (old style) bitterly writes: "I expect that very soon, yielding to the pressure produced on me, I will be forced to take extreme measures that will lead to war." There is a version that the Minister of War Sukhomlinov was against carrying out mobilization in Russia, and the chief of the General Staff, General Yanushkevich, in a telephone conversation forced the emperor to agree to conduct general mobilization in Russia. It is possible that the general misunderstood Nicholas. After that, the general broke the telephone receiver and began giving orders by telegraph about mobilization.

And now we hear that our country lost this war to the losing side. We lost to losing Germany. In fact, they capitulated to her, and after a while she herself capitulated to the Entente.

Yes, Germany capitulated to the Entente, but did not lose the war. At the cost of huge losses, the Allied forces for July – October 1918 managed to advance on a front about 275 km wide to a depth from 50 to 80 km. By 1 November 1918, the front line began on the North Sea coast, a few kilometers west of Antwerp, went through Mons, Sedan and further to the Swiss border, that is, the war until the last day was exclusively on Belgian and French territory.

Opening of the monument to Czechs in Chelyabinsk.

During the Allied offensive in July – November 1918, the Germans lost thousands of people killed, wounded and captured, the French 785,7 thousand people, the British 531 thousand people, and the Americans lost 414 thousand people. Thus, the losses of the Allies exceeded the losses of the Germans in 148 times. If these figures were extrapolated, then the Allies would have had to lose all the personnel of all their land forces, including the Americans, to reach Berlin.

By the number of guns on November 1, 1918, the Allies and Germans were approximately equal, and the Germans were superior in quality to the Allies. By tanks at the front, the Allies had a huge advantage - almost 100 times. However, the Germans in the rear had 800 new tanks. Not only that, the Germans were preparing a large tank pogrom. Anti-tank rifles and heavy machine guns began to enter the troops, which easily pierced the armor of British and French tanks. Mass production of 37 mm anti-tank guns began. During the First World War, not a single German dreadnought (battleship of the latest type) was killed. The number and quality of submarines increased dramatically.

But Germany picked up the Russian contagion - 3 November 1918, the revolution began in the country. A week later, the Kaiser fled to Holland, and the new government had no choice but to capitulate to the Allies. So who stole the victory from Russia? If you believe the liberals, the Bolsheviks made their way into the higher echelons of power and brought the country and the army "to handle."


Nicholas I, Alexander II and Alexander III followed a defensive strategy in the west and built the world's best fortification system, consisting of three lines of fortresses. At the beginning of the twentieth century, advanced officers and generals proposed to connect them with lines of fortifications, that is, to create fortified areas, whose nodes would be fortresses. However, the "Bolsheviks" with 1894, ceased to engage in fortresses.

In February, 1909, the report of the Chief of the Main Department of the General Staff Sukhomlinov said: "Keeping the fortresses in the state in which they were located would be a betrayal." Gentlemen generals decided to abolish the fortress, then decided to modernize them, then - again to abolish, then - to modernize again. As a result, from 1894 to 1914, not a single heavy weapon entered the fortress’s armament. The Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich, who was in charge of the artillery "Bolshevik", promised the king to re-equip the serf artillery with new tools by ... 1930 year. In the meantime, the weapons of the 1877, 1867 and 1838 models remained in service with the fortresses.

The same "Bolshevik" Sergei Mikhailovich in 1911 year ordered the elimination of heavy (siege) artillery, leaving only the field. Her 1877 and 1867 model guns of the year should be scrapped, partly in fortress warehouses. King promised to rearm heavy artillery by 1917.

By the year the Germans had hundreds of 1914, 28 and 30,5 caliber heavy guns, as well as heavy 40-cm mortars and medium 25-cm. In Russia, in the absence of mortars in the year 17, an order was given for 1915-pound copper mortars designed by Baron Kegorn in the year 6. All Western Europe, including Belgium, Holland and others, has equipped its fortresses with cannon armored towers. In Russia, too, there was a tower - one (!) In the Osovets fortress, purchased in France for experiments. As a result, all three lines of the Russian fortresses were immediately taken by the Germans in 1867 – 1914 or abandoned by the retreating Russian troops without a fight.

Question: Could the Russian army in February or October 1917 launch an offensive on Berlin? Yes, by large losses, it was possible to achieve small wedges at the front. But the Germans, having transferred fresh forces, would have restored the situation. On the issue of mobility. At the end of the war, Russia had 7 thousand trucks, and Germany had 55 thousand. There were 2700 combat aircraft in Russia and 10 000 in Germany. Antiaircraft guns were 2560 and 10 000 respectively. I note that all Russian anti-aircraft guns at the front were "homemade knees" of field or ship guns. And by the spring of 1917, all specially made anti-aircraft guns - Lender's 76-mm guns and Vickers 40-mm guns - were guarding the imperial residence in Tsarskoye Selo, reliably protecting it from ... their own aviation.

To go to Berlin, the Russian army had no chance, even in the fantastic case - the whole army and the rear, as one, would be madly in love with Nicholas II and his entourage. With such a technique, the front by November 1918 of the year would still remain somewhere in the territory of the Russian Empire. Well, so the allies would have rewarded Russia deservedly! Starting a war with Germany, in London and Paris already in 1914 year they made plans for the dismemberment of Russia.

What would England and France do if Russia remained an ally by November 1918? Yes, the same thing that they did without the participation of Russia. The first condition for the surrender of Germany was the withdrawal of its troops from the territory of France and Belgium (the Germans fought from the first to the last day on foreign territory). And in the east, at the request of the Allies, the Germans had to leave their troops in the same positions.

The new German government was unable to fulfill the last requirement. German soldiers on their own initiative seized the trains and went home. As the eyewitness wrote, “the Germans entered the ceremonial march in Sevastopol, and left, husk sunflower seeds”. I note that by the fall of 1918, France was in a pre-revolutionary state. And if it were not for the landing of the Americans, the revolution would have started there earlier than in Germany.

By the way, this behavior is typical of the Western powers. In 1944, the British demanded that the Germans surrendered in Greece continue fighting against the Greek partisans before the arrival of British troops, threatening to shoot officers. Similarly, in September, 1945, the Americans demanded that the capitulated Japanese troops in Dutch India, Indochina and China fight against pro-communist partisans before the approach of the American and Chiang Kai-shek troops.

In any case - victory or defeat - disintegration was waiting for the Russian empire. One can only regret the Russian soldiers who fought for Alsace and Lorraine, the German colonies and the multibillion-dollar profits of the Western monopolies. In the 1914 year, the Russian army fought for the first time in history not for the increment of our lands, but for their own dismemberment.


What kind of heroes of the First World War are they going to erect monuments all over Russia? Anonymous? Or recall by name? Most of the officers and generals of the former royal army fought in the Red Army. And if you take the General Staff, then - the vast majority. Only in the headquarters of the Red Army served 185 royal generals. The second largest faction of the former tsarist generals and officers went to the service of all sorts of independentists to divide Russia. One of the heroes of the First World, General Mannerheim, became the Fuhrer of Finland, and another hero, General Skoropadsky, became the hetman of All Ukraine. Colonel Baron von Ungern accepted Buddhism, declared himself a descendant of Genghis Khan and a great Mongol khan.

Not all the generals managed to make a career with independentists. For example, Baron Wrangel at first tried to become commander-in-chief of the troops of the Crimean Tatar kurultai, and then asked again to his horse guard friend, Hetman Skoropadsky.

Erecting the White Guard heroes of Russia in the “white and fluffy” heroes, our liberals will also have to sweat a little, filtering the generals of Slashchev-Krymsky, Skoblin and many others who have chosen to emigrate to serve their homeland. About many heroes of the invisible front, as about Alexander Kazem-Beke, we only guess, but we will never find out about some of them.

A reasonable question arises: do we need an expensive 20-month campaign and a splendid anniversary of the 100 anniversary of the start of a little-known and unnecessary Russia war? The war in which Russia was dragged into by forces alien to it. The war, which obviously led Russia to dismemberment. And by and large, it was the Allies at Versailles who laid down a time bomb and unprecedented power. Smart people already at Versailles predicted the operating time of its fuze - in 20 years. There is no dispute, it is time to put in order the burial of participants in the First World War, but without a pump and political intrigues. They are the victims of forces hostile to Russia, but not national heroes.

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

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Fox
    Fox 26 January 2013 09: 39
    and in Samara, a monument to the white-collars is being erected ... a brain distortion is evident.
    1. omsbon
      omsbon 26 January 2013 11: 05
      Chelyabinsk, Samara there are still cities where thieving Czechs were noted. It seems that our bureaucrats have historical cretinism!
      1. brelok
        brelok 29 January 2013 07: 56
        complete idiocy!
    2. Carat_36
      Carat_36 26 January 2013 14: 12
      Is there information "from the field"? A state portal with information on the installation of monuments or something else ...?
  2. AK-47
    AK-47 26 January 2013 10: 50
    Drunk Czechs on May 14, 1918 at the train station in Chelyabinsk launched a mass brawl with Hungarian prisoners of war returning to their homeland. Let us recall how the brave soldier Schweik, together with sapper Vodichka, plagued the Magyar Honved.

    "Schweik and Vodicka were kicking ..." - this was before 1918, and after that Vodichka was hospitalized. The Czechs, according to Hasek, hated the Magyars, the Austrians, and the Germans equally. By the way, after the captivity, Schweik joined the Reds and fought on their side with his comrades.
  3. Greyfox
    Greyfox 26 January 2013 10: 53
    The author of the article, Shirokorad. I read many of his books, is interesting, but it seems to me that the author is a Germanophile, drawing historical facts by the ears to his theory of friendship with Germany. Meanwhile, not Prussia, nor later Germany was a friend of Russia. For example, the results of the 1877-78 war. were lost precisely because of the position of Germany at the Berlin Congress.
    Unfortunately, many people still have sweet illusions, dreaming of an alliance between modern Russia and Germany. The reality is that, being in the EU and NATO, Germany will never depart from the common anti-Russian line of these organizations. And the ruling circles and the opposition in Germany, regardless of their leftism or rightness, are anti-Russian in themselves.
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 26 January 2013 14: 05
      The article is not about Germany and NATO - there are still wild Germans whose war is undesirable.
      In general, in modern propaganda, a huge part is assigned to anti-German propaganda in the style of the Soviet Information Bureau, memories of World War I are simply an extension of the historical axis of propaganda for 1 years. This is not an accident, but a consequence of the incompleteness of World War II, when the Reich survived, but the population was not told about it, so as not to spoil the holiday of victory. Stalin told Golovanov that he was not sure that the war was over, and wanted to fight in the 100s, while the Reich was weak, but the tolerasts destroyed it and cut down the branch on which they were sitting. Now the Reich is developed, has created an environment for itself from a number of countries and shows the Democrats what they are on the moon and landing drones and on the example of "Abraham Lincoln". The failure of the dollar will affect the population as the residents of the Emerald City take off their green glasses, and then geophysics will work ...
      It is possible to get out of the situation on real Russian culture, not on the primitive AP, but this is only possible when it comes to both extremist groups - Nazis and Zionists that they need neutral support suitable for all peoples ... this understanding comes close to death, so they’ll still fight.
      1. anomalocaris
        anomalocaris 26 January 2013 19: 03
        Quote: Volkhov
        The article is not about Germany and NATO - there are still wild Germans whose war is undesirable.

        Damn, that all the Germans with whom I spoke are wild? Then fuck the fuck this European Union. I prefer to negotiate only with wild Germans.
    2. DeerIvanovich
      DeerIvanovich 26 January 2013 21: 16
      East Germans, for the most part, are descendants of the Slavs; Slavs of Luzhich still survive in East Germany
    3. Ross
      Ross 28 January 2013 00: 52
      The Germans for Russia are the most natural allies, and so it was before, in the 19-20 centuries. It was the Anglo-Saxons who were afraid and feared such an alliance.
  4. AK-47
    AK-47 26 January 2013 11: 10
    A reasonable question arises: do we need an expensive 20-month campaign and the magnificent anniversary of the 100th anniversary of the start of the war, little-known to us and unnecessary for Russia?

    All wars were not needed by Russia, not all anniversaries are celebrated.

    In this little-known author, several millions of Russian soldiers, our great-grandfathers and great-great-grandfathers, died.
    1. anomalocaris
      anomalocaris 26 January 2013 19: 06
      I will add. The result of this war was the collapse of four empires and disasters for tens of millions of people, as well as the enrichment of several thousand villains.
    2. Alexander Petrovich
      Alexander Petrovich 28 January 2013 02: 11
      Only by loving the whole history of Russia and understanding the constant continuity can one be called a patriot.
  5. Egoza
    Egoza 26 January 2013 11: 59
    If you erect monuments, then first of all, RUSSIAN SOLDIERS! To restore the names of those who received the St. George Cross for courage. In this case, the generals can wait. IMHO
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 26 January 2013 21: 15
      Egoza "To restore the names of those who received the St. George's Cross for bravery."
      I know the Orenburgers and Chelyabinsk citizens have almost completed the work of identifying persons awarded in the 1MB among the Cossacks of the Orenburg Cossack Army. Books are being released. But everyone is enthusiastic.
    2. Kaa
      Kaa 28 January 2013 00: 47
      Quote: Egoza
      If you erect monuments, then first of all RUSSIAN SOLDIERS

      The overwhelming majority of Russian generals, with rare exceptions, crossed out their services on the fronts with a treacherous conspiracy against the Emperor personally and the Empire as a whole, after which we still cannot count the number of victims of the Civil, emigration, and by 1941 we were partly unprepared. Then they scattered, some in white, some in red, but their betrayal led EVERYONE to a logical end. Therefore, I agree, the monuments should be erected to "ordinary infantry Vanya", who endured all the hardships of this controversial war. And it is desirable to remember (manuscripts archives do not burn) as many simple front-line heroes as possible, and not the sonorous names of "gaspod generals" and touching admirals. IMHO!
      1. brelok
        brelok 29 January 2013 08: 04
        The vast majority of Russian generals, with rare exceptions, crossed out their merits on the fronts of the world by a treacherous conspiracy against the Emperor personally and the Empire as a whole,
        the last tsarina lost two wars. in the first world only the navy was at the level. and that because in every possible way he ignored the orders of this "emperor" one Grishka is worth something. and soldiers and generals fought honestly with rare exceptions
  6. crambol
    crambol 26 January 2013 13: 22
    Tsarev boot again on rake

    Old rake what! Neighbor Vaska stepped on a CHILDREN rake just now! What a horror! He still walks in a cast!
    1. Dikremnij
      Dikremnij 27 January 2013 22: 13
      - What would happen if a boomerang was invented in Russia?
      - And fuck us a boomerang, we have a rake laughing
  7. DeerIvanovich
    DeerIvanovich 26 January 2013 21: 19
    it is necessary to erect a monument to the common people who have been tormented throughout the last century by the "elite" sold to Western liberals.
    And no one else!
  8. dmb
    dmb 26 January 2013 21: 20
    That you are all back at local officials. "Dad" said that before everything was wrong, but now there will be all happiness, executive lackeys answered: "Yes." I certainly do not share Shirokorad's confidence in Germany's great love for us. She's also different. And during the Japanese war, supplies to us did not come from great love, but from our own interest. But I absolutely agree with his conclusions about the need for Russia to participate in WWI.
  9. Alone
    Alone 27 January 2013 01: 16
    I am glad that at last there was a person who wrote an article that contradicts the official point of view of the state bureaucrats and "absolute" modern history. In Soviet times, much was kept silent, but what is being done now goes beyond all limits. Children in educational institutions are taught "history" invented by their uncle paid from the gozdep. To the author a great respect. As it was rightly written above, monuments should be erected to Russian soldiers who laid down their lives in that war, and not it is not clear to whom and for what.
  10. wax
    wax 27 January 2013 03: 00
    It is a pity that Putin does not seem to understand the true causes of Russia's defeats on the fronts of the First World War. As for the monuments to white whales, this does not go into any gates - they have not gone far from the Ukrainians who erect the monuments to Bendera. Solemnly mark the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of war, the ultimate goal of which was the dismemberment of Russia is very, very strange. To the author plus.
  11. Zomanus
    Zomanus 27 January 2013 03: 24
    Wow, strong article. Only now the name let us down. And indeed, there is little intelligible analysis of that war. Which allows us to speculate on it in every possible way.
  12. AlexMH
    AlexMH 27 January 2013 15: 35
    Well, the monument to the White Czechs is some kind of miscarriage of modern Russian politics, like a monument to the Hungarians who died in the Battle of Stalingrad. But in general, the sudden attention to the First World War is alarming. In it, Russia fought for other people's interests, suffered heavy losses. Germanophilic ideas of the beginning of the last century and the theory of "stab in the back" (stupidity, by the way, it is clear that it is not because the country cannot fight further, that a revolution has occurred in it, but the revolution occurs when the country can no longer fight) - and so , these ideas are now completely irrelevant. Well, they will build with our money monuments to those who died a hundred years ago - what, the people will get something from this? In popular memory, that war was postponed as an "unnecessary imperialist massacre", unlike the Great Patriotic War and the war of 1812, and I personally see no point in popularizing it, unless they want to kick the "traitor Bolsheviks" with budget money again.
    1. Alexander Petrovich
      Alexander Petrovich 27 January 2013 22: 09
      A difficult situation, it is necessary to pay tribute to the memory of the fallen wars in that war, although the meaning in it, unlike the Second World War, is not very big. No matter how, but millions died in it.
    2. Dikremnij
      Dikremnij 27 January 2013 22: 39
      I do not agree with you, Russia entered the First World War, standing up for its allies and, in fact, brothers - southern Slovenes, primarily Serbs. Thus, trying to solve the most important territorial issue of the Russian Empire, the advance to the Balkans and the capture of Istanbul (Constantinople) with the establishment of control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. Additionally, it was possible to return Galychin and Volyn.
      As for the revolution, traitors such as Lenin and Trotsky, who were directly financed by German and English intelligence, played a significant role here, and soldiers and people tired of the war were just an instrument in their hands. This can be proved by the fact that people tired of one war very famously unleashed another. Put yourself in their place, if you are very tired both morally and physically in a fight, then having completed the first, you will climb immediately into the second?
      As for the monuments of the Civil War, it’s my personal opinion that they do not need to be placed, because fratricide is a very terrible sin and it needs to be remembered as little as possible. Anyway, the discussion of such things once again makes people subconsciously choose one or another side of the conflict, which also leads to some degree of discord.
      1. brelok
        brelok 29 January 2013 08: 09
        moreover, they didn’t make them in February with Lenin and Trotsky. The Bolsheviks who were at the front fought honestly. Remember your shit democrats who were in the Duma
  13. barbiturate
    barbiturate 28 January 2013 06: 28
    Quote: Dikremnij
    Russia entered the First World War, intervening for its allies and, in fact, brothers - the southern Slavs, primarily the Serbs. Thus, trying to solve the most important territorial issue of the Russian Empire, the advance to the Balkans and the capture of Istanbul (Constantinople) with the establishment of control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. Additionally, it was possible to return Galychin and Volyn.

    Russia should fight for its own interests, not for mythical "brothers" who do not care about Russia. How many grief and corpses this stupid idea of ​​the mythical "brotherhood" has brought to Russia. Well, the question is territorial, so utopian)) Why the hell is Russia in the Balkans, Istanbul, straits? How many gimoroi and problems on your own ass and with your own hands, if you crush the Balkans and a piece of Turkey? And the straits do not lead anywhere, from one puddle to another. I am not surprised at the fall of the monarchy, to drag my agrarian country into an absolutely unnecessary war, against a technically and morally strongest enemy, for other people's interests in the same.
    The fall of the autocracy did not happen at all because of the Bolsheviks, the United appeared only later, the generals removed the tsar, stupidly betrayed, they just did not understand that the lack of power was even worse than weak and wild outrage began, and the Bolsheviks simply turned out to be quicker than all and took power.
    A monument is unnecessary, ordinary bandits (only Czech), got out and robbed everyone on the way)
    1. 505506
      505506 29 January 2013 10: 32
      And if you look from the other side? The supreme commander-in-chief, who abdicates his army after a protracted war that bled both his country and his "children" of his subjects, does he not betray them? At the same time, he knew (although he was wrong) that he would continue to reflect in his palaces, and in extreme cases he would blow away to his relatives, and in the same Great Britain, isn't he a traitor?
      And the program of the Bolsheviks, although initially it was more long-term, but in the course of adjustment for implementation it took five months. And it was a sin not to pick up power, these months from February to October (months of leapfrog and de facto anarchy) directly led to the capture of Little Russia by the Germans, and there were not long before the Japanese in Siberia.
      As for the heroes of the civil war, these do not happen, and the monuments need to be put to the fallen soldiers, and the nameless ones as well.