“Cordial consent” directed against Germany and Russia

33
“Cordial consent” directed against Germany and Russia
A French postcard depicting the dance of Marianne and Britannia, symbolizing the newborn cooperation between the two countries.


Strategic situation at the beginning of 1904


By the beginning of 1904, Britain and the United States carried out an excellent strategic operation - they pitted Russia and Japan against each other (Why did Japan attack Russia). At the same time, they armed Japan to the teeth, helped it create a first-class fleet, and financed the war.



American President Theodore Roosevelt was very pleased that Japan attacked Russia. American big business was very concerned about the successes of the Russians in the Far East and China. Roosevelt most flatteringly characterized Japan as a “good guard dog.”

At the same time, London and Washington chose the most opportune moment to start the war.

Firstly, Russia had no allies. Japan's alliance with England guaranteed the localization of the war. Almost all European powers were, to one degree or another, interested in this war and Russia's failure. Only Germany demonstrated friendly neutrality. England and the USA financed Japan.

Secondly, the war started before the Siberian Railway and the Chinese Eastern Railway reached full capacity. Russia needed time to transfer troops from the European part of the empire to the Far East. Also, measures to strengthen the defense of the Russian Far East, Zheltorossiya (Manchuria), Port Arthur, strengthening the Pacific fleet.

Thirdly, Russia’s enemies have well calculated that the decisive factor in the Far Eastern theater will be the fleet factor. Superiority at sea decided the outcome of the start of the campaign. The overall forces of the Russian fleet had an overwhelming superiority over the Japanese fleet: 20 battleships against 7. But in the Pacific Ocean, Japan was stronger than Russia. The Russian fleet was divided between the Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific Ocean.

Within the Pacific Ocean itself, the Russian squadron was divided between the Yellow and Japanese Seas. Russia did not have time to transfer the main forces of the armored fleet from Europe to the Pacific Ocean before the start of the war. Japan could gather all its strength into a fist.

Fourthly, Russia’s external opponents, with the help of a fifth column, were preparing a revolution.

Thus, the war with Japan was supposed to become a detonator for the collapse of Russia. But the first attempt failed to destroy the Russian Empire. The war in the Far East was a weak irritant for society, and the tsar still had strong support - a professional army, ready to demolish neighborhoods in Moscow or St. Petersburg on orders, and the “deep people” (Black Hundreds), dissatisfied with the rampant chaos.

Russia survived, the revolution was crushed. The West began preparing a new scenario: a suicidal confrontation between the German and Slavic worlds.


French cartoon from 1893 regarding the Franco-Russian Union. Marianne (France) asks the bear (Russia): “Tell me, dear, I will give you my heart, but will I get your fur coat in winter?”

French interests


In Paris they looked at St. Petersburg's enthusiasm for Far Eastern affairs with apprehension.

On the one hand, French capital used Russia's successes to penetrate China.

On the other hand, the French were afraid that while Russia was busy in the Far East, Germany would strengthen its position in Europe. France needed the Russian army to contain the dangerous aspirations of the German Empire. Therefore, from the end of the 1891th century, the French ruling circles looked with discontent and fear at how the ally (1892–XNUMX the Franco-Russian Alliance and the Military Convention was formalized) was drawn deeper and deeper into the problems of the Far East.

The French government is taking precautions. Paris is taking steps towards rapprochement with Italy and England. The initiator and leading figure of this policy was the Minister of Foreign Affairs Théophile Delcasse (Minister of Foreign Affairs of France in 1898–1905, 1914–1915). His main collaborators in the matter of rapprochement with England and Italy were the French ambassadors in these countries: in London - Paul Gambon, in Rome - Barrer.

In France, active supporters of rapprochement with England were the radicals in power (Combe, Clemenceau) and right-wing socialists (Jaurès). The coming to power of the radical party helped to bring the country closer to Britain. Previously, opponents of rapprochement with England were representatives of the “colonial party” - France had many controversial issues with Britain in Africa and Asia. However, now colonial circles, due to the strengthening of the German threat, changed their position.

French industrial and financial capital planned to extend its sphere of influence to Morocco. The French's competitors in this matter were the colonialists of Spain, England and Germany. If another European power strengthened in Morocco, then France would not only lose the wealth of this country. Moreover, it was a matter of strategic security - the ability to maintain dominance in Tunisia and Algeria was deteriorating. Therefore, the French had to come to an agreement with England.

In August 1902, the French ambassador informed the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Lansdowne, of France's desire to act in harmony with England. There was no real rivalry between England and France, according to Delcasse. The two great powers were not competitors in the world market like Germany or the United States. The French and British only need to agree on Morocco and Siam. Jointly take care not to let the Germans into your sphere of influence.

For France, with the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War, the issue of rapprochement with England became especially acute. The Russians were completely connected in the Far East. In Europe, France was left alone with Germany. I had to forget the grievances against England regarding the “fight in Africa”.


French Foreign Minister (1898–1905, 1914–1915) Théophile Delcasse (1852–1923)

Rapprochement with Italy


At the same time, the French were able to achieve rapprochement with Italy, which was part of the Triple Alliance (a military-political bloc of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, formed in 1882). France, which had a more powerful economy and finances, waged a customs and financial war against Italy from the second half of the 1880s to force it to leave the Triple Alliance.

Italy suffered great losses (except for its capitalist oligarchs) and could not stand it. Its ruling circles moved towards rapprochement with France. In 1896–1898 financial and economic problems and defeat in Abyssinia forced Rome to make reconciliation with France. In 1896, the Italians recognized the French protectorate over Tunisia. Two years later, France signed a trade treaty that ended the customs war.

The crisis of capitalism in 1900 increased Italy's need for money. Germany did not provide assistance. French capital took advantage of the moment. French loans saved Italy from financial collapse. In addition, Austria-Hungary interfered with Italian attempts to expand its sphere of influence at the expense of the Ottoman Empire. Delcasse immediately proposed to Rome an agreement on the division of North Africa. The French recognized Italy’s “rights” to Tripolitania (formally belonged to Turkey), and the Italians agreed with France’s seizure of Morocco. In December 1900, a corresponding agreement was concluded.

On November 1, 1902, an agreement was concluded in Rome between the French Ambassador to Italy, Camille Barrère, and the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Giulio Prinetti. France and Italy pledged to remain neutral if one of the parties to the agreement entered the war, which effectively negated Italy's real participation in the Triple Alliance.


British statesman Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne (1845–1927). Throughout his political career, he served as Governor General of Canada (1883–1888), Viceroy of India (1888–1894), Secretary of War (1895–1900) and Foreign Secretary of Great Britain (1900–1905), and also headed the Liberal Unionist faction parties in the House of Lords. One of the architects of the Anglo-French "Agreement of the Heart".

British interests


Meanwhile, Britain was looking for allies against a rising Germany. The British were afraid of the young German Empire, which was squeezing Britain out in the world market, wanted to redistribute the colonies in its favor, and was rapidly building up its fleet. Most of all, the British were worried about the German fleet, which threatened England’s dominance on the seas, its communications and, accordingly, the colonial empire, which ensured the prosperity of the British metropolis.

In 1902, the British, with the help of Japan, secured their position in the Pacific Ocean (a blow to Russia, further enslavement of China) and solved their problems in South Africa (the Anglo-Boer War). Now London had to take care of its main competitor - Germany. This was preparation for the battle for the place of “king of the hill” in the Western global order.

If earlier England and Germany cooperated on a number of issues, now everything was different. Thus, London is reconsidering its position regarding the Baghdad railway. Negotiations were held between the Deutsche Bank and British bankers at the beginning of 1903 regarding participation in the construction and use of British capital.

The Germans had difficulty financing the road, so British participation was desirable. But the German authorities wanted to maintain priority for German capital. The British wanted to get into operation the last section of the road, which adjoined the coast of the Persian Gulf, and did not want to allow Germany to have a privileged position.

In April 1903, the British abandoned participation in this project. The British press began to promote the idea that the Baghdad Railway would pave the way for the German army to the southern seas and India. The British began to obstruct the construction of this strategic highway. Following the British, in the fall of 1903, France also refused to participate in this project.

Thus, a struggle begins between Britain and Germany for a new world order, for leadership in the Western project and civilization. Naturally, the British needed “cannon fodder” on the continent. "Battering rams" that will destroy the German world.

The French and Russians were signed up for the war with the Germans. Just as at the end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century, against France, which under Napoleon Bonaparte began to claim a dominant role in Europe and the world, the British used the German world (Austria and Prussia) and Russia.

It was easier to negotiate with France than with Russia. The French were afraid of the Germans after the pogrom of 1870–1871, subsequent military alarms, and longed for revenge. In addition, by supporting Japan against Russia, the British alienated Russia. The Russo-Japanese War delayed the development of Anglo-Russian negotiations.

On the other hand, with the help of the Japanese, Russia was expelled from the Far East and returned to Europe.

The English Conservative Party, which had once sought the support of the German world against Russia, now acted as the leader of the anti-German course. Most liberals were in solidarity with conservatives. The British press begins a fierce information war against Germany.

A staunch supporter of rapprochement with France and Russia as opposed to Germany was the British King Edward VII. The king saw the main enemy of the British Empire in Germany, plus a personal enmity towards the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. British aristocratic and banking houses looked with fear and hatred at the successes of the German Empire in the fields of trade, economics and shipbuilding. Young Germany was crowding out decrepit Britain. As a result, Edward played a prominent role in reconciling England with old rivals and developing an anti-German course. Behind the king were the aces of the financial oligarchy of the British City.

The agreement with France was supported by Aveling Baring, the de facto ruler of Egypt and a representative of the largest banking house, the Barings. The head of this house, Lord Revelstoke, was part of King Edward's close circle.


Portrait of the Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII, in full dress uniform, 1889.

"Dividing Africa"


In the spring of 1903, the British King Edward VII arrived in Paris. The visit demonstrated Anglo-French rapprochement. In Paris, the king said that the time of old enmity was a thing of the past, that the era of Anglo-French friendship was coming. In the summer, the President of the French Republic, Emile Loubet, and Delcasse visited the British king.

Negotiations began at the level of foreign ministers. The first priority was to resolve colonial differences. To the questions raised by the French about Morocco and Siam, the British added Egypt. The Anglo-French treaty took the form of an agreement on the division of the colonies. Therefore, Social Democrat V. Lenin described this deal briefly and clearly: “They are dividing Africa.”

The agreement was signed on April 8, 1904. The agreement had two parts: public and secret. A joint declaration on Egypt and Morocco, according to which France recognized the rights of England to Egypt, and England the rights of France to most of Morocco. At the same time, the secret part provided for the possibility of changing the “political status” of Egypt and Morocco and the transition of part of Morocco near the Strait of Gibraltar to the sphere of influence of Spain.

A separate declaration established the division of Siam between England and France along the Menam River (now Chao Phraya). The western part of the country, bordering Burma, passed into the sphere of influence of England, the eastern part, adjacent to Indochina, came under the influence of France.

Several other controversial colonial issues of lesser importance were also settled. In essence, Britain and France divided up the last “free” territories.

Thus, the creation of the Entente eliminated the long-standing Anglo-French colonial rivalry. England and France were preparing to jointly oppose Germany.

Britain had the opportunity to strengthen the defense of the mother country. The Admiralty brought about 160 ships to the British Isles, which were scattered throughout the empire's possessions (mostly from the Mediterranean Sea). Now communications in the Mediterranean could be provided by the allied French fleet. England could concentrate the main forces of the fleet against Germany.


Caricature by Bernard Partridge from Punch 1906. John Bull (lit. “John Bull” is a nickname, a collective humorous image of a typical Englishman, one of the images of Great Britain) leaves with the street girl Marianne (a nickname for France since the time of the French Revolution), turning his back to Germany. The tip of the sheath of a cavalry saber, protruding from under the overcoat, implies a potential readiness to fight back.
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    April 15 2024 04: 42
    It still surprises me, and not only me, why Russia got involved in this bloody mess called the First WW? We did not have any contradictions with Germany, and Austria-Hungary would collapse without a war. We would watch from the Winter Palace how our rivals dispose of each other and rub their hands in satisfaction wink
    1. 0
      April 15 2024 07: 23
      It got in because of Serbia.
      1. +1
        April 15 2024 08: 48
        “I got in” because of Serbia
        In my opinion, Serbia is just an excuse
    2. +4
      April 15 2024 08: 26
      Why are you echoing the author’s nonsense?... everyone wanted war in Europe, for a very banal reason - even then everyone wanted new markets, because the economies had become industrial... if not Serbia, then there would have been another reason... nominally it was France and Britain who were drawn into the meat grinder, maybe War was initially declared only on the Russian Empire, and if France had an alliance treaty with the Tsar, then Britain had no such obligations (yes, they did not enter out of the kindness of their souls, but that’s a completely different conversation). And the main battles and resources of that war were tied up on the western front... and it was the Russian Empire that turned out to be perhaps the weakest player... and finally - WWII is also unique in that it was almost the first conflict when the losers collapsed without defeat and occupation, economy and societies simply could not bear the load (there was not a single enemy soldier on German territory, and the army was a few kilometers from the enemy’s capital)...
      1. +2
        April 15 2024 08: 55
        Everyone wanted war in Europe
        Well, not all at all. Russia, which had recently shaken itself off from defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and the subsequent revolution, was not quite ready for it. But France and Britain were precisely what they craved. France, reconsider the results of the Franco-Prussian War, and drive Britain further under the plinth of its competitor
        this is almost the first conflict when the losers collapsed without defeat and occupation
        There was a defeat of Germany. There was famine and the factories had nothing to work with. There was no occupation, but there were monstrous reparations
        1. +1
          April 15 2024 09: 49
          Russia wanted this war no less than the rest, just not with Germany... the Balkans and the straits fell into the zone of interest, and these were questions for Austria-Hungary and Turkey, + a small victorious war was needed, otherwise with Japan it turned out so-so... in general, the whole war was between clubs of similar interests, what was the situation with Italy worth!
          1. +5
            April 15 2024 11: 09
            a small victorious war was needed
            Is this a small victorious war with Germany and Austria-Hungary? wink wink wink wink
            1. +1
              April 15 2024 12: 08
              Can you imagine, yes... look at the plans of both sides - a quick defeat of the enemy on the border and a forced march to the capital... or do you really think that Germany, for example, was planning a big slaughter on the eastern front? This is probably why the 8th Army was stationed in Prussia with only 200 thousand soldiers (which, by the way, was able to defeat our forces in Prussia and take almost more prisoners than its own number of prisoners) ... and the tactics of the line infantry, which finally died during WWII... By the way, you can read about the shell famine on both sides in the first year of the war, which was caused by the lack of initial orders... everyone planned to finish fighting by the fall (well, by Christmas at the most)...
              1. +2
                April 15 2024 13: 32
                Do you really think that Germany, for example, was planning a big slaughter on the eastern front?
                I've heard a lot about the Schlieffen plan
                By the way, you can read about the shell famine on both sides in the first year of the war, which was caused by the lack of initial orders... everything was planned for the fall
                The shell famine was caused by positional warfare, when everyone was stuck in the trenches and somehow had to be pulled out of there. This is where the consumption of shells began. Well, we weren’t ready for a long war either, you’re right here
        2. 0
          April 15 2024 16: 01
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          Russia, which had recently shaken itself off from defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and the subsequent revolution, was not quite ready for it

          Russia believed that it was ready. The reality turned out to be different. Three countries barely defeated Germany (I believe that Russia also had a hand in this). The same thing happened again in World War II. This shows that the German military school was head and shoulders above everyone else
      2. 0
        April 15 2024 15: 41
        Quote: parma
        WWII is also unique in that it was almost the first conflict when the losers collapsed without defeat and occupation, the economy and society simply could not bear the load

        WWII is also unique in that Russia was divided in advance by the former allies at the Paris Entente Conference at the end of 1917, and then occupied by both allies and opponents. Moreover, the mass of “dear Russians” (who heh...heh.... simply couldn’t stand the load) since 1918 created armies in the occupied territories to plunder and divide Russia. Poor Russia!
    3. +1
      April 15 2024 21: 55
      We did not have any contradictions with Germany

      hmm, that means the monarchical R. and the republican F. just concluded an alliance in 1891 (by the way, you can’t refer to N2’s mistakes here), and before that they were not friends. In general, they were bored... some kind of bonds, customs wars that “friend” Bismarck started.
      Austria-Hungary will fall apart without war

      maybe yes, maybe no. Franz Ferdinand was a strong personality.
      We would watch from the Winter Palace how our rivals dispose of each other

      Italy with the Germans + a couple of dozen AB divisions on the western front could greatly change the course of the war in 1914.
      And in Winter they understood that R. alone could not stand against the central union.
  2. 0
    April 15 2024 08: 36
    Quote: Dutchman Michel
    It still surprises me, and not only me, why Russia got involved in this bloody mess called the First WW? We did not have any contradictions with Germany, and Austria-Hungary would collapse without a war. We would watch from the Winter Palace how our rivals dispose of each other and rub their hands in satisfaction wink

    Well, actually, they signed up for the Serbs, that is, formally the war was started by the Republic of Ingushetia, and it would hardly have been possible to sit out if Germany had defeated France and it could have done whatever it wanted with the Republic of Ingushetia, and its ally Turkey had its own claims to the Republic of Ingushetia.
    1. +2
      April 15 2024 08: 57
      if Germany had defeated France, she could have done whatever she wanted with the Republic of Ingushetia, and her ally Turkey had her own claims to the Republic of Ingushetia
      Germany needed British possessions. Germany looked towards Africa; it had interests there. But Türkiye itself could barely stand on its feet, it had no time for Russia
    2. +1
      April 15 2024 15: 46
      Quote from Tim666
      Well, actually they fit in with the Serbs, that is, formally the war was started by the Republic of Ingushetia

      Formally, just the opposite, Germany declared war on Russia. And not because of the Serbs, but because Russia began mobilization in July 1914. By the way, in Russia today there are many who want to start general mobilization and do not see any consequences from this except good ones.
  3. +7
    April 15 2024 08: 45
    Another Samsonovism, senseless and merciless
  4. 0
    April 15 2024 09: 05
    Quote: Dutchman Michel
    if Germany had defeated France, she could have done whatever she wanted with the Republic of Ingushetia, and her ally Turkey had her own claims to the Republic of Ingushetia
    Germany needed British possessions. Germany looked towards Africa; it had interests there. But Türkiye itself could barely stand on its feet, it had no time for Russia

    Alone, Türkiye, of course, was weak, but having Germany as its allies against one Republic of Ingushetia it is simply invincible. By the way, the Germans did not seriously count on the defeat of Great Britain at sea; their basic task was to defeat France and impose an indemnity on it, consolidating leadership on the mainland.
    1. 0
      April 15 2024 11: 05
      Alone, Türkiye was certainly weak,
      Turkey was forced into this war in order to further increase the length of the front for Russia
  5. 0
    April 15 2024 09: 37
    The "fifth column", led by Nikolashka, greatly contributed to the events of the 1905 revolution.
  6. 0
    April 15 2024 09: 51
    Europe divided the colonies, but why the hell did Russia get into Manchuria and Korea? Wasn't Siberia enough? So we ran into it.
    1. +2
      April 15 2024 11: 02
      Why the hell did Russia get into Manchuria and Korea?
      Explain how Korea and Manchuria relate to the beginning of WWI?
    2. +1
      April 15 2024 21: 41
      Well, I kind of like the “Yellow Russia” project.... but as they say, I couldn’t do it.....
  7. 0
    April 15 2024 09: 56
    Fans of the potato-sausage empire, the birthplace of Hitler and Mengele, can’t calm down and continue to promote the rotten thesis of friendship with Germany. One very famous politician was recently actively friends with Germany and as a result, leopards appeared in the Belgorod region, and the manufacturing industry of the Russian Federation is in ruins.
    The reason for World War 1 is not in the Republic of Ingushetia and France, but in the economic rivalry of England, Germany and the USA - all other countries are simply extras - suppliers of human meat and other resources.
    The trigger for the war was the position of Great Britain, which at the highest diplomatic level made it clear to Germany that it would not enter the war on the side of the Entente if Germany sided with Austria-Hungary.
    The USA, too, entered the war in 1917 after the exhaustion of all opponents and the threat (for them) of a real end to the war due to the revolution in the Republic of Ingushetia and unrest in the French army.
    1. +2
      April 15 2024 11: 00
      The reason for World War 1 was not in the Republic of Ingushetia and France, but in the economic rivalry of England, Germany and the USA
      I would reject the USA. They were not yet in business. And the fact that this was a war between Germany and Britain for hegemony in the world is a fact. All the rest: Russia, France and Italy, were just back-up dancers. Although, of course, they also had their own interests.
      1. 0
        April 15 2024 11: 33
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        I would reject the USA. They were not yet in business.

        Just like in business, Germany is the main rival of the United States in many markets. And the war itself allowed, for example, Ford to penetrate the UK market with its Fordson tractors + supplies of goods to warring factions.
        1. +1
          April 15 2024 13: 37
          And the war itself allowed, for example, Ford to penetrate the UK market
          You are talking about the post-war period, when the United States gained fat and turned into a creditor of Europe. Before the war, no one allowed them anywhere near their markets. Both to their own markets and those of their colonies
    2. +1
      April 15 2024 11: 07
      Is it possible to somehow confirm the promise of Great Britain, documented?.. England’s entry into the war was dictated by a fairly simple understanding that in the event of the defeat of France and the Russian Empire, Germany’s ambitions would not go away and they would still have to fight, but alone...
      Regarding the USA, everything is also quite simple - the only question was whether to enter the war on the side of the Entente or not, there was no question of choosing a side at all... the main reason was simply economic - the USA actively traded with the Entente and did not trade with their ladles purely out of -for military-geographical reasons (the ports were far away or blocked, the volume of trade could be very insignificant due to the weakness and poverty of the economies), and Germany, with its tactics of unlimited submarine warfare, hit this trade very painfully (which, by the way, was a violation of the then existing international agreements) ... and not so long ago, Britain and France supported the southerners in the Civil War, the question even arose about sending troops, but everything worked out for the northerners. so relations were not the warmest, but did the United States benefit from entering the war, or would it be much more profitable for them to prolong the war as much as possible? It’s a good question, but Germany tried too actively to break out of the trench impasse and secretly persuaded other countries of the world to enter the war on their own side (in particular Mexico and Japan)…
      PS: in general, you should try less to blame everything on today’s rivals, because the current time is just a short section on the time line, and tomorrow everything can turn upside down again...
  8. 0
    April 15 2024 11: 36
    Quote: parma
    Is it possible to somehow confirm the UK’s promise with documents?

    Read "History of Diplomacy" (USSR edition 1945 is available on the Internet) - there the question of Great Britain's position on the eve of WW1 is discussed with links to relevant documents.
    1. +2
      April 15 2024 13: 39
      Read "History of Diplomacy" (USSR edition 1945
      I have this four-volume book, from my parents, though it was published in the 60s. The meeting is very serious, however, everything is presented from a Marxist-Lyninset position wink
      1. 0
        April 15 2024 14: 44
        The trouble with Russian thinking is that you always want to be right, winners or victims of injustice - to admit your mistakes, defeats and crimes - oh, how you don’t want to, and therefore the owl is constantly being pulled onto the globe in historical terms in order to whitewash oneself and denigrate others. As experience has shown, this does not lead to anything good, giving rise to excessive self-confidence, a sense of superiority and other “pride”, personified by the notorious “we can repeat it.” If we talk about the First World War, then it was led to by another Balkan crisis and crazy treaties that the Balkan and Balkan countries, powers and empires signed among themselves and, as usual, the Republic of Ingushetia thoughtlessly stood up to protect the next “brothers”, drowning itself in a sea of ​​blood and riots. And there is no need to invent here that the war would have happened all the same - history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. If you don’t want to understand the causes of that war from historical literature, then read Pikul’s bibliography, in my opinion the story “I Have the Honor”, ​​the same Hasek or Hemingway...
      2. 0
        April 15 2024 15: 29
        And why are you not satisfied with the Marxist-Leninist positions? What’s wrong with them? In the publication under discussion, the situation on the eve of WW1 is analyzed in detail with references to documents.
  9. +1
    April 15 2024 16: 51
    The author apparently does not know that France and Russia concluded a military alliance much earlier laughing
  10. +1
    April 16 2024 00: 23
    By the beginning of 1904, Britain and the United States carried out an excellent strategic operation - pitting Russia and Japan against each other

    RI did a lot to start this war.

    At the same time, London and Washington chose the most opportune moment to start the war.

    Why don’t you say anything about the actions of the Republic of Ingushetia before this war?

    Superiority at sea decided the outcome of the start of the campaign.

    The dominance of the fleet did not decide anything; it was decided by logistics, the state of military thought, and theater equipment.

    Russia's external opponents, with the help of a fifth column, were preparing a revolution. Thus, the war with Japan was supposed to become a detonator for the collapse of Russia.

    can you document this?

    The war in the Far East was a mild irritant for society

    exactly the opposite!

    American big business was very concerned about the successes of the Russians in the Far East and China.

    What successes did RI have in the Far East, what competitive products were there?