On the way to defeat in the Crimean War: causes of the crisis of the Russian officer corps

XVIII century - the era of victories and prosperity

Let's continue what we started in the article Academy of the General Staff: from the era of Nicholas I to the Russo-Japanese War conversation.

In this material we will talk not about the Academy itself, but about aspects of the crisis that affected the army in the Nicholas era, which resulted in defeat in the Crimean War.

In the first half of the 19th century, the officer corps moved away from the mass of soldiers, since the military-administrative activities of Field Marshal G. A. Potemkin and aimed at educating the troops - Generalissimo A. V. Suvorov, as well as the admiral, now canonized, F . F. Ushakova.

This state of affairs seems paradoxical. For the 18th century was a time when serfdom was not questioned. At the same time, it is associated with the flourishing of the nobility, or rather, its best part, represented, in addition to those mentioned above, by V. N. Tatishchev, N. M. Karamzin, G. R. Derzhavin, D. I. Fonvizin, P. I. Shuvalov, P. A. Rumyantsev, S. R. Vorontsov, F. F. Ushakov, and the brothers G. G. and A. G. Orlov.

And it is no coincidence that it was in this century that not only the first Russian university was founded, but also the beginning of the national memoirist was laid - the memoirs of the comprehensively educated A. T. Bolotov (in a sense, the previously created Life of Archpriest Avvakum can be attributed to this genre, written by himself, but still this is not a memoir in the classical sense, but rather literature in the hagiographic genre).

And the entourage of Alexander I in the first years of his reign, represented by the Secret Committee and M. M. Speransky, close to the throne, dates back to the 18th century. Not a calendar one, of course.

The path from the service class to the privileged

In light of the above, the date is important: January 28, 1725, which is usually unfairly seen as a passing date in the literature. But it was on this day that an irreversible step was taken to transform the autocratic monarchy into a noble one and an impulse was given to release the creative potential that seemed to be dormant under a bushel and became the ruling class, which for the first time declared itself as an independent political force.

For the first time. For during the Time of Troubles, yes, there was P. Lyapunov, but still, a significant role in those events was played by the Cossacks, who took more of the side of the impostors, and then supported the election of Mikhail Romanov.

In general, in the “Rebellious” XVII century. The nobility did not act as an independent force, recognizing itself as a service class.

And everything changes radically in the next century, and quite rapidly, and from the accession of Elizabeth Petrovna to imagine that one of the Russian nobles could share the fate of governor M.B. Shein or princes I.A. and A.I. Khovansky - practically impossible. That is, the emancipation of the nobility occurs within the lifetime of literally one or two generations.

Imagine: in the 1740s, a grandfather born in the time of Alexei Mikhailovich and his grandson - say, a Transfiguration officer - live in the same provincial estate, but belong to completely different worlds.

And what is important: one is educated, and the second, perhaps not - not everyone was reached by the firm hand of Peter I, who forced them to study. And education has become the most important component of unlocking the creative potential of the “noble” class.

In order not to be unfounded, as confirmation of my arguments I will refer to the outstanding military theorist Major General A. A. Svechin:

“At the end of the 18th century, the officer corps represented the most educated part of Russian society, the flower of the Russian nobility; The relations between officers and soldiers of Suvorov's army were imbued with democracy, a caring attitude towards the soldier, and the officer's desire to attract the soldier to himself. This was possible when the landowner class was in the prime of its strength, when the Pugachev revolutionary movement had not yet introduced the slightest split in its ranks.”

And here there is a striking contrast with the 17th century, when most of the nobles were illiterate and in the military field could not compete with Swedish, Dutch or French officers.

Although, of course, the continued military reforms begun by Mikhail Fedorovich and his son, associated, say, with the creation of regiments of a new system, gradually changed the picture with the education of nobles. Another thing is how the pace of this process itself corresponded to the tasks of ensuring the country’s defense capability.

Actually, this is what it is historical the merit of Peter I: he forced the nobles to study, thanks to which, in general, their level of education became equal to that of Europe.

And taking into account the military way of life of the service class that had developed over the centuries, the fruits of enlightenment were realized primarily in the military sphere, as evidenced by the actions of our artillery и fleet, that is, types of troops requiring narrow specialization. The result was immediately reflected in a series of brilliant victories, including over the best European armies and their commanders.

Victory as a harbinger of defeat

But the heyday was short-lived. The Great French Revolution broke down class barriers, accumulating social elevators in society, and with them the rapid growth of educated people, primarily in military service.

This was partly manifested in Napoleon. But it also represented the transition from the 18th century. in the XIXth. And the inertia set by the brilliant 18th century allowed us to win.

The crowned grandson of Catherine II himself is still more of a type of her “golden age,” like the heroes of the Patriotic War of 1812. After all, many of them are the same infantry generals M. A. Miloradovich and P. I. Bagration – students of Suvorov, veterans of his Italian and Swiss campaigns, bearers of military traditions of the XNUMXth century.

And Alexander I: it feels as if after the Parisian triumph and the Congress of Vienna he no longer fits into the new century with its smoking steam locomotive smoke, railways and factory buildings that evoke aesthetic melancholy.

Hence the legend about his secret abdication of the throne and transformation into the elder Fyodor Kuzmich. And I think it’s not for nothing that Alexander I and Bonaparte die four years apart, not yet old people. As if their time was up, and they played their role in history, and brilliantly.

In military affairs, technology that requires specialized knowledge is beginning to play more and more importance. Especially in the navy and artillery. And home education, multiplied by combat experience, is no longer enough here.

In the second quarter of the 1810th century. Russia is critically lagging behind the leading countries of Western Europe. I repeat, in France and Prussia the industrial revolution begins around XNUMX, social elevators are launched, providing the armed forces with qualified personnel in the technical field.

And the creative potential of the Russian nobility: it feels like it has exhausted itself. We will no longer see such bright names born from the “noble” class in such numbers. On the contrary, it degenerates into characters brilliantly described, albeit in a grotesque form, by N.V. Gogol in his “Dead Souls.”

The situation for Russia was also aggravated by the downsides of the victory over Napoleon, because they,

“crowned,” writes Svechin, “with the occupation of Paris in 1814, were primarily the triumph of the feudal system of Russia, stabilized the power of the upper nobility and blocked the way for reforms.”

Please note: it was at this time that the industrial revolution began in France and Prussia.

No, we also had certain changes in the military education system, due to the increase in the army in connection with participation in the Napoleonic Wars, which required a corresponding replenishment of officers.

On the internal contradictions of military education

Nicholas I saw the problem and tried to solve it. Thus, 17 cadet corps were formed. Of course, thanks to this, the general level of education of officers became higher, as well as their horizons. But not all the knowledge gained was of an applied nature.

The building of one of the oldest cadet corps

According to historian S.V. Volkov:

“In addition to military sciences, the cadet corps taught: the Law of God, Russian language and literature, German and French, mathematics, natural sciences, geography, history, statistics, law, penmanship, drawing and drawing.”

How necessary were so many languages ​​and drawing? Shouldn't they be replaced with purely military disciplines, increasing the number of hours allocated to them?

Modern researchers also point out the discrepancy between the subjects taught and the tasks facing the officer corps.

One of them, V.N. Bibikov, writes the following:

“The process of training officers in the Russian army in the first half of the 19th century, the entire system of military professional education was characterized by internal inconsistency: between the theory and practice of training; between the goals of training and the possibility of their implementation during the educational process; between the requirements for officer training and its actual organization in military educational institutions; between the content and methodology of officer training.”

With the Academy of the General Staff there was, as we remember from the previous material, the same picture: on the one hand, it was cut off from the troops, on the other, it was overloaded with secondary subjects.

Failed exam for ministers

The lag in education affected not only the military sphere. M. M. Speransky, who had returned from exile, proposed to Alexander I in 1821 to introduce exams in ministries in order to check the level of competence of employees.

The exams did not take place, but Speransky conducted a sample study. Result: 28% were competent in their positions. The most educated served in the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; in the War Ministry there were 13% of them. Internal affairs - 9%.

War as a moment of truth

And if Nicholas I understood the problem, then the Crimean War revealed it:

“The defeat of Russia in the Crimean War,” writes historian A.N. Grebenkin, “exposed many ulcers on the body of the Russian army. The low level of training of the officer corps was perhaps the most painful of them. Three quarters of Russian officers did not have a military education, and their general educational training was, as a rule, very weak.”

The above assessment is confirmed by the words of the head of the Sevastopol garrison, Baron Adjutant General D.E. Osten-Saken:

“Our generals, with the exception of a few, do not correspond to officers and soldiers. I’m not talking about personal courage, which alone is not enough for a general.”

Things were no better in the navy. The leading Russian expert on the Crimean War, historian Sergei Makhov, explains the real reasons for the sinking of ships in the Sevastopol Bay (see the video at the link below), and they are also related to the level of education of naval officers; as well as from his point of view:

“The main problem of Nicholas’s reign was that they managed to create excellent soldier material, but failed to manage it, since they gave up on training officers and especially senior command personnel. This is clearly visible both in the army and in the navy. Over and over again they lost the most profitable moves, did not take advantage of excellent opportunities, and in general, they waged a war “on the defensive.”

In short, after the Paris Peace it became obvious: changes are needed in the military education system. And they, associated with the name of Field Marshal D.S. Milyutin, came, which we’ll talk about next time.

Использованная литература:
Volkov S.V. Russian officer corps. – M.: Voenizdat, 1993.
Glinka F.N. Sketches of the Battle of Borodino (Memories of 1812) - M.: in type. N. Stepanova. 1839.
Bibikov V.N. Training of officers of the Russian army in the first half of the 19th century.
Grebenkin A.N. Reforms in the field of military education in Russia in the second half of the 4673th – early XNUMXth centuries: sociocultural aspects // https://pish.ru/blog/archives/XNUMX
Morozov S.D. Military education in Russia at the turn of the 19th – 20th centuries.
Svechin A.A. The evolution of military art. – T. II. M.: RUGRAM, 2024.

Comments

[Andy_nsk]

When you get acquainted with the history of the Crimean War, you constantly come across the thought that there was no second Suvorov there, otherwise the whole course of the war would have gone differently... Many events simply do not fit into your head: how could it have been possible to allow the enemy to land in Crimea without hindrance, as it was possible to sink ships from which the guns (some of the ships) were not removed... Or the famous attack (more famous in England than here) of the “thin red line” near Balaklava, where a turning point could and should have been achieved.
Of course, one cannot ignore the technological advantages of the West, when they transported cannonballs from Europe by steamship, the advantage in small rifled weapons... And yet, if among our generals and officers were the Suvorovs and Raevskys, would the outcome of the war really have been so predetermined?!!

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

And yet, if the Suvorovs and Raevskys had been among our generals and officers, would the outcome of the war really have been so predetermined?!!

There were quite a few Raevskys, but it didn’t work out with the Suvorovs and Ushakovs.
Although I personally think that Kutuzov would be more effective on the Crimean peninsula.
Good morning everyone!

[qQQQ]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

Although I personally think that Kutuzov would be more effective on the Crimean peninsula.

Kutuzov strategist. Tactically, he would have given up everything even earlier. In Crimea there is nowhere to retreat and delay the attack, but Kutuzov did not know how to do it any other way.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Kutuzov strategist. Tactically, he would have given up everything even earlier. In Crimea there is nowhere to retreat and delay the attack, but Kutuzov did not know how to do it any other way.

The Scythian tactics of the war with Napoleon were not the idea of ​​Mikhail Illarionovich. His baggage of victories includes not only defensive, but also offensive victories. By the way, he did not forgive the enemy’s mistakes, although he himself sometimes made them, but it should be noted much less than others.

[Aziz Shirvani]

Offensive victories - not “victories”, which can be written in Russian better than write in Russian. And to retreat is to retreat, a huntsman is a hunter, etc., etc.

[Doctor]

When you get acquainted with the history of the Crimean War, you constantly come across the thought that there was no second Suvorov there, otherwise the whole course of the war would have gone differently... Many events simply do not fit into your head: how could it have been possible to allow the enemy to land in Crimea without hindrance, as it was possible sink ships from which the guns have not been removed (some of the ships)...

They also erected a monument to this shame, which became a symbol of Sevastopol. They model defeatism and selfishness in the brain at the genetic level.

[Jager]

What, will you also write down the Brest Fortress as a defeat?

[Doctor]

What, will you also write down the Brest Fortress as a defeat?

What about victory?
The Brest Fortress stood to the death, as did Sevastopol. Both are worthy of a monument.
But not ships sunk in the bay. This is more serious than they think; repetition of actions is subconsciously programmed.

[Ryazan87]

Compare the results of military operations in the Caucasus and Danube theaters. This will be the answer. If Bebutov, Baklanov, Muravyov are in command, then the results will be Bashkadyklar, Kyuryuk-Dara and the capture of Kars. Let us note, by the way, that most of the Caucasian troops spent the entire campaign with flintlock rifles.
If Gorchakov and Dannenberg are at the helm, then the result will be only Oltenica and Silistria.
Mediocrity, cowardice and complete impunity of the senior command staff are the main problem.

[Artyom Savin]

Quote: Ryazanets87

Compare the results of military operations in the Caucasus and Danube theaters

There were no Franco-Anglo-Piedmontese in the Caucasus. The kung fu that worked against the Ottomans did not work against the European armies.

[Ryazan87]

Were there any French at Oltenitz? or under Chetati? Who defended Silistria?
The really serious adversary on land in the Eastern War is the French. I am sure that in a collision with them the Caucasian army would have had a very hard time, but Inkerman and the Black River would never have happened. Precisely because of more adequate troop control.
The British, by the way, are in many ways similar to the Russians - excellent soldiers with extremely poor command staff.

[Kmon]

And who could prevent the landing, taking into account the enemy’s overwhelming dominance at sea? And the point is not only in the roster of ships, but also in the quality of personnel, because comparing the training of English and Russian sailors is quite ridiculous.

Yes, there was a moment when transports stood for three days in the fog without cover, but it was impossible to find out about this without a crystal ball.

There were no Suvorovs on both sides, and therefore the outcome of the war was determined by technological superiority.

[Andy_nsk]

And who could prevent the landing, taking into account the enemy’s overwhelming dominance at sea?

Russian army. During the landing (which, if I’m not mistaken, lasted several days), the most opportune moment to attack the enemy, for example at night, get close to bayonet strike range and inflict maximum damage on the enemy... and the vaunted English sailors and ships would be of no use! But I’m improvising, I’m a civilian, Suvorov would have done better!

[DenVB]

Quote from Andy_nsk

But I’m improvising, I’m a civilian, Suvorov would have done better!

Suvorov acted exactly like this in the battle on the Kinburn Spit - he allowed the Turks to land troops. Then he fought heroically with this landing force.

[Konnick]

Suvorov acted exactly like this in the battle on the Kinburn Spit - he allowed the Turks to land troops. Then he fought heroically with this landing force.

That's right... heroically. And the battle on the Alma, what a bayonet counterattack it was, retreating from the heights and reverse slopes into the valley under the fire of rifles, because of which our artillery fell silent so as not to hit our own in the back... And there was such a convenient position... so that later we could heroically defend Sevastopol...

[DenVB]

Quote: Konnick

That's right... heroic.

But it was possible to prevent the landing of the troops without any heroism.

[Kmon]

For this, again, perfect intelligence is needed. Moreover, taking into account the logistics of the Republic of Ingushetia of those times, the transfer of an army to the landing site would take at least several days, but rather a week or two.

[Andy_nsk]

For this, again, perfect intelligence is needed.

Well, yes, you need to do reconnaissance, logistics and much more... And in the Russian army this was almost always a weak point... they increasingly relied on the heroism of soldiers.

[Osiris]

Intelligence in war is the most important thing at all times! If before Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 Colonel Chernyshov brilliantly obtained important information about the size and composition of the Great Army and managed to leave France in time, then before the Crimean War such actions were not carried out

[north 2]

Military education at the level of cadet schools was enough until the appearance of rifled artillery in the army and navy. Napoleon himself could not boast of a higher military education, and half of his marshals were commoners and illiterate. Kutuzov also had a military education at the level of a cadet school. The same is true for our famous admirals Ushakov and Nakhimov. And Suvorov, who only graduated from the cadet corps, was unlikely to envy his subordinate, the brilliant General Yermolov, who graduated from Moscow University. Russian officers with such a military education achieved many victories everywhere. Just like Napoleon, who did not graduate from special military academies, and even more so many of Napoleon's marshals, who put all of Europe on its shoulder blades. But then rifled artillery appeared in the army and navy, and in the navy, machines replaced sails, and since then, in the Imperial Armed Forces of Russia, loud victories somehow disappeared and dried up. And all this is because military education began to be out of step with the times. This would probably have continued in the future, but the situation in this matter was saved by the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin. They overthrew Nicholas II and forced the officers of young Soviet Russia to study military affairs in the real way. That is, study, study and study again ...
By the way, how was General of the Army Shoigu's military training in the true sense of the word? Did he at least graduate from a cadet school...?

[bober1982]

Quote: north 2

but the situation in this matter was saved by the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin. They overthrew Nicholas II and forced the officers of the young Soviet Russia to henceforth study military affairs in a real way. That is, study, study and study again...

Well, the Bolsheviks did not overthrow the Tsar; even here on the website, they talked and talk about it excitedly.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks created a rather primitive army, which was only suitable for defeating the white armies. The level of training of the Red commanders was also primitive; the Finnish War and 1941-1942 clearly showed this.

[north 2]

training in military affairs using Soviet methods in a real way in a short time resulted in victories of the Red Army over the White Army trained using Tsarist methods. Then came the victory at Khalkhin Gol over military grammarians trained using Samurai methods, then over the Finnish army with the loss of Karelia by the Finns. By the way, the Finns were also trained using Tsarist methods. Then - the victory in the Great Patriotic War over the most ardent warriors - the Germans. So, there was no other army trained in military affairs in a real way anywhere and by no one except the Soviet one.

[bober1982]

Quote: north 2

Studying according to Soviet methods in military affairs actually in a short time turned into victories for the Red Army over the White Army trained according to tsarist methods

Former tsarist military experts ensured victory over the white armies, and what methods can we talk about when there is a civil war, it has its own tactics and its own laws.
The Germans did not speak highly of the Russian command staff during WWII; in the initial period of the Second World War, the German command's reviews of our commanders did not change.
We must still admit that the Germans were an almost flawless military machine.

[Ryazan87]

victories of the Red Army over the White Army trained according to tsarist methods

Semi-guerrilla actions by militia-type armies. And even then, until military experts were recruited en masse into the Red Army, nothing really worked out.

This was followed by the victory at Khalkhin Gol by military grammarians trained according to the methods of the samurai

Samurai grammarians... with methods. Khalkhin Gol is very indicative, by the way, in terms of the problem with training the command staff of the Red Army. It is enough to read Soviet documents.

further over the Finnish army with the Finns losing Karelia. By the way, the Finns were also trained according to royal methods.

A new discovery in the field of military training of the Finnish army. At the very least, it’s a candidate for a PhD (no). And it would be better to just keep silent about this “victory”.

So, other than the Soviet army, truly trained in military affairs, there was no other place and no one else

Yes, you really won’t find such a precedent if you look for it.

[Mikov_Viktor_Leonidovich]

And in the Red Army, combat operations were mainly led by former tsarist officers, including officers of the General Staff

[Seamaster]

Lenin and the Bolsheviks created a rather primitive army, which was only suitable for defeating the white armies.

Since they defeated the white army, then the white army, led by the TSAR’s generals and officers, was generally super-primitive?
The paramedic smashes Kornilov with a purely official/general army near Yekaterinodar, sergeant Budyonny, with a smaller number of troops, smashes the white generals in the Battle of Yegorlyk, etc. The author of the article is right.

[Olgovich]

Quote: north 2

This would probably have continued to happen, but the situation in this matter was saved by the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin. They overthrew Nicholas II and forced officers of young Soviet Russia henceforth he studies military affairs in a real way. That is, study, study and study again...

There were no officers in the young Soviet Russia.

about the "real image":

Act on the reception of the People's Commissariat of Defense of the USSR Timoshenko S.K. from Voroshilov K.E.
, May 1940 exactly one year before June 41: .

By the time the People’s Commissariat of Defense was received, the army had a significant lack of staff, especially in the infantry, reaching 21% of the nominal strength as of May 1, 1940.

It was established that annual graduations from military schools did not provide the necessary reserves for the growth of the army and the formation of reserves.

The quality of training of command personnel is low, oespecially in the platoon-company link, in which up to 68% have only short-term 6-month training for the junior lieutenant course.

The training of command personnel in military schools is unsatisfactory due to the poor quality of the programs, disorganization of classes, insufficient study time and especially weak field practical training. The improvement of the command staff is not properly organized. The disadvantage of commander training programs in military educational institutions is: classes mainly in classrooms, insufficient field training, saturation of programs with general subjects to the detriment of the military
etc.
.

there is a lot about the quality of training of commanders and the “quality” of their work IN EVERYTHING - operational training, interaction between branches, etc. - this just endless horror.

And yes: Russia’s losses in WWI were 9% of the world’s losses, the USSR’s losses were 53% of the world’s (all without China)

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Olgovich

And yes: Russia’s losses in WWI were 9% of the world’s losses, the USSR’s losses were 53% of the world’s (all without China)

This is if you don’t count the shameful failure of the tsarist regime and the bloody mess that followed in Russia with millions of victims.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

This is apart from the shameful failure of the tsarist regime

the front stood 2 thousand west of the Volga (that was the failure of 42).

Quote: Vladimir_2U

the bloody mess that followed in Russia with millions of victims

these are questions for your thieves bandits - it didn’t exist before them

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Olgovich

the front stood 2 thousand west of the Volga (that was the failure of 42).

It is a disgrace, in incomparably more favorable conditions, when the German divisions were en masse on the Western Front, to leak power to a pro-Western bourgeois gang at court - the level of the then leadership of Russia.

Quote: Olgovich

these are questions for your thieves bandits - it didn’t exist before them

The shameful drain of power by the tsar to worthless figures from the provisional government is the cause of the bloody mess.

Quote: Olgovich

And yes: Russia’s losses in WWI were 9% of the world’s losses, the USSR’s losses were 53% of the world’s (all without China)

Olgovich, in his repertoire, cannot help but lie, and stupidly. Russia's losses in WWII were at least 2 million killed and those who died from wounds and diseases, which is more than 20 percent of the total losses (9,5 million) in WWI. Moreover, from the first to the last day, the main forces of the Germans were on the “Western” Front.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

A disgrace, in incomparably more favorable conditions, when the German divisions were en masse on the Western Front

It’s a complete disgrace to manage to turn ALL the German, Hungarian, etc. divisions against yourself, congratulating the Nazis on the capture of Paris in 1940
.V.Molotov, Oct 1939:

"The war against Hitlerism is CRIME!".
.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

- this is the cause of the bloody mess.

MORE for the Bolshevik-headed tankers: BEFORE YOUR THIEVES were in power - there were no multi-million victims of the Civil War - it's simple fact

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Russia's losses in WWII were at least 2 million killed and died from wounds and diseases.

their Bolshevik accountants Urlanis - crookedly - into the tube and - there, there!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Olgovich

.V.Molotov, Oct 1939:
"The war against Hitlerism is CRIME!"

Tattered quotes are a kind of lie, and pathological lies are a clear sign of hikhlov.

Therefore, it is not only senseless, but also criminal to wage such a war as the war for the “destruction of Hitlerism” hiding behind the false flag of the struggle for "democracy".

and further in the text of the article:
“The latest economic negotiations of the German delegation in Moscow and the ongoing negotiations of the Soviet economic delegation in Germany are preparing a broad basis for the development of trade turnover between the Soviet Union and Germany.”


Two months earlier, Germany had disabled the USSR's worst enemy, Poland. A month later in 1939, the Finnish War began, in which England and France supplied weapons to the White Finns, but Germany did not, the Anglo-French planned a raid on the Baku oil region, but Germany did not. Until 1941, Germany supplied CREDIT!!! The USSR has machines, equipment, technology and even a warship, but the Anglo-French do not! But Olgovich is not interested in such nuances; Olgovich believes that diplomats should call the bloody ghouls with whom they have to trade bloody ghouls, and not “respected partners,” for example.

Quote: Olgovich

It’s a complete disgrace to manage to turn ALL the German, Hungarian, etc. divisions against yourself, congratulating the Nazis on the capture of Paris in 1940

So who eventually became an ally of the USSR, wasn’t it the Anglo-French? It’s just how primitive one must think in order to attach congratulations from an officially non-hostile state to someone who later fought on which side! Primitive thinking, one of the signs of the current sickness, actually.


Oh yes, a little joke:

Nicholas II - Wilhelm II, July 19/August 1, 1914 Mr.

I received your telegram. I understand that you must mobilize your troops, but I wish to have on your part the same guarantees that I gave you, i.e. that these measures do not mean war and that we will continue negotiations for the sake of the well-being of our states and universal peace, dear to us. all of us. Our long proven friendship I must, with God's help, prevent bloodshed. I look forward to your answer with impatience and hope.
Nicky

Tears are welling up...

Quote: Olgovich

MORE for the Bolshevik-headed tankmen: BEFORE YOUR THIEVES are in power - there are no multi-million victims of war - it’s just a fact

Another sign of a selyuk is the lack of ability to build a logical chain. The loss of power in favor of applicants incapable of governing has a direct connection with the subsequent war of these worthless applicants with a more organized force, moreover, based on the masses.

Quote: Olgovich

their Bolshevik accountants Urlanis - crookedly - into the tube and - there, there!

Well, yes, Olgovich is no stranger to getting into trouble from the regular use of actually made-up sources. Hey, where did those numbers come from?

[george.old]

Tattered quotes are a kind of lie, and pathological lies are a clear sign of hikhlov.

but it seems to me that these creatures were doing this, and they loved to put labels on them.

Therefore, it is not only senseless, but also criminal to wage such a war as the war for the "destruction of Hitlerism" covered by the false flag of the struggle for "democracy".

So, for you, Hitlerism has more advantages than Westerners?
and oh trade negotiations... the same states could have given more to the Reich, but they wanted to help the "icebreaker"... and the Reich bought interesting things, such as main battery towers from unfinished Fritz battleships, clearly a very necessary thing in the upcoming war with fascists.

Two months earlier, Germany had disabled the USSR's worst enemy, Poland.

Let's clarify, with a little help...
and further, in September 39, the Poles collected about 40 divisions in total... I wonder how many they could field against the USSR with the Germans and Czechs behind them?
further, as far as I remember, starting in 1937, the Poles began to transfer troops from east to west.

A month later in 1939, the Finnish War began, in which England and France supplied weapons to the White Finns, but Germany did not

why white Finns and not just Finns? after the bombing of Finnish cities, the Finnish Communist Party did not object to the defense of its country.
Why should the English and Franks want to strengthen the Reich's ally?

[george.old]

The Anglo-French planned a raid on the Baku oil region, but Germany did not.

where did the oil go from these fields?

Until 1941, Germany supplied CREDIT!!! The USSR has machines, equipment, technology and even a warship, but the Anglo-French do not!

that the states wouldn’t have given them this if they hadn’t started kissing the Nazis and not going west?

But Olgovich is not interested in such nuances; Olgovich believes that diplomats should call the bloody ghouls with whom they have to trade bloody ghouls, and not “respected partners,” for example.

Is it obligatory to send congratulatory telegrams on the capture of Warsaw and Paris, as well as toasts to the victories of the Reich at diplomatic receptions?
[quoteTears are welling up...][/quote]
me too....
https://histdoc.net/history/ru/stalin60.htm

Another sign of a selyuk is the lack of ability to build a logical chain.

As a villager, I’ll ask with aspiration, but did your ancestors become urban before the founding of Moscow or a little later?

moreover, based on the masses.

I liked it too...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: george.old

but it seems to me that these creatures were doing this, and they loved to put labels on them.

Examples in the studio of tearing quotes. As for labels, the answer to numbers is always this:

Quote: Olgovich

to your thieves bandits

Quote: Olgovich

Bolshevik-headed tankers: BEFORE YOUR THIEVES

Quote: Olgovich

their Bolshevik accountants Urlanis - crookedly - into the tube and - there, there!

Labels instead of some kind of refutations and justifications. Pure geekism, straight reference...

Quote: george.old

But anyway, for you, Hitlerism has more advantages than Westerners?

Oh, is this a personal translation I see? Hitler is a product of Western policy, much like Zelya is now, so everything is worse. And for you?

Quote: george.old

and further, in September 39, the Poles collected about 40 divisions in total... I wonder how many they could field against the USSR with the Germans and Czechs behind them?... ....further, as far as I remember, starting in 1937 the Poles began to transfer troops from the east to the west.

The Germans behind us as allies? Yes, you are a storyteller no worse than Olgovich...
“At the end of 1938 and the beginning of 1939, there were two schools of thought in Germany regarding Danzig. One of them, led by Forster, advocated the “small solution” - sending troops to occupy the city and forcibly returning it to Germany. “Big the decision" involved concluding a deal under which Poland would agree to the return of Danzig to Germany in exchange for German support for Poland's annexation of the Soviet Union.[44] At that time, Hitler was determined to go to war with Great Britain and was leaning towards the “big solution” - the inclusion of Poland in the German sphere of influence."

Quote: george.old

the same states could have given more to the Reich, but they wanted to help the “icebreaker”

Would... Besides, the states gave so much to the USSR, not for nothing, of course, in the early 30s, and much more.

Quote: george.old

and the Reich bought interesting things, such as main battery towers from unfinished Fritz battleships, obviously a very necessary thing in the upcoming war with the Nazis.

And in the Union, battleships of the "Soviet Union" type were laid down, with a launch date for delivery!, not earlier than 1942, what about them? However, this is an empty question, because your level is already clear from the “icebreaker”...

Quote: george.old

why white Finns and not just Finns? after the bombing of Finnish cities, the Finnish Communist Party did not object to the defense of its country.

Is this the Communist Party that was banned until 1944, or did you have your own Communist Party of Finland, personal?

Quote: george.old

Why should the English and Franks want to strengthen the Reich's ally?

Why didn't they bomb Ploesti then, huh?

Quote: george.old

The Anglo-French planned a raid on the Baku oil region, but Germany did not.
where did the oil go from these fields?

So what about Ploiesti?

Quote: george.old

that the states wouldn’t have given them this if they hadn’t started kissing the Nazis and not going west?

Would. It’s a pity that the “icebreakers”, you are one of them, as I understand it, are not interested in the fact that the cooling of relations between the USSR and the USA began in 35, when the USSR began the fight against the Nazis in Spain. and ended with a “moral embargo” with the beginning of the Finnish War, when the USSR moved the border away from Leningrad. Are you not against the fight against Nazism and increasing the security of the northern capital of Russia, or what? And kissing the Nazis was the lot of the Anglo-Americans of those times, if of course you understand what we’re talking about. And if you don’t understand, there are plenty of photos of Anglo-American Nazis from the 30s.

Quote: george.old

https://histdoc.net/history/ru/stalin60.htm

So is this a reason to believe that the USSR and Germany were allies? So tears because it can be considered that in 1914 the Republic of Ingushetia and Germany were allies, because “brotherhood and friendship” and all that. Be consistent.

Quote: george.old

As a villager, I’ll ask with aspiration, but did your ancestors become urban before the founding of Moscow or a little later?

What kind of villages are given the names george?
And a selyuk is not the same as a peasant, and not the same as a peasant, and not even an agrarian; a selyuk is an intellectually limited individual, incapable of development, but accustomed in disputes to using shouting and insults as arguments.

Quote: george.old

moreover, based on the masses.
I liked it too...

Well, refute the Bolsheviks’ reliance on the people in the Civil War.

[george.old]

Labels instead of some kind of refutations and justifications. Pure geekism, straight reference...

Don’t get carried away with hikhism, otherwise suddenly there will be a sudden change in course....
well, like fascists are enemies - friends - enemies
from more recent: Belarus friends, 01.2010/06.2010 enemies, XNUMX/XNUMX friends. Türkiye was also recently

Oh, is this a personal translation I see?

partly, more to the class of Stalinist lovers.

Hitler is a product of Western politics

specifically yes, but Pol Pot or the Kims....

And for you?

For me, Hitler is worse than Stalin. although yes, Stalin is a personality at the state level.

The Germans behind us as allies?

IMHO they were not seriously considered in this capacity. There was an understanding that the Germans, during their march to the east, would actually occupy Poland. I’m talking about the fact that the “worst enemy” turned out to be somewhat weak, it would be necessary to leave troops against both the Reichswehr and the Czechs.

“At the end of 1938 and the beginning of 1939, there were two schools of thought in Germany regarding Danzig. One of them, led by Forster, advocated the “small solution” - sending troops to occupy the city and forcibly returning it to Germany.

hmm, under Forster Danzing was already practically German, the Poles had several facilities there, the introduction of troops did not change anything, it was all about the road.

The "Big Solution" involved a deal in which Poland would agree to the return of Danzig to Germany in exchange for German support for Poland's annexation of part of the Soviet Union.

however, the Poles did not agree...

And in the Union, battleships of the "Soviet Union" type were laid down, with a launch date for delivery!, not earlier than 1942, what about them? However, this is an empty question, because your level is already clear from the “icebreaker”...

hmm IMHO for finishing off the weakened Angles, isolation... just after the Reich and the Angles exhaust each other.
And 6 more towers, with turret mechanisms, spare barrels, fire control systems, shells, for 50 million Reichsmarks were not for LK pr. 23 but for the KR pr. 69 Kronstadt.
For LK pr. 23 we bought boilers and mechanisms.
and what's wrong with my level" what's wrong with "Icebreaker"? oil for it, transit from the Far East for it, Nord base, or "On June 3, 1941, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) decided to allow the People's Commissariat of Foreign Trade to deliver from special reserves to Germany in fulfillment of the agreement: 6 thousand tons of copper, 1,5 thousand tons of nickel, 500 tons of tin, 500 tons of molybdenum, 500 tons of tungsten."

Why didn't they bomb Ploesti then, huh?

when they could then they bombed.

Would. It’s a pity that the “icebreakers”, you are one of them, as I understand it, are not interested in the fact that the cooling of relations between the USSR and the USA began in 35, when the USSR began the fight against the Nazis in Spain.

yeah, but what was Stalin’s personal emissary Kandelaki doing there?
[quote] ended with a “moral embargo” with the beginning of the Finnish War, when the USSR moved the border away from Leningrad. Are you not against the fight against Nazism and increasing the security of the northern capital of Russia, or what?[/quote]
let's not manipulate. so ephemerally “pushed back the border”, was the “Terrioc government” created for this? Finland was then in the Anglo-Saxon political zone, but they themselves wrote that the Reich did not help the Finns.

And kissing the Nazis was the lot of the Anglo-Americans of those times, if of course you understand what we’re talking about.

Well, at 39, the Natsik kissers changed (at the state level)

So is this a reason to believe that the USSR and Germany were allies? So tears because it can be considered that in 1914 the Republic of Ingushetia and Germany were allies, because “brotherhood and friendship” and all that. Be consistent.

...
+ customs wars + conflict over the Baghdad railway. so be consistent yourself too.

What kind of villages are given the names george? laughing

Western Belarusian....
the clerk of the village council advised my father (so the peculiarities of the local dialect) ...

Well, refute the Bolsheviks’ reliance on the people in the Civil War.

As for me, the Bolsheviks were the lesser evil for the peasants; if the whites won, they lost their land. And so you can remember the Votkinsk and Izhevsk working divisions of the whites, Tambov, Kronstadt

Threat. I'm not saying that you are wrong all around. In some places I agree with you, in others I don’t, in others I put emphasis on something else

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: george.old

Don’t get carried away with hikhism, otherwise suddenly there will be a sudden change in course....

You see, Olgovich practiced everything that is written below long before the SVO, and many, not only me, were simply freaked out by his unique style, but for two years now we have been seeing in the hikhlovs, everything that we had previously observed in Olgovich... Except perhaps for the unbridled flamboyance to Tsarist Russia.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Pathological hatred of the USSR, double standards, ignoring obvious but inconvenient facts and blatant but stupid lies. This is just the standard of laxity.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Tattered quotes are a kind of lie, and pathological lies are a clear sign of hikhlov.
Therefore, not only is it pointless, but it is also criminal to wage a war such as the war for the "destruction of Hitlerism"hiding behind the false flag of the struggle for "democracy"

war against Hitlerism is CRIMINAL. What difference does it make under what flag? WHAT is not clear? Not Russian at all?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

But Olgovich is not interested in such nuances,

these nuances are ugh against the backdrop of how the Stalins with THEIR hands left the country alone with Nazi Europe

Quote: Vladimir_2U

diplomats should call the bloody ghouls with whom they have to trade bloody ghouls

they just called them that - until 1939

Quote: Vladimir_2U

So who eventually became an ally of the USSR, wasn’t it the Anglo-French?

In the end, yeah. But first, the USSR lost tens of millions of people and its territory was destroyed

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Tears are welling up...

The war against Hitlerism is criminal (Molotov)

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Another sign of a selyuk is the lack of ability to build a logical chain. The loss of power in favor of applicants incapable of governing has a direct connection with the subsequent war of these worthless applicants with a more organized force, moreover,catering to the masses.

another sign of the Bolshevik heads - a stupid lie NO ONE has EVER elected Bolsheviks ANYWHERE, there have never been elections in the medieval country of THIEVES. They were afraid.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

. Hey, where did those numbers come from?

Russian General Staff0 and not your lying big "accountants"

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Olgovich

another sign of the Bolshevik heads - a stupid lie NO ONE has EVER elected Bolsheviks ANYWHERE, there have never been elections in the medieval country of THIEVES. They were afraid.

A typical weak approach is to substitute concepts... Elections and support are completely different things. By the way, NOBODY elected the second Tsar Nika either, and it was not elected officials who overthrew him either.

Quote: Olgovich

these nuances are ugh against the backdrop of how the Stalins with THEIR hands left the country alone with Nazi Europe

This is such a shame...

Quote: Olgovich

Stalin has just allies - the sea - the same England from the first day, etc.

Quote: Olgovich

Russian General Staff0 and not your lying big "accountants"

"30-year-old A. Kersnovsky in the 4th volume of his main work “History of the Russian Army”, published in Belgrade in 1938. The section “Trophies and Losses”, Chapter XVII “The Last War of Peter’s Army” is devoted to this analysis. In his calculations A. Kersnovsky relied on all the same ones already published in Soviet Russia data from V. Avramov and the General Staff, which were mentioned above. A. Kersnovsky’s calculations were as follows: “Subtracting this number (2,2 million prisoners - K.Z.) from the total amount, we get 3 losses “on this side” of our positions. 300 people died from disease (the number was established very accurately - the statistics of the sick was kept much better than the statistics of the wounded). There were up to 000 people in unauthorized absence <...> Further, 100 people were excluded due to injuries received in battle, 000 people due to illness. Adding up these losses, we end up with 200 people maimed, dead and deserters. The remaining 000 people did not fit into any of the specified categories... Eternal memory to them! About 600 people - about a third - retained their names, the remaining 000 people are those “unknown soldiers” about whom neither stone nor cross can tell and whose remains were thrown out of their graves by the blasphemous Polish hand.”300 And further: “We will be very close to the figure of 000, of which 1 people fell in arms. All German researchers estimate the losses of the Russian army at 200 people killed. Former allies, trying to belittle Russia's victims, often cite the unsubstantiated number of 1, without explaining its origin"2."

Pathological hatred of the USSR, double standards, ignoring obvious but inconvenient facts and blatant but stupid lies. This is just the standard of laxity.

[Ryazan87]

military education at the level of cadet schools was sufficient until the advent of rifled artillery in the army and navy

In itself, the appearance of rifled artillery does not give rise to a stepped system of military education. These are rather signs of the emergence of mass armies of the industrial era.

Napoleon himself could not boast of a higher military education

Bonaparte graduated from the École militaire de Brienne and the École militaire in Paris. Overall, he had quite a higher military education.

Kutuzov also had a military education at the level of a cadet school

The artillery and engineering gentry (noble) school is the level of a good modern military school. Just look at the curriculum.

and since then, in the Imperial Armed Forces of Russia, the high-profile victories have disappeared and dried up. And all this because military education has become out of keeping with the times.

Moreover, it was at this time that the classic system of stepped military education for Russia with schools and the Academy of the General Staff was formed. Which, in fact, still exists today.

They overthrew Nicholas II and forced the officers of the young Soviet Russia to henceforth study military affairs in a real way.

Yeah, they made me laugh. Especially social discrimination and a decrease in the standard of military education to, well, the cadet corps of the pre-revolutionary corps. The level of education of command personnel back in the 30s was not even the bottom. There were less than half of the people who had at least 9 years of general education school. Which resulted in enormous bloodshed during the Second World War. The situation had relatively improved by the 60s, perhaps. Although the educational level of the bulk of the SA officer corps still left much to be desired. And in general, the school system is far from the best solution.
The current war also shows that the Russian army is in dire need of military education reform.

[qQQQ]

Quote: north 2

By the way, how was Army General Shoigu really doing with his military studies? Did he even graduate from cadet school...?

Look at the course of the SVO and see the level of education.

[Rt-xnumx]

from Army General Shoigu? Did he even graduate from cadet school...?

Well, think for yourself, why would he serve in the Army, study at a military school, academy - if He already knows everything?

[qQQQ]

Quote: Rt-12

He already knows everything

I agree here. He is a genius and knows and can do everything even without education.

[Edward Vashchenko]

But it’s interesting, in the English army all the officers graduated straight from Cambridge, and in the French - from the Sorbonne?

The main problem of Nicholas’s reign was that they managed to create excellent soldier material

And who created it, not the same “uneducated” officers?
All the same, the education of officers is a consequence of the development of feudal Russian society, and not the cause. For the Hungarians, Turks and Persians, education was more than enough, but for the French and English there was not.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

For the Hungarians, Turks and Persians, education was more than enough, but for the French and English there was not.

If we had fought them separately, who knows how it would have ended. But when the first and second most powerful powers joined forces against the third...

[Ryazan87]

It’s especially funny about the British, with their extremely archaic army system. However, this is Vashchenko.

But when the first and second most powerful powers joined forces against the third...

+ another great power in benevolent neutrality, and two second-tier powers are military allies.
In Germany, for example, in such situations everything turned out very badly.

[Edward Vashchenko]

If you happen to fight them separately,

The ability to manage is when you understand when you can fight and when not.
What Nicholas I did not take into account.

[Luminman]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

All the same, the education of officers is a consequence of the development of feudal Russian society, and not the cause. For the Hungarians, Turks and Persians, education was more than enough, but for the French and English there was no

What exactly are you investing in officer education? Do you think Lermontov was an educated man or not? What about the Decembrists exiled to fight in the Caucasus?

[Edward Vashchenko]

The author of the article wrote that in the cadet corps they taught languages, etc., some of the officers were very educated people, some of a level higher than Europeans. Most of them, especially those from small estates, had practically no knowledge and did not strive for it; Speransky or Arakcheev do not count.
But we are not talking about whether they spoke or did not speak French and how well, although... it was the language of government even under the “patriot” Nikolai Pavlovich.
The point is not whether they were fighters or not, remember, from Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time”: Grushnitsky possessed some kind of “non-Russian courage.”
The fact is that all this was confidently replaced by control system. Again, as the author noted, in each battle “a little bit” was missing, and the British and French were on the verge of death in the first winter in Crimea, but...systemic management, based on a scientific approach, defeated the brave men at that time .
This is what education we are talking about... and after that, everything revolves around this question, if we talk about officers, about their low training, both in the Russo-Japanese and in the First World War, and in the civil war and then in the White Finnish and at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, because the level of education of officers depends on the level of education of society. And about the fact that our society was illiterate, in relation to modern technologies, even after the Cultural Revolution, and what to say about the 1s of the XIX century. in a feudal country.
PS. perhaps the “dandies” also did not shine with knowledge, but their society stood at a higher level of technological development: they sold modern ships to Russia, and not vice versa, in the middle of the 75th century. among tenant farmers - 50% were literate; in the 19s of the XNUMXth century. among peasants in Russia - XNUMX%.

[Mikov_Viktor_Leonidovich]

In WWII, German soldiers had a secondary education, as in WWII, and our Soviet soldiers, on average, had three classes

[Edward Vashchenko]

In general, in the “Rebellious” XVII century. The nobility did not act as an independent force, recognizing itself as a service class.

The phrase “service class” does not negate the class essence of the Russian feudal lords - the nobles.
The nobility and boyar children were a conscious force throughout the 17th century. , starting with the Time of Troubles, where they were the key and driving force. The Time of Troubles was a “feudal revolution”, and intermediate strata, such as the Cossack robbers, were “distressed and abandoned”, pushed to the periphery from the “sun of the Russian monarchy”.
After the Time of Troubles, for 20 years, petitions poured in from the noble corporations of the “cities” to tighten legislation for the final enslavement of the peasants, and the tsar consistently carried out everything that was written in the petitions, until it was all formalized in the Council Code of 1649 - the first feudal code in the history of Russia, where is it not the main role?
However, until the 3rd militia was provided by Minin and Pozharsky with “land for service” and salaries in advance, nothing moved forward, as the nobles received all this - Moscow was liberated in an instant.
From the 17th to the mid-19th century there was a steady increase in noble privileges; from 1761, in “theory” it was no longer even possible to serve.

[Dutchman Michel]

Leading Russian specialist on the Crimean War, historian Sergei Makhov

Isn’t this the “historian” and “specialist” who periodically posts all sorts of naval dregs on VO?

[Senior seaman]

I don’t agree with the “dregs”, but yes - he)

[Dutchman Michel]

I don’t agree with the “dregs”

I, like you, have my own opinion. We won't argue

[Unknown]

But nothing good could be given to Russia - Holstein-Gottorp and the degenerate nobility. In Prussia in 1717 the famous "School Edict" was issued, which introduced mandatory school education. In Austria, on December 6, 1774, the "General School Rules of German Normal, Secondary and Trivial Schools" came into force, which regulated compulsory school education (from six to twelve years). 1870 in England. The first law on primary education was adopted back in 1833 by François Guizot, Minister of Public Education under Louis Philippe A. In Russia, only Bolsheviks The eradication of illiteracy began in 1918. Comrade Stalin said correctly

The history of old Russia, by the way, consisted in the fact that it was constantly beaten for its backwardness. The Mongol khans beat. The Turkish beks beat us. The Swedish feudal lords beat us. The Polish-Lithuanian gentlemen beat us. The Anglo-French capitalists beat us. The Japanese barons beat us. They all beat me for being backward. For military backwardness, for cultural backwardness, for state backwardness, for industrial backwardness, for agricultural backwardness. They beat me because it was profitable and went unpunished

After the Patriotic War of 1812, there was nothing more to boast about. They lost the Crimean War, the Balkan War of 1877-1878, against a not very strong Turkish army, they barely pulled out, and they couldn’t conclude a peace that was really beneficial to Russia. It’s not worth talking about the Russo-Japanese War, let alone the WWII, the cat has cried for victories, and then mainly against the Austrians, Turks, and with the Germans there is no success at all, only defeats.

[kor1vet1974]

It’s not worth talking about the Russian-Japanese War, let alone WWII, the cat cried for victory

They like to write about WWI that the Bolsheviks stole the victory there, and the victory in the Russo-Japanese War was apparently stolen by the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries and nationalists on the outskirts.

[Seamaster]

And the victory in the Crimean War was stolen by cyclists.

[Olgovich]

could not give anything good to Russia - Holstein-Gottorps

75% of the territory of the Russian Empire became Russia under the Romanovs - “nothing at all”

Quote: Unknown

Comrade Stalin spoke correctly
The history of old Russia, by the way, consisted in the fact that it was constantly beaten for its backwardness. The Mongol khans beat. The Turkish beks beat us. The Swedish feudal lords beat us. The Polish-Lithuanian gentlemen beat us. The Anglo-French capitalists beat us.

The comrade was talking complete nonsense: the yoke was thrown off (where are those monologues?): only scraps remained of the Porte, but Odessa, Sevastopol, etc., etc. appeared, the same with the Swedes, who generally swore off fighting, beaten to death, the Polish- there were no litas wounds at all - Russia was there.

However, a comrade, according to his statement, “did not have a Fatherland” before VOR. Dmitry Donskoy had it, Suvorov had it, Borodino heroes, but alas for him.

But this was only before it was pressed: 7.11.1941: a.k.a.

Let the courageous image of our great ancestors - Alexander Nevsky, Dimitry Donskoy, Kuzma Minin, Dimitry Pozharsky, Alexander Suvorov, Mikhail Kutuzov - inspire you in this war!

How so?! They all beat them: the Turkish beks beat them. The Swedish feudal lords beat us. The Polish-Lithuanian gentlemen beat us. look up to them...

[Unknown]

Quote: Olgovich

75% of the territory of the Russian Empire became Russia under the Romanovs - absolutely “nothing”

Only the only achievement that Stalin recognized.

"The Russian tsars did a good thing - they put together a huge state all the way to Kamchatka. We inherited this state. And we united and strengthened this state as a single, indivisible state, not in the interests of landowners and capitalists, but in favor of the workers, all the peoples that make up this state. We united the state in such a way that each part that would be torn away from the common state would not only not cause harm to the latter, but also could not exist independently and would inevitably fall into someone else's bondage. Therefore, anyone who tries to destroy this unity, who strives for the separation of a separate part and nationality from it, is an enemy, a sworn enemy of the state, of all the peoples of the USSR." I. V. Stalin

And it's not worth talking about steel. For 155 years of the Holstein-Gottorp reign, Russia had very modest successes. The tsars could not and did not want to teach their subjects even to read and write; under the last Nikolai, 80% of the population was illiterate, and under his predecessors even more. world In comparison to the scientific and technological achievements of the USSR and the Russian Empire, the empire looks pale.

only scraps remained of the Porte, but Odessa, Sevastopol, etc., etc. appeared, the same with the Swedes, who generally swore off fighting, beaten to death, there were no Polish-Lithuanian wounds at all - Russia was there.

Turkey still lays claim to the Sublime Porte, the Bernadotte dynasty still sits on the throne, and the Holstein-Gottorp dynasty was miserably kicked out of the throne, which speaks of complete theirs unsustainability..

However, a comrade, according to his statement, “did not have a Fatherland” before VOR. Dmitry Donskoy had it, Suvorov had it, Borodino heroes, but alas for him

The then ruling dynasty did not have no attitude to Dmitry Donskoy, compared to him they are pygmies, they couldn't even hold the throne. If it weren't for comrade Stalin, you wouldn't have a fatherland at all, and you probably wouldn't have been in the project. Thanks to the current followers of tsarist Russia, it may soon cease to exist altogether. Even if you mention Suvorov Donskoy, etc., a thousand times, you won't be able to fight the enemy with a polearm with their names on your lips; you need tanks, cannons, planes, machine guns, etc., and the USSR provided it in the quantity needed for the army, unlike tsarist Russia.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Unknown

The kings could not and did not want to even teach their subjects to read and write; under the last Nikolashka, 80% of the population was illiterate,

140 thousand schools alone - many are still operating, 4-5 thousand new schools every year.
from 1917 to 1927 the number of Sheol did not increase, 10 years were lost for the establishment of BUT

Quote: Unknown

According to the world achievements of science and technology of the USSR and the Republic of Ingushetia, the empire looks pale.

ALL outstanding designers and scientists were either studied in the Republic of Ingushetia or studied at IMPERIAL UNIVERSITIES by IMPERIAL professors. Or did your stupid parasites from Switzerland bring them with them?

Quote: Unknown

Türkiye still lays claim to the Sublime Porte; the Bernadotte dynasty still sits on the throne

They were defeated by the Romanovs, and fed under you. Only 70 years of you - and there is no country, no party, no-thing. Completely deprived

Quote: Unknown

If it weren’t for Comrade Stalin, then you wouldn’t have a fatherland at all, and probably wouldn’t even be included in the project

it would be much larger and more populous and richer

And once again special for you:

The history of old Russia consisted, among other things, in the fact that she was continuously beaten for backwardness. Bor Mongol khans. The Turkish beks beat us. The Swedish feudal lords beat us. Polish-Lithuanian gentlemen beat. The Anglo-French capitalists beat us.

Let the courageous image of our great ancestors inspire you - Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, Kuzma Minin, Dmitry Pozharsky, Alexander Suvorov, Mikhail Kutuzov!

This is your essence.

[Unknown]

Quote: Olgovich

140 thousand schools alone - many are still operating, 4-5 thousand new schools every year.
from 1917 to 1927 the number of Sheol did not increase, 10 years were lost for the establishment of BUT

Stop telling fairy tales, sing “old songs about the main thing” to the bakers.

ALL outstanding designers and scientists were either studied in the Republic of Ingushetia or studied at IMPERIAL UNIVERSITIES by IMPERIAL professors. Or did your stupid parasites from Switzerland bring them with them?

They didn't learn a damn thing there. The degenerate noble class, churning out Oblomovs and Mitrafanushki and the like.

they were defeated by the Romanovs, and fed in your presence. Only 70 years of you - and there is no country, no party, nothing. Completely obsessed

So everything returned to the Russia that was lost. "History repeats itself twice, first as a tragedy, then as a farce." How is the current president not a tsar? And there is a new nobility - bureaucracy. There were so many actual advisers of different ranks under the tsar. The presidential inner circle is also immune from prosecution, like the Grand Dukes of Holstein-Gottorp. But for some reason the Russian Federation is in 67th place in the world in terms of living standards, and in the 70s of the last century, according to UN reports, the USSR was among the top ten countries in the world in terms of living standards. Yes, the top of the party has degenerated, they wanted to live like under the tsar, well, so they live, while throwing scraps from the master's table to the unfinished former Soviet, so-called intelligentsia, so that it glorifies pre-revolutionary times and criticizes the Soviet ones, and they are happy to try to please them.

it would be much larger and more populous and richer

Tell this in your Chisinau, to the Moldovans and visiting Ukrainians, how richly they would have lived under the "father tsar". The answer will be interesting.

Let the courageous image of our great ancestors - Alexander Nevsky, Dimitry Donskoy, Kuzma Minin, Dimitry Pozharsky, Alexander Suvorov, Mikhail Kutuzov - inspire you!

Just don’t unnecessarily list your ancestors, as they say, a spoon is good for dinner, and don’t mention it in vain.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Unknown

Stop telling fairy tales, sing “old songs about the main thing” to the bakers.

these are FACTS

Quote: Unknown

Didn't learn anything there

Didn't you study at the Moscow Higher Technical School? AND WHO learned? Once again: there were NO scientists among your leaders, just stupid parasites from Switzerland, they didn’t bring anyone from there

Professors - ALL IMPERIAL Russian

Quote: Unknown

But for some reason, the Russian Federation is in 67th place in terms of living standards in the world, and in the 70s of the last century, according to UN reports, the USSR was among the top ten countries in the world in terms of living standards.

live with blue dead chickens in queues and a shortage of EVERYTHING in the kennels, which will be thrown off your master’s shoulder.
And yes

:Many of the anthropometric data in question were classified during the Brezhnev era - and this is not surprising. After all, the negative growth dynamics of children and adolescents clearly indicates a lack of nutrition in the early stages of development (mainly up to 3-4 years). Of course, height also depends on genetic data. But if average indicators worsen over time, this means that the standard of living in the country is actually declining.

So: it turns out that the average height of children of each age category in the USSR (including in Russia and Moscow, in particular) actually increased until the generation of the 1960s. birth. In this generation, the height of Russian children was almost equal to the height of their American peers. Then the height of Russian children and adolescents stopped increasing, and later began to fall. The average Russian born in the late 1980s was shorter than the vast majority (80%) of Americans of the same age. However, in post-Soviet times the situation has improved - apparently, the next generations of Russians have seriously benefited from solving the problem of food shortages.

A similar situation developed with infant mortality and life expectancy. Infant mortality began to rise in 1971, and life expectancy for men began to fall in 1965
etc..

Quote: Unknown

soviet hayala

the councils insulted themselves and disappeared

Quote: Unknown

In your Chisinau, tell the Moldovans and visiting Ukrainians how richly they would have lived under the “Tsar Father”. The answer will be interesting.

they hate the conscience much more: wild deportations, wild deaths from hunger and cannibalism.

Quote: Unknown

Just don't need it unnecessarily

you must Fedya, you must! How they “beat” Suvorov, and then sang his praises.
Ugh, hypocrites...

[Unknown]

Quote: Olgovich

these are FACTS

It - manipulation of FACTS

Didn't you study at the Moscow Higher Technical School? AND WHO learned? Once again: there were NO scientists among your leaders, just stupid parasites from Switzerland, they didn’t bring anyone from there

And among the Holstein-Gottorpskys, some are scientists from seedy families in Europe. And you can’t count how many parasites there are among the great princes.

live with blue dead chickens in queues and a shortage of EVERYTHING in the kennels, which will be thrown off your master’s shoulder.

Another question is which is more harmful, blue chickens or palm oil. Do you have a villa in the Azores or a cottage in Switzerland? And you live in a Soviet kennel in Chisinau; independent Moldova doesn’t bother with housing.

the councils insulted themselves and disappeared

Well, what definition is suitable for the current formations in the post-Soviet space? Feudalism, absolutism, dictatorship and how long will they last?

they hate the conscience much more: wild expulsions, wild deaths from hunger and cannibalism

YES... forgot to add, the blood was sucked out I’ve already heard this from the Ukrainian side. Life in Moldova quickly forced me to change my shoes, the main thing is to sing in unison on time.

you must Fedya, you must! How they “beat” Suvorov, and then sang his praises.
Ugh, hypocrites...

Here in the R.I. Empire, out of 84% peasants and 80% illiterate, everyone knew who Suvorov was. And why didn't they beat Tsarist Russia? There are plenty of examples.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Unknown

This is a manipulation of FACTS

DATA.

Quote: Unknown

And among the Holstein-Gottorpskys, some are scientists from seedy families in Europe. laughing And there are too many parasites among the great princes to count

Their universities and professors made world discoveries and trained world scientists

Quote: Unknown

Another question is which is more harmful, blue chickens or palm oil. Do you have a villa in the Azores or a cottage in Switzerland? laughing And you live in a Soviet kennel in Chisinau, independent Moldova doesn’t bother with housing.

Even today you can find a blue chicken and choke, and I’ll go and choose WHATEVER I WANT - without a queue or cronyism.

The housing is non-Soviet, it is being built by the sea

Quote: Unknown

Well, what definition is suitable for the current formations in the post-Soviet space?

We're talking about a goddamn thing - he got sick and disappeared.

Quote: Unknown

YES...they forgot to add, they sucked out the blood laughing I already heard this from the Ukrainian side. Life in Moldova quickly forced me to change my shoes, the main thing is to sing in unison on time

I have always said and I repeat: in 1946-47, as a result of a terrible drought and the absolutely stupid, idiotic, ostrich-like, incompetent policy of local authorities and the incompetence of the center, mass starvation deaths and cannibalism occurred, and the most widespread was in the Gagauz regions.

Quote: Unknown

What about Tsarist Russia?

yeah:

The history of old Russia, by the way, consisted in the fact that it was constantly beaten for its backwardness. The Mongol khans beat. The Turkish beks beat us. The Swedish feudal lords beat us. The Polish-Lithuanian gentlemen beat us. The Anglo-French capitalists beat us.

Let the courageous image of our great ancestors - Alexander Nevsky, Dimitry Donskoy, Kuzma Minin, Dimitry Pozharsky, Alexander Suvorov, Mikhail Kutuzov - inspire you!

that's all

[Unknown]

FACTS

Lie.

Their universities and professors made world discoveries and trained world scientists

The Law of Universal Gravitation was discovered.

Even today you can find a blue chicken and choke, and I’ll go and choose WHATEVER I WANT - without a queue or cronyism.

The housing is non-Soviet, it is being built by the sea

So the soup one is the blue one, also without a queue or cronyism. What did people insult you in lines during Soviet times? Poor thing, and no one stood up, ah..yay...yay. Has a housing construction program been announced in Moldova?

I have always said and repeat: in 1946-47, as a result of a terrible drought and the absolutely stupid, ostrich-like, incompetent policy of local authorities and the incompetence of the center, mass starvation and cannibalism occurred, the most widespread in the Gagauz regions

They say that chickens are milked. A Gagauz lives with us, on Saturday in the bathhouse I find out how he escaped from cannibals in the Bryansk region. The speech about cannibalism was received with understanding...in the community of anti-Soviet activists in the post-Soviet space.

[Alexander Kuksin]

How tired I am of this leavened proletarian patriotism with its *Soviet methods*!
All these methods and achievements of Soviet reality grew out of the schools and methods of Tsarist Russia.
Like all culture and science, it came out of the enlightened Russian nobility.
And the victory of the Red Army would not have happened if officers of the Russian army had not stood behind the Red commanders.
Okay... You can't wash a black dog white...
Let's return to the Crimean War...
First, let's look at the statistics. Irreversible losses among the Russians: 40702 killed and died from wounds, 88775 died from diseases, a total of 129477 people. The enemy coalition had 47420 killed and died from wounds, 119226 died from disease, a total of 166646 people with a total number of enemy troops involved of about 593 thousand. France accounted for 95365 lives lost. Taking into account the population, losses in Russia amounted to 1 per 544 inhabitants, in France 1 per 370 inhabitants.
As you can see, the Russian army was not at all engaged in *throwing corpses*. This rather applied to coalition armies. The organizational training of Russian soldiers, which Nikolai’s critics so diligently ridiculed, played a role here. During the war, the number of rifled guns in the warring army was increased to 26 per company. Russia was 1-2 years short of fully equipping its army with rifled weapons.
The Russian artillery and engineering troops were not inferior to the Western ones, but perhaps they outdid their noses in how one can fight not with numbers, but with skill. Their successes were largely the result of the excellent training of officers and engineers, graduates of artillery and engineering schools created by Nicholas the First.
I could write a lot more, but I will say that in the end, as a result of the war, Russia didn’t even make a move. Neither the three-year war nor the naval blockade destroyed its economy, caused famine, or led to revolutions or mass repressions. As in France, turning into an internal bloody conflict.
Liberal and Marxist historians are endlessly looking for manifestations of the *mediocrity* of the Russian command in the Crimean War. However, Gorchakov, Zhabokritsky, Dannenberg served in the same armed forces as Nakhimov, Kornilov, Totleben. And it is unlikely that British officers who bought their ranks for money were superior to Russian officers.

[Mitrich73]

You somehow missed that as a result of the war, the Black Sea Fleet ceased to exist, the fortifications were razed, Kerch was occupied, Mariupol, Taganrog, Berdyansk, Yeisk were shelled. Merchant shipping in the Sea of ​​Azov ceased. Opponents of the Republic of Ingushetia received complete freedom to conduct any operations at sea.

[Alexander Kuksin]

This is already the work of diplomats! Personally, I believe that everything, both this and subsequent losses of Russia in wars, is the fault of Russian diplomacy. Just like ours today, toothless.

[Kmon]

Ah, the diplomats stole the victory, they are to blame for everything. Is it okay that Crimea was already de facto lost, the English blockade caused enormous damage to the economy, and in case of refusal to negotiate and make concessions, there was a considerable likelihood of Austria and others entering the war?

[kor1vet1974]

Those. Do you think the victory in the Crimean War was stolen from Russia? The persons remained unknown?

[Alexander Kuksin]

I think that there is no point in talking about anyone’s victory at all. In the East, North and West, the coalition achieved nothing. In the South too. In Crimea ? What's in Crimea? There were battles, there were shellings... But Crimea remained Russian as it was. The whole loss unfolded on the diplomatic front. Gorchakov was more concerned about the fate of France than Russia.

[kor1vet1974]

The whole loss unfolded on the diplomatic front.

That is, the victory was stolen, but through diplomatic means? Who stole it?

[Alexander Kuksin]

Who won? To steal something, you need to have something!
There was no victory! But based on your premise, I think that the death of Nicholas the First stole the victory. After his death, a perestroika bacchanalia began at the top. (Does it remind you of anything?) A defeatist psychology and a desire to surrender national interests have taken hold in the highest echelons of power - under the banner of carrying out *progressive reforms*. This affected both generals and diplomats.
History has taught us nothing. The same rake again....

[kor1vet1974]

There was no victory!

That is, you believe that the opponents stuck to their guns? Russia refused to strengthen the fortresses on the Aland Islands in the Baltic Sea;
agreed to freedom of navigation on the Danube and the neutral status of the Black Sea. The Ottoman Empire and Russia could not have a navy on it. Both states refused to create arsenals and fortresses on its banks;
It ceded part of Southern Bessarabia to the Moldavian Principality, with the city of Izmail, especially since the Moldavian Principality was dependent on the Ottoman Empire.

I think that the death of Nicholas the First stole the victory.

Death is an abstract concept, more specifically, who stole the victory, based on your premises, the war was going quite successfully for Russia on all fronts, they repelled there, did not break through there, in the Caucasus there was complete success: Kars, Bayazet, Olty and Kagizman were taken. In all cases, victory, but the peace terms somehow do not speak about it. Supposedly, progressive measures were started in 1861. And the war ended in March 1856. Nikolai died in March 1855. Only during the Crimean War, about one and a half hundred peasant uprisings occurred. And lastly, you accuse the author of "pro-Sovietism" in vain, he is successfully published on one Orthodox-monarchist website, he is your brother a monarchist. And you are of the same blood: you and he.

[Alexander Kuksin]

I'll start with the second... I don't blame the author for anything at all! Neither did anyone present. I spoke out on some comments about *Soviet methods*. It’s a pity that those who laid mine banks in the Baltic during the Second World War using the methods developed by Admiral Kolchak or created anew the radio reconnaissance of the Baltic Fleet according to the methods of Admiral Nepenin and Lieutenant Graf did not know about them.
And by the way, I have no relation to monarchists or anyone else. I'm just studying these periods.
Okay, that's not what we're talking about.
Can you show me a document about the surrender of the Russian Empire in the Eastern War?
I think no! Russia has lost something in armed conflicts before. Ivan the Terrible lost to the West, but fought successfully in the East... I won’t remind you of Peter the Great either.
We lost something but always got it back. Bismarck said that the Russians always come and take what they have.
So it is sad that Russian diplomacy did not show its best side, as it did later in the war of 1904-1905.
The saddest thing is...
On July 19, 1854, so beloved by Soviet historiographers, Herzen writes to the Italian revolutionary A. Saffi: *For me, as a Russian, things are going well, and I already foresee the fall of this beast Nicholas. If we took Crimea, it would come to an end, and I and my printing house would move to the English city of Odessa... Excellent*
This is how *Russian* Herzen wants to move to English Odessa. It's funny, isn't it?
I think that if Alexander II had continued the war, and not left everything to the liberals from the Foreign Ministry, then complete victory would have been achieved. After all, the army was almost untouched in this war. I would compare the fighting in Crimea with the Northern Military District in Ukraine.
I think we’ll end here... Still, everyone remains at the point of view that he has chosen.

[Unknown]

Quote: Alexander Kuksin

I'll start with the second... I don't blame the author for anything at all! Neither did anyone present. I spoke out on some comments about *Soviet methods*. It’s a pity that those who laid mine banks in the Baltic during the Second World War using the methods developed by Admiral Kolchak or created anew the radio reconnaissance of the Baltic Fleet according to the methods of Admiral Nepenin and Lieutenant Graf did not know about them

What's the point of these mine banks in the Gulf of Finland? Against whom? Did the Finnish Navy pose a threat to the Baltic Fleet? They themselves, together with the Germans, laid so many mine banks that the gulf began to resemble soup with dumplings. And whose there are more of, ours or theirs, the devil himself can't figure out. My dad served on a minesweeper, so he said they trawled until 56. And Oktyabrsky in the Black Sea Fleet, also according to the methods, laid banks, so they blew up and sank more of his ships than the Germans together with the Italians, Romanians and Bulgarians sank during the military operations. Yes, indeed, students of their teacher. Radio communications were a sore spot for the army and navy throughout the war. The tsarist admirals and generals relied more on messengers and messengers than on radio, and even introduced messenger boats. They passed on their "experience" to Soviet officers because of their dislike of radio, and when the war broke out, our officers quickly realized that radio communications played a big role in modern warfare, and that there were no shortage of messengers. They began to widely introduce radio in the troops, and by the end of the war it was up to par.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Unknown

What good are these mine cans in the Gulf of Finland? Against whom? Did the Finnish Navy pose a threat to the Red Banner Baltic Fleet? Yes, they themselves, together with the Germans, laid so many mines that the bay became like soup with dumplings.

Or maybe because they set it up and they weren’t particularly active? or would it have been better without mine laying in the USSR?

Quote: Unknown

Throughout the war, radio communications were a sore spot for the army and navy. The Tsarist admirals and generals relied more on messengers and messengers than on radio; they even introduced messenger boats.

In general, radio communications began to be used only at the end of the existence of the Republic of Ingushetia, due to the fact that it had just appeared, the tsarist officers had nothing to do with it...
1. Radio communications in the navy appeared en masse by 1904 and were actively used..
2. In the army later, by 1914 they were at the division level, sometimes a regiment... is there an option better than a messenger?

Quote: Unknown

Because of their dislike for radio, they passed on their “experience” to Soviet officers, and when war broke out, our officers quickly realized that radio communications played a big role in modern warfare

ah.. so it was the tsarist officers who are to blame for the fact that even 20 years after tsarism, communication remained almost at the same level? very far-fetched... for some reason, all other industries were actively developing, despite the “influence of tsarist officers”... and it was their fault that even by the end of the Second World War, 80% of radio equipment were foreign or contained foreign spare parts? owl globe..

[Unknown]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

Or maybe because they set it up and they weren’t particularly active? or without mine laying, the USSR would have been better off

The Finnish Navy consisted of: 2 coastal defense battleships built in 1929-1932, 5 submarines, 8 gunboats, 4 minelayers, 6 armed steamships, 7 torpedo boats, 8 minesweepers and about 30 minesweepers, 7 mine-net layers and dozens of armed river boats. By the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Red Banner Baltic Fleet (RBF) consisted of:

2 battleships;

2 cruisers;

2 leaders;

19 destroyers;

34 minesweepers;

63 torpedo boats;

65 submarines and other ships. So how would the Finns become more active? Battleships would have rolled out battleships in a moment. One battleship was blown up by a mine, not a mine bank, but a stray one torn from a mine. The second, the Finns hid in skerries throughout the war so that the Red Banner Baltic Fleet aircraft would not drown it. Mine laying should be carried out wisely, and not copy WWII.

In general, radio communications began to be used only at the end of the existence of the Republic of Ingushetia, due to the fact that it had just appeared, the tsarist officers had nothing to do with it.

During the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, the parties were already actively using radio and the Germans carefully studied the experience of those wars and drew conclusions. Did the Tsarist generals pay attention to radio communications? The defense industry is ordering weapons generals , preparing for future wars. What kind of war were the tsarist generals preparing for?

ah.. so it was the tsarist officers who are to blame for the fact that even 20 years after tsarism, communication remained almost at the same level?

And who if?

All these methods and achievements of Soviet reality grew out of the schools and methods of Tsarist Russia.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Unknown

The Finnish Navy numbered; 2 coastal defense battleships built in 1929-1932, 5 submarines, 8 gunboats, 4 minelayers, 6 armed steamships, 7 torpedo boats, 8 minesweepers and about 30 minesweepers

but the Germans were head and shoulders stronger... and from them to the Finns - not so far by sea...

Quote: Unknown

Generals order weapons for the defense industry in preparation for future wars.

I agree .. but at the same time, I didn’t find any tsarist generals among those responsible for the order .. in addition, the issue of the lagging behind the electronics industry is also important .. the USSR had not only communications, but electronics in general - it was so-so by 41 .. I think it was no longer the generals who were responsible for the general electronics of the country... maybe there was simply nothing to create mass radio communications from?

[Unknown]

but the Germans were head and shoulders stronger... and from them to the Finns it’s not that far by sea

It’s a bit far, especially by sea. In 41, it wasn’t so easy to get into the Gulf of Finland. There are coastal batteries on the islands, aviation of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet, and the Baltic was not a priority for the Kriegsmarine, judging by the interrogations of Raeder and Dönitz.

by 41.. for the general electronics of the country, I think it was no longer the generals who were responsible.. maybe there was simply nothing to create mass radio communications from

Communications are always a defense industry, and generals of the communications troops are responsible for them.

[Mikov_Viktor_Leonidovich]

Now the connection is also at the same level, although the Marshal of Communications Peresypkin said that in war it is “even more important”

[Unknown]

Quote: Alexander Kuksin

How tired I am of this leavened proletarian patriotism with its *Soviet methods*!
All these methods and achievements of Soviet reality grew out of the schools and methods of Tsarist Russia.
Like all culture and science, it came out of the enlightened Russian nobility.
And the victory of the Red Army would not have happened if officers of the Russian army had not stood behind the Red commanders.

Yes, with the tsarist manuals, it’s inconvenient to wipe one place. Well, off the top of my head, name the world achievements of R.I.? Maybe they were the first to fly into space and the first to build a nuclear power plant? Or did they eliminate illiteracy? Reduce infant mortality? Conquer epidemics? There aren’t enough places to list. Yes, the victories of the Red Army came when they spat on the “wise” advice of the former. Until 43, personnel were considered on bayonets?!The legacy of the tsarist army and its generals. Machine guns were already mowing down entire battalions, artillery was shooting tens of kilometers away, tanks, planes, MLRS, and the former considered the end of a battle to be a powerful bayonet strike. Madhouse. And what fairy tales were told, like the triangular one is prohibited, there is some convention, etc. Until Tokarev invented the SVT and introduced a normal bayonet-knife. The Germans used a bayonet-knife, the rest followed them, back in WWI, only we have a useless needle bayonet, not for cutting bread, not for opening a can of food. What enlightened nobility? Units. Some enlightened nobility, which was kicked out abroad after the Civil War, did not show itself in scientific achievements there.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Unknown

Well, offhand, name R.I.’s world achievements? Maybe they were the first to fly into space and the first to build nuclear power plants?

about space and nuclear power plants - funny.. or are you not aware that RI no longer existed? or did someone do this at the beginning of the 20th century?
offhand - Popov's radio communications, the largest country on the planet (that alone would be enough), icebreakers, oil well etc.

Quote: Unknown

Until the age of 43, personnel were counted with bayonets?!

there were no tsarist generals in 43... or then why not say that their influence also helped in 45?

Quote: Unknown

What enlightened nobility? Units.

absolutely wrong. and as for achievements, Sikorsky and Harley-Davidson immediately come to mind, and if you had at least taken a little interest in the question, before the rally on the topic “let’s brand the tsarist regime with disgrace,” your comments would have been noticeably more objective.. I’m not talking about that that the tsarist regime is the best, but I am for looking at both the minuses and the pluses... not one-sidedly...

[Unknown]

about space and nuclear power plants - funny.. or are you not aware that RI no longer existed? or did someone do this at the beginning of the 20th century?
off the top of my head - Popov’s radio communications, the largest country on the planet (that alone would be enough), icebreakers, an oil well, etc.

Nothing funny. In order to fly into space and build a nuclear power plant, it is necessary to create an industry for more than one decade. There was literally no chemical industry in Russia at all, and not only that. In fact, only we are considered the inventor of radio - Popov. The rest think, for some reason, Marconi .Have you ever wondered where the first icebreaker was built? The world's first powerful Arctic-class icebreaker was built in 1899 in England by order of the Russian government.

absolutely wrong. and as for achievements, Sikorsky and Harley-Davidson immediately come to mind

And what about Sikorsky? "The exception that proves the rule" At first he earned money by teaching mathematics, then he founded the aviation company "Sikorsky Aero Engineering Corporation", where he took the position of president. Before 1939, Sikorsky created about fifteen types of aircraft, and since 1939 he switched to designing helicopters. What does Harpy-Davidson have to do with it?

before a rally on the topic - “let’s brand the tsarist regime with shame”

Nobody is even concerned with rallies. Autocracy was thrown into the dustbin of history long ago, only now it has been dug up and is being vigorously put in order. What is this for? Who will be the Tsar?

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Unknown

The world's first powerful Arctic-class icebreaker was built in 1899 in England by order of the Russian government.

Well, you asked what they came up with, I answered that... in the USSR they built a lot of things at German-Polish-Finnish shipyards...

Quote: Unknown

What about Sikorsky? "The exception that proves the rule"

let it be so.. there are few inventors.. on the other hand, why does an educated person have to be an inventor?

Quote: Unknown

Autocracy was long ago thrown into the dustbin of history, only now it has been dug up and is being intensively put in order. What is this for? Who for the kingdom?

Don’t you think it’s already here? (though it’s called differently, but what’s the main point?) only in the classical form, perhaps it would be even better..

[Unknown]

Well, you asked what they came up with, I answered that... in the USSR, a lot of things were built at German-Polish-Finnish shipyards.

In the USSR, at shipyards they also built a lot for whom, so what?

only in the classical form, perhaps it would be even better..

It is no better in any form, a passed stage.

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Unknown

passed stage.

I hope, but it doesn’t seem like it... the meaning of a monarchy is the transfer of power according to the decision of the monarch or certain rules... since the time of the EBN, in essence, this is how power is transferred and will continue to be transferred this way... isn’t it? a stage that has not yet been passed at all.. even if the transfer of power is called “elections”, the essence is the essence.. there have been many early monarchies in the world and absolutely not in all of them - power was transferred to relatives..

[Olgovich]

This is clearly visible both in the army and in the navy. Over and over again we lost the most profitable moves, did not take advantage of the best opportunities, from defense

December 1 - Day of Military Glory of Russia - Battle of Sinop - defeat of the Turkish squadron by the Russian Black Sea Fleet November 18 (30) 1853 years, under the command of Vice Admiral Pavel Nakhimov. The battle took place in the harbor of the city of Sinop on Black Sea coast of Turkey. The Turkish squadron was defeated within a few hours.

The author never explained what kind of social lift brought someone into the closed caste community that was the Prussian officers.

And the main reason for the failure of the Crimean campaign was the lack of an ally in Europe: Austria did not become one, on the contrary...

[Glory1974]

The growth of noble privileges led to the fact that it was possible not to serve the fatherland and not to fight. And the enslavement of peasants, who were obliged to provide for a nobleman at war, increased. The result was an imbalance that gave rise to a number of problems. One of which was the evasion of military service by nobles. Accordingly, instead of educated nobles, uneducated peasant children went into the army. The rest, such as the discrepancy between educational programs, are already details.
The same is true in modern Russia. The children of the elite do not go to the army, the law on the necessity of military service for work in the civil service was recognized as unconstitutional. Therefore, the elites, knowing that their children would not fight, allowed the theft of the military budget, and even participated in it themselves.

[S.Z.]

Russia lagged behind and finally fell so far behind that it could not win wars against the European powers. She could still defeat Turkey, and then not with Suvorov’s dashing blow, but with the bloody assaults of Plevna, but Russia could no longer cope with the European landing in the Crimea, Japan or Germany in the First World War.

Individual generals and officers were good, but overall they could no longer direct the high-quality soldier mass, and the further technology developed, the more we lagged behind. The low quality of the officer corps is a consequence of Russia's general backwardness, which led to defeat in World War I, the revolution, and the collapse of the Empire.

The Bolsheviks, at great cost, created the most powerful army in the world, but these times have passed and will not return.

[Olgovich]

Quote: S.Z.

The low quality of the officer corps is a consequence of the general backwardness of Russia, which led to defeat in the First World War, the revolution and the collapse of the Empire.

The Bolsheviks, at great cost, created the most powerful army in the world

Bolshevik Kraskom to the level of RI officers - like to the Moon:

On the eve of the Second World War, only 7,1% of the command and command of the Red Army could boast of a higher military education, secondary had 55,9%, accelerated courses - 24,6%, and the remaining 12,4% did not receive any military education at all.

***

Among 1076 Soviet generals and admirals, only 566 received higher military education.

There was a widespread practice of providing advantages when entering military educational institutions “based on origin” (the lower the social status, and, accordingly, the level of education, the parents had, the more willingly their children were accepted). As a result, illiterate cadets had to be taught basic things (reading, writing, addition and subtraction etc.), wasting the very time that should have been used to prepare for the specialty.
.

In 1939, only 7,7% of the USSR population had a 7th grade education or more, and only 0,7% had higher education.


In 1929, 81,6% of cadets admitted to military schools came there with only primary education of grades 2-4.

2. Russia did NOT lose WWI - no one recognized this except the German-Turkish occupiers and their Bolshevik minions.

Read the Treaty of Versailles, where Russia has all the rights to reparations, etc., like the other winners

[Illanatol]

Quote from Andy_nsk

And yet, if the Suvorovs and Raevskys had been among our generals and officers, would the outcome of the war really have been so predetermined?!!

"The main thing in wars is supply!"
The Russians' weakest point was precisely in terms of supplies and logistics.

However - yes! Maybe the war would have dragged on, but the outcome would have been the same.

[Illanatol]

Quote: S.Z.

Russia lagged behind and finally fell so far behind that it could not win wars against the European powers. She could still defeat Turkey, and then not with Suvorov’s dashing blow, but with the bloody assaults of Plevna, but Russia could no longer cope with the European landing in the Crimea, Japan or Germany in the First World War.

There was, of course, backwardness, but there is no need to dramatize it so much.
Turkey, by the way, was not defeated on the Caucasian front of the Crimean War by “bloody assaults.”
Japan has never been a European power; Russia’s failures were predetermined primarily by the remoteness of the theater of operations from “mainland” Russia. It was difficult for anyone to fight in such conditions.
Powers such as England and France did not always fight successfully with Germany in WWI.

Let's return to Krymskaya. In terms of creating a steam fleet and rifled weapons, they are behind, yes. But with regard to the creation of mine weapons, Russia was in the most advanced positions, as the British sailors had to be convinced of.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Olgovich

And the main reason for the failure of the Crimean campaign was the lack of an ally in Europe: Austria did not become one, on the contrary...

So, Olgovich, not only Stalin had to take a sip due to the lack of allies in Europe?
But it seemed that everything was so good, many owed Russia their deliverance from the yoke of Bonaparte.
Well, Europe does not know how to be grateful, this is a trait of barbarians, civilized peoples are above such prejudices.
The betrayal of Austria could still be digested, but the betrayal of Prussia, which initially provided military-technical assistance (supplies of equipment for the production of gunpowder, in particular), was already more difficult.

Russia found itself driven into a corner not even because of its backwardness, but because of the underdevelopment of some industries and the lack of technological sovereignty.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Illanatol

Was it not only Stalin who had to take a sip due to the lack of allies in Europe?

Stalin actually had a sea of ​​allies - the same England from the first day, etc.


And Nikolai was a little mistaken

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Olgovich

Stalin has just allies - the sea - the same England from the first day, etc.

Laughing out loud!!!

Quote: Olgovich

It’s a complete disgrace to manage to turn ALL the German, Hungarian, etc. divisions against yourself, congratulating the Nazis on the capture of Paris in 1940

[Olgovich]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Laughing out loud!!!

oats?

Stalin ran after the allies: open a 2nd front!" They sent him. Openly, for a long time: in 1940 he had it, but he lost it.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Olgovich

Stalin ran after the allies: open a 2nd front!" They sent him. Openly, for a long time: in 1940 he had it, but he lost it.

This is such stupid nonsense, downright sick... Both the Angles and the Americans tried to get out of it, made excuses, but did not send anything, not even hints.
Niki 2 had from the first day a 2nd front incomparable to Stalin’s, but he ruined his country, his family and his life.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Arzt

They also erected a monument to this shame, which became a symbol of Sevastopol. They model defeatism and selfishness in the brain at the genetic level.

Well, then, the Varyag is among the heroic ships, so why be surprised.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Alexander Kuksin

This is already the job of diplomats! Personally, I believe that everything, both this and subsequent losses of Russia in wars, is the fault of Russian diplomacy.

Diplomats are only finalizing the results of the work of the military machine. Our diplomats then did everything to minimize Russia’s political losses.
It could have been much worse for us, unfortunately.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Olgovich

The author never explained what kind of social lift brought someone into the closed caste community that was the Prussian officers.

There is no need to expose your insignificance - noble privileges in the Prussian army were abolished under Friedrich der Gross.
Why is a noble fosterling necessarily a degenerate?

[Illanatol]

Quote: Alexander Kuksin

I could write a lot more, but I will say that in the end, as a result of the war, Russia didn’t even make a move. Neither the three-year war nor the naval blockade destroyed its economy, caused famine, or led to revolutions or mass repressions. As in France, turning into an internal bloody conflict.

Russia was still shaking. Nicholas the First himself admitted the failure of his reign, passing the throne to his son. The latter was simply forced to carry out reforms that were long overdue.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Alexander Kuksin

I think that there is no point in talking about anyone’s victory at all.

Victory and defeat are Shpak terms. A war is successful if its goals are achieved.
The goal of the anti-Russian coalition was, first of all, to block Russia's ability to enter the Mediterranean Sea with its military fleet and weaken its positions in other seas (primarily the Baltic and Pacific Oceans). This played into the hands of the colonial powers of England and France, for whose interests the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean posed a real threat.
The anti-Russian coalition achieved its goal, so we can talk about its victory, albeit incompletely.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Olgovich

How so?! They all beat them: the Turkish beks beat them. The Swedish feudal lords beat us. The Polish-Lithuanian gentlemen beat us.

We were beaten, we were beaten. Yes, we won often, but at what cost? The Poles and the French also visited the Kremlin.
In general, Russia survived (thanks to these characters), but at the cost of turning itself into a real barracks country, the latter significantly distorted and weakened the trends for its own development. But in the end, it all ended ingloriously, they strained themselves trying to catch up with the West. And the Empire collapsed with amazing ease, leaving no heirs.
The Russian Federation recognizes itself as the legal successor of the USSR at the legal level. And from the Republic of Ingushetia - only symbolism remains, what is “autocratic” in our life? Churches-cathedrals, religious rituals?
There are real Orthodox Christians as big as us, who can recite the “Our Father” by heart, for example?

[Olgovich]

Quote: Illanatol

We were beaten, we were beaten. Yes, we won often, but at what cost? The Poles and the French also visited the Kremlin.
In general, Russia survived (thanks to these characters), but at the cost of turning itself into a real barracks country

we were not beaten - because the largest and best country on earth was created. The barracks are after the THIEF and

Quote: Illanatol

in the end, it all ended ingloriously, they strained themselves trying to catch up with the West. And collapsed with amazing ease

in 1991

Quote: Illanatol

The Russian Federation recognizes itself as the legal successor of the USSR at the legal level. And from RI

Legally , no matter how strange it may seem to you, the USSR is the legal successor of the Republic of Ingushetia, and the Russian Federation is the USSR

[Illanatol]

Quote: Olgovich

we were not beaten, because the largest and best country on earth was created.

This is just your IMHO. If you had lived in that “better country” as a farm laborer or a serf for six months, you would have howled like a wolf.

About the barracks. What happened in the Republic of Ingushetia under Arakcheev, huh?
Yes, all social life and industrial development were imbued with militarism.
If there had been no military necessity, they would have remained at the pre-Petrine level. What did the first factories under Peter in Tula and the Urals produce there?
Not samovars, not at all...

We arose as a barracks country (who was Rurik according to his professional orientation), existed as a barracks country (what were the official duties of our noble aristocrats first of all?) and now we are gradually returning to this beaten path. Alas, fate did not provide us with anything else.

We will not serve our own barracks - we will serve in foreign barracks.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Illanatol

This is just your IMHO. If you had lived in that “better country” as a farm laborer or a serf for six months, you would have howled like a wolf.

what were serfs like in 1913?
If you are an honest person, you will admit that you yourself would prefer to live in 1913 than in 1933 in Novorossiya, and other Stalinist years.

Quote: Illanatol

We arose as a barracks country (who was Rurik according to his professional orientation), existed as a barracks country (what were the official duties of our noble aristocrats first of all?) and now we are gradually returning to this beaten path. Alas, fate did not provide us with anything else.

We will not serve our own barracks - we will serve in foreign barracks

no more kazar than any country on average

[Mikov_Viktor_Leonidovich]

There is a large territory that needs to be protected, we inherited it from our ancestors

[Ryazan87]

By article:

In the first half of the 19th century, the officer corps moved away from the mass of soldiers, since the military-administrative activities of Field Marshal G. A. Potemkin and aimed at educating the troops - Generalissimo A. V. Suvorov, as well as the admiral, now canonized, F . F. Ushakova.

Dubious statement. A significant increase in the size of the army during the Napoleonic period, continuous wars - this contributed to the erosion of the class homogeneity of the officer corps. Most of the army officers are semi-poor people, without titles, estates and with a rather low educational level. The conventional “Captain Kopeikin” and “Maxim Maksimovich” are not literary fiction, why would they distance themselves from the mass of soldiers? They couldn't do it even if they wanted to.

And it is no coincidence that it was in this century that not only the first Russian university was founded, but also the beginning of the Russian memoirist

Did this happen because of the heyday of the nobility or because serfdom “was not questioned by anyone” (especially Radishchev)? Why are these strange and, let’s say, superficial arguments in the article?

In general, in the “Rebellious” XVII century. The nobility did not act as an independent force, recognizing itself as a service class.

Seriously? The main armed force of the state did not act as an independent force? This is simply a ridiculous statement.

it is almost impossible to imagine that one of the Russian nobles could share the fate of governor M.B. Shein or princes I.A. and A.I. Khovansky.

Couldn't they execute a nobleman for rebellion and high treason? Ryleev or Bestuzhev-Ryumin could argue with this.

I will refer to the outstanding military theorist Major General A. A. Svechin:

Svechin, when he went beyond purely military issues, wrote such opuses about the class struggle that it would make your hair stand on end. However, he had nowhere to go.

I repeat, in France and Prussia the industrial revolution begins around 1810, social elevators are launched, providing the armed forces with qualified personnel in the technical field.

I am pleased to learn from the author how social lifts affected the social composition of the officer corps of the Prussian army. For example, 1870 (by the way, in 1860, nobles - 86%, bourgeoisie - 14%, data from K. Demeter "The German officer corps in society and state. 1650-1945"). There was, of course, a democratic breakthrough after the Scharnhorst reforms, but the tap was quickly turned off.

How necessary were so many languages ​​and drawing?

Is it okay that 9/10 of all specialized military and technical literature was published in the languages ​​being studied? How are we going to study? Read periodicals?
Really, why do you need drawing... eye, perspective, three-dimensional thinking - what nonsense.

The lag in education affected not only the military sphere.

Well, Makhov can be highlighted with a quote.

[S.Z.]

Quote: Illanatol

There was, of course, backwardness, but there is no need to dramatize it so much.
Turkey, by the way, was not defeated on the Caucasian front of the Crimean War by “bloody assaults.”
Japan has never been a European power; Russia’s failures were predetermined primarily by the remoteness of the theater of operations from “mainland” Russia. It was difficult for anyone to fight in such conditions.
Powers such as England and France did not always fight successfully with Germany in WWI.

Let's return to Krymskaya. In terms of creating a steam fleet and rifled weapons, they are behind, yes. But with regard to the creation of mine weapons, Russia was in the most advanced positions, as the British sailors had to be convinced of.

“Bloody assaults” - I’m talking about the war of 1877-1878, I mentioned Plevna, but it was stormed many times and very bloodily.

“Japan has never been a European power; Russia’s failures were predetermined primarily by the remoteness of the theater of operations from “mainland” Russia. In such conditions it was difficult for anyone to fight.”

Japan is not Europe, but had an advanced army and navy. The remoteness began to take its toll later, when we had already lost the first echelons, which were not inferior in number to the Japanese forces. The Tsushima extermination is primarily a qualitative advantage of personnel.

England and France fought Germany on equal terms - I'm not sure that without the USA they would have won, at least so decisively. But Russia really bled to death by 1917.

“Let’s go back to the Crimean one. In terms of creating a steam fleet and rifled weapons, they lagged behind, yes. But in terms of creating mine weapons, Russia was in the most advanced positions, as the British sailors had to be convinced of.”

A mine war is a defensive war; it does not solve anything, especially when the troops have already landed. And no one forced us to create our own rifled weapons - we could have simply bought a sufficient number of rifles in advance, but it seems that we were not smart enough. Nicholas 1 overestimated the fighting qualities of our army, which is probably why.

As for the fleet, I don’t have a coherent picture of why we didn’t try to resist the Allied fleet, even the steam one. We operated close to our bases and even after being defeated, we could take refuge there. In quantitative terms, our fleet was not much inferior to the allied one. Although, of course, looking ahead, Tsushima comes to mind.

[Illanatol]

It seems like we are talking about the Crimean War, after all.

Japan created an advanced army and navy not only on its own. They helped her a lot. Russia found itself without allies.

The Tsushima extermination is primarily a consequence of fatigue of both the personnel and the materiel of the Russian fleet after a long passage.
People and equipment were exhausted. The gunners had no practice, the gun sights were knocked down from long rolling and needed calibration, the steam boilers were worn out and could not produce maximum speed, the stokers experienced chronic fatigue... leave the coal in the heat without days off or vacations. How many times did the Russian squadron call at ports for rest and preventative repairs, bypassing “half a ball”?
The Japanese are close to their native islands, equipment and personnel are in good condition, there are no problems with supplies. In battle, they try not to get too close to Russian ships, not giving Russian gunners any chance.

Everyone bled to death in the First World War. Not only Russians. French losses in percentage terms were even greater.

Doesn't a mine war solve anything? What happened to the English ships in the Baltic?
The landing party still needs to be delivered, and when the path is blocked by mines that you don’t really know how to deal with, this is problematic.

We couldn't hide there. The coastal defense was weak, the guns were old, smooth-bore, there were few of them, they would not have been able to withstand the naval artillery of the alliance. By removing the guns from the ships and sinking the latter, the Russians at least made it impossible for the enemy to land directly in Sevastopol. Otherwise everything would have happened much faster...

[lisikat2]

Everyone, good health and “caring attitude towards soldiers” is a purely Russian tradition of patriarchy: for a commander, subordinates are like children.
Back in the Nicholas era, unmarried officers dined with their commander.
The path to defeat in the Crimean War “actually, strictly speaking,” the Crimean War “is almost head-to-head: Sevastopol was taken from the Russians, the Nikolaev shipyard was preserved, even the Russians had patrol ships, and from here to the reconstruction of the fleet, 1 step.

[lisikat2]

"Not suitable for officers and soldiers". I can explain it this way: During the Nicholas era, the “Caucasian War” was going on, combat officers honed their daring, and the higher headquarters were needed like a “cow’s saddle” and the AGSh ossified at the level of 1814
I read Stalin’s statement: “commander-hat Yu. Where is he going? To the headquarters, so as not to interfere... we need to break this practice*
Because of the “purges” of 1937, it turned out that there were a lot of “vigilant idiots” at the headquarters.
I heard in the “Intelligence Survey”: 50% of the losses of 1941-42 are associated with a large number of commanders promoted in 1937, they were completely deprived of independent thinking. And having lost contact with the senior command, they became... "Blind kittens"

[S.Z.]

Quote: Olgovich

Bolshevik Kraskom to the level of RI officers - like to the Moon:

Only in the opposite direction :)

Quote: Olgovich

Quote: S.Z.

The low quality of the officer corps is a consequence of the general backwardness of Russia, which led to defeat in the First World War, the revolution and the collapse of the Empire.

The Bolsheviks, at great cost, created the most powerful army in the world

Bolshevik Kraskom to the level of RI officers - like to the Moon:

On the eve of the Second World War, only 7,1% of the command and command of the Red Army could boast of a higher military education, secondary had 55,9%, accelerated courses - 24,6%, and the remaining 12,4% did not receive any military education at all.

***

Among 1076 Soviet generals and admirals, only 566 received higher military education.

There was a widespread practice of providing advantages when entering military educational institutions “based on origin” (the lower the social status, and, accordingly, the level of education, the parents had, the more willingly their children were accepted). As a result, illiterate cadets had to be taught basic things (reading, writing, addition and subtraction etc.), wasting the very time that should have been used to prepare for the specialty.
.

In 1939, only 7,7% of the USSR population had a 7th grade education or more, and only 0,7% had higher education.


In 1929, 81,6% of cadets admitted to military schools came there with only primary education of grades 2-4.

2. Russia did NOT lose WWI - no one recognized this except the German-Turkish occupiers and their Bolshevik minions.

Read the Treaty of Versailles, where Russia has all the rights to reparations, etc., like the other winners

The level of education in the USSR was initially low - this is a legacy of the impoverished and backward Russian Empire.

The Bolsheviks won the Second World War, and the Russian Empire lost the First World War.

The Treaty of Versailles is a good thing, but it is just a wet dream that has nothing to do with reality. The Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty existed before and it had real power, not imaginary.

Even before the revolution, the Russian army was defeated and retreating into the country, Petrograd was in immediate danger - and the Bolsheviks had no business here.

Who and what was recognized is completely unimportant, the rotten and incompetent ruling class destroyed itself and its empire, losing two wars in a row. The worthless Nicholas II lost his throne, country and life.

The Bolsheviks, like scavengers, came to the corpse of the country and the army and essentially started all over again.

[Olgovich]

Quote: S.Z.

The level of education in the USSR was initially low

it remained low - see data above.

Quote: S.Z.

The Bolsheviks won the Second World War, and the Russian Empire lost the First World War.

The USSR won with the ALLIES WWII, as did Russia with the ALLIES-WWII

Quote: S.Z.

The Treaty of Versailles is a good thing, but it is just a wet dream that has nothing to do with reality. The Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty existed before and it had real power, not imaginary.

Versailles is the REAL result of WWI, recognized by EVERYONE. Brest was not recognized by ANYONE, except you and the occupiers - it’s like Vasov would have struck a deal with Hitler

Quote: S.Z.

Even before the revolution, the Russian army was defeated and retreated into the country,

bullshit - the front stood even beyond the borders of Russia

Quote: S.Z.

Who admitted what is completely unimportant; the ruling class, completely rotten and incapable of anything, destroyed itself and its empire, losing two wars in a row. The worthless Nicholas 2 lost his throne, country and life.

Russia fought for itself against your bandits for decades - see NKVD reports, millions of exiles, executed, etc.

Quote: S.Z.

The Bolsheviks, like scavengers, came to the corpse of the country and the army and essentially started all over again.

They are killers, and then, yes, scavengers, but their regime quickly

Quote: S.Z.

rotten to the core and incapable of anything, he destroyed himself, lost his country and his life.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Olgovich

Legally, no matter how strange it may seem to you, the USSR is the legal successor of the Republic of Ingushetia

Strange, strange. The USSR was not the legal successor of the Republic of Ingushetia, there is no need to distort it.
That is why the Bolsheviks announced the annexation of the external debt of the Republic of Ingushetia.

By the way, who in the West officially recognized the USSR as the legal successor of the Republic of Ingushetia?
If Western partners had recognized this, they would not have had to re-enter diplomatic relations with Western countries.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Olgovich

If you are an honest person, you admit that you yourself would prefer to live in 1913 than in 1933 in New Russia, and other Stalinist years.

No.

And the history of the Republic of Ingushetia was not limited to 1913. Why not take 1853, for example?
If you please pick out the raisins from the bun. Fail.

Quote: Olgovich

no more barracks than any country on average

Much more, it’s funny to even compare. Well, perhaps with Prussia, which “hatched from a cannonball”...

The White emigrant Solonevich, your ideological colleague and supporter of the “People’s Monarchy,” spoke well on this topic. I won’t quote you, you can find it yourself...

[Illanatol]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

Although I personally think that Kutuzov would be more effective on the Crimean peninsula.

How is that? Using “Scythian tactics”, luring the adversary deep into... where?
Crimea is not that big, and the opponents are not fools, they did not try to go deeper.
Kutuzov would not have changed anything.
There were Nakhimov and Kornilov, who were clearly not idiots either. But it was impossible to change objective circumstances with any talent. Moreover, public opinion, as in the case of Kutuzov in 1812, also put pressure, demanding more “energetic and effective” actions. The result was the defeat of the Russian army, which was generally contraindicated in “proper” battles in the open, and even within the reach of enemy naval artillery.
Actions with small forces, use of the terrain, fire combat at close ranges, sudden and quick cavalry strikes, attacks on convoys and enemy rear areas - this was supposed to be Russian tactics. But alas, “we’ll throw our hats in…” led to a disastrous result.

[Meaning of life]

I would say that this war ended in victory for the Russian people. It did not lead to territorial losses, but it led to the abolition of serfdom, 25-year military conscription, convict military settlements, terrible executions by spitzrutens, and other horrors of the reign of Nikolai Palkin.

[Illanatol]

“Sometimes a kick gives us wings.” Jerzy Lec.

Is it really necessary to suffer military failures in order to straighten out the problems in your social life? Are there no positive incentives, is it impossible to work proactively?

[Meaning of life]

Of course you can. And even necessary. But this requires desire and opportunity. But then, those who had the opportunity to change something did not want to change anything. And those who wanted to did not have the opportunity.

[Mikhail Nasharashev]

sadness, sadness, but take the so-called ours, that is, the war with Ukraine, where are the Suvorovs? and the result corresponds to the competencies

[lelik613]

The author forgot to mention several important points: Russia could not win the war without an ally. All the most resounding victories were won in wars with Turkey. The peak of the army and navy's power during the reign of Catherine II was prepared by Peter I's generals and the field marshals of "the meek Elizabeth", Minikh, Dolgoruky, Rumyantsev and Lassi. Suvorov gained his glory by defeating the Turks and after his death a slow but progressive degradation of both the army and the navy began, which eventually ended in February of 1917. Kutuzov could no longer do what Rumyantsev and Suvorov could do. The Crimean War, with its mixed successes in the Caucasus and failure in Sevastopol, confirmed the trend. After the Crimean surprise, the Russian army did not fight against European armies, and the defeat of Kokand and Khiva was a success of a different, smaller order.

[Andrey A]

Kutuzov defeated Napoleon, the military genius of that time (and not some Turks, whom, I note, he also beat). - Of Napoleon's 640-strong army, about 1 people crossed the border with weapons in hand. It is safe to say that Russia had never known such victories in its entire history. Never in wars with Suvorov had the enemy suffered such irreparable losses as in the war of 1812. It can be said that all our military leaders of the 18th century did not inflict such irreparable losses on the enemy as Kutuzov alone did in the war of 1812. So, Kutuzov is the pinnacle of our military art.

[lelik613]

You are inattentive, I specifically indicated "without allies". Our regular kettledrum players, in their stream of praise for Kutuzov, miss systemic things... The role of the British army and navy in the war of 1812-1814 is not considered in principle, and this leads to considerable costs.

[Andrey A]

Well, the flow of praise for Kutuzov is quite fair: not a single army in the world, incl. and the British did not inflict such losses on the enemy in one company that Kutuzov inflicted on Napoleon in 1812. The role of the British army and navy was quite modest (France did not threaten us from the sea), and even in Spain, it was mainly the Spaniards themselves who fought and the Portuguese, not the British (there were only 65 thousand of them there). And so, yes: Napoleonic France was the only superpower of that time and we could not fight against it without allies, another thing is that Russia’s contribution was many times greater than the contribution of allies like England, for example. And, of course, Kutuzov solved, and solved successfully, much more significant problems than Suvorov or Rumyantsev. And the lag of the Russian army is connected with the general lag of the country, and liberal reforms have contributed a lot to this lag.

[Quzmi4]

I'm SO boring...

The Great French Revolution broke down class barriers, having accumulated social elevators in society

smoking steam locomotive smoke

What language is this in, excuse me?

[Andrey A]

In general, the quality of officer personnel only decreased after the Crimean War, despite Milyutin’s reforms. If you look at the outcome of our confrontation with Turkey during the Crimean War, it was favorable for us: we inflicted heavy defeats on the Turks despite their multiple superiority in strength. But during the Russian-Turkish War, we already needed superiority in forces to defeat the Turks. As for education: a good education does not always make it possible to prepare a good officer and general. Suvorov, Rumyantsev, Saltykov, Bagration did not receive a serious military education (and Kutuzov had a modest one), this did not prevent them from winning. And Milyutin’s bet on the Military Academy ultimately led to defeats in the Russian-Japanese and First World Wars.

[Idle_piston]

In general, I have parallels between the periods of 1830-1854 and 2000-2024. Almost identical historical moments: personnel stagnation in government administration, the highest degree of embezzlement, in finance the struggle for a strong ruble to the detriment of economic development, technological failure from leading countries for 20-30 years, in the army the flourishing of adventurism and careerism, and most importantly, the Tsar-father created a parallel reality for himself and satisfied himself in it.

[Andrey A]

Liberal reforms did not lead to a reduction in the gap with the West, rather, they aggravated it. And under Nicholas I, we, in general, successfully resisted almost all of Western Europe, and after decades of liberal reforms, we suffered defeat in the war with Japan, which was a regional power at that time, and collapsed in the First World War, fighting, in fact, only with Austria-Hungary.

[Illanatol]

Quote: lelik613

Without an ally, Russia could not win the war. All the most high-profile victories were won in the wars with Turkey. The peak of the power of the army and navy during the reign of Catherine II was prepared by the generals of Peter I and the field marshals “meek Elizabeth”, Minikh, Dolgoruky, Rumyantsev and Lassi. Suvorov gained his glory by defeating the Turks, and after his death, a slow but progressive degradation of both the army and the navy began, which ultimately ended in February of the Seventeenth. Kutuzov could no longer do what Rumyantsev and Suvorov could do.

Which ally are we talking about? About England? Has England won many victories on its own? She preferred to create coalitions.
Oh really? And in Italy, who did Suvorov win over?
Kutuzov expelled Napoleon from Russia and destroyed the flower of the latter’s army. That is, he was able to do what the Prussians and Austrians failed to do.

Yes, later our army, alas, began to lose ground. But this is connected, first of all, with the growing technological lag behind Western Europe; the army is not particularly to blame for this.

[lelik613]

This is an objective reality, a necessity for allies, and England should not be blamed for this. Suvorov in Italy won in Italy while he was supported by Austria and was forced to retreat when they spat with Vienna.

[Eug]

Crisis forces development, success "pushes to preserve" the existing order, relations, etc. like "why improve? Everything seems to be fine as it is"... and if such views and corresponding norms (public opinion, laws, decrees) prevail in society, a crisis occurs... the conclusion is as old as the world - society needs a system of balance of interests.

[Illanatol]

Quote: lelik613

This is an objective reality, a necessity for allies, and England should not be blamed for this. Suvorov in Italy won in Italy while he was supported by Austria and was forced to retreat when they spat with Vienna.

We didn’t need this war and, accordingly, these allies at all. They pulled chestnuts out of the fire for the sake of other people's interests. Russia did not gain any benefit (except for glory from the Alpine crossing) from that campaign.

Foreign policy and diplomacy seemed to play in other people's interests. Although Catherine correctly defined the desired position - “armed neutrality”. But in the descendants, ambition began to play, and I wanted a solo in a European orchestra.

[Alexander Igorevich Rifeev]

alas. words, words, words... as if you were attending a political class

[Down]

Quote: bober1982

Quote: north 2

but the situation in this matter was saved by the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin. They overthrew Nicholas II and forced the officers of the young Soviet Russia to henceforth study military affairs in a real way. That is, study, study and study again...

Well, the Bolsheviks did not overthrow the Tsar; even here on the website, they talked and talk about it excitedly.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks created a rather primitive army, which was only suitable for defeating the white armies. The level of training of the Red commanders was also primitive; the Finnish War and 1941-1942 clearly showed this.

Two mistakes, the war with the Finns took place after the repressions and a large part of the command staff (experienced old commanders) was lost.
Regarding the primitive military theory, tell me, wasn’t it Tukhachevsky’s work that the Germans used in the form of such wedges?

[Down]

Quote: Andrey A

And, of course, Kutuzov solved, and solved successfully, much more significant problems than Suvorov or Rumyantsev. And the backwardness of the Russian army is connected with the general backwardness of the country and liberal reforms contributed a lot to this backwardness.

Indeed, Kutuzov surpassed Rumyantsev both as a diplomat and a statesman. and in developing military theory. and creating new branches of the armed forces. Is that what you think? Rumyantsev was a genius and there is no point in comparing him with others.