Forgotten Front: How Russia Saved the Entente in World War I

95
Forgotten Front: How Russia Saved the Entente in World War I

November 11, 1918 is a date forever inscribed in history humanity. On this day, the guns of the Great War, which took millions of lives and redrew the map of the world, fell silent. For most of us, the First World War is associated with the trenches of the Western Front, with the bloody Battle of Verdun, with four years of trench warfare, where exhausted armies dug into the frozen ground, vainly trying to break through the enemy's defenses. However, paradoxically, the fate of the war was decided not only and not so much in France and Belgium, but in the vast expanses of Eastern Europe, where the armies of the Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian empires clashed.

It was the Eastern Front that remained mobile and maneuverable throughout most of the war, unlike the frozen, motionless Western Front. Fierce battles raged here, where troops either advanced rapidly or retreated, losing hundreds of kilometers of territory. And it was the actions of the Russian army, its successes and failures, that largely determined the course of the war and ultimately led Germany to defeat and the Entente powers to victory. This simple truth, oddly enough, has not yet become generally recognized. But one only has to look at the memoirs of the main actors in that great drama – the French Marshal Foch and the German General Ludendorff – to understand what an important, one might even say decisive, role Russia played in the First World War.



The core of the methodology in this article will be the analysis of decisions taken by the German and Entente command under the influence of Russia’s actions and the situation on the Eastern Front.

Germany's first failure


The Schlieffen Plan, developed by the Chief of the German General Staff Alfred von Schlieffen in 1905-1906, envisaged a lightning defeat of France in 6-8 weeks with a powerful strike through the territory of Belgium and Luxembourg, followed by a turn of the main forces to the East against Russia. This plan proceeded from the inevitability of a war on two fronts and aimed to avoid a protracted positional war, fraught with defeat for Germany.

However, Schlieffen's successor as Chief of the General Staff, Helmuth von Moltke the Younger, made significant adjustments to the plan. He weakened the strike force on the right flank by transferring some forces to the Eastern Front and Alsace-Lorraine. This decision had a fatal effect on the course of the 1914 campaign. The German armies advancing through Belgium were unable to gain operational space and encircle Paris from the west, as the Schlieffen plan had envisaged. They were stopped at the Marne and forced to retreat.

The Battle of the Marne, which became a turning point in the 1914 campaign on the Western Front, took place from September 5 to 12. After their defeat in the border battle, the French and British troops retreated under the onslaught of the right wing of the German armies, aimed at Paris. However, the commander of the French troops, General Joseph Joffre, having concentrated large forces on the left flank, managed to deliver a powerful counterattack to the flank and rear of the 1st and 2nd German armies. The Germans were forced to hastily retreat behind the Aisne River. The strategic initiative passed to the Entente, the Schlieffen Plan collapsed. Here is what Foch wrote:

"But during the time required for this [it took more artillery and increasing its power – editor’s note] of the evolution of our tactics, we could not forget about our allies on the Eastern Front, about the Russian army, which, with its active intervention, diverted a significant part of the enemy’s forces and thus allowed us to achieve victory on the Marne” [1, p. 202].

Russia launched an offensive in East Prussia much earlier than was envisaged by pre-war plans. On August 4, General Rennenkampf's 1st Russian Army invaded East Prussia, and on August 13, General Samsonov's 2nd Army began the East Prussian Operation. This forced the German command to transfer two army corps and a cavalry division from the Western Front to the East.

The weakening of German forces in France was one of the main reasons for their defeat at the Marne. But for Russia, this aid to the allies turned into a disaster in East Prussia (the well-known Tannenberg). Advancing in a disorganized manner, the 1st and 2nd armies were defeated by the Germans in parts. The 2nd army was surrounded and almost completely destroyed in the Masurian marshes. Russia lost more than 200 people killed, wounded and captured. Nevertheless, the failure of the Schlieffen Plan had colossal consequences for the entire course of the war:

“That lightning strike with which he [the Schlieffen Plan – editor’s note] had hoped to put France out of action was victoriously repelled, and the pressure of Russia was soon to be felt on our scales” [1, p. 143].

Germany found itself drawn into a protracted war of attrition on two fronts – exactly the scenario that Schlieffen had sought to avoid. Moreover, in the future, the German command would begin to transfer reserves from the West to the East, which would play into the hands of the Anglo-French troops.

“Although the German offensive had been thoroughly delayed on the Western Front, which had given the Allied armies a relative rest, it was bound to break out under the most serious threat on the Eastern Front against the Russian armies, whose advance was becoming very menacing. This offensive required the withdrawal of as many German forces as possible from the Western Front” [1, p. 198].

Foch was probably referring to the Warsaw-Ivangorod Operation, which took place on the Eastern Front from September 15 to October 26, 1914.

After the defeat in East Prussia, the Russian command decided to launch a counterattack against the German-Austrian troops advancing on Warsaw and Ivangorod (now Demblin). The Russian armies of the Northwestern Front (1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th) under the overall command of General Ruzsky went on the offensive against the German 9th Army and the Austro-Hungarian 1st Army.

Erich Ludendorff, who in October 1914 held the post of Chief of Staff of the 8th German Army on the Eastern Front under the command of General Paul von Hindenburg, being in fact the chief strategist and “brain” of the German command in the East, wrote:

"The Russians followed with all their forces. In East Prussia and at Mlawa they also launched attacks with large forces. The situation was becoming very serious. At the end of October, General von Falkenhayn [Chief of the Field General Staff of the German Army – ed.] summoned me to Berlin. General von Conrad [Chief of the General Staff of the Austro-Hungarian Army – ed.] proposed that he transfer significant forces from the west to the east" [2, pp. 104, 105].

Russia's pressure has finally been felt on the scales of the Entente


The Russian offensive, which had grown from the Warsaw-Ivangorod operation into the more global Carpathian operation of the Russian army, also known as the "Winter Battle in the Carpathians", was developing. Ludendorff writes:

"By mid-April the situation in the Carpathians had become even more tense. General Borovevich's army had been pushed back beyond the Carpathian ridge, and further to the east the South German army was still holding out. The moment had come when help was necessary. We sent the 25th Reserve Division, which was on standby with the 9th Army, there by rail. It arrived just in time to prevent the most serious consequences.

“We reported our action to the Supreme Command. They fully supported our decision and formed another Beskid Corps, with General von der Marwitz, who had until then commanded our XXXVIII Reserve Corps, appointed as its commander. The Commander-in-Chief in the East also sent the 4th and another newly formed division to reinforce the Carpathian Front. But the situation there remained serious. At the same time, we had to send reinforcements to the Serbian Front. They subsequently served as reinforcements for General von Linsingen during his May offensive” [2, p. 152].

The Linsingen Offensive in May was part of a larger German-Austrian counteroffensive known as the Gorlice Offensive. During this operation, the Central Powers managed to break through the Russian army and push it far to the east, capturing a significant part of Galicia and Poland. This was made possible largely by the transfer of large forces to the Eastern Front, including from the Western Front and the Balkans.

Indeed, Ludendorff immediately adds extremely important remarks that are key to our study:

«The German High Command has now decided to seek a solution on the Russian front. The plan was grand, and the idea of ​​weakening one's forces in the West, despite the tension prevailing there, testified to a great determination that did not shrink from any responsibility.

After the November battles at Ypres, positional warfare developed along the entire Western Front. The halt in the offensive in France, the bending back of the right wing in September, and the insignificant results of the fighting in Flanders had greatly lowered the spirits of the army in the West, and this was further lowered by the lack of ammunition. The January attack at Soissons by the III Army Corps, commanded by General von Lochow, a worthy and outstanding leader, had had a very inspiring effect, and the immediately following attack by the Saxons at Craonne had produced brilliant results. In a stubborn struggle, the broadly conceived attempts by the French to break through into Champagne were finally repelled in February and March.

The Entente, as before, continued to place all its hopes on Russia» [2, p. 153].

This assessment clearly shows that the Eastern Front has acquired priority significance for Germany. Despite the tense situation in the West, the German command decided to weaken its forces there in order to transfer troops against Russia. This once again confirms the fact that the actions of the Russian army forced the Germans to react and change their strategic plans.

Ludendorff also correctly noted the Entente's expectations of Russia. Thus, already towards the end of the war, when Russia was gripped by internal instability and the fall of the monarchy, Foch desperately seized the opportunity to extend aid to Russia and openly pointed out its importance. On July 27, 1917, he drew up a memorandum, which he handed over to the representatives of the Allied governments gathered in Paris. Here are his conclusions:

"In the event that Russia's withdrawal from the war should enable the enemy to transfer to the Western Front all the German and Austrian forces now engaged on the Russian Front, it would seem that the Coalition should be able to muster the resources necessary to withstand the enemy's onslaught until such time as America could bring into action sufficient troops to restore the balance in our favor.

But this relatively favorable military position can only be achieved by taking the following measures:

(a) Limit yourself to a simple defense of secondary fronts and reduce to a minimum the effective number of troops on these fronts in accordance with this defensive position.

(b) By all possible means, accelerate the creation of an American army and its transfer to France.

(c) Prepare the tonnage necessary to move the forces to be taken from secondary fronts.

(d) To achieve unity of action on the Western Front with the help of a permanent inter-allied military body, the function of which would be to prepare for the rapid transfer of troops from one theatre of military operations to another” [1, p. 231].

"On November 21, Lenin ordered the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army to negotiate an armistice and to work out peace terms with the enemy. The French Government protested. General Foch telegraphed General Niessel, the head of the French military mission to the Russian Army, that France was counting on the "patriotism of the Russian Supreme Command" to reject any criminal negotiations and to keep the Russian Army face to face with the common enemy. He informed General Berthelot, the French representative at the Romanian headquarters, that the French Government was aware of the seriousness of the situation that Russia's complete withdrawal from the war would entail for Romania, but there could be no talk of disbanding the Romanian Army. If events required the evacuation of Romanian territory, the struggle must be continued in Bessarabia and the Donbas.

Thus, relying on the Russian Supreme Command and the loyalty of the Romanians, the government in Paris tried to counteract the politicians in Petrograd. This attempt was not crowned with success. The appointment of Krylenko as commander-in-chief of the Russian army deprived the Entente of the support it had counted on» [1, p. 233].

In addition, Foch noted:

"Although at the time they rushed to attack the English positions, the Allied camp did not know their exact numerical strength, they did have a rough idea of ​​it. Work carried out three months earlier at the headquarters of the French commander-in-chief showed that the Germans would be able to have approximately 1 divisions on the Western Front by March 1918, 200, which would allow them to form a striking force of 80 divisions, with approximately 1000 batteries of heavy artillery. It could be assumed that up to fifty of these divisions would be immediately assigned to the immediate operations, which would provide them with a double numerical superiority in the area of ​​the offensive" [1, p. 253].

For some reason, the Russian translation does not indicate this important detail, but it is in the English one:

“At the time these Armies made their assault on the British positions, the Allies were unaware of their exact strength, but they had an approximate idea. A study made three months previously at French General Headquarters had shown that the Germans, now relieved of all menace coming from Russia [freed from any threat from Russia – approx. ed.], would have available on March ist, 1918, for the Western Front, some two hundred Divisions. These could furnish an offensive mass of eighty Divisions with one thousand heavy batteries. It was to be presumed that at least fifty of these Divisions would be employed for the initial actions, thus giving the Germans in the zone chosen for attack a numerical superiority of two to one” [3, C. 282].

Thus, without taking into account the "Russian factor" it is impossible to correctly understand the course and outcome of the First World War. The Eastern Front drew off the enormous forces of the Central Powers, allowing the Entente to hold out at critical moments. The revolution in Russia and the subsequent Brest Peace, which freed Germany from the threat in the East, almost led the Allies to defeat in 1918. Only the entry of the United States into the war restored the balance and brought the Entente final victory. But this victory would not have been possible without three years of selfless struggle by Russia against the common enemy.

Sources:
[1] Foch F. Memories. Wars of 1914-1918 / F. Foch. - M.: Veche, 2023. - 496 p.: ill. - (Military memoirs).
[2] Ludendorff E. Total War. The Way Out of the Positional Deadlock / E. Ludendorff; [translated from German]. – Moscow: Yauza-press, 2023. – 896 p.
[3] Foch F. The Memoirs of Marshal Foch / F. Foch; translated by Col. T. Bentley Mott. - New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc., 1931. - 594 p.
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -4
    12 November 2024 05: 51
    And it was the actions of the Russian army, its successes and failures, that largely determined the course of the war and ultimately led Germany to defeat and the Entente powers to victory. This simple truth, oddly enough, has not yet become generally recognized. But one only has to look at the memoirs of the main actors in that great drama – the French Marshal Foch and the German General Ludendorff – to understand what an important, one might even say decisive role Russia played in the First World War.
    Well, WWI was the wrong war for a long time (the entire existence of the USSR), and the Russian Empire was again declared to be almost a colony.
    1. +5
      12 November 2024 08: 19
      And what do you see as right in WWI? It was a war for the redistribution of colonial influence, the Russian Empire didn't need this war anyway.
      The Russian Empire was a colony, mostly French, look who owned what could be called industry with a stretch. Oil production was under the thumb of the small-timers.
      1. +1
        12 November 2024 08: 52
        Quote: Alex_1973
        The Russian Empire didn't need this war anyway.

        Of course it is not needed. That is why they tried to avoid it as much as they could.
      2. +5
        12 November 2024 12: 50
        Oil production was under small-scale development.
        Needles, scythes, and all kinds of agricultural equipment from the Germans, even on the first Russian tank, engines from German airships, tram depots in Russia belonged to the Belgians, banks were 80% owned by the same French, Germans, Belgians, English or in joint use... and they played a decisive role in the Russian economy, telephone companies were entirely German... There were advantages, they drove mainly foreign cars, like now.
      3. -4
        12 November 2024 19: 25
        Quote: Alex_1973
        It was a war for the redistribution of colonial influence, and the Russian Empire did not need this war anyway.

        Only war was declared on her, and it was fought on her borders.
        But when Nicholas II tried to negotiate with the Kaiser, for some reason he did not remember this. And when the French demanded that he send 2 people to France, they ended up getting 400000. Apparently, they forgot to tell the Tsar that he depended on someone.
    2. +12
      12 November 2024 08: 55
      Quote: Dart2027
      Well, WWI was the wrong war for a long time (the entire existence of the USSR), and the Russian Empire was again declared to be almost a colony.


      That is, it was right to fight for other people's interests, to sacrifice blood for the Western imperialists, who themselves, at the first opportunity, would have torn Russia to pieces? Why did Russia need this war? "Give us the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles!" Yes, the British and the French would never have given Russia control over these straits, would not have given the Russian fleet access to the Mediterranean. Aha, Russian ships at Suez... it doesn't hurt to dream! And the Russian forces would not have been enough to take these straits, Turkey was not so weak, even if its Western partners had not provided it with assistance (the outcome of the British operation in Gallipoli clearly demonstrated this).

      This war turned out to be right for the Bolsheviks. If the Russian Empire had managed to remain neutral, Lenin and his comrades would not have had such a chance any time soon.
      1. -2
        12 November 2024 09: 06
        And the Russian forces would not have been enough to take these straits; Turkey was not so weak, even if its Western partners had not provided it with assistance (the outcome of the British operation in Gallipoli clearly demonstrated this).

        I'm probably upsetting you, but only Russia had such forces and capabilities and the desire. And they had suitable ships, and they had experience, and the terrain was more suitable for landing.
      2. -6
        12 November 2024 12: 54
        Quote: Illanatol
        "Give us the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles!"

        lie - Russia guaranteed Turkey the inviolability of its borders if it did not enter the war.
        Quote: Illanatol
        That is, was it right to fight for someone else's interests, to sacrifice blood for the sake of Western imperialists, who themselves, at the first opportunity, would have torn Russia to pieces? Why did Russia need this war?

        Why, yes, did Russia need this WWII?
        1. +5
          12 November 2024 16: 44
          Quote: Olgovich
          lie - Russia guaranteed Turkey the inviolability of its borders if it did not enter the war.

          Really?
          Quote: Olgovich
          Why, yes, did Russia need this WWII?

          Of course, why does the USSR need the Great Patriotic War? Hands up and all that. And Russia will be the Reichskommissariat of Muscovy and Olgovich will not be a Gauleiter, but just give it to him, well, that's not important, the main thing is in office. Like now. laughing
          1. -1
            13 November 2024 11: 48
            Quote: Unknown
            Really?

            to school, ignoramus
            Quote: Unknown
            Of course, why did the USSR need the Great Patriotic War?

            So why, empty talker?
            1. +1
              13 November 2024 13: 12
              lol
              to school, ignoramus
              The liar has emerged. laughing Will teach, not Russian lol
              Quote: Olgovich
              So why, empty talker?

              It depends on the person, the Soviet people need it, but the doormats don't, they don't care who they lie down under. An anti-Soviet, he is in demand. lol
              1. -1
                13 November 2024 13: 46
                Quote: Unknown
                The liar has emerged. laughing Will teach

                you, ignoramuses, are the only ones lol
                Quote: Unknown
                It's different for everyone, but the Soviet people need it

                Why, I ask for the third time? fool
                1. 0
                  13 November 2024 19: 08
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  you, ignoramuses, are the only ones

                  For those who have been retrained, everything is fine laughing .
                  Quote: Olgovich
                  Why, I ask for the third time?

                  These... same ones have corresponding questions. lol
      3. -3
        12 November 2024 19: 29
        Quote: Illanatol
        That is, it was right to fight for other people’s interests, to sacrifice blood
        Ask the communists about this, who sacrificed their blood and gave everything they could to various fighters for something or other.
        Quote: Illanatol
        And the Russian forces would not have been enough to take these straits; Turkey was not so weak, even if its Western partners had not provided it with assistance (the outcome of the British operation in Gallipoli clearly demonstrated this).
        But the Caucasian Front was smashing the Turks to pieces. And, by the way, "dependent" Nicholas sent his allies during this operation with their demands to support their offensive.
        Quote: Illanatol
        If the Russian Empire had managed to remain neutral, Lenin and his comrades would not have had such a chance any time soon.

        To put it simply, their only chance to get to power was that the Tsar was overthrown by the forerunners of today's liberals, who destroyed everything and everyone.
        1. +3
          12 November 2024 20: 03
          Quote: Dart2027
          Ask the communists about this, who sacrificed their blood and gave everything they could to various fighters for something or other.

          If there hadn't been communists, there wouldn't have been any of them. He would have sucked the Germans' ass and sat still and not yelped.
          1. -5
            12 November 2024 20: 37
            Quote: Unknown
            Don't trade the communists, they wouldn't exist like this

            It's not a fact that there would have been a war.
          2. -2
            13 November 2024 11: 52
            Quote: Unknown
            trade the communists if they weren't there they would suck the Germans' place

            and so they have already done it. Well done! lol
  2. +3
    12 November 2024 06: 35
    Helmuth von Moltke Jr. made significant adjustments to the plan. He weakened the strike force on the right flank

    But von Schlieffen's last words were: and don't forget, gentlemen, to strengthen the right flank, but von Moltke did not listen to him and strengthened the left flank... wink
  3. +7
    12 November 2024 07: 01
    But this victory would not have been possible without three years of Russia’s selfless struggle against the common enemy.
    The quintessence of the article.
    1. +15
      12 November 2024 08: 38
      We remember. We honor. Eternal memory to the heroes.
  4. +4
    12 November 2024 07: 10
    Quote: Dart2027
    Well, WWI was the wrong war for a long time (the entire existence of the USSR), and the Russian Empire was again declared to be almost a colony.

    History was taught in the USSR at a primitive level. The teachers didn't really know anything about WW1. I've already forgotten about my grades in my history diploma transcripts. Now I need to have time to study the history of my homeland anew. What's most surprising is Ulyanov's (Lenin's) issuing of orders on military issues. When did his talent as a military strategist awaken?
  5. +7
    12 November 2024 07: 14
    This happened many times from the Mongols to the Ardennes and you need to know history to understand that no one has given us credit for this, for Europe we were and are strangers.
  6. +7
    12 November 2024 07: 49
    If we imagine that the Scandinavian countries, and also hypothetical Greece, would have set up their fronts from the north and south, then the Entente would have had an even easier time, even if the Germans and Austrians had broken through them. Why not remember the valiant Italian army, which also distracted parts of Austria-Hungary? Well, if there had been no Italian front, these troops would have attacked the Russian Empire. So we should thank the Italians. It is important how this coalition configuration is used. And let's not forget that, despite all the odds, the Russian Empire was unable to inflict a single defeat on the Germans or push through Austria-Hungary on this mobile front. This is despite the fact that for Germany it was a secondary front. By the way, the article does not indicate that in the middle of the war, the Germans changed their strategy and gave great priority to the Western Front. But the Russian Empire was unable to take advantage of this.
    1. +2
      12 November 2024 08: 45
      Quote from Hipper
      So we should thank the Italians.

      And why not? They did one thing and yes, Italy diverted some of its forces to itself.
      Quote from Hipper
      This is despite the fact that for Germany this was a secondary front.

      And for Austria-Hungary it was of primary importance.
      Quote from Hipper
      Despite all the odds, the Russian Empire was unable to inflict a single defeat on the Germans on this mobile front, or to push through Austria-Hungary.

      Gumbinnen))) Yes, this is the very beginning of the war and its significance in material terms is insignificant, but the moral effect was quite strong.
      And then, let's not forget that the Austro-Hungarian army was hit quite hard and suffered several defeats, and this tactic (to knock out the weaker one) was initially correct.
      1. +2
        13 November 2024 13: 04
        Gumbinnen
        An extremely dubious success. With comparable losses, the Germans retreated, ours advanced 5-10 km. And then the whole operation went down the drain, as described in the article. Victory in battle can be 1. Grinding up the enemy forces, defeating the main forces of the army, 2. Holding an important position for something. 3. Delivering a surprise blow and delaying the enemy for some time in order to withdraw some other forces. Well, in general, victory brings something. Nothing like that is traced here.
        1. +2
          14 November 2024 08: 41
          Today, you can say whatever you want, but to better understand the actual state of affairs, you need to look at the goals that the parties set for themselves and how they treated this battle at that particular moment in time.
          So what we have is that the Germans tried to attack the advancing Russian troops with the aim of inflicting defeat, but in the end their attack was repelled and the Germans themselves were forced to retreat.
          At that moment, ALL sides unequivocally considered Gumbinnen a victory for the Russian troops.
          So your speculations are just empty talk.
  7. +2
    12 November 2024 08: 19
    The assertion that the two corps that did not make it to Tanneberg, if they had appeared on the Marne, would have decided the outcome of the campaign in favor of the Germans is a terrible stretch.
    1. +1
      12 November 2024 08: 50
      If I remember correctly, they were already on the Western Front. Of course, your knowledge of history is higher (without sarcasm), but I have come across the opinion that these were the corps that were missing during the German offensive BEFORE the Marne. They say that if the Germans had had them, they would have managed to complete their dash to Paris.
      1. +1
        12 November 2024 08: 57
        No, they would not have helped to complete the dash in any way, they were taken from the reserves or from near Antwerp, I don’t remember, and if they had been used correctly, one would have helped Klyuk, and the second would have closed the gap between Klyuk and Belov, and then maybe the French would not have held out, but that’s not certain.
        1. +1
          12 November 2024 09: 03
          Quote: Cartalon
          and then, perhaps, the French would not have been able to withstand it, but that is not certain.

          Well, that is, there was still a chance to influence the military actions on the Western Front)
          it was tiny, but it was there)
          1. +1
            12 November 2024 09: 14
            Most likely, the front would have simply been in a different configuration; there would have been nothing with which to take Paris.
    2. +1
      12 November 2024 08: 51
      Quote: Cartalon
      would have decided

      What are "would" worth?
      It's nothing.
      The fact is that the Germans lost Marne, the fact is that it was due to a lack of forces.
      1. -3
        12 November 2024 09: 00
        You have now used your opponents' favorite argument; once you win in 45, it means you did everything right.
        1. -5
          12 November 2024 09: 52
          Quote: Cartalon
          You have just used your favorite argument.

          My favorite argument is facts. And they are presented.
  8. +3
    12 November 2024 08: 38
    And how many rescues have there been throughout history? Armenians, Bulgarians were saved from the Turks, Eastern Europe was saved from the Nazis. Russia always saves someone, only then the saved spit at us.
  9. -4
    12 November 2024 08: 59
    For most of us, the First World War is associated with the trenches of the Western Front, with the bloody Battle of Verdun, with four years of trench warfare

    Why would we remember the Western trenches when we had enough of our own? Russia fought against the German aggressors and occupiers, generally successfully, ensuring the victory of the Entente and covering itself with glory

    What the national traitors from the sealed wagons who fought against Russia during the war thought about her is the least of my interests.

    It is a pity that with their lying Bolshevik textbooks they crippled many people, leaving them ignorant and unlearned, raising them to hate the feat of Russian soldiers: not only were the monuments to WWI torn down, but even the cemeteries of heroes were leveled with bulldozers, with vegetable gardens and dance floors built on the bones.
  10. +3
    12 November 2024 09: 03
    Quote from Hipper
    Why not remember then the valiant Italian army, which also distracted parts of Austria-Hungary? Well, if there had been no Italian front, these troops would have attacked the Russian Empire. So we should thank the Italians.


    "The valiant Italian army"... thank you, you made me laugh. The worst army of that war, definitely.
    And we don’t have to say “thank you” to anyone, they should have said “thank you” to us, we really helped everyone: from the Serbs to the French.
    The Italians, unlike the Russians, fought for THEIR interests, they had something to share with the Austrians. And it was the fact that Russia participated in that war that gave the Italians a chance for success. If the Austrians had thrown at least a quarter of the forces they had on the Eastern Front against the macaroni, they would have reached Sicily without problems.

    And if there had been no Italian front, what prevented the Austrians from helping the Germans fight against France? Fortunately, the Austrians and the French had had contentious issues for a very long time. Although, most likely, these forces would have been used against the Serbs.
    1. +1
      13 November 2024 13: 05
      "The Valiant Italian Army"
      Well, that was sarcasm.
  11. +3
    12 November 2024 09: 06
    Quote from Hipper
    And let's not forget that, despite all the odds, the Russian Empire was unable to inflict a single defeat on the Germans on this mobile front, or to push through Austria-Hungary.


    So what was the "Brusilov Breakthrough" about? How many did the Austrians lose, huh?
    And as for pushing through... can you remind me how many German cities and fortresses the valiant Entente managed to capture during the entire war?
    1. 0
      13 November 2024 13: 54
      Quote: Illanatol
      So what was the "Brusilov Breakthrough" about? How many did the Austrians lose, huh?

      The Brusilov breakthrough was successful mainly against the Austro-Hungarians. I do not argue that the Russian Empire conducted more or less successful military operations against the Austro-Hungarians. But it was not able to defeat them and remove them from the war, even taking into account the opening of the "Italian Front".
  12. +3
    12 November 2024 09: 10
    Quote: Trapper7
    I'm probably upsetting you, but only Russia had such forces and capabilities and the desire. And they had suitable ships, and they had experience, and the terrain was more suitable for landing.


    There was a desire, but nothing else! The Turks would have taken out our landing force in no time. Our Black Sea Fleet was really weak then, it couldn't even catch the German half-battleship "Goeben".
    And this is if our "allies" had not intervened. And they would have definitely intervened, the seizure of the straits by Russia directly contradicted their vital interests and national security.

    "England has no eternal enemies or allies, only eternal interests."
    1. 0
      12 November 2024 10: 33
      Quote: Illanatol
      There was desire, but nothing else!

      You're wrong.
      Quote: Illanatol
      The Turks would have wiped out our landing force in no time.

      For some reason they didn’t take it out in the Caucasus.
      Quote: Illanatol
      Our Black Sea Fleet was really weak back then,

      Depends on what you compare it to. With German, British or American - yes.
      Quote: Illanatol
      Even the German battleship Goeben couldn't catch it.

      It is difficult to "catch" someone who is sitting in his port and trembling with fear.
      Quote: Illanatol
      And they would certainly have intervened; Russia’s seizure of the straits was directly contrary to their vital interests and national security.

      How do you imagine it? In 1917, Britain and France attack Russian troops in the Bosphorus?
  13. +2
    12 November 2024 10: 01
    Quote: Trapper7
    And the Russian forces would not have been enough to take these straits; Turkey was not so weak, even if its Western partners had not provided it with assistance (the outcome of the British operation in Gallipoli clearly demonstrated this).

    I'm probably upsetting you, but only Russia had such forces and capabilities and the desire. And they had suitable ships, and they had experience, and the terrain was more suitable for landing.


    Compare the outfit of Kolchak's landing force and the outfit of the landing force during the massacre at Gallipoli.
    Not funny.
    Grachev with his regiment taking Grozny.

    And even if it had worked out, you have the Straits.
    Further, to reach the Mediterranean Sea, you need to pass through the Archipelagos.
    Who are we fighting next, Greece, for whom Constantinople is their own, and the Russians would go further away? Italy?
    Plus Constantinople with its absolutely hostile population, both Turkish and Greek (either Anglophiles, or Phanariots, or communists, yeah) - in general, a worthy replacement for Poland.

    Therefore, I personally classify dreams about the Straits as fetishism, like dreams about a world revolution.
    1. -2
      12 November 2024 10: 41
      Quote: deddem
      Further, to reach the Mediterranean Sea, you need to pass through the Archipelagos.
      Who are we fighting next, Greece, for whom Constantinople is their own, and the Russians would go further away? Italy?

      Don't make Russia into a monster that only thinks about who to fight with)
      The straits are:
      1. Protection of the southern borders of Russia from ANY encroachments from outside.
      2. Ensuring free and uninterrupted trade with southern Europe (the conflicts of 1911-1912 hit exports and the budget hard)
      Plus Constantinople with its absolutely hostile population

      A highly controversial statement.
      Quote: deddem
      In general, a worthy replacement for Polshche.

      You are now VERY wrong.
      Quote: deddem
      Therefore, I personally classify dreams about the Straits as fetishism, like dreams about a world revolution.

      These are not dreams. This is a vital issue for Russia, which had to be resolved already during Napoleonic times.
      1. 0
        12 November 2024 11: 09
        You can justify the seizure of someone else's land in any way you like, but that doesn't stop it from being a seizure.
        1. -5
          12 November 2024 13: 05
          Quote: Kronos
          You can justify the seizure of someone else's land in any way you like, but that doesn't stop it from being a seizure.

          that's exactly it: the Turks had nothing to do with the thousand-year-old Constantinople
          Quote: Kronos
          World revolution is the goal of all humanity, not a dream.

          Resolution.....UN? belay fool lol
    2. 0
      12 November 2024 11: 07
      World revolution is the goal of all humanity, not a dream.
  14. +1
    12 November 2024 10: 20
    Judging by the article, we Russians are complete stupid people, since they fought for other people’s interests and did not enjoy the fruits of victory.

    I think we still fought for our own interests.
    1. -1
      12 November 2024 11: 07
      No, it was purely in the interests of the Russian bourgeoisie who needed to export more products while their own population was getting bored and starving.
      1. -1
        12 November 2024 13: 22
        Quote: Kronos
        No, it was purely in the interests of the Russian bourgeoisie who needed to export more products while their own population was getting bored and starving.


        That's what I meant. The interests of the country are the interests of the ruling class.
  15. 0
    12 November 2024 11: 11
    Quote: Trapper7
    Quote: deddem
    Further, to reach the Mediterranean Sea, you need to pass through the Archipelagos.
    Who are we fighting next, Greece, for whom Constantinople is their own, and the Russians would go further away? Italy?

    Don't make Russia into a monster that only thinks about who to fight with)


    Kipling, have you read the children's book "Kim"? We are guilty of everything and are immediately aggressors as soon as we appear in their zone of interest (i.e., as soon as we set foot outside our borders).

    The straits are:
    1. Protection of the southern borders of Russia from ANY encroachments from outside.


    That is, we do not have a border with Iran or Afghanistan.
    It’s somewhat reminiscent of our great analysts, who examined Rygorych under a microscope, but stupidly missed the rebellion in Kazakhstan.

    2. Ensuring free and uninterrupted trade with southern Europe


    Did you mean France? Because statistically, pre-war trade with Eastern Europe is not even in the top five. Not to mention that these countries are de facto hostile. Pro-German Bulgaria, Serbia, which feeds the Socialist Revolutionaries, and pro-French Romania.

    Plus Constantinople with its absolutely hostile population

    A highly controversial statement.


    Even if we take away the Turks, the Greeks were already negotiating with the British in 1916 on the subject of “this is OURS, why are the Russians getting involved?”

    These are not dreams. This is a vital issue for Russia, which had to be resolved already during Napoleonic times.


    Napoleonics still had chances and sense (although the consequences would have been dealt with throughout the 19th century). Further, this is fetishism, because without the Archipelagos the Bosphorus is useless.
    1. -1
      12 November 2024 11: 39
      Quote: deddem
      Did you mean France? Because statistically, pre-war trade with Eastern Europe is not even in the top five.

      Actually, I wrote about Southern Europe, not Eastern Europe. And this includes Italy, Spain, Greece
      That is, we do not have a border with Iran or Afghanistan.

      Don't exaggerate. You understood perfectly well what exactly we are talking about. And even more so, the danger from Iran and Afghanistan was not serious, but a hypothetical repetition of the Crimean War could well have happened.
      Quote: deddem
      Napoleonics still had chances and sense (although the consequences would have been dealt with throughout the 19th century). Further, this is fetishism, because without the Archipelagos the Bosphorus is useless.

      The Suez Canal did not yet exist. There was no direct threat to British interests.
      And even without the Archipelago, the Bosphorus is very useful as a means of repelling parasites trying to land in Balaklava.
      And by the way, we were the ones who had to deal with the consequences. First, saving Istanbul from the Egyptians, then on the bastions of Sevastopol, and then trying to eliminate the consequences of the Crimean War.
  16. -3
    12 November 2024 11: 15
    “Humanity” for those who died in wars is included among the enemies of the USSR only in their anti-Soviet stance, and to justify the fact that they themselves started the war.
    But, for example, in relation to the First World War, 99% of them do not know how many Russian citizens died in it, because they don’t care, and the rest try to downplay this number, because it is beneficial to them.
    1. +4
      12 November 2024 11: 40
      Do you sometimes even understand what you write?
      1. -6
        12 November 2024 11: 56
        How tired I am of the enemies of the USSR with their stupid, senseless answers. If you have something to refute what I wrote - go ahead, if not - don't answer me.
  17. 0
    12 November 2024 11: 18
    Quote: Kronos
    No, it was purely in the interests of the Russian bourgeoisie who needed to export more products while their own population was getting bored and starving.


    Correction: for the interests of any bourgeoisie - German, French, English, Polish, Greek, Jewish, but not Russian. For the Old Believers, the religious was also more important than the national, in fact, their activities were also anti-Russian.
    So Minikh Jr. was right, and propagandists of all stripes are trying to pull on the mantle of “defenders of Russia,” which they never were.
  18. 0
    12 November 2024 12: 18
    Quote: Trapper7
    Quote: deddem
    Did you mean France? Because statistically, pre-war trade with Eastern Europe is not even in the top five.

    Actually, I wrote about Southern Europe, not Eastern Europe. And this includes Italy, Spain, Greece


    Even if we forget that before the war all these countries together did not reach France in terms of volume of Russian grain imports (by the way, Spain was heavily dependent on imports of high-quality grain from the USA), a considerable part of this import was then re-exported in the form of pasta. Just like now - "Russian salmon always comes home" ;)

    That is, we do not have a border with Iran or Afghanistan.

    Don't exaggerate. You understood perfectly well what exactly we are talking about. And even more so, the danger from Iran and Afghanistan was not serious, but a hypothetical repetition of the Crimean War could well have happened.


    A. That is, Kushka, Merv, Ashgabat with Krasnovodsk and the pro-English Emir of Bukhara (with subsequent access to Baku and other soft underbelly) - all this is bullshit compared to Feodosia. Well, OK.
    1. +1
      12 November 2024 13: 32
      Quote: deddem
      A. That is, Kushka, Merv, Ashgabat with Krasnovodsk and the pro-English Emir of Bukhara (with subsequent access to Baku and other soft underbelly) - all this is bullshit compared to Feodosia. Well, OK.

      It's not a big deal, of course, but that doesn't mean that moving in one direction means ignoring the other. The straits guaranteed the security of the empire's vast borders - not such a big deal.
      But okay, let everyone keep their own)
      if anything - the minus is not mine
  19. Eug
    +1
    12 November 2024 13: 06
    The Russian expeditionary corps fought in France, in whose ranks that same R. Ya. Malinovsky fought... "there is a city called Marmelon in France near Reims" - that's from a song...
  20. 0
    12 November 2024 13: 16
    Firstly, the term "great war" somehow does not fit the meat grinder where each country decided its own selfish interests. As Vladimir Ilyich wrote - a young predator Germany, late to the colonial division, tried to grab its piece. Other European countries tried to defend their own. There is nothing to take away or add here. In the Russian Empire, this war did not end in anything, but the country was under the complete control of Western capital. There is clearly no greatness here. Secondly, the figure of 200 thousand killed at Tanneberg and in the Masurian marshes is puzzling. The total number of Russian troops that invaded East Prussia did not exceed 126 thousand. According to official data, losses were 25 thousand and 50 thousand prisoners. A catastrophe, of course, but the author greatly exaggerated. Thirdly, the author kept silent about the Russian expeditionary force sent to France in 1915. In exchange for weapons supplies. From any point of view, a dubious deal. The history of the USSR considered this war as criminal. And where were they wrong?
    1. Alf
      -3
      12 November 2024 16: 07
      Quote: oleg Pesotsky
      The figure of 200 killed at Tanneberg and in the Masurian Marshes is puzzling. The total number of Russian troops invading East Prussia did not exceed 126.

      And you don't take into account reinforcements?
      1. -1
        13 November 2024 15: 36
        If you have any information about reinforcements, I will listen carefully.
        1. Alf
          0
          13 November 2024 17: 53
          Quote: oleg Pesotsky
          If you have any information about reinforcements, I will listen carefully.

          Unfortunately, no. But common sense dictates that reinforcements should arrive to the active army. You cite the figure of 125000 for the moment of the invasion, and the author cites the figure of 200000 for the entire period of the BD. Why not?
    2. 0
      13 November 2024 12: 08
      Quote: oleg Pesotsky
      The history of the USSR considered this war as criminal. And where were they wrong?

      then WWII is also criminal.
      The history of the USSR and the history of Russia were called criminal.
      Quote: oleg Pesotsky
      about the Russian expeditionary force sent to France in 1915. In exchange for arms supplies.

      you are illiterate-that's it 1916 and not only France, but Salonika. What supplies in exchange? Provide documents.
      1. 0
        13 November 2024 15: 34
        Aren't you confusing the righteous with the sinful? The Russian expeditionary corps was transferred to Salonika only after it refused to obey the French command in 1917 and demanded to be sent home. The French brought up artillery and shot at the Russian camp. Those who refused to fight were sent to hard labor and the rest to Greece. Regarding the Second World War, it is not worth combining it with the Great Patriotic War. Two different things in one historical event. Who else suffers from illiteracy?!
        1. -1
          13 November 2024 15: 46
          Quote: oleg Pesotsky
          Who else suffers from illiteracy?!

          you, alas
          In July 1916, the 2nd Special Infantry Brigade under the command of Major General M.K. Dieterichs was sent through France to the Salonika Front.

          In June 1916, the formation of the 3rd Special Infantry Brigade under the command of Major General V. V. Marushevsky began. In August 1916, it was sent to France via Arkhangelsk.

          Then the last, 4th special infantry brigade was formed, headed by Major General M. N. Leontyev, sent to Macedonia. It sailed from Arkhangelsk on the steamship "Martizan" in mid-September, and arrived in Thessaloniki on the steamship "Lutetia" on October 10-20, 1916.
          1. 0
            13 November 2024 17: 47
            I absolutely do not understand your empty talk and what exactly are you trying to prove to me. That the tsarist government did not trade its soldiers? Well, just say that it is a lie! Are you weak?
            1. 0
              14 November 2024 11: 44
              Quote: oleg Pesotsky
              What exactly are you trying to prove to me in 1916 and Salonika?

              1. You don’t know much - see 1916 and Salonika, but the conclusions are wow.
              2. Russia did not trade in soldiers - where are the documents about the sale? - on the barrel of them.
  21. +2
    12 November 2024 13: 36
    Quote: Trapper7
    You're wrong.


    Unconvincing.

    Quote: Trapper7
    For some reason they didn’t take it out in the Caucasus.


    The location of the action also matters. In the Caucasus, did we have a landing force or a ground army?
    Do you think the Russians had more opportunities for a massive landing than the British? Did we have better logistics? I doubt it. The Turks were defending their territory, while the Russians fight best on their own territory. What was the motivation of the Russian soldiers in the Bosphorus? And in that war in general? They tried to call it the Patriotic War, but the name that stuck was Imperialist.

    Quote: Trapper7
    It is difficult to "catch" someone who is sitting in his port and trembling with fear.


    Enough of this nonsense. "Goeben" has been to the Black Sea more than once. And by the way, how many ports did Germany have on the Black Sea, can you give me some info? And what prevented the fleet of the mighty Russian Empire from attacking this impudent Teutonic ship in the port?

    Quote: Trapper7
    How do you imagine it? In 1917, Britain and France attack Russian troops in the Bosphorus?


    Yes, easy. If not in 1917, then in 1918 or 1919.
    His own analogue of the "Fulton speech" and yesterday's ally turns into an "enemy of all progressive humanity" in an instant with the snap of a finger.
    Western partners are changing their shoes in mid-air with an agility worthy of envy.
    Let's recall some events of that time. So, there is tsarist Russia with Emperor Nicholas, allied with the "democracies". Our "allies" sing the praises of the Russian army with its Supreme - that same Nicholas. But then the February Revolution happens. And Emperor Nicholas, from yesterday's ally (and also a relative of the English king), instantly turns into a "bloody autocrat", from whose yoke the people of Russia are finally freed. Our dear allies send congratulatory telegrams to the Provisional Government, promising to help promote freedom and democracy. And Nicholas is denied even political asylum, although they understand that the last tsar in the near future may face a very unenviable fate, like the French king Louis with his Antoinette.

    So - yes, I can easily imagine. These "allies" don't give a damn about Russia and its people. They will try to take advantage of our Civil War, they tried to dismember our country, not giving a damn about the recent union.
    Imperialism, what can you say... wolves and hyenas are like innocent lambs compared to these gentlemen...
    1. +1
      12 November 2024 16: 34
      Quote: Illanatol
      Unconvincing.

      Should I give you the full layout?
      By the spring of 1916, the Nikolaev Russud plant had supplied the fleet with about 50 landing self-propelled barges (each designed to carry an infantry battalion or two field batteries) and about 30 vessels for loading and unloading troops. Landing boats were also ordered from Nikolaev.

      The non-self-propelled Russian assault bot received 60 infantrymen or 10 fighters and 10 horses, or a single weapon (76- or 122-mm) with a charging box, chuck and calculation. Draft bot at full load - 80 cm. The size of the bot allowed to raise it on the davit of transport. An average steamboat could tow an 3 such bot, albeit at low speed.

      In the Russian fleet in 1916, the Bolinder appeared, as a self-propelled landing craft, a landing lighter. The Russian Bolinder had a length of 24 m and a draft (without load) of 80, see. The capacity of such a "self-propelled" was very significant - for a short haul he raised an infantry battalion or artillery battery (400 soldiers, 45 gigs and 65 horses). Draft with such a load - 1,2 m.

      The transport (landing) vessel Elpidifor was also a novelty - due to its shallow draft, it could quickly receive and unload cargo, and a very significant one at that. Elpidifor had a tonnage of 500-1200 tons, a carrying capacity of 960-1280 tons, the engine room was located in the stern of the hull - after all, the first 2/3 of the ship's length was occupied by capacious holds. The virtually zero draft of the bow gave Elpidifor an invaluable quality - the ability to work without a pier, simply running into the shore and immediately beginning to land troops or unload cargo.

      https://topwar.ru/126632-tak-byl-li-shans-u-bosforskoy-ekspedicii-chast-2-upuschennyy-proekt-1916-17-gg.html
      A landing corps was formed for the landing on the Bosphorus; on the first night it was planned to land 2 divisions at once with constant reinforcements and an increase in the number of troops.
      In 1916, Turkey transferred its best units to Galicia, including from the Straits zone, the road network did not allow increasing the number of defenders earlier than 2 weeks after the start. By this time, the Bosphorus should have already been completely taken.
      For some reason, many people think that "if the English got beat up, then there's nothing for us to do there." The history of the war shows the state of affairs somewhat differently.
    2. -1
      12 November 2024 16: 39
      Enough of this nonsense. "Goeben" has been to the Black Sea more than once. And by the way, how many ports did Germany have on the Black Sea, can you give me some info? And what prevented the fleet of the mighty Russian Empire from attacking this impudent Teutonic ship in the port?

      What prevented the fleet of mighty Britain from attacking the impudent Teutonic fleet in the port? They would have burned it to the dogs and that would have been the end of it)
      Goeben escaped primarily due to its superior speed. At every encounter with the Russian fleet, it fled. Even from the old battleships.
      And to attack in the port - that's exactly what they would have attacked during the landing operation. There's no other way. The Golden Horn is not a summer cottage pond with crucian carp.
    3. -1
      12 November 2024 16: 47
      Quote: Illanatol
      Do you think the Russians had more opportunities for a massive landing than the British?

      Based on the attached answer, yes, I believe so.
      Quote: Illanatol
      Did we have better logistics? I doubt it.

      Don't doubt it. From Crimea to Istanbul is closer than from Toulon to Gallipoli)
      Quote: Illanatol
      What is the motivation of Russian soldiers in the Bosphorus?

      It is there that it is very high, plus the replenishment of guards units with initially high motivation.
      Quote: Illanatol
      They tried to call it Patriotic, but the name that stuck was Imperialistic.

      If you hammer away at the same thing for 70 years, then yes.
      Quote: Illanatol
      In the Caucasus, did we have a landing force or a ground army?

      One does not interfere with the other. In the Caucasus we practiced landing and supply skills.
      And by the way, it was only old Rostislav who covered them - that's how afraid our fleet was of the mighty Goeben))))
  22. +1
    12 November 2024 13: 45
    Quote: S.Z.
    Judging by the article, we Russians are completely stupid people, since we fought for other people’s interests and did not take advantage of the fruits of victory.


    The decisions were made by the elite, not the people. And the truth is that the elite of that time was more connected to Europe and its interests than to the Russian people as such. And our aristocracy of that time treated Russians only slightly better than the British colonialists treated the Indians. How long ago did these lords (who were trying their best to look like foreigners) trade Russians like cattle?
    So it all ended as it should - with a civil war. Which clearly had a touch of interethnic conflict (the lords and the common people in the Russian Empire are like two nations), and partly a religious war.
    To understand this, it is enough to read the memoirs and diaries of the White émigrés. They called their opponents both Scythians and Huns. This is not how one calls one's compatriots...
    1. -1
      12 November 2024 17: 24
      "The decisions were made by the elite, not the people."

      Of course, this is always the case. The interests of the country are the interests of the ruling class, the so-called "elite", the people are a resource for satisfying the needs of the ruling class, as are other resources.
    2. -1
      13 November 2024 18: 16
      Quote: Illanatol
      To understand this, it is enough to read the memoirs and diaries of the White émigrés. They called their opponents both Scythians and Huns. This is not how one calls one's compatriots...

      Well, yes, that's a strong move - "that's not how you call your compatriots", forgetting that the other side - also she barked at the whites in every possible way...
      Quote: Illanatol
      Which clearly had an admixture of interethnic conflict (the nobility and the common people in the Russian Empire are like two nations),
      - that is everything revolutionaries noble/military/clergy/and similar lordly
      origins - were different nations with peasants?
      А working Votkinsk squad - of the same nation as the bars?
      Strong, why is there ...
  23. 0
    12 November 2024 13: 48
    Quote: Trapper7
    These are not dreams. This is a vital issue for Russia, which had to be resolved already during Napoleonic times.


    Why didn't they decide during the last "Russian-Turkish" war? Were they afraid of the Britons?
    And how did it happen then that Bulgaria, liberated by the Russians, found itself on the other side of two world wars?
    Apparently, the solver has become dull, so there is no point in fantasizing. If only, if only... laughing
    1. 0
      12 November 2024 16: 54
      Quote: Illanatol
      Why didn't they decide during the last "Russian-Turkish" war? Were they afraid of the Britons?

      That's right - they were scared. Only you forget that at that time we were in a state of "cold war" with the Brits, and in 1917 the relations were allied.
      Quote: Illanatol
      And how did it happen then that Bulgaria, liberated by the Russians, found itself on the other side of two world wars?

      Thanks to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Alexander II, who agreed to put a German on the throne of Bulgaria.
      Quote: Illanatol
      so there's no point in fantasizing. If only, if only...

      but here I agree.
  24. +1
    12 November 2024 16: 14
    I speak only for myself. I know the history of the First World War well, that if it were not for the Russian army, the war would have gone differently. Lenin's call for peace destroyed Russia, that's how I see it. But the Czechs understand the bravery of the Russian army well, the Czechs themselves fought against the enemy at Zborov, and that enemy was the regiments of the Austrian army, due to circumstances also from the Bohemian region. But the Czechs accomplished their task even at the cost of their soldiers, we also fought at Bakhmach, the subsequent history of the Czech units is actually more complicated. But the fact that the Russian army fought a tough battle has been imprinted in our heads. Our ancestors fought there. Well, I speak for myself and others, we are brothers, even if we do not understand each other at the moment, but the reign of the fanatical President Prof. Fialka is coming to an end. The Slovaks have already understood this. This is not a forgotten war, there are Military History Clubs in the Czech Republic, and the club is mostly represented by "Russian soldiers". This is not a forgotten war. am
  25. 0
    12 November 2024 17: 12
    The Russian Empire played the role of cannon fodder without question, as its "allies" in the Entente wanted, but then the "damned" Bolsheviks intervened, who did not want to shed the blood of ordinary people for the sake of the bourgeoisie.
    1. +2
      12 November 2024 18: 50
      They didn't want the bourgeoisie to shed the people's blood and took on this task themselves.

      There are no saints in politics, everyone has blood on their hands
  26. 0
    13 November 2024 13: 20
    Quote: Trapper7
    A landing corps was formed for the landing on the Bosphorus; on the first night it was planned to land 2 divisions at once with constant reinforcements and an increase in the number of troops.
    In 1916, Turkey transferred its best units to Galicia, including from the Straits zone, the road network did not allow increasing the number of defenders earlier than 2 weeks after the start. By this time, the Bosphorus should have already been completely taken.
    For some reason, many people think that “if the English got beat up, then there’s nothing for us to do there.”


    Two divisions are nothing at all. For reliable control over the straits, at least 15-20 divisions with constant support from the fleet were needed. And even then, it is not a fact that it was enough.
    Well, the Turks would have built up their forces in 3-4 weeks. And they would have also disrupted logistics, possibly with the help of the same Germans or other allies. As is known, German submarines also caused some inconvenience to the British (and their allies) during their landing operation.

    Let me remind you that already in the first phase of the landing operation in Gallipoli the British deployed 81 thousand soldiers. More than two divisions, so to speak. The British naval forces were also larger. And how did it all end?
    Well, the strength and numbers of the Turkish army should not be underestimated.
  27. 0
    13 November 2024 13: 23
    Quote: Trapper7
    That's right - they were scared. Only you forget that at that time we were in a state of "cold war" with the Brits, and in 1917 the relations were allied.


    The fact that "allied relations" can suddenly change to the opposite if vital interests are affected was fully demonstrated by the experience of the Second World War. It was not for nothing that I recalled the "Fulton speech".
    So, the “cold war” could have arisen in a jiffy if the actions of the Russian Empire had been excessively (in the opinion of democracies) successful.
  28. 0
    13 November 2024 13: 26
    Quote: S.Z.
    Of course, this is always the case.


    Well, since this is always the case, there is no point in passing off the negative consequences of the decisions of this very elite as mistakes and stupidity of the people and claiming that the people are playing dirty tricks on themselves.

    You know, this is not very democratic and does not suit a supporter of democracy... laughing
  29. 0
    13 November 2024 13: 28
    Quote: Oleg_Olegov
    They didn't want the bourgeoisie to shed the people's blood and took on this task themselves.


    ... to shed the blood of the bourgeoisie, who are accustomed to making their profits from the people's blood.

    "The wolf carried, and they carried the wolf."
  30. 0
    13 November 2024 13: 56
    Quote: Trapper7
    And for Austria-Hungary it was of primary importance

    And for Russia?
  31. 0
    13 November 2024 14: 03
    There is another very important question, as they like to say now, in "timing". I heard the opinion that the initial success of the Russians did not play any influence on sending these 2 corps. Since they sent them to the east before the start of the Russian offensive. And the Germans' motivation was that they understood that there were few of their troops in Prussia, but it was a justified risk, since they wanted to defeat France faster. So after the successes in the border battles, the Germans thought that everything was over, victory was near. Therefore, these 2 corps were transferred to the east just in case. I have no sources, but if this is so, then the article loses all meaning.
    1. 0
      14 November 2024 12: 37
      I literally referred to a direct participant in the events and the person who was responsible for command on the Marne.
      If he said something about the role of diverting German reserves to the Eastern Front, then that was the case, simply because he, as a participant, and especially as a commander, understood the disposition of forces perfectly well and understood perfectly well what factors influenced what.

      I didn’t come up with this, I didn’t draw any conclusions from the transfer of divisions to the east, I referred to Foch
      1. 0
        14 November 2024 15: 10
        Memoirs are a weak source. When did Foch write his memoirs? About 10 years later? There are plenty of examples where memories contradict facts. And there are plenty of reasons. Forgot, got confused, everything merged in my memory, it seemed that it was connected, I made it up, read it in the newspaper myself and believed it. And who from the German headquarters reported to Foch about the reasons for the transfer of these troops? But in fact, this issue should be sorted out. This is the very moment when even 1-day accuracy can play a huge role in understanding historical events. You need to know the exact dates of the decisions to transfer these German units to the Eastern Front, the state of affairs on the Western Front and compare them with the events in Prussia. If the decision to transfer was made before the Russians' successes in Prussia, then the version breaks down. If not, then you need to look at the nuances. In fact, it is interesting to figure this out yourself.
  32. 0
    13 November 2024 19: 07
    Quote: Eug
    The Russian expeditionary corps fought in France, in whose ranks that same R. Ya. Malinovsky fought... "there is a city called Marmelon in France near Reims" - that's from a song...


    Mourmelon.
    By the way, since the 1920s there has been the largest tank testing ground, practically their Kubinka (minus the museum in Saumur).
  33. 0
    14 November 2024 07: 51
    Quote: your1970
    Well, yes, that's a strong move - "that's not how you call your compatriots", forgetting that the other side also bitched at the whites in every way...


    Well, yes, after all, the blacks also "barked in every possible way" at the white slave owners... perhaps they had some reason not to like their masters or what?

    Quote: your1970
    that is, all revolutionaries are of noble/military/clergy/and similar lordly origin
    origins - were they of different nations from the peasants?
    And the Votkinsk workers' squad - are they of the same nation as the bars?
    Strong, why is there ...


    "Exceptions prove the rule."

    Have you read the tale of M. Gorky about "Danko's heart"? This Danko was also a foreigner for those whom he led out of the dark thicket.
  34. 0
    14 November 2024 08: 06
    Quote: Trapper7
    Based on the attached answer, yes, I believe so.


    You are mistaken. If you want to prove the opposite, show the outfit of forces that the Britons used for their landing operation. Everything is known in comparison, as is well known.

    Quote: Trapper7
    Don't doubt it. From Crimea to Istanbul is closer than from Toulon to Gallipoli)


    I still have doubts. Logistics is not determined only by distances.

    Quote: Trapper7
    It is there that it is very high, plus the replenishment of guards units with initially high motivation.


    And how did these "motivated" soldiers behave a few months later, after the famous February events? Did the Emperor's Guard, along with the rest of the soldiers, move in orderly columns and arrest a bunch of despicable conspirators? Or did they put on red ribbons and start to breed democracy, deciding by vote: to attack the enemy or to knock back moonshine at their positions? laughing

    Please tell tales.

    Quote: Trapper7
    One does not interfere with the other. In the Caucasus we practiced landing and supply skills.


    On a tactical scale. To capture the straits, a landing operation on a strategic scale was required.
    One should not compare a child's little finger with the "club of Hercules".
  35. 0
    14 November 2024 08: 11
    Quote: Trapper7
    What prevented the fleet of mighty Britain from attacking the impudent Teutonic fleet in the port? They would have burned it to the dogs and that would have been the end of it)


    It is not correct to compare a fleet with a single ship. The Britons and Germans had a showdown at Jutland, and the presence of our Baltic Fleet (formally allies) in that battle was not noted. Our dreadnoughts stood at the piers the entire war, without even a bit of glory.

    And the fact that the English didn't sort out the "Goeben" was that this "thorn in the Russian ass" could have been simply advantageous to them, which is why they supposedly missed it. We were, as they say, situational allies; in the long term, Russia was always a competitor for England, that is, an enemy.
  36. 0
    14 November 2024 09: 58
    Quote: Trapper7
    At that moment ALL sides unanimously considered Gumbinnen a victory for the Russian troops.

    What did the Russian army gain as a result of this battle? And by the way, why did you assume that the Germans were going to attack? It was a counter battle. Roughly equal forces met and suffered roughly equal losses. The Germans left the battlefield. By 19th century standards, this was a victory. By the realities of WWI, it was not. Who knows what people thought this event was. Borodino was also initially considered a victory.
    1. 0
      14 November 2024 10: 27
      They still forgot to establish a medal.
  37. 0
    18 November 2024 13: 02
    Quote from Hipper
    Borodino was also initially considered a victory.


    Borodino is definitely a Russian victory. Since Napoleon did not solve his general task in that battle, but Kutuzov did. It was with Borodino that Napoleon began to lose his entire campaign in Russia, its outcome was predetermined on the Borodino field. Napoleon had no chances to succeed in that campaign.