The Historical Balkan Knot: The Difficult Relations of Serbs, Croats and Bosniak Muslims, the Croatian Ustasha

19 284 58
The Historical Balkan Knot: The Difficult Relations of Serbs, Croats and Bosniak Muslims, the Croatian Ustasha
Adolf Hitler and Ustasha leader Ante Pavelić, dictator of the puppet Independent State of Croatia, in Berchtesgaden, July 1941


As noted in the article The Spanish "Blue Division" against Communism and the USSR, the assertion that during the Second World War the whole of Europe fought against the USSR can in no way be considered a propaganda cliché. Italy and Romania declared war on our country on June 22, 1941, Slovakia on June 24, Finland on June 26, and Hungary on the 27. On July 2, 1941, relations with the USSR were broken off, led by France.



Bulgaria was among the allies of the Third Reich. Divisions were formed in which "volunteers" from Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Scandinavian countries, the Baltics and Western Ukraine fought against the USSR. The Croatian Ustasha also fought for the Third Reich. Let's talk about who they were, how they appeared and what they "became famous for" in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and on the fronts of World War II.

A divided people


The nationalist organization Ustasha emerged in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and so first we will have to talk a little about how this state came into being, as well as about the difficult relations between the Croats and the Serbs.

First of all, it should be noted that Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are, in general, one people, divided by religious principle: Serbs profess Orthodoxy, Croats – Catholicism, Bosniaks – Islam. And they speak practically the same language, which used to be called Serbo-Croatian, but Serbs use Cyrillic when writing, Croats and Bosniaks – Latin.

The Serbs were under Ottoman influence for a long time, which was not always negative, at one point the Turks even helped the Serbs to preserve their religion and national identity. The Croats were under the rule of the Austrians, Venetians and Hungarians. For centuries, the Serbs and Croats lived quite peacefully, and this period is often called the "Millenium of Friendship". However, already in the 19th century, both Serbian and Croatian nationalists and high-level politicians began to promote "explosive" ideas about the "racial superiority" of their people and the "inferiority" of their neighbors.

Serbia: The Path to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia


Many believe that Serbia lost its independence in 1389 after its defeat in the famous Battle of Kosovo. However, the Serbian despots then became mere vassals of the Turkish sultans – not their subjects.

At first, the Turks were distinguished by their enviable religious tolerance, and those of the foreigners who accepted Islam sometimes achieved simply fantastic career success in the Ottoman Empire. The 14th century in Turkey is called the "century of Serbian viziers", the most famous of whom was Mehmed Pasha Sokkolu (Sokolovic). He held the post of grand vizier under three sultans (Suleiman I the Magnificent, Selim II and Murad III) for 3 years, 17 months and XNUMX days - until he was killed by some dervish.


Mehmed Pasha and his brother Patriarch Makarii. Monument in Andricgrad

In 1812, under the terms of the Bucharest Peace Treaty concluded by Kutuzov, Serbia received the right to broad autonomy and self-government, but the Turks immediately violated this treaty – as soon as they learned that Napoleon’s army had crossed the Neman. In 1820, they were finally forced to recognize Serbia’s autonomy – and to confirm it in 1830.

Meanwhile, since the beginning of this century, a century-long fierce rivalry between two dynasties of Serbian princes, the Karadjordjevics and the Obrenovic family, began here. You can read about its final chord – the murder of King Alexander Obrenovic and his wife Draga – in V. Pikul’s novel “I Have the Honor”. Pikul’s sympathies were on the side of the Karadjordjevics, although both of them had their own minds, and in the Crimean War, for example, Alexander Karadjordjevic did not support Russia. And the Serbs took turns expelling either the next Karadjordjevic or one of the Obrenovic family. In the struggle for the throne, representatives of both dynasties were not shy about anything and did not limit themselves in anything. Alexander Karadjordjevic, for example, having been expelled from the country, decided to return to the throne by organizing the murder of Mihailo Obrenovic, for which he was sentenced to 20 years in prison in Serbia, but was imprisoned in Hungary for 8.

By the Treaty of San Stefano in 1878, Serbia, Montenegro and Romania gained independence. In 1882, Serbian Prince Milan Obrenovic declared himself king and began a rapprochement with the Habsburgs. Soon, the "grateful" Serbs "asked" him to abdicate in favor of his son Alexander, who was killed on June 11, 1903, by conspirators led by Dragutin Dmitrijevic, nicknamed Apis.


Cover of the Parisian edition of Le Petit Journal

Peter I Karadjordjevic ascended the throne. He had previously served in the Foreign Legion and as a volunteer in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, and in 1879 was sentenced in absentia to be hanged in Serbia on suspicion of attempting to organize a coup d'état. The secret organization "Black Hand" organized by Dragutin Dmitrievich was involved in the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, which provoked the beginning of World War I.


Illustration from the magazine "Iskra"

After its end on December 1, 1918, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was formed, which would later become known as Yugoslavia.


Croatian lands before the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes


Thanks to a successful marriage, the rulers of Austria acquired rights to Hungarian and part of Croatian lands back in 1526. And the Croatian coast of the Adriatic Sea (Dalmatia) was under the influence of Venice, the city of Dubrovnik (the Republic of Ragusa) belonged to the Venetians. In 1358, it fell under the power of Hungary. In 1536, Dubrovnik was conquered by the Ottomans, but retained a certain independence, limiting itself to paying tribute. But the Venetians did not leave the other side of the Adriatic Sea either: they held out until 1797, when their republic was conquered by Bonaparte.


Possessions of Venice in different years on the map

In 1578, the Military Frontier (Vojna Krajina) was organized on the borders of the Austrian Empire – a strip of land from the Adriatic Sea to Transylvania, which was under the direct control of Vienna (currently its territory is divided between Croatia, Serbia and Romania).


Military Krajina in 1750

Christians from the Ottoman Empire began to move here, at least half of whom were Orthodox Serbs. The inhabitants of Vojna Krajina were called Granicari, and many note their similarity to Russian Cossacks.


Serbian border

During the Austro-Turkish War of 1683–1699, the Habsburgs seized Croatian territory up to the Sava River, encouraging the resettlement of German colonists to these lands.

At the end of the 1809th century, Austria already controlled Istria, Dalmatia and Dubrovnik (former Ragusa). In 1813-1848, these lands were ceded to France, becoming the Illyrian provinces of that country, but then they returned to the Habsburg Empire. During the Hungarian revolution of 1867, the Croats supported the Austrians, for which they received autonomy. But after the proclamation of the "dual monarchy" (Austria-Hungary) in XNUMX, the Austrians kept Istria and Dalmatia for themselves, and transferred other Croatian lands and Slavonia to the Kingdom of Hungary.

In 1875, during the anti-Turkish uprising in Herzegovina (in which Muslim Bosniaks also took part), the old Serbian word "ustash" ("ustasha") - "rebel" - became known in Europe. Orthodox Serbian intellectuals used it in their stories and articles. But after the Berlin Congress in 1878 decided to transfer Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria-Hungary, the valor of the Catholic Croats, who allegedly played a decisive role in the uprising against the Turks, began to be extolled here. The official propaganda transferred the name "ustash" to them.

After the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Military Krajina was abolished and its lands were added to the Croatian possessions of the Austrian Crown.

And finally, after the defeat of Austria-Hungary in World War I, the question arose of who would own the Balkan possessions of the collapsed empire. On October 29, 1918, the creation of a state was proclaimed in Ljubljana, which included Croatia, Slavonia (Slovenia), Dalmatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Krajina. However, already on December 1, the "great powers" decided to transfer these lands to Serbia. Thus, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes appeared on the political map of the world.

Croats as "spoiled Serbs"


As early as 1844, the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Serbian Prince Alexander Karadjordjevic, Ilija Garašanin (later Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs), published the program "Nachertanije". It was the first to outline the idea of ​​Great Serbia, and the main goal of the Serbian people was declared to be the mission of uniting the southern Slavs into a single state under the rule of Serbian monarchs.


Ilya Garashanin

At the same time, Garašanin considered the Croats and Slovenes to be part of the Serbian people: "Serbs of the Catholic faith" and a lost "people without self-awareness." And the above-mentioned Dragutin Dmitrijević called the Croats "inferior Serbs, corrupted by Catholicism."

"Serbian slaves"


In 1861, Croatian nationalist Ante Starčević founded the Party of Rights. In his book The Name of the Serb, he claimed that the word comes from the Latin servus, meaning slave. Starčević still considered the Austrians to be the main enemies of the Croats. His moderate party members claimed that the Serbs were Orthodox Croats. But the radical Pravash Eugen Kvaternik and his associates declared the Serbs to be Asians, contrasting them with the "cultured" European Croats. The nationalists considered the Bosniaks to be Muslim Croats, and Catholicism and Islam were officially recognized as the traditional religions of the Croats, in contrast to the "schismatic" Orthodoxy.

Ustasha in Yugoslavia


Serbian historian S. Trifkovic wrote in his book “Ustasha – the Balkan Heart of Darkness”:

"Croatian separatism was born at the same time as Yugoslavia. As early as December 2, 1918, the Frankists began actively calling on the Croats to take part in the action against unification. And on December 5, in Zagreb, on Ban Jelačić Square, a clash occurred between opponents of unification and the forces of the People's Council. Croatian nationalists lost 13 people in this clash. This day later took an honorable place in the Ustaša calendar, becoming a state holiday in the NDH (Independent State of Croatia). Thus, one essentially intra-Croatian conflict turned into a myth about a mass popular resistance to Serbian occupation."

Let us clarify that the Frankists were members of the radical "Pure Party of Rights" founded by Josip Frank, one of whose leaders was the future Ustasha leader Ante Pavelic. The Frankists demanded the independence of Croatia, and the "Party of Rights", from which they broke away, then supported the creation of a kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

Fueled by nationalists on both sides, relations between Croats and Serbs became increasingly worse, and on June 19, 1928, things reached the point where Puniša Račić, a member of the People's Radical Party, opened fire on Croatian deputies right in parliament, fatally wounding the leader of the Croatian Peasant Party, Stjepan Radić.


Puniša Racic in 1926.


Croatian banknote 200 kuna with a portrait of S. Radic

King Alexander I Karadjordjevic used this terrorist act as a pretext to dissolve parliament and abolish all autonomies. The activities of the Croatian nationalist "Party of Rights" were also banned. The state was officially renamed and was now called the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia". In response, the leader of the Croatian nationalists, Ante Pavelic, created the underground organization "Domobran", on the basis of which the "Croatian Revolutionary Organization" later emerged, also known as "Ustasha". The Ustasha found support in Hungary (since in the Habsburg Empire the Croats were subjects of the Hungarian crown) and in Italy, where they were patronized by Mussolini. Ante Pavelic even ruled the Ustasha from Riekka, Italy, from 1932.

Already on March 22, 1929, the Ustasha killed the editor-in-chief of the Zagreb newspaperNews» Tony Schlegel, and then the editor of the newspaper "Unity" N. Risovich.

Interestingly, among those who attacked Schlegel were Zvonimir Pospisil and Miho Babić, who later joined the group of the Bulgarian terrorist (member of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization) Vlado Chernozemski, who shot the King of Yugoslavia Alexander Karadjordjevic and the French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou on October 9, 1934 in Marseille.


King Alexander I of Yugoslavia and French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou, October 9, 1934.


V. Chernozemsky on the running board of a car


Colonel Piole strikes the head of the assassin of the King of Yugoslavia, Alexander I, with his saber

It should be noted that after this terrorist act, all of Europe turned away from the Ustasha; in Croatia, this period of international isolation is called the time of the "great silence". The "Poglavnik of the Ustasha" Pavelić was arrested in Italy, the investigation into his case lasted for two years, but was never completed. Pospišil, Babić and another Ustasha, Miho (Midžo) Kralj, who were arrested in France, were sentenced to life imprisonment.


Midjo Kralj, Vlado Cernozemski and Zvonimir Pospisil at the training camp in Janka Puszta, Hungary

The Vatican unexpectedly became an ally of the Croatian nationalists, and in 1936 it approached the Yugoslav government with a proposal to grant local Catholics a number of benefits and privileges. The country's authorities, of course, did not take such a step, and Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (who would become Pope Pius XII in 1939) declared:

"The day will come when many people will bitterly regret having rejected this generous offer made from the heart to their country."

But let's return to Yugoslavia, which had lost its king. His son and heir Peter was only 11 years old, and the state was ruled by his cousin Paul, who was a supporter of rapprochement with Germany.

In August 1939, the Yugoslav authorities nevertheless tried to appease the Ustasha: according to one of the points of the Cvetkovic-Maček agreement, Croatian autonomy was restored, moreover, about 40% of the lands of Bosnia and Herzegovina were “annexed” to its territory. But this only “whet the appetites” of the nationalists.

And in 1940, after the capitulation of France, the previously mentioned Ustashe, who had taken part in the murder of Bartu and had been sentenced to life imprisonment, were released. At the same time, Babić became one of Pavelic's two deputies.

On March 25, 1941, Regent Pavel signed the protocol on Yugoslavia's accession to the Tripartite Pact and two days later was removed from power by officers led by General Simonovic. The armies of Germany and the Reich's allies attacked Yugoslavia and in a few days (from April 6 to April 11, 1941) routed its troops. The Serbs and Montenegrins began a guerrilla war, look at the territory their units controlled in September 1941:


And in September 1943:



Commander of the People's Liberation Partisan and Volunteer Army of Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito (Croat by nationality) in a photograph from 1942.

The Croatian Ustasha and Bosnian Muslims sided with the occupiers. The above-mentioned participants in the murder of Bartu – Zvonimir Pospisilj, Miho Babić, Mijo Kralja – died in June 1941 during the suppression of the uprising of the Serbs of Eastern Herzegovina, and Ante Pavelic even declared eight days of mourning.

The Ustaše created the puppet Independent State of Croatia (NDH), which included Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the next article, we will talk about it and the racial laws adopted there. About the mass murders of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies by the Ustaše, the cynicism and cruelty of which shocked not only the Italians, but even the Germans. And also about how the Croats and Bosnian Muslims fought on the Eastern Front against the USSR and in the Balkans against the People's Liberation Army of Josip Broz Tito and other partisans.
58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    30 May 2025 05: 43
    Croats were in the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Wehrmacht, Waffen SS.
    They left their mark everywhere.
    1. +5
      30 May 2025 14: 52
      Alexei from the Croatians in WWI Austria-Hungary formed punitive units.
      Thanks for the great article. Looking forward to the continuation.
      The Croats really came from Transcarpathia. And the Serbs from Saxony - Lusatian Serbs. Moreover, the Germans/Saxons came to Saxony later.
      By the way, Hungarians and Italians also took part in the formation of nationalism in its current form in Galicia, the supposedly “Ukrainian Piedmont”.
      That is, the Croats are Galician Serbs.
      And finally, the killers of Alexander and Barthou were Abwehr agents.
      1. 0
        30 May 2025 20: 10
        The Croats were held in high esteem by the emperors of Austria even in the 19th century!
    2. 0
      30 May 2025 15: 00
      As the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service stated, the Serbs have been supplying weapons to Ukraine for four years now. More than 100 shells for the Grad system have been supplied.
      Could Russia start supplying weapons to Kosovo?
      1. 0
        30 May 2025 20: 09
        How can we do any harm to India, which also sells ammunition?
        Shall we give the Pakistanis Oreshnik and Su-57?
        1. 0
          1 June 2025 02: 00
          Quote: hohol95
          Shall we give the Pakistanis Oreshnik and Su-57?

          It was necessary to simply ask China to transfer ammunition to Pakistan for a strike on Indian factories producing gunpowder, shells and explosives. It was possible to transfer weapons through Iran for a strike on shell production in India. To destroy similar production in Pakistan, it is necessary to cooperate with the Taliban.
  2. +8
    30 May 2025 06: 38
    Good morning everyone,
    Thank you for the article!
    I can't resist commenting.
    Serbs and Croats belong to the same language family – Slavic, or more precisely the southern branch.
    But, in terms of the methods of ethnic formation, these are two different peoples. They even came to the Balkans from different places of previous settlement and even at different times. And they developed under the influence of different political trends.
    And the Bosniaks, a different story, are Serbs who accepted Islam during the “period of religious tolerance” in the Ottoman Empire.
    The unity of the language, Serbo-Croatian, is due to the fact that it is a somewhat artificial concept, as a result of the joint work of Serbian and Croatian linguists at the end of the 19th century, when it was cleared of German terms and in this form began to be taught to both Serbian and Croatian children in school.
    hi
    1. +5
      30 May 2025 11: 05
      I heard that now Montenegrins are trying to “invent” their own language - so that it would be at least a little different from Serbian.
      1. VLR
        +5
        30 May 2025 11: 31
        In 2009, the first set of spelling of the newly invented Montenegrin language was published: to emphasize its difference from Serbian, two new letters were added to the alphabet. In 2010, the first Montenegrin grammar appeared. Instead of Cyrillic (Vukovitsa), the Latin Gaevitsa is now being imposed in Montenegro, and all official documents are now written in it.
    2. 0
      10 November 2025 09: 16
      I read that the Serbian language currently contains many more Anglicisms and other foreign borrowings compared to the Croatian language.
      1. 0
        10 November 2025 13: 00
        more Anglicisms and other foreign borrowings compared to the Croatian language.


        Good afternoon, perhaps.
    3. 0
      10 November 2025 09: 19
      It seems that many members of the Bogomil sect, which was partly made up of Bulgarians, also joined the Bosniaks.
  3. +1
    30 May 2025 07: 04
    First of all, it should be noted that Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are, in general, one people
    Not quite. The Croats have a predominantly Germanic haplogroup, and so do the Bosniaks, I think. And they themselves consider themselves Slavicized descendants of the Goths who once lived here. The Serbs, on the other hand, are closer to the Eastern European peoples. And their differences in religion are also significant.
    1. +9
      30 May 2025 08: 30
      Michael,
      the Croats came from Transcarpathia, we have a clear reference point, the White Croats, whom Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich made his tributaries. Constantine Porphyrogenitus called the territory from which they came Great Croatia. A topic that has been stirring the unstable minds of lovers of past greatness for decades.
      The Goths did not live in this part of the Balkans, they were in the east, but two centuries before the Croats they moved to the west. The Croats could only intersect with the Gepids, also a Germanic tribe, who lived compactly on the middle reaches of the Danube. There were also remnants of the Heruls (Eruli) here...

      The Croats occupied the territory called Illyria, where the Romanized descendants of the Illyrians, the autochthonous population of the Balkans, lived, who subsequently formed the basis of the Albanian ethnic group.
      hi
      1. +4
        30 May 2025 10: 36
        Quote: Edward Vashchenko
        The Croats came from Transcarpathia
        The Goths had a short-term stop in Transcarpathia and the Danube region, after which they began to spread throughout the Balkans and even reached the Pyrenees. Modern Croats are descendants of the Goths (by Goths I mean the union of Germanic tribes, where the Goths were the leading people) and DNA geneology speaks about this absolutely precisely. The Germanic haplogroup of the Croats (and most of the Bosnians) cannot be interrupted by anything! By the way, long before the advent of DNA geneology, the Croats considered themselves descendants of the Germans, and the Ustasha who came to power even elevated this to the rank of ideology, considering the Germans a fraternal people.
      2. +1
        22 July 2025 19: 54
        Gotite sa controlled tazi chast from Balkanite and dori pepelyat battles sreshchu bulgarite area on Srem, today Sremska Mitrovica.
        1. +1
          24 July 2025 09: 52
          The Bulgarians were nomads and Turks at that time.
          At that time, the Turks had not yet conquered the Slavic tribes (Slovinians) on the lower Danube and had not given them the name Bulgarians.
          1. 0
            24 July 2025 19: 24
            Good, but tova will not exchange the fact that in the 6th century you got control of the Tazi often from the Balkanite and they are sad about a lot of battles I will meet in Bulgaria (Prabulgarite) in the region on Srem.
            1. +1
              24 July 2025 19: 35
              Of course it doesn't cancel it!
              (the text of my message is short)
  4. +3
    30 May 2025 08: 12
    All three of these peoples - Serbs, Croats and Bosnians - are deeply divided not only by ethnic and religious features, but also by economic and cultural ones. Throughout history, they have experienced the most diverse forms of government with various state institutions of power, and after the end of World War I, they found themselves in a completely new state, where it turned out that they did not understand each other at all. Incidentally, the ideologists of the southern Slavs were not the Serbs, but the Croats, who were then still part of the Habsburg monarchy...
  5. VLR
    +7
    30 May 2025 09: 22
    Josip Broz Tito (Croatian by nationality)

    He was a combative and passionate man. But he loved luxury. Rings with huge diamonds. A personal cheetah.
    This is probably who the Arab sheikhs took as an example when they drove tigers around in convertibles.
    1. +3
      30 May 2025 10: 40
      This "imitator" also seems to have a cheetah:
  6. +7
    30 May 2025 09: 29
    the murder of King Aleksandar Obrenovic and his wife Draga, can be read in V. Pikul's novel "I Have the Honor". Pikul's sympathies were on the side of the Karadjordjevics

    Yes, Pikul did it all really well - noble patriots kill a pathetic traitor and hand over the throne to "the right person". However, the slaughter there was dirty and, in addition to the king and queen, a lot of other people were killed. And then these same people provoked a world war, which cost everyone, including the Serbs and their ally Russia, very dearly.
  7. +5
    30 May 2025 11: 43
    Very relevant material. The past events described will be refracted in future events. And quite soon. The Balkans are a dormant, but not extinguished volcano.
  8. +2
    30 May 2025 11: 56
    involved in the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, which triggered the outbreak of World War I.
    The illegal annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Hungary in 1908, fully supported by Germany, ultimately provoked WWI.
    1. +4
      30 May 2025 12: 17
      The annexation certainly increased tensions, but it did not lead to war. And the Sarajevo terrorists, financed and supported by the Black Hand, literally pulled the trigger on world war.
      1. +1
        30 May 2025 15: 57
        Quote: vet
        The Sarajevo terrorists literally pulled the trigger on a world war.

        The terrorist who killed the Austro-Hungarian king was a citizen of Austria-Hungary. The terrorist attack in Sarajevo was not supposed to provoke an attack on Serbia. It was just that by that time Germany had produced heavy artillery to storm Liege and implement the plan to attack France through Belgium. If Russia had rearmed its army with modern artillery by the beginning of 1914 and had the capacity to produce shells, there would have been no world war. But Nicholas II, like Putin, flirted with Russia's age-old enemy Germany.
        1. VLR
          +3
          30 May 2025 16: 20
          During the investigation of the terrorist act in Sarajevo, traces were immediately revealed leading to Serbia, members of the "Black Hand" occupied important positions in the army and intelligence of this country. And the Austrians, realizing that the Serbs would let everything slide in their investigation of this case, demanded the participation of their representatives. After Serbia refused, everything became completely clear.
          As for Germany, its authorities did not even consider the possibility of war with Russia in their nightmares. After the Napoleonic Wars, relations between our countries were the most excellent, German generals considered it their duty to kiss the hand of the Russian emperor. But Alexander III for some reason got involved in the Entente, although every attempt at an alliance with England ended in an unnecessary war for the interests of British gentlemen for Russia. Kaiser Wilhelm made desperate attempts to improve relations with Nicholas II, during the war with Japan, Germany was the only one to provide assistance to Rozhdestvensky's fleet throughout its entire journey, while in England, in all seriousness, proposals were made to sink Russian ships themselves. The beginning of World War I was completely ridiculous: Germany declared war on Russia - and attacked ... France! Because the German General Staff had a plan for war with France, but not for war with Russia.
          1. 0
            30 May 2025 18: 21
            Alexander III joined the Entente because of the debts that Russia had accumulated in the period after the abolition of serfdom.
          2. +1
            31 May 2025 00: 04
            Quote: VlR
            The beginning of World War I was completely ridiculous: Germany declared war on Russia - and attacked... France! Because the German General Staff had a plan for war with France, but not for war with Russia.

            In Germany, it was planned to first defeat France and only then Russia. Moreover, in the event of victory in World War I, the Germans planned to reduce Russia to a semi-colony. The entire policy of German diplomacy after the assassination in Sarajevo was to delay mobilization in Russia. If Germany did not want to fight Russia, it would simply declare its neutrality in the event of an attack by Austria-Hungary on Serbia, but Germany believed that it had superiority in heavy artillery and would defeat France 1 months before Russia mobilized and could begin an offensive against Austria-Hungary.
            Quote: VlR
            although every attempt at an alliance with England ended for Russia in an unnecessary war for the interests of British gentlemen.

            Russia was in alliance with Great Britain during the Napoleonic Wars, World War I and World War II, when the question was, if not about the existence of the Russian ethnic group, then certainly about the independence of the country.
            1. VLR
              +2
              31 May 2025 06: 22
              What did Russia get from the unnecessary Napoleonic wars? From the useless Italian campaign of Suvorov, who then, in fact betrayed by the allies, was forced to fight his way through the Alps? And what did it get when Alexander I killed a huge number of Russian peasants in senseless wars against Bonaparte, who sincerely wanted peace with Russia? This war was needed by the English and Russian aristocrats, who sold them grain to the British for next to nothing, it was not Russia that needed it, but the nobles who wanted to lead a European image. constantly kept Russian people on the brink of hunger and physical survival. And there was no incentive or opportunity to develop their own industry. What did Russia get after the victory? "The poisoned shirt of the centaur" in the form of Poland? The Crimean aggression of the English? Who quickly found a common language with the Turks, Sardinians and the defeated French. What did Russia get from the alliance with the English in World War I? The February Revolution, organized by the British ambassador and Russian capitalists led by Guchkov? This is not a conspiracy theory, but a long-proven and confirmed fact. If Nicholas II and his incompetent generals, saving France, had not thrown two Russian armies into an adventurous, unprepared and disastrous campaign in East Prussia, the war would have ended in two months with a peace conference. Instead of French capital, German capital would have come to Russia - a big and fundamental difference? And no Hitler, no World War II.
              1. -2
                31 May 2025 22: 28
                Quote: VlR
                If Nicholas II and his incompetent generals, in order to save France, had not thrown two Russian armies into an adventurous, unprepared campaign in East Prussia that ended in disaster,

                Germany has been waging Drang nach Osten since the 8th century, consistently destroying the Polabian, Pomeranian Slavs, and Prussians. Britain has not distinguished itself by destroying Slavic peoples, unlike the Germans. The most the British dare to do is finance and arm traitors and renegades like Yudenich, Kolchak, Denikin, Tikhanovskaya, Politkovskaya.
                1. +1
                  1 June 2025 06: 20
                  Yes, the British financed traitors, like Pahlen and Bennigsen, who killed Paul I. And they paid for the Russians to shed blood for their interests. Do you know that in 1 Alexander I was actually a mercenary for the English who killed his father? They paid him for every soldier sent against Bonaparte, who was about to conquer London. Why? The profitable business of the Russian emperor-parricide on the blood of his subjects.
                  Even Rasputin, as it turned out, was shot by the British intelligence officer Reisner. You see, the "Old Man" was trying to persuade the Tsar to make peace with Germany before the revolution began.
                  1. +2
                    1 June 2025 06: 39
                    Germany waged the Drang nach Osten from the 8th century, consistently destroying the Polabian, Pomeranian Slavs, and Prussians.

                    Britain would also gladly lead, but it is too far and there are no common borders. Otherwise, the English would treat the Pomor Slavs no better than the Indians or blacks. However, an alliance with Germany has always been advantageous to Russia - and this alliance has always been disadvantageous to England, which tried to pit our countries against each other. In general, the Germans and Russians, despite the wars, have sincere sympathies for each other at the everyday level. And Russia's relations with Germany before the SVO were almost better than with all other countries. But the English, the French, the Swedes have always treated and treat the Russians with undisguised hostility. Both politicians and ordinary citizens.
                    1. VLR
                      +2
                      1 June 2025 07: 15
                      Britain would also be happy to lead, but too much so

                      Henry Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby, the future King of England, was not bothered by distances. He sailed to the Teutons twice to join them in the "Drang nach Osten". The nicest thing for a noble English gentleman is to hunt Lithuanians and Belarusians and, if possible, "kill" as many of them as possible.
                  2. 0
                    1 June 2025 18: 37
                    Quote: vet
                    You see, the "Old Man" tried to persuade the Tsar to make peace with Germany before the revolution began.

                    So you are saying that Rasputin was executed for aiding the enemy during the war?
                    1. +2
                      2 June 2025 09: 05
                      It is a well-known fact that Rasputin was against the war with Germany. He claimed that if he had been in St. Petersburg in August 1914, he would have dissuaded the Tsar. And, in general, he was right, this war led to the collapse of the Russian Empire. And Nicholas II did not learn the lesson of the Russo-Japanese War. Only the smart ones learn from their mistakes.
                      And Rasputin was not executed, after all, but vilely murdered in the house of the man who invited him to visit. The treacherous murder of a guest and, in general, of someone who trusted him is a huge sin.
                      1. 0
                        3 June 2025 15: 32
                        Quote: vet
                        And, in general, he was right, this war led to the collapse of the Russian Empire.

                        The German war led to the death of the royal dynasty, which basically degenerated. The children of Nicholas II suffered from an incurable genetic disease, in which their descendants in the male line died by adulthood and in the female line they spread the disease. The second consequence of the German war was the revolution in Russia, but this was not its collapse but the return of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, the destruction of the German and Japanese threat from 2 for 1945 years, the reduction of Great Britain to a second-rate country, the leadership of the USSR in the space and nuclear races.
          3. +4
            31 May 2025 13: 20
            The worst nightmare in the British Empire was one in which the German and Russian empires entered into a military-economic alliance on the mainland.
            And the policy of "divide and rule" was the main policy of Britain, and now of the USA.
            1. -3
              31 May 2025 22: 33
              Quote: Grencer81
              The German and Russian empires entered into a military and economic alliance on the mainland.

              Twenty years of economic cooperation between Germany and Russia ended with an attack by Germany on Russia or its allied states. Therefore, cooperation with Germany is harmful and extremely dangerous for Russia. Cooperation between Russia and Germany is often praised by people who receive kickbacks from sales of German equipment to Russia. Moreover, the Germans try to bribe not top-level employees, but engineers and designers.
              1. +3
                1 June 2025 01: 11
                Cooperation and "friendship" with the British Empire turned out to be even more destructive and deadly dangerous for Russia, and ended with the death of the Russian Empire with the help of the so-called "allies".
                1. 0
                  1 June 2025 01: 56
                  Quote: Grencer81
                  ended with the collapse of the Russian Empire with the help of the so-called "allies"

                  Thirty years after the Great October Socialist Revolution, the British Empire lost India and the existence of Great Britain as a colonial empire became unprofitable and meaningless. By 30, Great Britain had liberated most of its African colonies and began to play the role of a US satellite instead of the role of the world's leading power. Moreover, the confrontation between England and Russia in the most dramatic situations did not cause direct wars. Germany fruitfully interacted with Russia and suddenly became an aggressor for Russia in 1960 and in 1914. And now Germany and France are the main sponsors of Russophobia in Eastern Europe and sabotage all of Trump's attempts to resolve the consequences of Russophobia and the ban on the Russian language and education through peace agreements, taking into account the observance of human rights for Russian people.
                  1. +2
                    1 June 2025 05: 47
                    The main sponsor of Russophobia is London, which sticks out behind the backs of Berlin, Paris and Kyiv.
                    The confrontation between England and Russia did not take direct forms, since England preferred to set one against the other on the continent, pretending to be a friend to both...
                    As for the loss of India, 30 years before that no one could have imagined anything like that, but London always uses the opportunity to eliminate or weaken Russia by any means necessary.
                    1. +1
                      1 June 2025 18: 41
                      Quote: Grencer81
                      As for the loss of India, 30 years before that no one could have imagined anything like that,

                      Trotsky in the 1920s actively flirted with supporters of Indian independence. Incidentally, at that time Russia supplied the Afghans with rifles at a price actually lower than cost. The tension on the border forced the British secret services to focus on the Pashtun and SKI threat to their rule in India, and Britain missed the moment when the INC and the Muslim League became too tough for Britain.
                      1. 0
                        2 June 2025 01: 57
                        And the RSFSR also supplied weapons and ammunition with ammunition to Turkey Ataturk and so what? The documents were signed by V. Lenin, as Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars... By the way, where was Russia to get rifles in 1920? From the warehouses where they came from the Entente countries.
                      2. +2
                        2 June 2025 05: 14
                        In the Muslim world, Ataturk's testament to the Turks not to fight against the Russians is well known. The number of rifles delivered to Russia is negligible compared to domestic weapons. Japan sold a significant number of rifles to Russia during the First World War, but the Japanese sold at least a cartridge for them. When defeated, the White Guards destroyed their weapons or took them away from Russia. One of the goals of the Anglo-French intervention in Russia was the capture of military equipment and the fleet.
                      3. +2
                        2 June 2025 05: 17
                        Yeah, such a "minimum" of cartridges that Fedorov made his own machine gun for this caliber in Russia, and then machine guns were made...
                      4. 0
                        3 June 2025 16: 01
                        Quote: Grencer81
                        Yeah, such a "minimum" of cartridges that Fedorov made his own machine gun for this caliber in Russia

                        Japan sold Arisaka rifles to Russia. The set of cartridges for it was approximately 150 pieces. When Russia asked Japan to sell a batch of cartridges for the purchased rifles, the Japanese replied that they would not sell the cartridges separately. When developing automatic weapons, Fedorov insisted on switching to a caliber of 6-7 mm as the optimal one for small arms when shooting at targets that do not have additional protection. The military was against this caliber until 1945, and after the Vietnam War, for some reason, they insisted on a caliber of 5,5 mm.
          4. -3
            31 May 2025 14: 00
            Quote: VlR
            As for Germany, its authorities even at night nightmares At that time, the possibility of war with Russia was not considered

            Since 1908 Germany is ready for war with Russia:
            1909.01.21 GERMANY. Berlin. Message from the Chief of the General Staff of Germany, General Moltke, to the Chief of the General Staff of Austria-Hungary, General Conrad, that the invasion of Serbia by Austria-Hungary will cause "an active intervention by Russia". In this case, Germany will act on the side of Austria-Hungary.
            Quote: VlR
            . The beginning of World War I was completely ridiculous: Germany declared war on Russia - and attacked ... France! Because the German General Staff had a plan for war with France, but not for war with Russia.

            These jokes come from ignorance - look at the famous Schlieffen Plan, where it is clearly written why France was attacked first and what will follow the rapid defeat of France.

            Until France was defeated, Hungary was supposed to contain Russia, as had been agreed in advance between Hungary and Germany.
            Quote: VlR
            And what did she get when Alexander I killed a huge number of Russian peasants in senseless wars against Bonaparte, who sincerely wanted peace with Russia?

            destroyed the 19th century Hitler, the occupier of all of Europe (see map) and the aggressor against Russia. Should I have surrendered and drunk Parisian wine?
            Quote: VlR
            But Alexander III for some reason got involved in the Entente

            For some reason, peace-loving Prussia disfigured France and became a dangerous, aggressive monster. The German Empire - hungry and angry.
            Quote: VlR
            If Nicholas II and his incompetent generals, saving France, had not thrown two Russian armies into an adventurous, unprepared and disastrous campaign in East Prussia, the war would have ended in two months with a peace conference. Instead of French capital, German capital would have come to Russia - a big and fundamental difference? And no Hitler, no World War II.

            So in 1939-40, Stalin did exactly what you wanted - and they got June 22 and the burden of WWII on the shoulders of the Russians, instead of the SMART generals and the Emperor of 1914, who put the burden of WWII on the Anglo-Franks.

            But all you had to do was learn the lessons of WWI, and not have fun in the chicken coops...
            1. +3
              1 June 2025 01: 13
              Well, yes, well... And the capital guard of St. Petersburg just sent Pavel Petrovich to his forefathers with a snuffbox to the temple?
              Or maybe with the help of "friends" from the British embassy?
              1. -1
                1 June 2025 10: 57
                Quote: Grencer81
                And Pavel Petrovich

                officially died of apoplexy (paralysis).
                Quote: Grencer81
                Or canwith the help of "friends" from the British embassy?

                maybe tell fortunes? wink
                1. 0
                  1 June 2025 11: 28
                  There is no need to guess, everything has been known for a long time...
        2. +3
          30 May 2025 18: 20
          Wars do not start by accident. The specific reason can be extinguished, but the flywheel of events has already started. No one wants a war, but everyone has been diligently pushing for its beginning.

          1. Imperialism
          The countries of Europe sought to expand their colonial possessions, which led to rivalry and conflict. Competition for colonies in Africa and Asia increased tensions between the great powers. Unification led Germany to explosive economic growth. They needed a resource chunk of the world - colonies. But England and France had captured 90% of the African continent and were not going to share it with the Germans. At the same time, the strengthened France was also a threat that needed to be contained.

          2. Nationalism, the prospect of Turkey's collapse and the intensification of the struggle for the Ottoman legacy
          The interests of the Balkan states and Russia clashed with the claims of Austria and Germany standing behind it. The solution is in a military conflict

          3. Britain
          The desire to weaken the continental states.

          4. France
          Revenge for 1870. Germany and their "German industrial miracle" had to be stopped.

          5. Russia
          Alliance commitments: Russia was part of the Triple Entente along with France and Great Britain. In the event of an attack on one of these countries, Russia was obliged to provide military support, especially to France, with which it had a mutual assistance treaty. Balkan factor: Russia positioned itself as the protector of the Slavic peoples and the Orthodox in the Balkan region, especially Serbia. After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Russia supported Serbia, which inevitably led to a conflict with Austria-Hungary, an ally of Germany. Geopolitical interests: Russia sought to strengthen its influence in the Balkans and maintain access to warm seas. The conflict with Austria-Hungary and Germany was part of the struggle for control over strategically important regions.

          6. Everyone was preparing for a quick war
          The increase in armaments and the militarization of countries created an atmosphere in which wars were perceived as inevitable. Countries actively built up their armies and navies, which increased the risk of conflict. The participants in World War I misjudged technical progress. Their military plans remained in the 19th century. No one appreciated the first signs of a new type of war.
        3. +2
          30 May 2025 20: 15
          If you were a relative of the Emperor of the German Empire, you wouldn't flirt with him?
          Or with British relatives?
          The problem is not in the flirting, but in the reasons for the lack of a normal military-industrial complex and sensible plans for waging war against the Germans!
      2. 0
        31 May 2025 13: 16
        Quote: vet
        The annexation certainly increased tensions, but it didn't lead to war.

        Without the annexation there would have been no arrival of Ferdinand and Princip.

        And Hungary's impudence in 1914 determined the success of the annexation in 1909 - once worked, why not try again?
  9. +3
    31 May 2025 14: 51
    Valery, I read it with pleasure. You always have something new to learn.
  10. +1
    31 May 2025 20: 48
    It could be added that the state of the southern Slavs with its center in Zagreb that briefly existed after the collapse of Austria-Hungary was called the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (State SCHS). Soon it voluntarily and forcibly united with Serbia (which already included Montenegro), and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Kingdom SCHS) emerged. As we can see, the abbreviation SCHS had two interpretations.
  11. 0
    31 May 2025 21: 00
    A small correction. The author writes Slavonia (Slovenia). This is incorrect. Slavonia has nothing to do with Slovenia. As is known, the larger part of Croatian lands was part of Hungary, and a smaller part was part of Austria. Hungary included the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia, which had real autonomy. Slavonia is part of Croatia. And Slovenia was part of Austria before the collapse of Austria-Hungary, but did not constitute a single administrative entity.