The Entente in 1915 or the Allies in 1941 – they are no strangers to betrayal

25 881 71
The Entente in 1915 or the Allies in 1941 – they are no strangers to betrayal


The Bulgarians stabbed in the back


In the first ten days of July 1915, the General Staffs of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria drew up a plan for the military defeat of Serbia and Montenegro. The plan, which was by no means adventurous, taking into account the very weak forces of the opponents, as well as the annexation of Bulgaria to the Austro-German bloc, envisaged an almost three-sided envelopment of the enemy.



The decisive factor in the victory was undoubtedly the official entry of Bulgaria into the war during the main phase of the offensive of the German-Austrian troops in Serbia and Montenegro. The latter happened on October 14 of the same year. The defeat of the Serbian and Montenegrin troops became inevitable, which was well understood in the headquarters of the Entente countries.

However, they did absolutely nothing to save their junior allies. It was necessary to evacuate the defeated but not routed Serbian army to northern Greece, where it became the basis of the Salonika Front, created in the late autumn of 1915.


The command of the Serbian and Montenegrin troops that remained after the evacuation to the south of Albania and northwestern Greece, which were subsequently reinforced by British, French and Russian expeditionary brigades, repeatedly proposed to the allies on the Salonika front a breakthrough into Western Serbia through central Albania, where there was an almost symbolic number of Austrian troops.

And nearby - in the coastal areas of Vlora, Saranda and on the island of Sazani (southwest Albania) - since the spring of 1916, a large contingent of Italian troops, allies of the Entente, equipped with modern military equipment at that time, was located. It is interesting that Albanian anti-Austrian groups also called for a strike on the not very strong section of the Austro-German-Bulgarian front.

Vain efforts


But in vain: on the Albanian section of the front, the allies “advanced” no more than 40 km only by the autumn of 1918 – by the time of the collapse and capitulation of Austria-Hungary.

Almost the same thing happened in other areas of the Salonika Front, where local battles were periodically fought until 1918, followed by long lulls. This had a negative impact on the morale of the troops, especially the Serbian and Montenegrin ones. The Allies even abandoned the offensive on Sofia, which was located no more than 70 km from the north-eastern sector of this front.

It is also characteristic that, being in the north of Greek territory, the allies even agreed to Greece's non-participation in the war, which Athens officially entered only on July 2, 1917. Although the allies supported the local offensive of Greek troops against Bulgaria in the autumn of 1918, liberating up to a third of the Aegean (coastal) territory, that is, the Greek part of Thrace, occupied by Bulgaria during the Balkan wars of 1912-1913.

It is significant that as a result Bulgaria soon capitulated (September 29, 1918), after which a breakthrough of the Salonika front became possible, in which the main role was again played by Serbian troops and Russian expeditionary brigades, whose command decided not to recognize the infamous Brest Peace.

Today, the behavior of the Entente during the Austro-German and Bulgarian defeat of almost the entire Serbian army in the autumn of 1915 is no longer surprising. On October 6, 1915, the heir to the throne, Prince Regent Alexander Karadjordjevic, and on October 17, Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pasic officially appealed to England and France with a request to urgently send troops to defend the city of Nis (near the border with Bulgaria) and the railway through Nis to Thessaloniki.

But it was only on October 31, 1915 that England and France reached an agreement not on aid to Serbia, but on additional troops and weapons for the Salonika front. Although on October 19, Bulgarian troops had already cut that railway, depriving the Serbian army of the opportunity to join up with the allied units north of Salonika.

Pages from the Ambassador's Diary


These facts alone show that Paris, London and Rome indirectly, if not directly, prepared the military defeat of Serbia and Montenegro in the summer and fall of 1915. In this regard, we will cite the assessment of the situation by Maurice Paléologue, the French ambassador to Russia in 1914-1917, from his diary:

- October 15, 1915. The Bulgarians began to reap the fruits of the colossal mistake we had made by giving them time to concentrate their troops. As a result, they managed to deal a crushing blow to the Serbs.

- October 25, 1915. The destruction of Serbia is accelerating. Every day Pasic makes a desperate appeal to the Allies, but in vain.

- November 12, 1915. Under the double pressure of the Austro-Germans in the north and the Bulgarians in the east, the unfortunate Serbs are crushed, despite their heroic resistance. On November 7, the city of Nis, the ancient Serbian capital, fell into Bulgarian hands. Franco-English advance units yesterday came into contact with the Bulgarians in the Vardar River valley (near the then Bulgarian-Greek border. - Ed.). But the Allied intervention in Macedonia is too late. Soon Serbia will no longer exist.

- December 13, 1915. We have finally lost the territory of Macedonia, and unfortunately the Bulgarian General Staff has every right to issue the following communiqué: "For the Bulgarian army and people, December 12, 1915 will always be a memorable date. The last battles with the French, English and Serbs took place on the banks of Dojran and near Ohrid (transboundary lakes between Greece and Serbia. - Ed.): the enemy was driven back everywhere. Macedonia is now free - there is not a single enemy soldier on its territory.

Repetition of what was not covered



In the context of the factors mentioned, one can quite agree with Hysni Kapo (pictured with Enver Hadxha), Second Secretary of the Central Committee of the Albanian Communist Party (1955-1979):

The predominant inactivity of the Salonika Front was connected with the political goals of the Western Entente: to achieve the greatest losses for Serbia-Montenegro during the war and occupation, in order to then dictate the terms of the Balkan reorganization. At the same time, dividing Albania between Austria-Hungary, Italy, Greece and removing pro-German-pro-Austrian figures from the Greek government.

Apparently, such tasks also explain the lack of coordination between the Salonika Front and Romania, which entered the war on the side of the Entente in 1916. Montenegro, but especially Serbia, were doomed back in 1908, when Austria-Hungary, with other powers inactive, occupied Serbia's vast neighbor, Turkish Bosnia and Herzegovina, which supported Montenegro from the west.


Almost the same situation as in the First World War was repeated with Greece in November 1940 – March 1941, when Greek troops, repelling the aggression of Italy, which now found itself on the other side of the front, liberated, together with Albanian partisans, a third of the territory of Albania, completely occupied by Italy in April 1939.


The liberation of all of Albania was gaining momentum. But despite requests from Greek Prime Minister General I. Metaxas (pictured above, with the Greek flag in the background) and his successor A. Koryzis (Metaxas died suddenly on January 29, 1941) to London for military assistance, the British troops in the region did not help Greece in any way during that period. And soon Greece, along with Yugoslavia, was occupied by German and Italian troops – with the complicity of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania...

The text was prepared by Alexey Chichkin and Alexey Podymov
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    7 July 2025 04: 00
    Is anyone still surprised by the behavior of the so-called "allies"?
    1. +7
      7 July 2025 04: 45
      And in the 90s, we ourselves, did not betray anyone? We climbed into the capitalist stable with all our might, strove to become "our own", in the so-called "European family". Will we prefer not to notice the "logs" in our own eyes?
      1. 0
        7 July 2025 06: 18
        Those who got involved were traitors or agents of the bourgeoisie from the very beginning. "We" is not very appropriate in this case. No one asked us.
        1. +2
          7 July 2025 09: 19
          Quote: Essex62
          Those who interfered were traitors or agents of the bourgeoisie from the very beginning.

          Did bourgeois agents recruit Komsomol member Khodorkovsky and other "children of communists"?
          1. -9
            7 July 2025 11: 13
            The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

            Quote: Trapper7
            Did bourgeois agents recruit Komsomol member Khodorkovsky and other "children of communists"?

            Do you know how the Bolsheviks differ from the communists and who the Vlasovites were?
            The Bolsheviks (Lenin, Stalin, Putin) are those who are for Lenin.
            Trotskyists (Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov) are those who are for Trotsky.
            The Vlasovites (Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Medvedev) are those who dream of putting Russia under the West.

            Nobody recruited anyone.
            The slaves were looking for a master in their souls and they found him...
            1. +7
              7 July 2025 13: 25
              Quote: Boris55
              The Bolsheviks (Lenin, Stalin, Putin) are those who are for Lenin.
              Those who are for Lenin do not disguise the Mausoleum with plywood, do not call Marxism-Leninism a dangerous and harmful fairy tale, do not work as a "top manager" in capitalism and do not work for the capitalists.
              1. Alf
                +4
                7 July 2025 18: 46
                Quote: Per se.
                Quote: Boris55
                The Bolsheviks (Lenin, Stalin, Putin) are those who are for Lenin.
                Those who are for Lenin do not disguise the Mausoleum with plywood, do not call Marxism-Leninism a dangerous and harmful fairy tale, do not work as a "top manager" in capitalism and do not work for the capitalists.
                1. +2
                  8 July 2025 08: 17
                  By the way, Putin is right in this phrase. The USSR became great for many reasons, but it has nothing to do with Marx's theory and Lenin's utopian ideas. And even more so - the attempt to follow these theories led the country to its demise.
                  1. +3
                    8 July 2025 10: 26
                    Quote: Trapper7
                    The USSR became great for many reasons, but it has nothing to do with Marx’s theory and Lenin’s utopian ideas.
                    Without these "utopian ideas" they would not have taken socialism as a basis, which allowed the country to become great. The fact that theory needed practice is not a death sentence, as are the inevitable mistakes and miscalculations in creating a fundamentally new social system. Everything was solvable and could develop. There is no national or class multiplication table, reasonable and effective are not a monopoly of capitalism. The country was brought to ruin not by the ideas of Marx and Lenin, but by the inverts who distorted these ideas, discredited them, and then, having changed their shoes, blamed socialism for everything. The death of the Union would not have happened without the three traitors from Belovezhskaya Pushcha and the sniveling man who lowered the red flag in the Kremlin, relying on the results of the All-Union referendum for the preservation of the USSR and the Constitution.
                  2. +1
                    8 July 2025 19: 06
                    ...the attempt to follow these theories is precisely what led the country to destruction.

                    Deviation from these theories led to death.
                    And in order to characterize a theory as utopian or not utopian, one must, at a minimum, have a good understanding of it, and of the other, basic ones, too.
                    Something tells me that this is not your case.))
                    1. 0
                      9 July 2025 12: 17
                      Yes, not my case. The Communist Party Manifesto was enough for me:
                      1. Expropriation of land property and the use of land rent to cover government expenses.
                      2. High progressive tax.
                      3. Cancellation of the right of inheritance.
                      4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.
                      5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
                      6. Centralization of all transport in the hands of the state.
                      7. Increase in the number of state factories, implements of production, clearing for arable land and land improvement according to the general plan.
                      8. Equal obligation to work for all, the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
                      9. Connecting agriculture with industry, promoting the gradual elimination of the distinction between city and countryside.
                      10. Public and free education of all children. Elimination of child factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with material production, etc.
                      In addition, the Manifesto directly speaks of the abolition of any private property.
                      And how do you see yourself in the labor army? A manager, I suppose? And do you want society to raise your children? And you don't need a wife. The union is free)
                      Do you think that these theories, if put into practice, would have saved the USSR?
                      If yes, then I have bad news for you)))
                      1. 0
                        9 July 2025 18: 21
                        So I see that you are one of those who “had enough”.))
            2. +4
              7 July 2025 14: 42
              Bolsheviks (Lenin Stalin, Putin) - these are those who are for Lenin.


              And in this topic some other Boris55 wrote:

              Boris55
              (Boris Leontievich)
              -21
              21 November 2013 09: 25
              New
              Quote: leon-iv
              ... signed the Brest Peace ...

              The goal was to revolutionize the whole world. Remember the slogan on all Soviet newspapers "Workers of all countries unite" It is just about that. By signing the Brest Peace Treaty, Lenin stopped its progress around the world. Why he signed it - you see he wanted to become a "king". It was for this, the mafia that organized the revolution, sentenced him to death - for disrupting their plan for a world revolution.

              And the fact that he was a bastard - I agree, they staged genocide of the Russian people together with Trotsky ...

              And now multiply minus - I will not change my opinion.

              https://topwar.ru/36246-byl-li-lenin-nemeckim-shpionom.html
              1. Alf
                +1
                8 July 2025 18: 37
                Quote: Oldrover
                And in this topic some other Boris55 wrote:

                The first one went to the toilet, and the second one broke through to the keyboard. The third one is on vacation.
            3. +2
              7 July 2025 18: 57
              This is what it's like Kryuchkov's question
              Iconomikata na Bulgaria e integrarana 62 percent s ikonomicata na Svetskiya suz – kazva Georgi Pankov na Kryuchkov – integratsiyata ne dori po-golyama ot tazi na nyakoi sovetski republica. Ako Svetskiyat syuz behold, there will be an economic catastrophe for our country. (As of August 19, 1991, the party apparatus, the KGB and some of the generals rule over the military transformation. Mikhail Gorbachov and the Musa family were placed under house arrest, the constitution was suspended. The vice president of the USSR, Genady Yanaev, began the transformation. Vladimir Kryuchkov was also an active participant in it. On On August 21, the fire was extinguished, and the leader was arrested.)”

              “As mislish, shall we still allow this disintegration of the Svetskiyat Union?” - Pete directly Kryuchkov.

              “The management itself is stupid, yes, it’s possible” - Kazva Pankov.

              “The problem is with us, friend, for the CIA’s pity the leadership has begun to impose on the Party and the government” - Kryuchkov said.

              "How so?"

              Kryuchkov, rubbing his finger and pointing at the distance, is the reason for saparite.

              I was disturbed by the conversation with the chairman of the KGB, Georgi Pankov, and I met with the head of the “Balkan Country” department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nerubailo and I, getting an hour in advance.
          2. +1
            7 July 2025 21: 07
            What communists? By the end of the 80s, you could count them on your fingers. And they were recruited, by the way. All the "young reformers" were processed in the States and in the small fry, where the Kremlin sent them. Recruited earlier. For example, the analytical department of the Office conducted an unauthorized "investigation", even under the fingerless alcoholic. None of the "classmates" remembered the schoolgirl and student R.M. Gorbachev. Legend. That's how a marked agent climbed onto a Kremlin stool and "the process began". He and his accomplices destroyed it to dust in five years. While the working class ate bitter and flapped their ears.
          3. 0
            5 September 2025 13: 30
            Quote: Trapper7
            Did bourgeois agents recruit Komsomol member Khodorkovsky and other "children of communists"?

            Let's not be sarcastic. In the ranks of the Komsomol and communists of the late USSR, not all of them were actually like that. And Khodorkovsky, who later on dozens of times instructed his people to physically eliminate people (information from his criminal case), was certainly not a Komsomol member.
      2. -1
        7 July 2025 08: 20
        The essence of Russian civilization is Bolshevism.

        Quote: Monster_Fat
        And in the 90s, did we ourselves betray anyone?

        We - no. The Trotskyists who seized power after Stalin's death - yes, including us....

        Quote: Essex62
        Nobody asked us.

        We were asked and we answered in the 1991 referendum:
      3. -1
        9 July 2025 00: 09
        What the hell 90s?! We climbed into the capitalist stable back under Khrushchev, it was then in 57 that the Soviet communists really wanted to be their own in the capitalist stable.
        And the capitalists themselves did not strive at all to normalize relations with the USSR.
        And when the communists were the first to show initiative, the Americans immediately took it for weakness and began to talk to the USSR, as they say, through their lips. And they set the condition that they were ready to go for rapprochement if the Soviet government fulfilled a number of mandatory conditions. The main ones were: reduction of the army, condemnation of Stalin's regime and lifting of the ban on abortions.
        And the Soviet government fulfilled all the conditions!
        And then, under Brezhnev, the Club of Rome was created, which included and represented the USSR - from the party nomenklatura and the KGB.
        Which ultimately led to the dismantling of the USSR. And the 90s were only a consequence of Soviet policy.
        1. 0
          5 September 2025 13: 33
          Quote from The Watcher
          What the hell 90s?! We climbed into the capitalist stable under Khrushchev, it was then in 57 that the Soviet communists really wanted to be

          Under Khrushchev, it was not the capitalists who came to power, but the Mensheviks and people with Selyuk's life logic, and they dragged us not into capitalism, but into a banana republic, which everyone and their dog can push around.
    2. +7
      7 July 2025 07: 53
      Don't you think that it is somehow strange to discuss the actions of the so-called "Allies" (which by the way included the Russian Empire) only on one front? Let's look a little more broadly, at all fronts:
      In 1914, on the Western Front, the German army was barely stopped, and on the Eastern Front, the Russian army’s offensive ended in failure; there was no time for the Balkans.
      In 1915, on the Western Front, the Franco-British tried to drive the Germans out of France, while on the Eastern Front, the Germans were smashing the Russian army, again not reaching the Balkans.
      In 1916, the Germans were advancing in France, and the Russian army was trying to drive the Germans out of our territory and somehow distract them from the offensive in France.
      In 1917, on the Western Front they were still trying to drive the Germans out of France, but we had February, everyone knows it all very well...
      Of course, I didn’t take Italy into account, but as we know, if the Italians are on your side, they need 100 divisions to avoid losing, if they are against you, they need 100 divisions to defeat them…
      So it turns out that no one had the strength for the Balkans; preventing defeat in France was much more important than some Balkans...
      1. +7
        7 July 2025 09: 23
        Quote: parma
        Don't you think that it is somehow strange to discuss the actions of the so-called "Allies" (which by the way included the Russian Empire) only on one front? Let's look a little more broadly, at all fronts:

        I completely agree, colleague!
        The Salonika Front was formed specifically with one single purpose - to somehow pull the Austrians and Bulgarians away from other fronts, to create another point of tension. Expecting some strategic actions from this front is a very poor hope.
        And the actions of the Bulgarians - well, what can I say, they were solving their own problems.
      2. -1
        7 July 2025 20: 19
        And they also went into the Dardanelles for an unclear purpose.
        1. +1
          8 July 2025 09: 15
          How to say "with an unclear purpose"... the purpose was clear - to take Turkey out of the war. With the successful capture of the straits, the forces of the Russian army were freed from the Caucasian front and the opportunity for the Russian army to operate in the Balkans appeared, but the Russian army was unable to support the British, and they had no success... but what good would the Balkans do without Turkey being eliminated from the war is a big question
  2. +1
    7 July 2025 05: 20
    But it is unclear why the Entente needed the defeat of Serbia and Montenegro? It was, after all, a front of some sort. And it tied down the forces of the Austrian army. And weren't the same Austrian armies that defeated the Serbs and Montenegrins then set about the Italians in Trentino and Caporetto? wink
    1. -1
      7 July 2025 06: 23
      Why did Croatia, Albania and Kosovo enter into a military alliance now?
      The goal is the same: to deprive Russia of any foothold in the Balkans.
      I love History as such...it explains the Future well. smile
      1. +4
        7 July 2025 09: 33
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        The goal is the same: to deprive Russia of any foothold in the Balkans.

        That's why Yugoslavia was created after the war! laughing
    2. +5
      7 July 2025 09: 32
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      But it’s not clear why the Entente needed the defeat of Serbia and Montenegro?

      The article says - specifically so that the weakened Serbs would not become strong after the war. The Entente was absolutely confident of victory at the beginning of 1915 - troops were standing near Berlin, the allies were quickly cutting off the last pockets of enemy resistance.
      What if the Serbs suddenly want to create Yugoslavia? And that's not possible.
      I hope you understand
      1. 0
        5 September 2025 13: 40
        Quote: Trapper7
        The Entente was absolutely confident of victory at the beginning of 1915.

        I wouldn't say so. The formation of the Entente itself was finalized at the last moment due to the cunning position of the English and it took time to assess the situation. In addition, the French were weighed down by the crushing defeat during the Franco-Prussian War, the French, although thirsty for revenge, were not at all sure that they would be able to achieve it.
        Russia's role in the war was also not entirely clear. On the one hand, it was accumulating forces in the east, on the other, after the shameful outcome of the Russo-Japanese War, knowing the state of the Russian army, the Entente was not at all sure that Russia would help enough.
        Finally, the German offensive in France at the beginning of the war was so powerful that everyone understood that it would not be easy to deal with them.
        Confidence came when the Americans decided on support.
        1. 0
          8 September 2025 08: 28
          Quote: multicaat
          I wouldn't say so. The formation of the Entente itself was finalized at the last moment.

          My text was sarcastic) The phrase about Berlin kind of hinted at that)))
  3. +1
    7 July 2025 06: 15
    They always do bad things, but they also always "work" for the sake of their own benefit. Russia has accomplished many "emotional" feats, to its own detriment. The peculiarities of our mentality.
  4. +6
    7 July 2025 06: 16
    Conspiracy theories contradict logic and always break down when asked "why?" All of this fully applies to the article.
    1. +6
      7 July 2025 07: 09
      At the same time, the pages of VO do not like to remember the role of the "allies" during the civil war, about the bombing of red Petrograd and Kronstadt by English aviation, etc., they are "allies", "patriotic" forces of Russia and its outskirts supported. And even acted as arbitrators. For example, between the VSYUR of A.I. Denikin and the Menshevik government of Georgia regarding Sochi laughing But otherwise, I agree, the article is a complete conspiracy theory and the main thing is not clear, “why?”
      1. +4
        7 July 2025 07: 41
        They also like to write that in order not to give up the straits in case of victory, the Entente staged a revolution in Russia with German money. laughing
        The truth is, when asked why? It's really surreal. The only thing missing is aliens.
        1. +5
          7 July 2025 16: 26
          Quote: Alexey 1970
          The truth is, when asked why? It's really surreal. The only thing missing is aliens.

          Why do we need aliens? There is a universal explanation - the Freemasons.
          Some Masons, who had lived happily under the Tsar, acting according to a single plan, overthrew the Tsar in February 1917. Then other Masons, acting according to a single plan, overthrew these Masons in November 1917. And then third Masons, acting according to a single plan, purged the second Masons in the course of purges. And then these Masons, who had lived happily under Soviet power, acting according to a single plan, overthrew this power in 1991.
          The cycle of Masons in nature. Logical, isn't it? laughing
          1. +1
            7 July 2025 17: 44
            Why do we need aliens? There is a universal explanation - the Freemasons.
            🤦‍♂️🤣
          2. 0
            8 July 2025 08: 22
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The cycle of Masons in nature. Logical, isn't it?

            And you can't find fault feel
    2. +5
      7 July 2025 14: 07
      Quote: Alexey 1970
      Conspiracy theories defy logic and always fall apart when asked "why?"
      Alexey, "conspiracy theories" are invented by those who have something to hide. In fact, "The devil's greatest trick is to convince you that he doesn't exist." (Charles Baudelaire).
      To begin with, what were the causes of the First World War? Capitalism in Germany had grown stronger, and Germany was preparing to challenge Britain for the world throne of the leader of capitalism. We constantly leave out of the equation that Britain needed Russia only as cannon fodder against the Germans. Just as a strong Serbia was not needed, much less a strong Russia. It is not surprising that the cunning, vile Anglo-Saxons eliminated all the major empires in Europe - the German, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian. That's it, only the British remained. It would have been a blessing for the Anglo-Saxons, but the Bolsheviks did not destroy the exhausted, semi-literate Russia, but began to build a socialist pole of power independent of all the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, and after industrialization, the country began to quickly move toward the status of a superpower. Did the Anglo-Saxons need this? They found a Nazi scumbag, Adolf Hitler, brought his party to power, turned a blind eye to the violations of Versailles, then turned a blind eye to the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria, and then gave away Czechoslovakia. The "phony war" when Hitler was allowed to absorb almost all of Europe, all to achieve the necessary military and economic potential against the USSR, where Germany became the anti-USSR, and Nazism as the antagonist of communism. Then, everything went according to plan, the words of Harry Truman, this is the quintessence of the essence, - "If we see that Germany wins, then we should help Russia, and if Russia wins, then we should help Germany, and, thus, let them kill as many as possible, although I do not want to see Hitler as a winner under any circumstances." A bummer for the Anglo-Saxon "reptilians" happened again, the USSR not only won, but also created a bloc of socialist countries, became a nuclear and space superpower. Nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxons firmly became the masters of world capitalism, and the dollar the world currency.
      Yes, the USSR fell in 1991, but they did not defeat us, they outsmarted us, they were mean, the wolf pretended to be a sheep, a true democracy. We were outplayed by the gloss of Hollywood, pop and rock variety, the "victory" of the USA in the space race, in the "landing" on the Moon (for which thanks to dear Leonid Ilyich, who played along with the Yankees for momentary perks). We got the fetish of everything "made in not ours", the betrayal of the nomenklatura, when the party no longer included communists, but brainless members, careerists and opportunists, who quickly became former. Thus fell a great country and a great morality. Now, puffing up their cheeks in the "first economy of Europe", in capitalism and under the world masters of capitalism, where the main agents of foreign influence are precisely those who own the majority of the country's wealth, who have dual or triple citizenship, accounts in foreign currencies and in foreign banks. A strong Russia is of no use to anyone now, that's not why the West destroyed the USSR and fed the traitors. To make Ukraine an anti-Russia, so that in essence Russians would kill Russians, this had to be done by someone, and without the help of traitors, such "grinding", bleeding Russia dry would hardly have been possible. Having betrayed once, one is accustomed to betraying, especially for the benefit of the selfish interests of big capital.
      1. +4
        7 July 2025 15: 31
        Everything is correct, except that they were on the Moon. See photos from the lunar satellites of India and China
        1. +2
          8 July 2025 06: 40
          Quote: Aviator_
          they were on the moon after all
          Dear Sergey, as you should understand, you are not a stranger to aviation. Can you imagine that without preliminary testing and debugging, someone creates a plane of a new design, immediately puts pilots and passengers in it and sends it on a flight over the Atlantic, and everything is great, and these flights become multiple? This, as the youth say now, is complete nonsense. But with "Saturn 5" it is exactly like that, the rocket appeared out of nowhere and disappeared into nowhere. About the "pictures" of India and China, firstly, such tasks were not set, secondly, only two countries have the right to make a detailed inspection of the Moon - the USA and Russia (as the successor of the USSR), the States jealously guard their secrets. According to NASA pictures, for the anniversary of the "landing", how can we believe them, it is an interested party.
          I will also say that humanity is still unable to land on the Moon, and the brave Americans in diapers, it seems like they pulled it off with a bang in the last century. There are many bloopers and inconsistencies, even without taking into account the influence of radiation during the years of maximum solar activity at the time of the flights. The profile of a "single dive" (direct) entry into the Earth's atmosphere, declared in the Apollo reports, is practically inapplicable. If it were implemented during landing at the second cosmic velocity, it could be catastrophic for the landing module. If the descent module somehow survived the entry into the atmosphere, then upon descent the astronauts would be in a critical condition due to the serious danger of severe gravitational overloads after a long period of weightlessness (breathing pure oxygen) and, most likely, after splashdown would be in a serious condition and would not look so cheerful. The Yankees have not been able to build a single lunar rover, but their creations have been driving around Mars for many years. This is also a topic. In the lunar race, it was a question of life and death between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism lost, but the miracles of Hollywood and the billions spent have done and are doing their job. The time will come when the States will face national shame for this monstrous and brazen falsification. In the photo, "Neil Armstrong's footprint on the Moon."
          1. +3
            8 July 2025 08: 31
            Sergey, let's leave the conspiracy theories to Yu. I. Mukhin and humorist M. Zadornov (Americans are stupid). I'm not interested in the opinion of today's youth, to whom you refer. These are journalists who sensed a topic for hype. The system was tested from 1967 to 1969. Saturn-5 was made in a series sufficient for testing and completing the mission. I leave your thoughts on the "impossibility" of returning to Earth from the second space mission on your conscience. About the grave condition of the astronauts - also. Next - about the lunar rovers and Mars rovers. Even the Americans couldn't manage two lunar programs at the same time - manned and automatic - and they didn't set such a task. They exchanged the delivered lunar soil with our Academy of Sciences. Here are the results of the comparative analysis. So there were.
            1. +1
              8 July 2025 10: 15
              Quote: Aviator_
              They exchanged the delivered lunar soil with our Academy of Sciences.
              A few grams, after a long pause? Entering the atmosphere at the second cosmic speed, without preliminary braking (the two-dive scheme of our flights), it is not on my conscience. What would have happened to the American thin-walled capsule filled with oxygen, and the lunar supermen in rag spacesuits, that is the question. It is clear, there is no point in arguing, we will stick to our own.
            2. 0
              12 July 2025 09: 37
              Quote: Aviator_
              Even the Americans couldn't manage two lunar programs simultaneously - manned and automatic - and they didn't set such a task. They exchanged the delivered lunar soil with our Academy of Sciences. Here are the results of the comparative analysis. So there were.


              1. Unconvincing. If the manned lunar program is just a fake, then there were enough resources for an unmanned one.
              2. Is it okay that it took so long to fulfill the Soviet request? And why was the sample of lunar soil provided by the Yankees so modest in mass? What prevented them from handing over a 3 or even 5 kg piece of lunar rock? And then play it up in their propaganda: "The Russians gave us a pitiful few grams, but we, the great and exceptional, gave them a big present. Know ours!"
              Is it because the Yankees had very little real lunar soil brought from the Moon? After all, it was also delivered by the AMS, and not by the Katsmanauts with a lunar cart.
              And it's not clear at all why NASA shut down its lunar program ahead of schedule. The new spaceships and crews were already ready... launch and use.
              Maybe it's simply because the White House has a new president and he gave the command: "stop the farce," not wanting to bear responsibility for such a scam?
              3. And why the hell, even after half a century, no one flies to the Moon, not even the Yankees? The only example in history when, despite obvious technical progress, no one can repeat the achievement of half a century ago. And don't blah-blah that no one needs it. Both Bush Jr. and Obama talked about returning to the Moon... but it never went beyond talk.
              Alas, but the position and arguments of the supporters of the "moon conspiracy" look more convincing. Well, except that the reptilians do not let us to the Moon and generally forbade humanity to engage in manned space exploration, except to mope around in space suits in orbit.
              1. 0
                14 July 2025 09: 26
                And why the hell, even after half a century, no one flies to the Moon, not even the Yankees? The only example in history, when despite obvious technical progress, no one can repeat the achievement of half a century ago.

                In terms of persuasiveness, this argument is of the same kind as that of the supporters of “forgotten supercivilizations of the past and rewritten history” - but no one in modern times has built a copy of the Egyptian pyramids, which means they were built by a civilization with a higher level of technology than ours.
                And don't blah-blah that no one needs this.

                Imagine, it's all that simple in reality. Occam's razor.
      2. +3
        8 July 2025 10: 43
        Quote: Per se.
        Alexey, "conspiracy theories" are invented by those who have something to hide.

        1. +1
          8 July 2025 11: 43
          Using the example of talking sheep, this is strong. In general, if wives suspect their husbands of cheating, you can hang a "conspiracy theory" on this too.
  5. +5
    7 July 2025 07: 16
    It seems that only in the process of writing the article did the authors suddenly discover that war is not a dangerous sport for real gentlemen, but a rather cynical struggle for individual and collective survival.
  6. +8
    7 July 2025 08: 22
    Almost the same situation as in the First World War was repeated with Greece already in November 1940 – March 1941, when the Greek troops,
    The liberation of all of Albania was gaining momentum. But despite requests from Greek Prime Minister General I. Metaxas to London for military assistance, British troops in the region did not help Greece in any way during that period.
    Are the authors aware that after the crushing defeat of the English in France, with the loss of all weapons, in London they forged... pikes to repel the German landing? What help?

    The same thing happened with WWI: the fate of the war was not decided on the Soloniki front, but near Paris, to which the Germans were rushing.

    As for the Bulgarians, they tried to buy them off until the very end, but it didn’t work out. Germany promised more, but with Romania, on the contrary, it worked out.
    1. 10+
      7 July 2025 09: 36
      Quote: Olgovich
      Are the authors aware that after the crushing defeat of the English in France, with the loss of all weapons, in London they forged... pikes to repel the German landing? What help?

      Well, why did you say this out loud now?
      Such a beautiful and harmonious conspiracy theory was destroyed at the root crying
    2. +8
      7 July 2025 16: 11
      Are the authors aware that after the crushing defeat of the British in France, with the loss of all weapons, in London they forged... pikes to repel the German landing?

      This is a fairy tale. It's just that supplying the militia was not a priority compared to the army.
      The desire of the British who had not been drafted to publicly demonstrate their patriotism in order to avoid being hounded by "white feathers" resulted in such an influx of people wishing to join the militia that the supply problem was not illusory. In 1941, Churchill allowed himself to make an allegorical statement that "every British man should be armed with at least a pike or a mace." His subordinates took it literally and placed an order for a quarter of a million pikes with the Ministry of Aircraft Construction. I suppose this was preferable for the authorities than issuing firearms - substandard "vigilantes" who had no experience with weapons but really wanted to be real machos and criminals themselves were more dangerous than the Germans. "Croft's pike" was a section of steel pipe with a welded-on bayonet from the time of WWI. After the bile that Gallagher and Fields poured out in Parliament on this matter, it was necessary to allocate funds for the purchase of weapons for the militias in the USA and Canada. Well, and the already made pikes were placed wherever they could, on the principle of "it's not good for you to have it, but it's not good for you to have it yourself."
      1. +2
        8 July 2025 08: 27
        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
        This is a bike.

        Well, it's a story
        His subordinates took it literally and placed an order for a quarter of a million pikes with the Ministry of Aviation Industry.

        Or is it not a fairy tale after all? winked
        Sorry, noticing inconsistencies is professional deformation)
        In any case, a plus from me for a good explanation of the topic good
        1. +1
          8 July 2025 10: 28
          Or is it not a fairy tale? winked
          Sorry, noticing inconsistencies is professional deformation)

          A tale in the sense that the staffing of territorials, which were a burden for the army, but which could not be brushed aside under public pressure (and also fueled by the opposition) is presented as problems with the armament of the army itself, and in the spring of 1941. If we take into account that the Home Guard was born on May 14, 1940, then it is natural that the problems with its organization and staffing, inevitable for any undertaking, simply coincided with Dunkirk, and were not a consequence.
          If you really want to convince yourself that "the English fought with pikes because they had no other weapons", then the attached photo should work without fail )))
        2. +1
          9 July 2025 13: 20
          Quote: Trapper7
          Or is it not a fairy tale after all?

          Who in their right mind, given enough normal weapons, would arm themselves with....pikes?

          Participant of the events, evacuated from France:
          . To the rescue regular army, relatively small in number At first, volunteer civil defense units arrived, which were in July were transformed into a people's militia, numbering over 1 million people
          . We arrived from a decayed, weak France to an organized country, to a country that decided to fight back against the aggressor. But with what? With our bare hands! About 350 thousand people reached the island after the retreat from Dunkirk, and all their weapons became the enemy's spoils. There were no guns, anti-aircraft artillery and, above all, tanks for the defense of England. The light weapons at the army's disposal were outdated, but they were also in short supply. The militia, consisting of former military and civilians, armed out of necessity berdankas and sharpened iron bars from park fences. Even historical halberds from museums and family estates were put into use as weapons suitable for close combat..
          1. -1
            9 July 2025 14: 46
            Who in their right mind, given enough normal weapons, would arm themselves with....pikes?

            Someone who is no good even with a weapon, but who really wants to "be like everyone else."
            At the end of 1940, the Home Guard had a deficit of 190 thousand rifles with a strength of 1,5 million people.
            Name the army unit armed with pikes.
  7. 13+
    7 July 2025 08: 43
    These facts alone show that Paris, London and Rome indirectly, if not directly, prepared the military defeat of Serbia and Montenegro in the summer and fall of 1915.
    Well, if the authors had studied the whole history, they would have learned that Paris and London, specifically, were already stuck in the Dardanelles, suffering huge losses and no longer knowing how to get out, so there was no time for Serbia at all.
    But despite requests from Greek Prime Minister General I. Metaxas (pictured above, with the Greek flag in the background) and his successor A. Koryzis (Metaxas died suddenly on January 29, 1941) to London for military assistance, British troops in the region did nothing to help Greece during that period.
    What do you mean they didn't help?! The British Expeditionary Force of 62 thousand fought in Greece + the fleet, and they couldn't allocate more, everything was falling apart at the seams by that time. Of course, I don't justify them, but why so openly invent fables
    1. +6
      7 July 2025 16: 22
      Quote: Stirbjorn
      What do you mean they didn't help?! The British Expeditionary Force of 62 thousand fought in Greece + the fleet, and they couldn't allocate more, everything was falling apart at the seams by that time. Of course, I don't justify them, but why so openly invent fables

      It's not that simple. The British agreed to land British expeditionary forces in Greece only on February 22, 1941. That is, the Greeks beat the Italians themselves. The British feared that the introduction of a limited contingent into Greece would provoke Germany's entry into the Greek-Italian war.
      In fact, this is what happened - the landing of the British expeditionary forces in Greece and the coup in Yugoslavia set into motion the Marit plan, which until then had been a purely paper operation, since the Reich was gathering all its forces for "Barbarossa".
      And regarding the volume of British aid - you are right. The British took away even more than they could have - stopping the offensive in North Africa and giving Rommel the opportunity to land calmly.
  8. +6
    7 July 2025 08: 51
    Actually, that's all you need to know about the dreams of the Straits of today's "monarchists" (mostly foolish cosplayers, descendants of the gray-pawed Pafnutii and the sex-minded Yashkas, and even the shmukler Oseks, who have now made up their own genealogies and kiss the ass of Prince Gogi and his mother).
    1. +8
      7 July 2025 09: 37
      Actually, that's all you need to know about the authors of this article. It takes a lot of effort to write such nonsense.
    2. 0
      7 July 2025 20: 17
      What can you do, they want to be counts and princes, drink cognac and give horses champagne...😂😂😂
      1. 0
        8 July 2025 08: 33
        Quote: Grencer81
        What can you do, they want to be counts and princes, drink cognac and give horses champagne...😂😂😂

        Well, many modern communists probably also see themselves among the party nomenklatura, eating in special canteens, relaxing in special sanatoriums and being treated in special clinics.
        And certainly not in a two-hour line for sausages.
        1. +1
          8 July 2025 11: 54
          I don’t know how modern communists see themselves, but those who were former party members certainly didn’t become plumbers...
        2. 0
          12 July 2025 09: 20
          "Take away and divide!" Polygraph Poligrafovich is alive, alive. Nothing can touch him!

          "Sharikov's teaching is omnipotent because it is true!" lol
  9. +8
    7 July 2025 09: 18
    The predominant inactivity of the Salonika Front was connected with the political goals of the Western Entente: to achieve the greatest losses for Serbia and Montenegro during the war and occupation, in order to then dictate the terms of the Balkan reorganization.

    So what? How did it go with the dictation? Instead of Serbia, they conjured up Yugoslavia?
    Or is it not a matter of “evil allies”, but of the real situation of that time?
    I don't feel any awe for the allies, but looking for evil machinations of the English and Franks in every failure is, IMHO, too much.
    1. +1
      12 July 2025 09: 18
      Of course. We need to look for the Yankees' machinations. The only true beneficiaries of the two world wars.
  10. +4
    7 July 2025 11: 33
    How many years have passed. We are already bombing Kyiv ourselves. It is easy to blame everyone.
    An example was given by a historian in an article. Serbia, Bulgaria, Turkey (I think, from memory) - around WW1. Every year they changed allies in the trio, and fought against the third one. 3 years - 3 wars, basically in a circle...

    Politics... the common people go to the front, the rich get profit
  11. +2
    7 July 2025 12: 00
    British and New Zealand troops contributed by sending troops to Crete and Greece, withdrawing them from the North African front, which brought sharp criticism from his countrymen to the British Prime Minister Churchill. At the same time, British General Harrocks said that the decision had not been easy but necessary. Critics at the time argued that sending troops to Greece, even small ones, would give the Germans and Italians time to consolidate their positions in North Africa.
  12. +4
    7 July 2025 16: 13
    The liberation of all of Albania was gaining momentum. But despite requests from Greek Prime Minister General I. Metaxas (pictured above, with the Greek flag in the background) and his successor A. Koryzis (Metaxas died suddenly on January 29, 1941) to London for military assistance, the British troops in the region did not help Greece in any way during that period. And soon Greece, along with Yugoslavia, was occupied by German and Italian troops – with the complicity of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania...

    So Britain helped Greece - in February-March 1941 it transferred some troops from North Africa. The result was three times disastrous:
    - the forces transferred to Greece (the New Zealand 2nd Infantry Division, the Australian 6th Infantry Division, the British 1st Brigade and 9 air squadrons) were extremely insufficient to stop the Germans;
    - it was not possible to bring these forces back - they were defeated in Crete;
    - the North African Limey group (2th AK), deprived of 3/13 of its forces, stopped its offensive, leaving the ports west of Tripoli in the hands of the Italians, where Rommel's forces began to unload.
    Chasing two hares ... ©
  13. 0
    7 July 2025 20: 25
    When talking about "allies", just take as a basis the African and Latin American countries that are sold to the West and see what happens to them.
  14. 0
    7 July 2025 22: 24
    God save me from "friends", and I will save myself from enemies.
  15. 0
    9 July 2025 21: 05
    Quote: Essex62
    Those who got involved were traitors or agents of the bourgeoisie from the very beginning. "We" is not very appropriate in this case. No one asked us.


    Nobody asked us. You are right.
    Did anyone ask us in 1979 about aid to the DRA? In 1985, did they ask us about "prohibition"? Did they ask us about the wall in Berlin and when it was built and when it was dismantled?
    And they kept asking us about the retirement age... But we dug in our heels. And they raised it a little according to our demands.
    But they demanded an output of 75-80 and 7 percent of what was sent to the Pension Fund.
  16. 0
    13 August 2025 14: 33
    To betray in time means to foresee in time.