For which they fought in the First World War

12 589 139
For which they fought in the First World War


111 years ago, in the May days of 1915, the Russian army, bleeding profusely from the lack of ammunition, heroically repelled the attacks of the enemy on the fields of Galicia. By concentrating more than half of its armed forces against Russia, the Austro-German bloc rammed our defenses, trying not only to lead Russia out of the war. The two mid-European empires had their far-reaching plans for Russian territory. In the midst of an offensive in Galicia on May 28, German Chancellor Bettmann-Golweg spoke in Reichstag explaining the strategic goals of the Second Reich in war.



“Relying on our clear conscience, on our just cause and on our victorious sword,” declared the prime minister of a state that had trampled on international law more than once or twice during that war, “we must remain firm until we have created all conceivable guarantees for our security, so that none of our enemies, either individually or collectively, would dare to begin an armed campaign again.”

Translated into everyday language, this meant: the war must continue until the Greater German Reich established complete and undivided hegemony in Europe, so that no state could resist any of its claims. Applied to Russia, this could naturally mean one thing. Since its vast territory constituted the foundation of Russian power, the Russian Empire must be dismembered. But that was not all. The plans of the German ruling class already included the colonization of "living space" in the East. Hitler's "Ost" plan for World War II had quite "respectable" predecessors in Imperial Germany.

There, these ideas have been hatched for many decades. In 1891, an association of German intellectuals, military, landowners and industrialists appeared under the name of the Pan-German Union. Until the First World War, the Pan-German Union served as the main inspirer of the imperialist policy of Kaiser Germany. The Union stood for active German colonial conquests, strengthening the power of the German naval fleetOver time, Union activists began to advocate for German expansion into Southeastern Europe and the Middle East. Believing Russia to be a competitor in this German endeavor, the Union classified it as Germany's adversary.

The activities of the Pan-German League played a significant role in orienting the Kaiser's policy toward confrontation with Russia on the eve of 1914. Plans to revise the existing geopolitical balance in Eastern Europe were developing in Germany even before the official creation of the Pan-German League and independently of it. In 1888, the German philosopher Eduard Hartmann published an article in the journal "Gegenwart" entitled "Russia and Europe," which advanced the idea that a vast Russia posed a threat to Germany. Consequently, Russia needed to be divided into several states.

First and foremost, a barrier of sorts needed to be created between "Muscovite" Russia and Germany. The main components of this barrier were to be the so-called "Baltic" and "Kievan" kingdoms. According to Hartmann's plan, the "Baltic Kingdom" was to comprise the "Ostsee" (or Baltic) provinces of Russia and the lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, or today's Belarus. The "Kievan Kingdom" was to be formed on the territory of present-day Ukraine, but with significant eastward expansion—all the way to the lower reaches of the Volga. According to this geopolitical plan, the former would be a protectorate of Germany, and the latter, of Austria-Hungary.

Finland was to be transferred to Sweden, and Bessarabia to Romania. This plan became the geopolitical justification for Ukrainian separatism, which was being actively fostered in Vienna at the time. The borders of the states intended to be carved out of Russia, as outlined by Hartmann in 1888, practically coincide with the borders of the "Reichskommissariats" of Ostland and Ukraine, outlined in the 1942 "Ost" plan. It would be an exaggeration to assume that ideas of German expansion into Russia before World War I completely defined the worldview of the ruling classes of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

However, with the outbreak of World War I, these ideas found fertile ground to spread and take hold among the ruling classes in the Central European empires. In September 1914, Reich Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg declared one of Germany's goals for the war to be "to push Russia back from the German border as far as possible and to undermine its dominance over non-Russian vassal peoples." In other words, it was almost overtly stated that Germany was seeking to establish its influence in the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, and the Caucasus.

At the same time, the leadership of the Pan-German League prepared a memorandum for the Kaiser's government. It stated, among other things, that the "Russian enemy" must be weakened by reducing its population and preventing any further growth, "so that it will never again be in a position to threaten us in a similar way." This was to be achieved by expelling the Russian population from the regions lying west of the line between St. Petersburg and the middle reaches of the Dnieper.

The Pan-German League set the number of Russians subject to deportation from their lands at approximately seven million. The territory thus liberated was to be resettled with German peasants. As 1915 began, one after another, German associations of industrialists, farmers, and the "middle class" adopted expansionist resolutions. All of them emphasized the need for conquests in the East, in Russia. The culmination of this campaign was a congress of the cream of the German intelligentsia, which gathered at the end of June 1915 at the House of Arts in Berlin.

At the beginning of July 1915, 1347 German professors of various political persuasions—from right-wing conservatives to social democrats—signed a memorandum to the government outlining a program of territorial acquisitions, pushing Russia eastward to the Urals, and German colonization of captured Russian lands. It is necessary, of course, to distinguish between Germany's plans in the First and Second World Wars. In the First, these were indeed plans that never reached the implementation stage.

They failed, however, only because Germany lacked the means at the time to implement them. The territories earmarked for development still had to be captured, and their undivided possession secured by a peace treaty. Even the occupation of these lands by the Kaiser's troops in 1918 did not yet provide such an opportunity, as a desperate struggle continued in the West, ultimately unsuccessful for Germany. But the foundations of the Third Reich's future "Ostpolitik" were being outlined and crystallized during this time. The implementation of these principles during the First World War was thwarted first by the heroic resistance of Russian troops, then by Germany's final defeat. This should not be forgotten.

In 1917, the Baltic German Paul Rohrbach, who became one of Germany's leading ideologists on the "Eastern Question" during World War I, proposed a program for the future "geopolitical arrangement" of spaces in the East. Significantly, Rohrbach, along with the renowned geopolitician Karl Haushofer, was the founder of the occult-scientific Thule Society, which is rightly considered one of the laboratories of future Nazism. In his work "Our War Aim in the East and the Russian Revolution," Rohrbach called for the abandonment of a policy "that considers Russia as a whole, as a single state."

Germany's primary objective in the war was to expel Russia from "all areas naturally and historically destined for Western cultural contact and which had been illegally ceded to Russia." Germany's future, according to Rohrbach, depended on pursuing this goal to its conclusion. Rohrbach identified three regions for separation from Russia: 1) Finland, the Baltics, Poland, and Belarus, which he called "Intereurope"; 2) Ukraine; and 3) the North Caucasus. Finland and Poland were to become independent states under German protection. To make Poland's separation more sensitive for Russia, Poland was to annex the lands of Belarus.

Since annexation slogans were unpopular in 1917, the Baltic states, according to this plan, were to remain formally federalized with Russia, but with the de facto right to independent foreign relations. This, the German ideologist believed, would allow Germany to establish a dominant influence in the Baltics. One of the founders of the Thule Society attached particular importance to Ukraine's separation from Russia. If Ukraine remained with Russia, Germany's strategic goals would not be achieved. Thus, long before Brzezinski, Rohrbach formulated the fundamental condition for stripping Russia of its imperial status:
"The removal of the Russian threat, if time permits, will only follow through the separation of Ukrainian Russia from Muscovite Russia; otherwise, this threat will not be removed at all."

In 1918, it seemed the dreams of German geopoliticians were close to coming true. Russia was disintegrating.

The troops of the two Kaisers occupied the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, and Georgia. Turkish troops entered Eastern Transcaucasia. A German-controlled Cossack "state" emerged in the Don region, led by Ataman Krasnov. Krasnov attempted to cobble together a Don-Caucasian Union from Cossack and mountain regions, which fully aligned with Rohrbach's plan to separate the North Caucasus from Russia. In the Baltics, the German government no longer made a secret of its annexationist policy. Today's Baltic nationalists tend to regard the February days of 1918, when German troops occupied Livonia and Estonia, as the days when their countries declared their independence.

In reality, Germany had no intention of granting them independence. A Baltic Duchy was established on the lands of Estonia and Latvia, with Adolf Friedrich, Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, as its formal head. Prince Wilhelm von Urach, a representative of a collateral branch of the royal house of Württemberg, was invited to the throne of Lithuania. Real power throughout this time rested with the German military administration.

Ultimately, both "states" were to be incorporated into a federal German Reich. In the summer of 1918, the heads of the puppet "Ukrainian State," the "Great Don Army," and other similar entities traveled to Berlin to pay their respects to their august patron, Kaiser Wilhelm II. With some of them, the Kaiser was quite frank, declaring that there would no longer be a united Russia. Germany intended to facilitate the perpetuation of Russia's division into several states, the largest of which would be: 1) Great Russia within its European portion, 2) Siberia, 3) Ukraine, and 4) the Don-Caucasian or Southeastern Union. All these far-reaching "benevolent undertakings" were thwarted by Germany's capitulation in World War I on November 11, 1918. And the beginning of the collapse of these plans was evident on the fields of Galicia, generously watered with Russian and enemy blood, in the spring and summer of 1915.

When recalling the First World War, let us not forget the goals our adversaries pursued in it. Then this war will appear before us in its true form as one of Russia's Patriotic Wars.

Yaroslav Butakov
139 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    April 6 2026 05: 28
    When recalling the First World War, let us not forget what goals our opponents had in that war.

    They haven't changed even now. request
    Reading about the Germans of 1914 and today...it's all the same.
    History has made a hundred-year circle and returned again to 1914... heh heh 2030... when the Germans promise us a new war with Russia.
    .
    1. -2
      April 6 2026 06: 16
      It's not for nothing that we have a saying: "In Europe, there's this strange 'fun' of going to war with Russia once every 100 years, getting beat up, licking your wounds for a long time, and... starting all over again! And yes, 100 years is an exaggeration; it usually lasts 2-3 generations. We look at recent history and... the 'Drach in Osten' has already begun! As G.K. Zhukov said: "We liberated them, and they will never forgive us!"
      1. -1
        April 6 2026 07: 02
        During World War I, Germany didn't go to war with Russia; it was Russia that went to war with Germany, even though there were no preconditions for war. Kaiser Wilheim expended titanic diplomatic efforts, persuading Tsar Nicholas not to ally with Britain, but Tsar Nicholas proved intractable and declared general mobilization.
        1. +7
          April 6 2026 08: 47
          Quote: operafan
          During World War I, Germany did not go to war with Russia, but it was Russia that went to war with Germany, although there were no preconditions for war.

          What a twist! It turns out Russia attacked Germany! belay What don't you hear from you alternativeists? request Here's a brief timeline of events: The war began on July 28, 1914. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. On July 29, the shelling of Belgrade began. On July 31, Russia, Serbia's ally, began full-scale mobilization. Germany, Austria-Hungary's ally, demanded that the mobilization be cancelled and, on the night of August 1, issued an ultimatum to Russia to cancel the mobilization decision within 12 hours. Foreign Minister S.D. Sazonov's response was as follows: this was impossible within such a short timeframe, but Russia was prepared to continue negotiations to resolve the conflict.Germany did not wait and on August 1 (July 19, old style) 1914 declared war on Russia..
          1. -5
            April 6 2026 09: 58
            Germany did not wait and on August 1 (July 19, old style), 1914, declared war on Russia.


            Lord, just read a million open sources about the diplomacy leading up to World War I. How Kaiser Wilheim practically begged the adamant Nicholas II on his knees not to enter the war. Read Wilheim's letters to Tsar Nicholas before the outbreak of World War I...

            Once again: Germany made colossal efforts and even promised Nicholas an industrial revolution in Russia, if only he would stay out of the war. Kaiser Wilheim understood well that a two-front war would be disastrous for Germany, and that there was simply nowhere to get resources. Moreover, Bismarck's idea of ​​a "Germany-Russia" axis in the confrontation between France and England was extremely popular in Germany.
            1. +2
              April 6 2026 11: 08
              But for some reason he didn’t write this to Austria-Hungary...
            2. +4
              April 6 2026 13: 49
              Quote: operafan
              How Kaiser Wilheim practically begged the adamant Nicholas II on his knees not to enter the war. Read Wilheim's letters to Tsar Nicholas before the outbreak of World War I...


              Yeah, he was brutally honest in his intentions.
              Or maybe the Kaiser was simply trying to pull the wool over the Russian Emperor's eyes? Of course, Germany wasn't looking forward to a two-front war. Let Russia sit quietly on the sidelines for now, until the Kaiser had dealt with France. And then, after France's defeat... the full force of its Teutonic might would be revealed to these Slavic subhumans.

              The Kaiser sent Bismarck's advice to a well-known address. It was the Germans who did everything to prevent the "Germany-Russia" alliance from coming to fruition, preferring the Austrians, who had long had political friction with Russia.
              1. 0
                April 14 2026 10: 19
                There is no need to strain yourself too much with explanations, everyone already knows, they are bad, we are good.
            3. +3
              April 7 2026 02: 21
              Quote: operafan
              Moreover, Bismarck's idea of ​​a "Germany-Russia" axis in the confrontation between France and England was extremely popular in Germany.

              Can you remind me when Bismarck was removed from power? Can you remind me about the Congress of Berlin and its aftermath?
            4. -4
              April 7 2026 18: 00
              You can't prove anything to today's sheep; they were brought up on articles like these, by Kholmogorov and Narotchnitskaya.
              I learned the whole truth about the outbreak of World War I and Russia's role in it back in the distant 80s, from Boris Mikhailovich Shaposhnikov's book, "The Brain of the Army," Volume 2. It details the entire July crisis, almost minute by minute, right up to the very beginning of hostilities, and Russia's role as the aggressor is fully revealed.
              And the statements cited in the article about DRANKH NA OSTEN are all well-known; they belong to marginal figures from the pub, and not to government officials.
              1. +3
                April 8 2026 08: 27
                Quote: Oleg Egorov
                You can't prove anything to today's sheep; they were brought up on articles like these, by Kholmogorov and Narotchnitskaya.

                No, today's, as you put it, "rams", simply know how to use logic and historical parallels, which is apparently inaccessible to you in principle.
                I learned the whole truth about the beginning of the First World War and Russia's role in it back in the distant 80s, from the book by Boris Mikhailovich Shaposhnikov -

                When I see phrases like this, I start to laugh. You can't learn "the whole truth" from just one book, even a very good one, especially one written during the Soviet era, when attitudes toward the empire were, to put it mildly, biased.
                And the statements cited in the article about DRANKH NA OSTEN are all well-known; they belong to marginal figures from the pub, and not to government officials.

                It wasn't about the eastward push. The point was that Russia was in danger of being left alone against the powerful Central Powers, and we simply couldn't handle that kind of confrontation in that era.
                And all countries without exception are to blame for the outbreak of war on August 1st.
        2. +3
          April 6 2026 08: 55
          Quote: operafan
          During World War I, Germany did not go to war with Russia, but it was Russia that went to war with Germany, although there were no preconditions for war.

          What choice did Russia have?
          Russia could have abandoned its allies (France and Serbia), distanced itself, and stayed out of the war. But what would happen next?

          Germany, having defeated the French in the West (probably by 1915 without the Russian front according to the Schlieffen Plan), would have turned to the East, dragging Russia into the conflict later, but on worse terms.
          1. -8
            April 6 2026 10: 10
            What choice did Russia have?
            Russia could have abandoned its allies (France and Serbia),


            In politics, everyone is constantly screwing someone over and breaking some rules. That's why it's called "politics."

            Germany, having defeated the French in the West (probably by 1915 without the Russian front according to the Schlieffen plan), would have turned to the East


            Germany certainly wouldn't have fought in the Russian Empire. Its main enemies were France and England (including their allies). And Germany viewed the Russian Empire as a supplier of grain and raw materials.
            Germany was interested in warm African and Asian colonies with plantations, not the permafrost of Siberia.
            1. +9
              April 6 2026 11: 44
              Quote: operafan
              Germany would certainly not have fought in the Russian Empire.

              I would have supported Austria-Hungary
            2. +2
              April 7 2026 08: 00
              Quote: operafan
              What choice did Russia have?
              Russia could have abandoned its allies (France and Serbia),


              In politics, everyone is constantly screwing someone over and breaking some rules. That's why it's called "politics."

              Germany, having defeated the French in the West (probably by 1915 without the Russian front according to the Schlieffen plan), would have turned to the East


              Germany certainly wouldn't have fought in the Russian Empire. Its main enemies were France and England (including their allies). And Germany viewed the Russian Empire as a supplier of grain and raw materials.
              Germany was interested in warm African and Asian colonies with plantations, not the permafrost of Siberia.

              Hitler didn't need Siberia either.
          2. 0
            April 6 2026 11: 36
            The Germans were late to the colonial division of the world. They needed colonies as a source of cheap raw materials and consumers of industrial products. And then there was the food issue.
            The question is, where can the Germans get this without much effort? If they could get it from Russia without a war, then everything would be wonderful. If France is defeated, all French colonies and conflict zones would go to the Germans. England? Well, we'll have to see. Will the Germans be able to persuade the British to accept the peace they want?
          3. 0
            April 6 2026 14: 18
            Let's put it this way: you're both right, as everyone had plenty of reasons to fight without it. But if we go by official documents, the Tsar could have put pressure on the Serbs and delayed the war in Europe (again, everyone wanted to fight). In fact, the assassination was a fatal dynastic crisis; a 100-year-old dynasty was being ended, the demands weren't overly harsh; today, an independent investigation on foreign soil is the norm, and the assassination itself was organized by the top brass of Serbian counterintelligence... But our Tsar decided that his pride was the proudest of all the Tsars-Kings-Emperors of Europe, and this set everyone up... According to the documents, France, Belgium, and England "simply passed by" in this conflict, but the funniest thing is that the most zealous "war-wishers" (the monarchs of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia) were overthrown by their own people! And the saddest thing is that the Tsar's overconfidence ultimately led to WWII, and he was eventually declared a saint...
            1. +4
              April 6 2026 14: 27
              I never thought I'd have to defend the most incompetent tsar in Russian history, but what you wrote about him is utter nonsense. Does that mean Russia started WWI? If you claim that, you're either a petty provocateur or worse.
              1. 0
                April 6 2026 15: 08
                Once again, I'm not blaming the Russian Empire for starting the war; I'm saying that the Emperor's actions and hubris led to it precisely at that moment. There's a 90% chance the war would have started sooner or later; everyone wanted a redistribution of the market! Once again, the assassination in Sarajevo was organized with the participation of the Serbian secret service leadership and was more than critical for Austria-Hungary (it effectively ended the dynasty!). Serbia refused demands to punish the perpetrators! Russia, driven solely by "moral obligations," rushed to protect the "weak," while Germany's appeals and threats were ignored! That's why I said our Tsar decided that his pride (a supposed moral duty to protect the Serbs) was superior to Austria's (revenge for the virtual annihilation of the dynastic line).
                1. +5
                  April 6 2026 16: 22
                  Quote: parma
                  Serbia refused demands to punish the perpetrators!

                  This is not true. See the Serbs' response to the ultimatum.
                  And don’t forget that both Princip himself and Tsyganovich (whose arrest the Austrians demanded) were subjects of Austria-Hungary.
            2. +2
              April 6 2026 15: 02
              Quote: parma
              the tsar could put pressure on the Serbs

              So he put pressure on the Serbs, who accepted all points except one.
              a 100+ year dynasty was interrupted,

              Karl I was Franz Joseph's nephew (if I remember correctly), meaning the dynasty was not interrupted and there was nothing supernatural about it.
              and the murder itself was organized by the top brass of Serbian counterintelligence...

              But the killer himself was a subject of Austria-Hungary (this has already been written about). There was no ironclad evidence against Serbia.
              but our king decided that his pride was the most haughty among the kings-emperors of Europe and this let everyone down...

              No, our Tsar realized that if he didn't protect the Serbs, it would spell the end of Russia as a significant foreign policy player. And quite possibly of him, too.
              And the saddest thing is that the Tsar's overconfidence ultimately led to WWII.

              I've never seen such a cause-and-effect relationship before, to be honest.
              1. 0
                April 6 2026 15: 34
                What was the pressure on the Serbs if they were given guarantees that in the event of a “big uproar” the Republic of Ingushetia would enter the war?

                Karl was from the "younger line", he was the emperor's second cousin once removed, in short, a piece of cake from the dynasty's point of view.

                The killer was part of a "black hand" (I think that's what they were called), organized by the head of Serbian counterintelligence. There was no ironclad evidence at the time, just a ton of circumstantial evidence. That's why the Austrians demanded permission to send their investigators to Serbia and the right to dig into the "dirty laundry" independently of local security forces...

                Well, those Balkan wars of 1912-1913, when Russian "protégés" in the form of Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria squabbled, weren't the end of the Russian Empire, but Serbia's antics were the end of the Russian Empire? Interesting reasoning...

                Well, look - the outcome of WWI led to a desire for revenge among the populations of Italy and Germany, and it was precisely this resentment that brought the Fuhrer and the Duce to power...
                1. +3
                  April 7 2026 02: 27
                  Quote: parma
                  What was the pressure on the Serbs if they were given guarantees that in the event of a “big uproar” the Republic of Ingushetia would enter the war?
                  The ultimatum was pressure, failure to comply meant war, and Russia was far away.

                  Quote: parma
                  This is precisely why the Austrians demanded permission to send their investigators to Serbia and the right to dig into the "dirty laundry" independently of local security forces...

                  Have you seen any other similar precedents in history? And by the way, is there any proof now?
                  Quote: parma
                  Russian "protégés" in the form of Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria

                  Were Greece and Bulgaria really Russian protégés? And didn't WWI begin after the Kaiser decided to hold the Berlin Congress and plant his people in the Balkans?
            3. +6
              April 6 2026 16: 19
              Quote: parma
              In fact, the murder was a fatal dynastic crisis, interrupting a 100+ year dynasty.

              I'm sorry, what?
              Firstly, Franz Ferdinand had two sons.
              Secondly, at that time his younger brother Karl Ludwig was still alive (albeit sick)
              Thirdly, the Habsburg family was quite extensive and had enough representatives to ensure that the dynasty did not break up.
              Fourth, there was a precedent where the Habsburg dynasty died out in the male line but continued in the female. In fact, the Habsburg-Lathringen line, to which Franz Ferdinand belonged, became the ruling line in this manner.
              Quote: parma
              The demands weren't too strict; today, independent investigations on foreign soil are the norm.

              1) The Serbs accepted the ultimatum
              2) The idea of ​​an independent investigation and that this is normal is untrue. These issues are already regulated by national legislation.
              But the Central Powers needed war and they declared it anyway.
              Quote: parma
              but our king decided

              That being left alone against a victorious Germany is not the best solution.
              And looking at the situation in 1941, it is obvious that he was not so wrong.
              1. -3
                April 6 2026 16: 32
                1) Both sons were excluded from the line of succession, since their mother was of humble origin... you know, the rules of nobility, the rules of heraldry and so on...
                2) If you mean Charles I, who later became emperor, then he was from a younger branch, a distant relative, also a candidate of sorts... again, noble rules and customs...
                3) I am talking specifically about the hereditary branch of the dynasty, it has effectively ended (although Franz Ferdinand was 50 years old, there were no legitimate male heirs and there might no longer be any, so the crisis is a matter of time, but still)
                4) That's exactly what this would be: a precedent and a crisis, like the one that happened in 1914, would not lead to anything good... perhaps even to a civil war, considering that Austria-Hungary was a "patchwork quilt"...
                The Serbs refused to allow investigators in and give them the right to investigate, despite the relative power of the countries and their influence...
                It was the alliance commitments that drew Britain and France into the war, not the German attack. Most likely, the war would have happened anyway, but we'll never know what the balance of power would have been, so yes, the Tsar-father decided to "fight here and now."
                1. +7
                  April 6 2026 16: 42
                  Quote: parma
                  Both sons were excluded from the order of succession.

                  Therefore, there was no problem in excluding FF from the line.
                  Quote: parma
                  You know, the rules of nobility, the rules of heraldry and so on...

                  Well... I know, but I guess you don't)
                  Quote: parma
                  If you mean Charles I, who later became emperor, then he is from a junior branch

                  So what? This is the norm for monarchies.
                  The Stuarts were not closely related to the Tudors, and the Hanoverians to the Stuarts, and nothing happened to the throne.
                  Quote: parma
                  That's exactly what this would be: a precedent and a crisis.

                  Moreover, it was not worth starting a war.
                  Quote: parma
                  The Serbs refused to allow investigators in and give them the right to investigate.

                  No normal country would ever do something like this.
                  Quote: parma
                  Most likely, the war would have happened anyway.

                  The only sound thought.
                  Quote: parma
                  but what the balance of power would be we will never know

                  The same
                  Quote: parma
                  "To fight here and now" the Tsar-father decided.

                  I would say Vater Kaiser
          4. -1
            April 7 2026 18: 07
            There was a choice: not to give the promise to Poincaré on July 20-22, 1914, that Russia would get involved in the war in any case (let me remind you that Nicholas II, on the evening of July 23, declared before military officials that he had decided to intervene in the Serbian-Austro-Hungarian conflict on the side of Serbia; he did not yet know anything about the ultimatum). If Russia had not started the war, France would not have decided to go to war alone, and perhaps this time the war could have been avoided, but the fact that this war was unleashed by the Entente is 100%.
        3. +6
          April 6 2026 08: 58
          Quote: operafan
          But Tsar Nicholas proved rebellious and declared a general mobilization

          Your post is full of illiteracy! Why did the Tsar declare mobilization? Russia knew perfectly well that Germany was planning to deal with France while Russia was mobilizing. And after that, the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires fellow would rush to the east, to Russia.
          1. -3
            April 6 2026 09: 06
            So what, did this save the Russian Empire? No.
            The Russian lands occupied by Germany on the day of the abdication of the Russian Emperor - 02.03.1917 - had an area of ​​0,3 million square kilometers with a population of 23,2 million people (in 1914).
          2. -7
            April 6 2026 10: 21
            Your funny children's tales about how Kaiser Wilheim was going to treacherously attack Russia and enslave it, cause nothing but laughter.
            He never wanted to fight with Russia and generally considered this matter to be extremely hopeless due to the climate and the limitless human resources of the Russian Empire.

            Kaiser to the Tsar, July 31 (No. 7)
            Berlin, July 31, 1914

            In response to your appeal for my friendship and your request for assistance, I have become an intermediary between your government and the Austro-Hungarian government. At the same time, your troops are mobilizing against Austria-Hungary, my ally. Therefore, as I have already pointed out to you, my mediation has become almost illusory. Nevertheless, I do not intend to abandon it. I am now receiving reliable news of serious military preparations on my eastern border. Responsibility for the security of my empire compels me to take preventive defensive measures. In my quest to maintain peace on earth, I have used virtually every means at my disposal. Responsibility for the misfortune that now threatens the entire civilized world will not lie on my doorstep. At this moment, it is still in your power to prevent this. No one threatens the honor or strength of Russia, just as no one has the power to nullify the results of my mediation. My sympathy for you and your empire, which my grandfather passed on to me on his deathbed, has always been sacred to me, and I have always faithfully supported Russia when she faced serious difficulties, especially during her last war. You can still preserve peace in Europe if Russia agrees to stop her military preparations, which undoubtedly threaten Germany and Austria-Hungary.

            Willy
            1. +6
              April 6 2026 11: 11
              Quote: operafan
              The responsibility for the security of my empire compels me to take preventative protective measures.

              Germany reported roughly the same thing on June 22, 1941. Saying is one thing, doing is another.
              Your troops are mobilizing against Austria-Hungary, my ally.

              So, in principle, the Kaiser understood that mobilization was being waged against A-B, not Germany. So what justifies him then?
              Don't you notice that you are now acting as an advocate for the enemy of our state?
              1. -2
                April 7 2026 18: 28
                No, mobilization was also underway against Germany. On July 28, Pourtales received reports of a concentration of Russian troops from the Warsaw Military District on the border with East Prussia and the movement of Russian troops in the Vilnius Military District. Pourtales addressed a note to Sazonov. Sazonov initially denied it, but when on July 29, Pourtales presented irrefutable evidence that Russia was conducting a covert mobilization against Germany, Sazonov replied: “You don’t need to worry, it’s just not against you, and our soldier (Russian) can stand with a rifle at his feet (mobilized) on the border as long as he wants.”
                Pourtales responded to this: “I don’t care how long your soldier can stand with a rifle at his feet; I’m worried that at any moment he’ll shoulder his rifle and invade East Prussia.” (Let me remind you that at that time the Germans had only 3 corps (6 divisions) in East Prussia; according to the Russian mobilization plan, 9 corps (18 divisions) were deployed.)
            2. 0
              9 July 2026 22: 53
              Why dig up what once was? You should pay attention to what's happening now. There are no fundamental differences in political games.
          3. +5
            April 6 2026 11: 15
            Quote: Proxima
            Your post is riddled with ignorance! Why did the Tsar declare mobilization? Russia knew full well that Germany was planning to deal with France while Russia was mobilizing. And after that, the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires would have rushed east, toward Russia.

            For some reason, my friend believes that Germany is a model of diplomacy and loyalty in international relations.
            But at the same time, he forgets that almost all the international diplomatic crises of the early 20th century were caused by Wilhelm2)))))
            1. -4
              April 6 2026 12: 15
              It's very difficult to argue with "knowledgeable" clairvoyants who see the future. All their arguments are based on the principle: "But they definitely would have attacked later!"

              On the eve of the war, former Minister of the Interior Pyotr Durnovo warned Nicholas II in an analytical memo about the danger of drawing the country into a confrontation with Germany. Even victory in this war, Durnovo believed, would yield nothing of value for Russia, and failure would increase the likelihood of revolution: "The defeated army, deprived of its most reliable personnel during the war, largely overwhelmed by the spontaneous, general peasant desire for land, will prove too demoralized to serve as a bulwark of law and order. Russia will be plunged into hopeless anarchy, the outcome of which cannot even be foreseen."
              1. +5
                April 6 2026 13: 51
                Quote: operafan
                It's very difficult to argue with "knowledgeable" clairvoyants who see the future. All their arguments are based on the principle: "But they definitely would have attacked later!"

                You see, Mikhail, the Russian tsars, while not exemplary leaders, understood a few things. One of those understandings was that any absolute European hegemon (which Germany would certainly have become if it had managed to crush France again) would have inevitably tested Russia's strength, since resources and land were scarce in Europe, while Russia was plentiful. Napoleon was the most striking and well-remembered example. It was after him that special attention was paid to the Western front. That's precisely why the Crimean landing proved so difficult for us—the logistics simply weren't up to the task of properly supplying the army. The Polish front, on the other hand, was well-supplied, with an army, roads, and warehouses.
                And most importantly, the correctness of Alexander III, the signatory of the Franco-Russian Treaty, and Nicholas II, who preserved this alliance, was confirmed by the events of 1939, when the next pan-European hegemon, which, incidentally, had already begun to receive practically any resources from us, was confirmed. But this did not save us from invasion.
                1. 0
                  April 7 2026 00: 17
                  The most striking and well-remembered example was Napoleon.

                  Napoleon viewed the campaign against Russia as a means of combating England, and the campaign itself as a means of pressuring Russia to abandon its covert and overt alliance with England. Napoleon had no intention of occupying Russia. When the campaign against Moscow (at that time a secondary city, not the capital) failed to exert pressure on the Russian Tsar, Napoleon's army began to deteriorate and fall apart, as the purpose of its campaign was completely lost.
                  Moreover, Hitler attacked the USSR for virtually the same purpose—as a way to force England to make peace with Germany. Both Hitler and Napoleon began their actions based on a false understanding of the situation, and these mistakes cost both dearly.
                  1. +2
                    April 7 2026 01: 41
                    Quote from solar
                    Hitler and Napoleon began their actions based on a false understanding of the situation.

                    But they both started on the same day.
                    1. -1
                      April 7 2026 22: 27
                      I heard that too. No, not on the same day; someone just pulled an owl onto a globe. Napoleon started the war on June 12 (24), and Hitler on June 22.
                  2. +2
                    April 7 2026 08: 37
                    Quote from solar
                    Napoleon viewed the campaign against Russia as a means of combating England, and the campaign itself as a means of pressuring Russia to abandon its covert and overt alliance with England. Napoleon had no intention of occupying Russia.

                    So, I never wrote that Bonnie wanted to occupy Russia. But the very fact is—the invasion of combined European armies led by a talented military leader led to the fall of Moscow—and the Russian army was practically powerless to resist. This was precisely the reason Warsaw was annexed by Russia—they wanted to create an additional buffer (but ended up with a ton of problems).
                    Moreover, Hitler attacked the USSR for practically the same purpose - as a way to force England to make peace with Germany.

                    What prevented Wilhelm from coming to the same (false) logic? Let's say Russia didn't intervene in the conflict, Germany found a pretext and happily blew France to smithereens (in such a situation, by the way, there's a chance Italy would remain loyal to the Triple Alliance), but England is overseas, and Germany doesn't have a sufficient navy. And Britain has a supply line from Russia through Arkhangelsk, and anyway, why is Britain so big and weak here, while we're so strong but small? Unfair, right? And so we once again end up with a configuration in which Germany, Austria-Hungary, and a few other smaller, but also greedy, powers are ganging up on Russia. Turkey will once again recall old grievances... This thing will be scarier than Goethe's Faust (c).
                    It's not a given that history would have actually taken this path. But such a scenario is entirely possible. And to prevent it, Russia clung to France with all its might.
                    1. 0
                      April 7 2026 21: 49
                      I didn't touch on the First World War. Everyone there was related. It was the Three Brothers' War.
                      "Dear Nicky," "sweet Georgie," and "Uncle Willie" are how the crowned relatives Nicholas II, George V, and Wilhelm II addressed each other in letters.
          4. -1
            April 6 2026 11: 37
            Was it really the Tsar who declared mobilization? Or was it War Minister Sukhomlinov?
        4. +6
          April 6 2026 11: 07
          Quote: operafan
          During World War I, Germany didn't go to war with Russia; it was Russia that went to war with Germany, even though there were no preconditions for war. Kaiser Wilheim expended titanic diplomatic efforts, persuading Tsar Nicholas not to ally with Britain, but Tsar Nicholas proved intractable and declared general mobilization.

          I'm certainly not surprised by your comment. Texts like this appear periodically. But I'm surprised by the people who upvote them. Is historical illiteracy really that pervasive?
          1. +1
            April 7 2026 01: 45
            Quote: Trapper7
            But I'm surprised by people who give them upvotes.

            It's not surprising, the Central Intelligence Agency is present here and they give pluses to those who distribute their propaganda.
            1. +1
              April 7 2026 02: 32
              No, it was in the pre-Civil Society times that they came up with all sorts of nonsense about the evil Nicholas II and his evil empire. Like, say any stupid or nasty things, they won't respond. It's like Khrushchev erased all sorts of nonsense about Stalin and Beria.
              1. 0
                April 7 2026 13: 40
                Quote from alexoff
                No, that was in pre-Civil Society times.

                Well, CIPSO didn’t come out of nowhere; they are ardent followers of the ideas of their ideological father, Goebbels.
        5. -3
          April 6 2026 21: 26
          I agree.
          And in general, we have a strange people. It feels like they're still reading Ogonyok magazine from the mid-80s.
          Citizen Romanov, wanting to please his cousin George, if I'm not mistaken, declared war on Germany. Even though the German ambassador begged him to reconsider, Romanov remained adamant. Thus, he set in motion London's plan to destroy Russia. And if not for Ulyanov, that would have happened.
          And the behavior of our Russian Orthodox Church, which declared him a saint, is also astounding. I understand that they wanted to hurt the communists. But in the end, they ended up hurting themselves. They destroyed his already low standing among the new Russians.
          Although they should have excommunicated his name. Or whatever it's called.
          1. 0
            April 7 2026 02: 33
            It's strange that in the 21st century, someone is not aware of the military plans of the Kaiser's Germany.
            1. -2
              April 7 2026 13: 36
              The same one in which Kaiser Wilhelm forbade war with Russia?
              In which there were a huge number of enterprises owned by German citizens?
              But I was especially pleased by the thesis that Germany paid someone to organize a revolution here.
              It's funny. Because at that time, Germany itself simply didn't have the money to continue the war. Which is why it ultimately capitulated.
              Hmm. Funny... laughing
              1. +2
                April 7 2026 14: 44
                The same one in which Kaiser Wilhelm forbade war with Russia?
                Where did he forbid fighting? Maybe a quote or some documents?
                In which there were a huge number of enterprises owned by German citizens?
                And France and Britain were the most important trading partners. By the way, what did German citizens own?
          2. +2
            April 7 2026 08: 17
            Quote: Panadol
            Citizen Romanov, wanting to please his cousin George, if I am not mistaken, declared war on Germany.

            After Germany declared war on Russia))))
            Although the German ambassador asked him to change his mind.
            And that's why he handed over two notes declaring war at once))))
            But Romanov was adamant.

            Once war is declared on you, you have two options: fight or capitulate. It would be strange for him to do otherwise.
            1. -1
              April 7 2026 13: 29
              No. Again, no. We were the first to declare war on Germany! And that's why the ambassador was summoned to the Winter Palace.
              And the German ambassador asked to change his mind and do this.
              After this, Germany, together with Austria-Hungary, accepted the declaration and went on the offensive.
              Moreover, this was extremely disadvantageous for them, because then they would get stuck on the Western Front!
              1. +1
                April 7 2026 14: 09
                Quote: Panadol
                No. Again, no. We were the first to declare war on Germany! And that's why the ambassador was summoned to the Winter Palace.

                You are, in a way, putting me in a difficult position... The note declaring war on Russia was handed over on August 1st, the Tsar's manifesto was issued on August 2nd... How it is possible to declare war first, I cannot imagine.
                The same one in which Kaiser Wilhelm forbade war with Russia?

                What about the Kalisz pogrom then? Apparently, the German troops didn't care about their Kaiser's prohibitions?
                As you wish, but I think you need to refresh your knowledge a little about the First World War.
                1. -1
                  April 7 2026 14: 44
                  We also planned a tank breakthrough to the English Channel. And how? How far have we progressed in our plans?
                  Moreover, somewhere in the General Staff's archives, there's still a plan to bomb Washington. So what? Are we already unpacking the Strategic Missile Forces? Enough writing about plans.
                  As for the manifesto, of course, no one publishes it on the same day and at the same hour. That's unrealistic.
                  First, there was an exchange of pleasantries between diplomats. Then the German ambassador was obliged to leave St. Petersburg. Meanwhile, the Tsar had to draft and sign the document. And only then publish it among the government and his subjects.
                  And what kind of work the Entente representatives had carried out in the Russian Empire before this is a separate topic.
    2. -4
      April 6 2026 07: 54
      History has made a hundred-year circle and returned again to 1914.


      They have only one thing in common: that tsar and the current tsar dragged Russia into a disastrous war, one that proved fatal for all of Russia and the world order. I don't even want to think about how it all ended for today's Russia. But it certainly didn't end well.
      In ancient times, Tsar Nicholas believed so strongly in the legends of the invincibility and invincibility of the Russian army that he had already seen Russian cavalrymen at a parade in Berlin.

      Now the same thing is happening again. The same tsar, the same sycophantic courtiers who have learned nothing but to show the tsar pretty pictures and feed him beautiful fairy tales.
      1. +5
        April 6 2026 11: 17
        Quote: operafan
        They have only one thing in common: that tsar and the current tsar dragged Russia into a war that was disastrous for it, which became fatal for all of Russia and the world order.

        Yes, yes, we get your point - bad and aggressive Russia attacked peaceful and prosperous Germany, which had no intention of going to war with it at all.
        Something it reminds me of ....
      2. +2
        April 7 2026 01: 59
        Quote: operafan
        The current tsar dragged Russia into a disastrous war

        Your alcoholic contributed to this war by destroying a great country.
        1. -3
          April 7 2026 08: 44
          Your alcoholic contributed to this war by destroying a great country.


          Are you talking about Tsar Nicholas, who was nicknamed "Nikolashka the Drunkard"?
          1. +1
            April 7 2026 13: 50
            Quote: operafan
            Are you talking about Tsar Nicholas, who was nicknamed "Nikolashka the Drunkard"?

            Why go so far back in history? I'm talking about the times we already lived through with Boyka the alcoholic.
  2. + 11
    April 6 2026 05: 30
    They tried so hard, invested so much labor and effort, and lost people on the battlefield. Then one chatterbox, the "best German," and a drunk from Sverdlovsk came along, and all their dreams became reality.
  3. + 15
    April 6 2026 05: 57
    A strange article. What does this have to do with the 1915 Galician offensive and the events of 1914? What's the connection with the title "Why Did They Fight in World War I?" The author cites the dreams of German imperialists, pretending they only applied to Russia and that the issue is Germany. But the issue is imperialism. It is inherently extremely aggressive. It doesn't matter whether this concerns Russia or Africa. And it doesn't matter whether it's German imperialism (an adversary in World War I) or, say, British (an ally in it), or any other.
    The author's desire to present World War I as a Patriotic War is understandable, but the owl doesn't even reach the globe. Patriotic wars for Russia are those in which it is attacked by a powerful enemy with destructive goals, but certainly not those in which it gets involved without any rational purpose thanks to the stupidity of Nicholas II and his clique.
    1. +4
      April 6 2026 08: 03
      That's right, the author would have talked about the goals of Russian imperialism. The Straits, Galicia, etc. Everyone was good in WWI.
      1. +1
        April 6 2026 19: 42
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        That's right, the author would have told about the goals of Russian imperialism.

        There are still some differences here. The Russian Empire was a traditional society at the time. transition to capitalismAt the same time, as M. Weber put it, "it was already too late." The place within the capitalist hierarchy was already occupied; this transition could only destroy the Russian Empire and the autocracy. Which is precisely what it did. So, strictly speaking, "imperialist" goals, that is, those generated primarily by economics and the desire for "world domination," were practically absent. Rather, these goals were generated by the needs of the old policies of the absolutist monarchy.
        Straits
        Incidentally, the main obstacle to achieving these goals was Great Britain, and Nicholas II decided to fight Germany, with whom the empire's interests practically didn't intersect. A sensible decision, to be sure. smile
        P.S. The funniest thing is that from the perspective of Russian revolutionaries, Nicholas's seemingly insane decision to engage in a war the empire needed was a blessing. It was the best way to end the monarchy. Which is what actually happened. But from the perspective of real monarchists and patriots of the Russian Empire, it was a disaster, and Nicholas II was simply Gorbachev, the only difference being that Gorbachev was a traitor, and Nicholas was a complete fool.
        But our modern homegrown "imperialist patriots" are always trying to prove the exact opposite: that WWI, the war that destroyed the empire and led to the revolution, was a "Patriotic War," that Nicholas was a good man and it was necessary to fight, etc.
        We don't have any other "monarchists" now. smile
        1. 0
          April 7 2026 02: 06
          Quote: Belisarius
          We don't have any other "monarchists" now.

          Yes, some of these so-called monarchists justify the February putschists, who actually overthrew the Tsar and thereby sentenced him to death, which was only carried out belatedly.
          1. 0
            April 7 2026 03: 12
            Quote: guest
            Yes, some of these so-called monarchists justify the February putschists.

            Well, I've never encountered a clinic like this. But I guess I don't follow them closely enough. Although I'm not very surprised; it's quite typical of them.
            1. +1
              April 7 2026 13: 45
              No, they don't even mention the fact that the Tsar was overthrown by these (expletives), because, as they claim, the Tsar was overthrown by the Bolsheviks and not by this rabble.
        2. +2
          April 7 2026 02: 37
          Quote: Belisarius
          Nicholas II decided to fight Germany, with which the empire's interests practically did not intersect.

          Well, yes, Germany, of course, didn't decide to give Austria carte blanche to do anything, didn't hold the Congress of Berlin, didn't deploy its people in the Balkans, and its military plans remain unknown to the public to this day. Nicholas II simply wanted to fight—and decided to fight Germany.
          1. 0
            April 7 2026 03: 23
            Quote from alexoff
            Well, yes, Germany, of course, did not decide to give Austria carte blanche to do anything, and the Berlin Congress did not suit it.

            I write from the perspective of a Russian imperial patriot. Economically, geopolitically, and ideologically, the interests of the two empires overlapped very little. This very fact became a stumbling block for Soviet historiography and gave rise to an interesting theory that the cause of the war was grain tariffs. smile Of course there were contradictions (including these duties), but the distance from them to war was enormous.
            Regarding Germany, I wrote below to Olgovich: was German imperialism aggressive? Yes, it was. Did it have good feelings toward Russia? No, it didn't. But this in no way implies the necessity of war, especially for the Russian Empire in its then state.
            Quote from alexoff
            Nicholas II simply wanted to fight, and decided to fight with Germany.

            Nicholas II simply depended on the “allies” and believed that Germany would not be able to withstand a war on two fronts and that the war could not last long.
            Well, there you go, "I made a slight mistake"... Big deal, it happens to everyone...
            1. +1
              April 7 2026 10: 46
              In fact, Germany waged customs wars with Russia and pushed its people into Russian spheres of interest. And Germany was ready to fully support Austria.
              Quote: Belisarius
              Nicholas II simply depended on the “allies” and believed that Germany would not be able to withstand a war on two fronts and that the war could not last long.

              everyone thought so
    2. -5
      April 6 2026 08: 16
      Quote: Belisarius
      The author's desire to present World War I as a Patriotic War is understandable, but the owl doesn't even reach the globe. Patriotic wars for Russia are those in which it is attacked by a powerful enemy with destructive goals, but certainly not those in which it gets involved without any rational purpose thanks to the stupidity of Nicholas II and his clique.

      It is understandable that Russophobes want to justify their betrayal in WTOV and present Russia as an aggressor. belay fool , but here the owl doesn’t even reach the globe: Russia in 1914 was subjected to the most severe simultaneous, pre-planned attack immediately three aggressor empiresThe Russian city of Kalisz, bombed, burned, and driven into a concentration camp on the very first day of the war—in the tradition of the Nazis during WWII—is a testament to this.

      For most Russophobes, even the admissions of the Germans themselves about Schliffen’s and others’ plans to attack and dismember Russia in WWI are still a great secret. fool request

      And these plans would have been fulfilled if the Russian army had not stopped the occupiers in Galicia and elsewhere.

      By the way, these plans were carried out by the accomplices of the occupiers, who cut Russia into sovereign states, the USSR, the SSSR, and other states that never existed before—see the window.

      These same vandals demolished ALL the monuments and even the cemeteries of Russian heroes of WWI, ashamed of their betrayal, and plowed them into vegetable gardens and dance floors.

      An excellent article that showed that in WWII the Germans were going for the same thing they were going for in WWI.
      1. 0
        April 6 2026 08: 30
        Ha, and who are the Russophiles among you, enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people, who hate the best State for Russia and the Russian people - the USSR, for the sake of profit in your lying anti-Sovietism with hypocritical "philanthropy", who falsified the reign of Nicholas II, whom you praise, cowardly whining that all of you "have nothing to do" with what you did to our republic of the USSR and its people, which you captured?
        And Nicholas II himself admitted that he plunged Russia and the Russian people into the First World War in order to fulfill his obligations to France and Serbia.
        1. -8
          April 6 2026 08: 53
          Quote: tatra
          And Nicholas II himself admitted that he plunged Russia and the Russian people into the First World War in order to fulfill his obligations to France and Serbia.

          Moreover, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was carried out by Serbian intelligence controlled by the Russian Empire. If Russia hadn't wanted a major war, it wouldn't have declared mobilization after the AV declared war on Serbia for refusing to investigate the assassination of the royal family.
          1. +7
            April 6 2026 11: 14
            More nonsense, invented and fabricated... Serbian intelligence was in no way controlled from Russia. And Serbia did not refuse the investigation, especially since Gavrilo Princip was an Austrian citizen.
        2. +4
          April 6 2026 11: 20
          Quote: tatra
          Ha, and who are the Russophiles among you, enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people, who hate the best State for Russia and the Russian people - the USSR, for the sake of profit in your lying anti-Sovietism with hypocritical "philanthropy", who falsified the reign of Nicholas II, whom you praise, cowardly whining that all of you "have nothing to do" with what you did to our republic of the USSR and its people, which you captured?
          And Nicholas II himself admitted that he plunged Russia and the Russian people into the First World War in order to fulfill his obligations to France and Serbia.

          Tatra, you shouldn't even bother with this topic. Your ignorance and slogans are completely inappropriate here.
          1. -4
            April 6 2026 11: 41
            You are like an angry little dog in this thread, but you yourself couldn’t say anything adequate in response to anyone.
            1. +5
              April 6 2026 11: 50
              Firstly, to respond to Comrade Mikhail’s writings I would have to write a whole article in response, and I don’t have time for that.
              Secondly, all the questions about joining or not joining have long been discussed on this site, and for any thinking person, everything is more or less clear. He certainly would not accuse Russia of aggression or call for abandoning its allies under those conditions, nor would he whitewash Germany.
              And thirdly, it is not for you, with your lifelong "enemies of communists," to point out to anyone insufficiently informative comments.
              1. -4
                April 6 2026 11: 54
                What was required to be proven, you couldn’t refute anything, you just run through other people’s comments and are rude to everyone.
                Ha, and it’s funny when the enemies of the communists, the entire Soviet Union and all 40 years of your evil and cowardly anti-Soviet period, have been proving that you are enemies of the communists, and at the same time you fall into hysterics when you are called that.
        3. +1
          April 6 2026 18: 11
          Quote: tatra
          the best state for Russia and the Russian people

          Tell me how Russia and the Russian people are better off without the Russians of Odessa, Nikolaev, Verny and hundreds of other Russian cities that you cut off from Russia and turned into Ukraine.

          And who gave you the right to do this?
      2. 0
        April 6 2026 19: 11
        Quote: Olgovich
        It's understandable that Russophobes want to justify their betrayal in WTOV by presenting Russia as an aggressor, but here the owl doesn't even reach the globe.

        My dear Moldovan friend (Moldovan, for those who don't know, isn't a ritual curse word, but a harsh reality of life). Arguing about this twice is pointless.
        1) Arguing with you personally is pointless. You're a fanatic with an overvalued idea, a type quite popular in the post-Soviet space, a type born of the concussion of consciousness following the collapse of the USSR and the utter catastrophe that followed. Each of these people is going crazy in their own way: one says the Earth is flat, another that the capture of Jerusalem by the "ancient" emperor Titus was the capture of Moscow in the early 2th century, a third believes in St. Nicholas II, a fourth believes in the patriot Putin, who lacks the authority to fight the pro-Western State Duma, and so on. Trying to prove anything to them is completely pointless; they'll still believe the Earth is flat. So if you want to believe that WWI was the Great Patriotic War, so be it. The main thing is, don't worry.
        2) It's pointless because the beginning of WWI is one of the few topics thoroughly studied by historical science. Everything is clear here, regardless of one's political views. Someone either simply knows it, or they're completely ignorant and need to learn. Well, there are two other options: they know it but are deliberately manipulating it for political purposes, or they're a crazy person/fanatic.
        To put it super briefly (not for you, but for the public): Germany was the first to declare war (this is what those who claim that Germany is the aggressor appeal to), but it declared it in response to Russia's general mobilization and after the ultimatum. And general mobilization, especially for a country like Russia, this is warThis is the ABC of military science. Marshal Shaposhnikov's classic definition on this matter is: "Mobilization is not only a sign of war, but war itself. The government's order to declare mobilization is a de facto declaration of war."
        Does this make Russia an aggressor? Formally, yes, but essentially, no. The Tsarist government simply committed an idiotic act. Does this make German imperialism look good? No, they did have expansionist goals, including with regard to the Russian Empire (but their interests conflicted least with the Russian Empire).
        Is it known why Nicholas II took such a suicidal step? It's known that it was partly due to the Russian Empire's puppet status vis-à-vis the "allies," and, most importantly, the belief that "Vasily Fyodorovich (Wilhelm, Friedrich's son, the Kaiser) has made a mistake; he won't survive." It was believed that Germany couldn't withstand a war on two fronts and that it would all end in three or four months with the signing of a peace treaty favorable to the Russian Empire.
        Schliffen plans

        The Schlieffen Plan is a military plan for the German Empire to wage war on two fronts and achieve a quick victory in it if the political possibility of waging it on one front is not ensured.
        He had nothing to do with any of your wild fantasies about the "dismemberment of Russia," and he did not envisage any battles in Galicia on the open Western Front.
        1. +2
          April 7 2026 08: 41
          Quote: Belisarius
          My dear Moldovan friend (Moldovan, for those who don't know, isn't a ritual curse word, but a harsh reality of life). Arguing about this twice is pointless.

          Who's arguing with you, communist friend? (Communist—that's exactly what it is)

          1. You represent the type of fanatic with "supervalued" that is disappearing in the post-Soviet space lol A bankrupt idea, a type born of a concussion of consciousness following the complete collapse of Bolshevism and the utter catastrophe that followed. Each of these people is going crazy in their own way: one says the Earth is flat, another that the capture of Jerusalem by the "ancient" Emperor Titus was the capture of Moscow in the early 17th century, a third believes in "2 smart" Ulyanov, etc. Proving anything to them is absolutely pointless; they will still believe the Earth is flat. So if you want to believe that WWI was not the Patriotic War, well, so be it. The main thing is, don't worry.

          2) It's pointless to argue, since the beginning of WWI is one of the few topics thoroughly studied by historical science. Everything is already clear here, regardless of political views. Someone either simply knows it, or they're completely ignorant and need to learn. Well, there are two other options: they know it but are deliberately manipulating it for political purposes, or they're a madman/fanatic, i.e., a bankrupt Bolshevik.
          Quote: Belisarius
          To put it super briefly (not for you, but for the public) - Germany was the first to declare war (those who claim that Germany is the aggressor appeal to this), but it declared it in response to the general mobilization of Russia and after the ultimatum

          For the communist uneducated (and literate people are no longer communist): mobilization in Russia was declared in RESPONSE to the mobilization of Hungary, because the mobilization of a huge empire on a border like Hungary is war. Germany knew perfectly well that this measure was against Hungary, WHICH, mind you, also ATTACKED Russia.
          Quote: Belisarius
          Does this make Russia an aggressor? Formally, yes.

          belay lol fool Stalin fully mobilized and fighting Germany at the border in 1939...he did not consider me an aggressor - see the FRIENDSHIP treaty.
          And how he hoped that the English/Germans would kill each other in 3-4 months, mmm..

          and yes, just memorize recognition of Germany about the war
          The source of this declaration is the declaration of war made by Austria-Hungary against Serbia on July 28, 1914, and the declarations of war made by Germany against Russia on August 1, 1914. and on August 3, 1914, France and the invasion of Belgium


          Have you memorized it?::
          Quote: Belisarius
          The Schlieffen Plan is a military plan for the German Empire to wage war on two fronts.

          and it was embodied - otherwise WHY declare war on Russia, throwing all forces.... against France?
          Quote: Belisarius
          He had nothing to do with any of your wild fantasies about the “dismemberment of Russia,” and he did not envisage any battles in Galicia on the open Western Front.

          lol laughing At school they will explain to you the plans of the German and Hungarian command from xnumx and provided for the tying up of the Russian army by Hungary on an open western front.
          1. -3
            April 9 2026 14: 14
            I see you're continuing to spread the truth to the Judeomassons. However, if your mission, as they claim here, is conducted from Moldova, then everything is clear. It's a shame there's no foreign agent badge in the VO.
            Now, in essence - not for you (there's no point here), but in case anyone suddenly gets into your narratives:
            For the communist uneducated (and literate people are no longer communist): mobilization in Russia was declared in RESPONSE to the mobilization of Hungary, because the mobilization of a huge empire on a border like Hungary is war. Germany knew perfectly well that this measure was against Hungary, which, by the way, also ATTACKED Russia.

            Indeed, the mobilization of the Russian Empire began after similar measures by the Anti-Bolshevik Army, directed against Serbia ONLY. The Anti-Bolshevik Army declared a general mobilization against Russia (and later, under German pressure), only on August 4th, when the war with Germany was already underway. Meanwhile, the Anti-Bolshevik Army declared war on Russia on the 6th. You should look at the chronology more closely, and then speculate whether the mobilization of the Russian Empire can be considered an inevitable and logical response to the Anti-Bolshevik Army's aggression.
            At the same time, clarify your double standards. After all, it's well known why Serbia rejected Austria's note when it was ready to accept it—it could have "listened to you" and maintained peace, after all, you recently advised Bulgaria not to show off.
            Regarding N2's hesitation about declaring mobilization, it's appropriate to recall the Bosnian crisis, where it was largely unnoticed. My point is that we shouldn't confuse public and private concerns, when fear for one's power and life is substituted for the needs of the people. For me, in this regard, Nikolai, Netanyahu, and Zelenskyy are all in the same genocidal league.
            And your idea—"I'm mobilizing to insure myself"—is a gem. I'd like to see how millions of men, plucked from the ranks, stood by to insure Austria. Then the Revolution wouldn't have begun with the St. Petersburg garrison of 1917. In this regard, Stalin seems like a reasonable man, quietly pushing the 2nd and 3rd strategic echelons to the border and simply didn't have time. But throwing himself at him now, against the backdrop of events in the Central Military District or Iran, is simply ridiculous.
            1. +1
              April 10 2026 10: 12
              Quote: Aleks
              to the Jewish masses.


              belay come on, goodbye
              1. -1
                April 10 2026 10: 20
                you won't wait)
                What's surprising? You're writing about the communists based on Nazi manuals, but they were the ones echoing the Jewish oppression of the Russian people.
                You are our direct foreign agent.
      3. +2
        April 7 2026 02: 10
        Quote: Olgovich
        An excellent article that showed that in WWII the Germans were going for the same thing they were going for in WWI.

        Well, they had a certain "oberos" there, which became the prototype for their concentration camps and policies to exterminate peoples they considered subhuman.
    3. +1
      April 6 2026 10: 11
      Quote: Belisarius
      ...But the point here is imperialism.... .

      Quote: Belisarius
      ...The author's desire to present World War I as the Patriotic War is understandable, but here the owl doesn't even reach the globe...

      Quote: Stirbjorn
      That's right, the author would have talked about the goals of Russian imperialism. The Straits, Galicia, etc. Everyone was good in WWI.

      The author went too far about the Patriotic War!
      War was inevitable. Young, growing imperialist states fought for the redivision of the world, for new colonies against old ones. And everyone used patriotism as a weapon.
      Relatively recently, there was an article about the work "Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism." The author may not be familiar with it. Marxism-Leninism is not in fashion, however.
  4. +4
    April 6 2026 05: 59
    Quote: fiberboard
    One chatterbox, the "best German," and a drunkard from Sverdlovsk came, and all their dreams became reality.

    What's amazing is something else...a small group of such renegades can easily destroy the results of the lives of millions of our citizens...how is that possible?
    Millions of communists in the USSR were unable to stop the collapse of the country...why?
    They still had it...an army, the KGB...a powerful economy...how so?
    The same thing happened with Tsarist Russia.
    And today's situation is highly questionable...some kind of fate hangs over our people...we are constantly going in circles.
    1. +6
      April 6 2026 06: 19
      The system has simply rotted and has gotten on the nerves of those who are supposed to protect it.
    2. +5
      April 6 2026 06: 26
      Because in 91 there were no millions of communists, and no one believed in the construction of communism at all.
    3. -7
      April 6 2026 06: 42
      Once again, this eternal cowardly blaming of the Communists' enemies for what you yourselves have done. And by your "logic," the "Februaryists" should also have blamed Nicholas II for their February Revolution, and the Bolsheviks blamed the Provisional Government for their October Revolution?
    4. +6
      April 6 2026 07: 59
      To shift the blame for the collapse of the USSR from the entire nation solely to Gorbachev and Yeltsin is, if this is what experts say, scientific dishonesty bordering on amateurism.
      The vast majority of Soviet citizens supported the changes, each with their own vision: the shop stewards wanted to become millionaires like in the US, while the lumpen proletariat wanted to "live" like in the US, with shelves piled high with sausage. But the massive violations of planned discipline and economic planning in the USSR, coupled with populist, short-term, and impulsive management decisions, set the flywheel of economic disintegration in motion, which was immediately reflected in store shelves. Under these circumstances, the talk of "he's a man," "we need a boss"—all about Yeltsin—became incredibly popular among formerly Russians; the men talked about nothing else in their smoking rooms: if only there were a boss. Meanwhile, the petty-bourgeois peasant mentality, represented by Gorby and Yeltsin, hadn't faded away in the 70 years of the USSR: so the descendants of serfs now had a "peasant" tsar, the kind they'd dreamed of back in the Antonov era: Soviets without the Communists.
      The course toward "market reforms" was adopted, I emphasize, by the entire people!!! (the majority voted for Yeltsin in the elections without any fraud), supported by everyone, from the KGB to the lumpen proletariat: sausages, leggings, turtlenecks, "chewing gum"!
      Completely unaware, even the Academy of Sciences academics couldn't grasp the fact that this was a course toward counter-revolution and a return to the pre-1917 system of governance, a path of social regression. This would coincide with the collapse of the superpower that Russia had been exclusively under the Communists and never again in history.
      1. -4
        April 6 2026 08: 23
        Accepted, I emphasize, by all the people!!! (The majority voted for Yeltsin in the elections without any fraud.

        Well, first of all, it wasn't all the people, but less than half of the voters of the RSFSR - 45 million - who forced Yeltsin onto us as President in June 1991. One part of them were enemies of the USSR, who understood that, free from the communists, they would be able to calmly rob the country and the people, while the other part believed in his image as a "fighter against privileges," because they wanted officials to live the same way the people lived.
        And the result is that both of these parts are afraid to admit that they voted for Yeltsin back then.
        And it is very wrong to shift the responsibility for the fact that a part of the people carried out coups and revolutions in world history onto the entire people of those countries.
        1. +8
          April 6 2026 09: 05
          Objectively speaking, I did not shift the blame onto the whole people.
          I wrote: The majority of Soviet citizens supported the changes. But wasn't that true?
          The fact that the passive part, the majority, did nothing, does not in any way justify the entire people.
          I personally voted against Yeltsin, but the majority won.
          Strictly speaking, the active majority wins, and the blame lies with everyone.
          And there is no other way.
          Everyone's complaining about the current situation, but the voter turnout is zero. The last time I went to a municipal election, the commission was bored to death: no one was there. Even they were drawn to talk to a random voter.
          Who's to blame? Every representative of the people who, out of laziness, didn't go to the polls...
          There is a symbiosis here: "leaders" and the people...
          1. -5
            April 6 2026 09: 13
            Once again, it wasn't the majority of the people, but a minority of voters in the RSFSR, who voted for Yeltsin. And it's naive to believe that the enemies of the USSR, who, under the "freedom of speech" granted to them by Gorbachev, lie always and about everything, and falsify everything to their advantage, are capable of holding even a remotely fair election.
            There's a real farce going on in Telegram right now: as soon as a poll is posted on some Telegram channel asking which party you'll vote for, bots immediately swarm in within minutes and rig the vote in favor of a party you know.
      2. +2
        April 6 2026 09: 08
        Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
        Without any understanding, even the academicians of the Academy of Sciences did not grasp that this was a course towards counter-revolution and a return to the system of governance before 1917.

        This was the case with Gorbachev's perestroika. Everyone wanted change, but they had no idea where it would lead the country. The fatal blow that destroyed the USSR and made the transition from socialism to capitalism irreversible was the "500 Days" program, developed by Gaidar Yavlinsky and Shatalin. The "500 Days" program was launched jointly by Gorbachev and Yeltsin in July 1990.
    5. +1
      April 7 2026 02: 12
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      They still had it...an army, the KGB...a powerful economy...how so?

      They lacked the most important thing: will. sad
  5. +2
    April 6 2026 06: 42
    V. I. Lenin also said: “If the Germans are advancing, then how can you not defend yourself?”
  6. -3
    April 6 2026 06: 48
    Attempts to base an analysis on public speeches by officials and the propaganda of associations that put forward "programs" for a wide circle of duped fools. Historians are historians! My God, what senseless nonsense, nonsense, renic...
    What was the war fought for in World War I? This war was conceived and launched to quickly resolve the tensions that had accumulated between European countries. These tensions could have been resolved peacefully, but there were also secondary goals. For example, training armies. Determining the true balance of power, based on which diplomats would then redistribute the existing swathes. A release of tension in European societies—that is, it was necessary to destroy (weaken) that segment of society that could never sit still—a "revolutionary mood" had built up in these countries. In other words, there were too many people ready to wrest a higher place in society for themselves by force of arms. They desperately needed to be sent to the front...
    The plan was for a quick, highly maneuverable skirmish, ideally a single summer campaign. However, the cunning manipulators behind state policy are almost always out of touch with reality, and generally have little connection to it. They typically live in an artificial, controlled environment, and have no idea what's going on beyond their tiny bubbles of influence.
    So the "small, convenient war" instantly spiraled out of their control, and everything became determined by weapons far beyond the manipulators' usual limits. As the death toll reached the millions, the states involved in the carnage were simply trying to survive. That's all.
    Moreover, the level of thinking in management has plummeted almost everywhere—at least the manipulators had some cunning (they're never particularly clever; they only think they're geniuses). But they were mostly simply destroyed. Finished off for the monstrous hecatomb they'd committed. And things began to turn around for the asses, whom the manipulators appointed to the obvious positions of "heads of state," to act as talking heads and lightning rods. Blood flows like waterfalls, and the "management" of it all is carried out by guys with the brains of a loaf of bread...
    Such "analyses" have no relation to reality.
    1. +1
      April 6 2026 15: 06
      In his book, Tirpitz, analyzing the situation before WWI, wrote that peace was quite beneficial for Germany. Profits grew year after year, industry had already become a strong competitor to England and the United States, and German steamships accounted for over 80% of global sea freight. And the Kaiser, despite the media's image of a militarist, was in no rush to bring war. But all these successes were tied to maritime trade, which England had begun to strangle, and it was this country that instigated the war—I agree with Tirpitz here. However, there were plenty of other participants, pugnacious in petty matters. I emphasize: everyone else had much more minor goals in the war.
      Before England realized the growing, primarily economic, competition from Germany and began to put spokes in its wheels, relations between the two countries were excellent, and the Germans were much more concerned about the migration of talented personnel and specialists to the United States.
      1. 0
        April 7 2026 05: 07
        Absolutely right. No one was interested in a global massacre with monstrous, cosmic casualties. They simply needed to settle a few things, give someone a good beating, show off their strength to someone else. Everyone was eager to quickly fulfill their own petty desires.
        The main thing here is that the powers that truly rule the world always pretend (and are confident) that they are not only cunning as foxes, but also devilishly clever. But this is absolutely not the case, alas. No one, absolutely no one, understood what the Maxim machine gun was, or how its introduction would impact the war. Everyone thought their petty fussing over societies, pompously presented concepts, and commercial calculations were terribly important. And as usual, no one cared what "the engineers invented there." Why? Von Potz wrote two letters to Don Botz, in which he said... Ugh!
        Those who run states simply don't have the brains for it. Remember?
        "The cart is driven by rednecks in Cardin slippers. Somewhere along the line, they threw out the scientists and engineers who knew how it all worked, and now they're pulling the levers with absolutely no idea what will happen." And these rednecks are extremely redneck, even if they've never left the capital their entire lives...
        1. 0
          April 7 2026 08: 53
          An extremely interesting position. Personally, I believed that England deliberately provoked a gigantic massacre, rightly believing that it wouldn't suffer greatly under any circumstances (but they didn't take into account the submarine warfare, which the Germans, even with serious restraint, carried out to such an extent that the island was on the brink of starvation).
          1. +1
            April 7 2026 09: 10
            None of the participants, including the British, had any idea what they were doing. This is far more logical than thinking that someone orchestrated a horrific, yet completely senseless, massacre. Everyone lost. England, no less than anyone else. In fact, their colonial empire suffered its worst blow then.
            1. 0
              April 7 2026 09: 23
              Sorry for interrupting)
              Quote: Mikhail3
              None of the participants, including the British, had any idea what they were doing. This is far more logical than thinking that someone orchestrated a horrific, and ultimately senseless, massacre.

              I think you're right that no one imagined the scale of the tragedy, but the British behavior at the outset of the conflict gives rise to some thoughts....
              What I'm saying is that if London had initially made it clear that it would support France and Russia, a global conflict would likely have been avoided. That's exactly what worked during the Moroccan crisis.
              1. +1
                April 7 2026 11: 19
                Nothing would have worked. At the moment when everything was collapsing, everyone involved, unwilling to risk being shot at the front, rushed to salvage their reputations. The losses of maneuverable units, that is, the cavalry, were indescribable. "Brave little soldiers," marching in close formation, were mowed down in whole regiments. No one expected this and was unprepared for it.
                To deflect blame for the incredible losses, everyone was running around like crazy, committing incredible stupidities to hide their guilt in the general catastrophe. So no one had a chance to escape. No one could avoid fighting, because those unwilling to fight would be captured in a race. What a chance to distinguish themselves! And that meant covering up their mistakes and miscalculations.
                This happens all the time when a major project collapses. So far, fortunately, without any significant casualties (though it happens). Or with casualties. Right now, Trump and Netanyahu are in the arena, the round-the-clock bloody clowns. Luckily for the Europeans, the arena is far away, and so far they've managed to crawl away. But not because Trump isn't trying to drag them in!)
  7. -9
    April 6 2026 06: 57
    Russia fought in World War I on behalf of Britain. The Russian Empire had no preconditions for war with Germany; on the contrary, all of Russia was dependent on German investments and German engineers.
    Russia's greatest misfortune was Tsar Nicholas II, who was eager to demonstrate Russia's military might to the world. Without any preconditions, he started the Tsushima War, which was ineptly and shamefully lost. And although the Japanese government made titanic efforts to prevent this war, the Tsar was itching to demonstrate the might of the invincible Russian navy.

    The lessons of the inept war at Tsushima were not learned, and no conclusions were drawn. Just as the policy of Nicholas's predecessor, Tsar Alexander III, who had prevented Russia from being drawn into foreign wars and had avoided any military conflicts at all costs, was completely destroyed.

    Nicholas's fingers were itching again, eager to restore his global prestige after Tsushima. And although Russia, lagging behind Europe and America, demanded colossal reforms rather than another costly war, Tsar Nicholas decided to show the world the "Iron Fist" of the Russian army. The court sycophants, as is always the custom in Rus', enthusiastically embraced this decision. Fortunately, Russia knew that the Russian army was the strongest and most invincible. And once the Russian iron fist struck any army, nothing would remain. Moreover, the entire war with the German Kaiser was expected to be very brief, a few months at most.

    They struck with an iron fist... We know well how it all ended. But it's not over for Russia, even 100 years later. And the current tsar, again so strongly reminiscent of Nicholas... And thieving officials and generals, plundering everything they can steal. And Russia is in the swamp of a devastating war from which there is no escape.
    It's like a carbon copy of those events.

    P.S. There's a wonderful Soviet film by Elem Klimov, "Agony," about the events of the final months of Tsarist Russia. I highly recommend it.
    1. -6
      April 6 2026 07: 22
      And the enemies of the Bolshevik communists, who seized the USSR, are still crucifying themselves that the Bolsheviks, after their revolution, were obliged to continue Russia's participation in the First World War, which was unnecessary for Russia and its people, and in which they were against Russia's participation from the very beginning.
    2. +4
      April 6 2026 09: 09
      Quote: operafan
      There is a wonderful Soviet film by Elem Klimov, "Agony"

      It should be clarified that E. Klimov was a liberal dissident, a favorite of the entire Soviet Jewish cultural circle.
      Initially, the film was supposed to be based on A. Tolstoy's cheap play "The Empress's Conspiracy." Klimov changed everything, and the film, of course, turned out vile.
      E. Klimov, during the perestroika years, was officially at the head of the new Soviet cinema; the films that came out are well known.
    3. +2
      April 6 2026 11: 18
      Germany, too, seemed to have no preconditions for war with Russia. And instead of calming down his Viennese ally, the Kaiser decided to demonstrate Germany's strength.
      1. -1
        April 6 2026 14: 56
        Quote: Grencer81
        Instead of calming down his ally from Vienna, the Kaiser decided to show Germany's strength

        Let's start with the fact that the Kaiser was far from the only decision-maker in Germany. For 30 years, funding for militarization was approved by parliament, not the monarch.
        Secondly, during the encirclement strategy, Germany could literally rely on only one ally—Austria-Hungary—and it treasured this alliance immensely. As the confrontation escalated, conflict was inevitable; the question was when, for what reason, and under what conditions. Vienna let the Germans down by preventing them from completing a number of programs. Furthermore, Germany grew richer with each passing day of peace, but the British gradually stifled foreign trade.
        As for the preconditions for war... they existed, but Germany had plenty of less problematic adversaries where they achieved the same goals, but much more easily. Moreover, trade with the Russian Empire was strategically very convenient, but the Germans were primarily displaced there by French capital.
        1. +1
          April 6 2026 16: 58
          So, Germany couldn't influence its ally in any way? Or maybe it did?
          1. +1
            April 7 2026 09: 03
            read the memoirs of politicians from the pre-war years
            Holwig-Holstein made Germany's position on the war passively dependent on the decisions of the Alliance and the Bloc, based on the signed treaty and notions of "honor." This was met with considerable outrage in Germany, but nothing could be done.
            In general, despite this diplomat's accomplishments, his decisions and policies related to the escalation of the war are perplexing. It seems he was inadequate.
            A significant portion of the nobility and officers were not thrilled with the country's diplomacy. Read his book "Memoirs" – he describes numerous behind-the-scenes meetings and negotiations, controversial decisions, and how each person reacted to them.
            1. +1
              April 7 2026 10: 09
              All memoirs are written AFTER events have occurred. And all memoirs are written to justify and justify oneself.
              That's why I don't consider anyone's memoirs to be serious things.
              1. 0
                April 7 2026 12: 01
                What does seriousness have to do with it? Memoirs convey moods and often intentions that are not reflected in historical facts. Yet, by comparing accounts from different people, one can often pinpoint exactly what happened. Tirpitz published his book in 1919, meaning he wrote it almost immediately after the capitulation, and that's precisely what makes it valuable—he remembered many similar subtleties. I don't intend to glean any factual evidence from Tirpitz's book, although there's a lot there. I'm interested specifically in the mood—how he saw it. And given that he encountered virtually no criticism in this regard, much of it is true and reflects the overall picture quite accurately.
                1. +1
                  April 7 2026 17: 32
                  Any memoir is a very subjective thing, in which the losing side tries to prove that even if they lost, it wasn't a defeat, but almost a victory.😂
                  1. +1
                    April 8 2026 09: 09
                    There is nothing in Tirpitz's book that justifies Germany's defeat.
                    It is rather a pity that Germany entered the war clumsily and then acted hesitantly.
                    There is no need to evaluate everything using primitive templates.
                    I'm saying that it's precisely in the subjectivity of memoirs that one can also look for information.
                    For example, another memoir by our WW2 veteran. I was impressed by one scene he described – he complained that the infantry was so weak in 1941 that his signals platoon, defending a pillbox, was driven out by just three Germans, which caused immense surprise. This is a very typical balance of forces and results for that moment. Such details create a realistic vision of what happened. So Tirpitz's book reveals many details that are important for assessing the events that took place. The memoirs of German WW2 generals also contain many interesting details – for example, Guderian was almost killed twice in the summer of 1941 because of his fondness for sticking out of his command tank.
                    A smart person will skip all the empty talk and not swallow it.
    4. +5
      April 6 2026 11: 24
      Quote: operafan
      Without any preconditions, he started a war at Tsushima, which was ineptly and shamefully lost. And although the Japanese government made titanic efforts to prevent this war, the Tsar was itching to demonstrate the might of the invincible Russian fleet.

      Your historical illiteracy is astounding.
      1. 0
        April 6 2026 14: 48
        There's more cringe in that quote than in a comedy club show for an hour.
    5. +1
      April 7 2026 09: 21
      Quote: operafan
      The Russian Empire had no preconditions for war with Germany.

      There were. Russia desperately needed the Straits. At that time, an open waterway to global trade (the smallest ship can carry far more cargo than the largest cart, and it doesn't need to be fed oats) would radically expand our exports and increase profits tenfold, while also being ten times cheaper than any land-based shipping option.
      Russia would have instantly increased both its economic might and its investment appeal, becoming the continent's economic leader. The prize was incredibly lucrative. Nicholas, to put it mildly, was not a model monarch, that's true. But the rest of your arguments are flawed, as they are taken entirely from a Soviet textbook, which, out of habit, demanded not an analysis but a vigorous denunciation of "damned tsarism." This stupidity (not analyzing but chanting dogma) had a fatal impact on the USSR. Stop repeating it; one collapse was enough.
      1. -1
        April 7 2026 10: 17
        There were. Russia desperately needed the Straits.


        I agree that Nicholas wanted to seize the straits, but he didn't "desperately" need them. He simply looked to the future and foresaw another war with Turkey, when it could close the straits.
        Well, Nicholas also saw Russia as the successor of Byzantium.
        1. +1
          April 7 2026 11: 11
          Russia was like a jug of gold, corked with a stopper through which meager drops trickled. You clearly don't understand economics at all if you don't understand the importance of the Straits.
      2. 0
        April 7 2026 10: 43
        No one in Europe would ever allow Russia to take control of the Straits.
        1. 0
          April 7 2026 11: 09
          Yes. But they were promised to Russia, and our geniuses believed them.
          1. 0
            April 7 2026 11: 36
            If they were not allowed to be taken during the Russo-Turkish War of 1829, then they certainly would not have been given up during the First World War.
            Moreover, this was primarily unprofitable for England.
            1. 0
              April 7 2026 13: 08
              NOW it's clear. Back then, to understand this, I had to break a lot within myself.
  8. +3
    April 6 2026 08: 47
    First and foremost, a barrier of sorts must be created between "Muscovite" Russia and Germany. The so-called "Baltic" and "Kiev" kingdoms should be the main components of this barrier.

    Basically, it worked. The Baltic states joined NATO. And Ukraine acts as a buffer between Europe and Russia. This is the result of geopolitics from our geopoliticians.
  9. 0
    April 6 2026 12: 36
    This is a flawed article, although the motive is clear. But it turned out to be a case of "the tail wagging the dog." It's like writing that the SVO was designed to prevent further events in the Kursk region. I'd like to see the readers' comments on such an opus, but the logic is the same.
    On the topic—the Tsar is to blame for the war—that's unequivocal. Just as he was later to blame for failing to convey to the peasants the idea of ​​why they should die for Serbia and, later, the Dardanelles. And he himself understood where this could lead, judging by his hesitation and wavering over mobilization. But there was a temporary solution: delaying the second revolution.
  10. +1
    April 6 2026 14: 29
    Nationalists, pan-Germans... They're all small fry! The big guys are always called "financiers."
  11. 0
    April 6 2026 14: 43
    Translated into everyday language, this meant: the war must continue until the complete and undivided hegemony of the Greater German Reich in Europe was established, so that no state could resist any of its claims. Applied to Russia, this could naturally mean one thing. Since its vast territory constituted the basis of Russian power, the Russian Empire must be dismembered. But that was not all. The plans of the German ruling class already then included the colonization of "living space" in the East.

    The author should have studied history more carefully and not indulged in fabrications.
    Firstly, the Kaiser personally came to Nikki II with a proposal not to fight before WWI. This somehow doesn't fit with the expansion plans.
    Secondly, Germany entered the war not against the Russian Empire, but against England and France, and only in response to three weeks of the Russian Empire's mobilization did it declare war on the Russian Empire after three (!) warnings. And it didn't even enter the war itself, but was forced to support the very aggressive Austrians (who were confident of England's neutrality) due to a treaty. This also doesn't fit in with what the author says.
    But the Germans' real plans were in China, Persia, and South Africa, and they were actively casting their nets in Argentina and Mexico.
    Literally everything that happened can be traced from memoirs, transcripts of meetings and official communications and correspondence, literally every movement.
    1. +2
      April 6 2026 15: 06
      Dear Sergey, I would very much like to ask you to study the history of the First World War more thoroughly.
      Or tell us where exactly Willie #2 came to Russia to see Niki #2.
      So far, from all that is known about the events leading up to WWI, Niki2 begged Willi2 to calm down the crazy pensioner F-I and not attack Serbia, but to submit the matter to international arbitration.
      1. -2
        April 6 2026 15: 17
        Quote: Trapper7
        Or tell us where exactly Willie #2 came to Russia to see Niki #2.

        https://sergeytsvetkov.livejournal.com/957381.html
        So far, from all that is known about the events leading up to WWI, Niki2 begged Willie2 to calm down the crazy pensioner F-I.

        Where do you get all this from? What kind of strange nonsense do you write everywhere?
        As for the Balkans, the issue of Pan-Slavism and the influence of the Russian Empire was acute—the era of Alexander the Great, Europe's gendarme, was over, the influence of the Russian Empire had weakened primarily due to economic backwardness, and the balance of power required correction, and by force. This was an objective process that had little to do with Franz Joseph's mental health.
        1. 0
          April 6 2026 15: 28
          Ah, so you mean the Treaty of Björkö... I thought you came after Ferdinand's assassination. Then it makes sense.
          By the way, how are things going with the tripartite German-French-Russian defensive treaty?
          Where do you get all this from? What kind of strange nonsense do you write everywhere?

          From history, of course. A true story. But I added the "crazy pensioner" bit myself, of course.
          "A dishonorable war has been declared against a weak country. The outrage in Russia, which I fully share, is enormous. I foresee that very soon the pressure will break me, and I will be forced to take extraordinary measures that could lead to war. To avoid such a disaster as a pan-European war, I ask you, in the name of our old friendship, to do everything in your power to stop your allies before they go too far."
        2. +2
          April 6 2026 15: 34
          And by the way, regarding the "strange stuff" - how can you explain this:
          Germany entered the war not against the Russian Empire, but against England and France.

          Considering that it was Russia that Germany declared war on first (August 1), and also invaded its territory (Czestochowa and Kalisz)
          1. -2
            April 6 2026 16: 27
            Quote: Trapper7
            How can you explain this:

            Let me remind you that in the first phase, despite some advances, Germany had purely defensive plans in the east. And its main forces were thrown into the offensive against France. The dates of the declaration of war, which all fit into four days, are certainly important, but one cannot ignore real events, not formalities. Germany's plan states that its main goal was a strike against France. And again, the Russian Empire mobilized its army in response to Austria-Hungary's outbreak of war against Serbia. This has nothing to do with Germany at all. That is, both Germany and the Russian Empire reacted, and weren't racing to fight each other. Let me also remind you that Germany invaded Luxembourg on the same day it declared war on the Russian Empire, which is an entirely different front. And this also suggests that the war against the Russian Empire was by no means the main one—at least equally on both fronts, meaning there was no focus on the east. That focus appeared later, after the failure of the first offensive in the west.
            1. +1
              April 6 2026 17: 13
              Dear Sergey
              In the first phase, despite some advances, there were purely defensive plans in the east.

              The key words here are "in the first phase." Then they planned to get to work on us in earnest.
              The Russian Empire mobilized its army in response to Austria-Hungary's outbreak of war against Serbia. This had nothing to do with Germany.

              That's it.
              There was no focus on the east. It appeared later, after the failure of the first offensive in the west.

              It emerged regardless of failure or success. It's just that if Germany succeeded against France, we'd have a kind of 41 remnant, only without tanks and attack aircraft and with an already mobilized army. The Wehrmacht might not have reached Moscow, but the outlook was, frankly, bleak.
              1. +1
                April 7 2026 08: 56
                Quote: Trapper7
                The Wehrmacht might not have reached Moscow.

                But here I have a more bleak assessment of the prospects. Germany had a much more powerful industry, and the gap in artillery and logistics was especially catastrophic.
                After the depletion of the trained pre-war army and pre-war reserves, the situation of the army of the Russian Empire began to steadily worsen.
                1. 0
                  April 7 2026 09: 07
                  Quote: multicaat
                  But here I have a more bleak assessment of the prospects. Germany had a much more powerful industry, and the gap in artillery and logistics was especially catastrophic.
                  After the depletion of the trained pre-war army and pre-war reserves, the situation of the army of the Russian Empire began to steadily worsen.

                  Yes, I agree. And this is precisely one more reason to stick with the French.
                  Don't think I'm a Francophile. But I do have a sober assessment of the capabilities of imperial Russia at the time. And Germany.
                  1. 0
                    April 7 2026 09: 19
                    Personally, I believe it was a critical mistake to follow the lead of French capital, and that it was necessary to be friends with Germany, without getting too involved in the squabbles in Europe. If they want to fight among themselves, go ahead, the Russian Empire will help with supplies. I would have preferred that approach. The Russian Empire was lagging far behind in economic development at that time, and the size of its army was no longer decisive.
  12. The comment was deleted.
    1. +1
      April 7 2026 10: 50
      In August 1914, neither Germany nor England considered submarines to be a weapon of naval warfare, much less the idea that they would be the main force in the naval blockade of the British Isles.
      Germany's power as a continental power depended largely on trade with Russia, and by tearing it away from Germany, England had already created the preconditions for victory in the war.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. -1
    April 14 2026 05: 37
    In my opinion, it was not worth getting involved in this showdown! It was not for nothing that Rasputin tried to dissuade Nicholas II from doing so!
  24. 0
    24 August 2026 17: 59
    This disgusting article is an example of falsification of history.