Military Review

Would Russia receive after winning the First World Straits?

131
Would Russia receive after winning the First World Straits?

Russia considered the annexation of Istanbul and the Straits a deserved prize following the victory in the First World War. However, the British and French did everything possible to prevent this from happening. The Russian General Staff was also incapable of the operation to capture the Straits.


For some reason, the idea that following the results of the won World War I, Russia should have received the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, as well as Constantinople (Constantinople, Istanbul), firmly sat down in the Russian patriotic consciousness. Legal allies of Russia on the Entente, France and England, never gave such a promise, everything was limited to verbal agreements or some kind of memorandums (compare the degree of legal elaboration of agreements on post-war organization at the Yalta conference in 1945).

Understand the impossibility of obtaining the Straits and the Russian intelligentsia. At the top of one of the cards (when you click on it and other cards you can see them in an enlarged size), released in 1915 year in Russia. It shows the re-alignment of the borders of Europe according to the results won by the Entente of the First World War. It is clearly seen that the Straits on the map are Turkish. But Russia should have acquired East Prussia, the territory of present-day Slovakia, and eastern Galicia. Poland would also have become part of eastern Germany.

Chronologically, one can trace the main discussions at the level of diplomacy and the actions of the general staff regarding the Straits and the future of Turkey.

September 26, the Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov, sent an official note to the French and British governments outlining the Russian government’s point of view on the objectives of the Entente during the war that started in the Balkans. It said that "the Turks should remain in Constantinople and its surroundings," but Russia should receive guarantees of free passage through the straits. There were no direct claims to the straits and the adjacent Turkish territory. They emerged at the state level after the performance of Turkey on the side of Germany.

25 February 1915, British and British warships fired upon Ottoman forts at the entrance to the Dardanelles and launched the Dardanelles operation. France and England did not inform Russia of the preparation of this operation, Petrograd learned about it through reconnaissance channels from Paris.

France and England attracted to the operation of Greece. which caused an extremely negative reaction in Petrograd - there were fears that Athens would demand Constantinople as a reward. If the planned operation succeeds, the Straits in any case came under the control of England and France, which forced Russia to demand from its allies official assurances of its transfer to the Straits after the war and Constantinople. Even direct threats from the Russian foreign minister, Sazonov, were even used. With the tsar’s permission, he directly hinted to the members of the Entente that Russia could conclude a separate peace with Germany and Austria-Hungary.


(This map and below are various plans for the reorganization of Europe by Germany)


The threats worked, and 12 March, March 1915, London, with an official note, guaranteed the transfer of the city of Constantinople to Russia with the adjacent territories, which included the western coast of the Bosphorus and the Sea of ​​Marmara, the Gallipoli peninsula, South Thrace on the Enos-Midia line and, moreover, the eastern coast of the Bosphorus and the Sea of ​​Marmara to Ismitum Bay, all the islands of the Sea of ​​Marmara, as well as the islands of Imbros and Tenedos in the Aegean.

The British did not consider their promise to Russia to transfer the Straits to be serious. Lord Bertie, the British ambassador in Paris, wrote about these agreements in his diary:

“December 17. I also talked with Gray about the situation in France, about American mediation, about the future of Belgium, about Italy, etc. I pointed to the Russian claims regarding Constantinople and the straits. Gray said that we should fulfill the promises made by us, namely, Russia should get the right of free passage of its military vessels from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and back in peacetime, while in wartime the participants of the war will enjoy equal rights. I noticed that in the case of the withdrawal of the Turks from Constantinople, a situation is created that is completely different from that in which all these promises were made; that the rights and privileges granted to Russia cannot be denied to Romania, which has a border on the Black Sea, or Bulgaria. The correct solution would be the following: Constantinople is transformed into a free city, all the forts on the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus are being destroyed, to the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus the Suez Canal regime is applied under the European guarantee. Gray doubts Russia's agreement to such conditions. In general, the question of the disposal of Constantinople and the straits will be a stumbling block when the time comes to discuss such subjects.

February 22 ... I hope that public opinion in England and abroad will force the powers to reject, in principle, the Russian point of view on the rights of Muscovites regarding Constantinople and the straits between the Black and Mediterranean seas. I am afraid that Gray is not in such a firm position as I would like in this matter; I mean internationalization according to the principles of the Suez Canal regime; this would not satisfy Izvolsky (Russia's ambassador to France - BT) and his host. Our newest and largest vessel, the Queen Elizabeth, in the Dardanelles; we have very large forces there.

February 26 ... Here, suspicion about Russia's intentions towards Constantinople is growing more and more. They consider it expedient that England and France (in this matter England is placed outside of France) occupied Constantinople before Russia, so that Muscovite would not be able to completely independently decide the question of the future of this city and the straits - the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. ”


Russia's withdrawal from the war, or, even worse, its reorientation towards Germany, threatened the collapse of the Entente. In English ruling circles there was a split on this issue. Winston Churchill offered to limit the general assurances of Russian sympathy for the questions posed; Bonar Law claimed that "if Russia will have everything she wants, the result will be the alienation of Italy and the Balkan states." They were objected to by Sir Edward Gray, who pointed out that if Britain did not support Russia in questions about the straits, Germany would support her, and then a separate peace between them was inevitable. “It’s absurd,” said Gray, “that such a gigantic empire as Russia is doomed to have ports blocked by ice for a considerable part of the year, or ports such as the Black Sea that are closed in the event of any war.”

As a result, Gray's opinion won in the British Cabinet. He was supported by Lloyd George, who believed that the Russians would be ready for huge concessions on other issues for Constantinople and the Straits. "The Russians are so eager to seize Constantinople that they will be generous with regard to concessions in all other places."

Russia had every reason not to believe the British and French. And to guarantee her interests in the Straits, she had to start a “counter” operation - from the east of Istanbul. The situation could be explained briefly: who among the members of the Entente will be the first to seize Istanbul and the Straits, that they will belong to as a result of the war. Already in 1915, the Russian General Staff began to develop an operation to drop troops on the western shore of the Black Sea.

For the success of the operation, the most important circumstance for the Russians would be the possession of the Bulgarian city of Burgas. Nicholas II generally considered it highly desirable for Bulgaria to enter the war on the side of the Entente and led negotiations with the Bulgarian Tsar on this matter. Admiral Bubnov described his conversation with Nicholas II about Burgos in the autumn of 1915: “This Bulgarian port was of great importance for the Bosporus operation, of which the Emperor was an ardent supporter. The fact is that Burgas was the only port near the Bosphorus where it was possible to land a large landing party, without which our General Headquarters and, in particular, the gene. Alekseev, categorically did not consider it possible to undertake an operation to seize the Bosphorus. This port has long been undergoing secret negotiations with Bulgaria, which, however, were unsuccessful, because Bulgaria demanded itself, for joining our side and presenting us with Burgos, Macedonia, to which Serbia did not want to give its consent.

The Bosphorus operation has been postponed more than once since 1915 - in the summer of 1916, from the summer of 1916 - in the summer of 1917. It was obvious that Russia did not have the strength to conduct it. The death of the battleship Empress Maria, the most modern ship on the Black Sea, put an end to operations navylaunched in 1913. It was he who was assigned the main role in supporting the landing on the Turkish coast.

The battleship was in the port of Sevastopol, ready to go to sea, when on October 7 1916 a terrible fire broke out on its board that claimed the lives of 152 sailors. Because of the fear that the flames would be transferred to the powder depot of the port, the command ordered the battleship to be flooded. It was a big loss for the Russian Navy. People started talking about sabotage and riot on the ship. The fire on the "Empress Maria" began to swell the opposition, which suspected in his death "the German hand at the court of Nicholas II."

Later, in emigration, part of the white officers expressed the opinion that the death of the battleship "Empress Maria" was much more profitable than England and France, because without it the Bosporus operation was impossible for Russia.


History has no subjunctive mood, and the outcome of the First World War is well known - Russia suffered a defeat in it, the final was the signing of a capitulation in Brest-Litovsk in 1918. Russia did not stutter more about expansion to the warm seas and in general to the south, knowing full well that its invasion of the zone of historically determined interests of the West threatens it with yet another artificial shock.
Originator:
http://ttolk.ru/?p=17351
131 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Deniska999
    Deniska999 8 June 2013 08: 25 New
    +2
    Hardly. The intrigues of France and England would be in the way.
    1. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 8 June 2013 14: 17 New
      16
      Any alliance with arrogant Saxons is doomed to subsequent betrayal by the descendants of thieves, murderers and pirates. For this burping of humanity, the concept of honesty is generally unnatural.
      1. Apologet.Ru
        Apologet.Ru 8 June 2013 23: 24 New
        +4
        You are absolutely right, colleague! Having learned about the abdication of Nicholas II, British Prime Minister Lloyd George exclaimed: “One of the goals of the war has now been achieved!” And the ambassador in Petrograd Buchanan, addressing the Provisional Government, congratulated the “Russian people” on the revolution. Moreover, he indicated that the main achievement of the country in the revolution was that "it got off the enemy." And “enemy” was understood as none other than Nicholas II (recently promoted to field marshal of the British Army (!!!) - as stated in the official letter, “as a sign of sincere friendship and love”).
    2. smile
      smile 8 June 2013 15: 31 New
      +7
      Deniska999
      Not intrigue, but a direct consistent policy. Even at the initial stage of the 1st MV, France and Britain concluded an agreement that the straits should in no way fall under Russian control.
    3. T-100
      T-100 8 June 2013 19: 05 New
      +3
      Not not no, somehow I know so. I read that the General Staff in 1917 was going to carry out large-scale offensives in Europe, in Bessarabia and the Caucasus, but the revolution thwarted everything.
      By February 1917, we had captured Baghdad, our units occupied Masul - the largest oil field in Iraq, and would have completely squeezed out the Rockefeller company standort oil. Also controlled part of Iran. See “The history of the 20 century. Revolution or special operation.” (On YouTube) well, there’s also a lot of interesting things from them (for example: who brought Hitler to power)))
    4. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 8 June 2013 23: 19 New
      +6
      Winston Churchill, who can hardly be considered a “friend of Russia,” but always a wise and sober politician, wrote: “Fate was not so cruel to any country as it was to Russia. Her ship sank when the harbor was in sight. She had already endured the storm when everything collapsed. All sacrifices have already been made, all work is completed. Despair and treason seized power when the task was already completed. The long retreats are over; shell hunger defeated; weapons flowed in a wide stream; a stronger, more numerous, better equipped army guarded a huge front, the rear assembly points were crowded with people. Alekseev led the army, and Kolchak - the fleet ... The king was on the throne; The Russian Empire and the Russian armies held on, the front was secured, and victory was undeniable ... According to the surface fashion of our time, the tsarist system is usually interpreted as blind, rotten, worthless tyranny. But the analysis of the 30 months of the war with Germany and Austria should correct these lightweight ideas. We can measure the strength of the Russian Empire by the blows that it suffered, the inexhaustible forces that it developed, and the restoration of forces that it was capable of. "
    5. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 8 June 2013 23: 46 New
      +5
      The February 8 meeting of February 1914 on the issue of the Straits stated that Russian actions in relation to the Straits could be carried out ONLY in the conditions of the European war. In military and naval circles, it was believed that at the same time as operations on the Western Front during the upcoming war, Russia should occupy Constantinople and the Straits in order to have time to put other powers before the moment of peace negotiations BEFORE THE ACCESSION OF RUSSIA'S Straits was completed. ONLY IN THIS CASE, it was believed in St. Petersburg, EUROPE AGREED to resolve this issue on conditions acceptable to Russia.
  2. fenix57
    fenix57 8 June 2013 09: 05 New
    +1
    We would get the Bosphorus Strait-complete control over the Black Sea. Then, then, select ... hi
    1. Sour
      Sour 8 June 2013 13: 12 New
      -6
      And what would it give? (without control of Gibraltar or Suez)
      Nothing, just expenses plus binding to the politics of England and France.
      By themselves, the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus do not give access to the ocean.
      1. smile
        smile 8 June 2013 15: 34 New
        +7
        Sour
        But it was a real opportunity not to let an alien fleet into the Black Sea. Warranty against the appearance of all kinds of gobens and breslau + control over merchant shipping.
      2. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 8 June 2013 22: 36 New
        +5
        From the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles to the “aorta of the Empire” - the Suez Canal - just a stone's throw, in addition, trade duties played a big role, the threat of breakthrough of enemy squadrons into the Black Sea - and this is just the first thing that comes to mind.

        In general, the Allies were not going to give us the Dardanelles - the breakthrough of German ships in Istanbul, the Dardanelles, the explosion of "Empress Maria", the "timely" (several months before the end of the WWII) revolution in the Russian Empire ...
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 8 June 2013 23: 06 New
          +2
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          From the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles to the “aorta of the Empire” - the Suez Canal - just a stone's throw, in addition, trade duties played a big role, the threat of breakthrough of enemy squadrons into the Black Sea - and this is just the first thing that comes to mind.

          Hmm !!! From the coast of France to the coast of England, in general, “a couple of steps” - but neither the Napoleon nor Hitler gave these same steps to the English fleet ...

          The Bosphorus and the Dardanelles would not have helped significantly either, since Russia NEVER in its history had parity at sea with the British fleet ... And when the Russian fleet intensified and even posed a potential threat to England, they launched the Crimean War - a war against a coalition of British fleets , France and Turkey - and this ended with the flooding of the Black Sea Fleet on the roads of Sevastopol ... Russia has traditionally always been strong with its ground forces and with the help of a powerful land army it was necessary to seek success on the battlefields !!!
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 9 June 2013 01: 25 New
            +1
            Quote: Selevc
            Hmm !!! From the coast of France to the coast of England, in general, “a couple of steps” - but neither the Napoleon nor Hitler gave these same steps to the English fleet ...


            1. For your information under Alexander III, the fleet had parity.

            2. The French fleet under Napoleon was defeated in a series of naval battles. The culmination was the Battle of Trafalgar. The latter led to the complete destruction of the Franco-Spanish fleet. What do you think Napoleon should have conquered England, if he threw all his forces exclusively to ground forces?

            3. The example of Hitler in general “touches” - the navy of Nazi Germany at the beginning of WWII was a semblance of a fleet of some South American country, and not a great power. And by the time the “strange war” ended, the German Navy had not recovered after the battles in Scandinavia - as the battle-worthy force, the Nazi fleet did not exist at that moment. BUT for several months already, a series of painful blows were inflicted by lone raiders, auxiliary cruisers (de facto armed merchants) and a few flocks of submarines on British shipping.
            4. After the Germans captured Crete, the British Mediterranean fleet practically scaled back operations in the eastern part of the Mediterranean, and only the incompetence and cowardice of most of the Italian fleet did not allow them to finally drive the "gentlemen" into the ports.

            To defeat a sea power with one land army is VERY difficult - study the history of WWII - from the fall of France to the invasion of the USSR. And on the battlefields, the Russian Imperial Army was considered one of the strongest and so it was before the betrayal of the country by the Bolsheviks and liberals. England has always depended on shipping - cut off its supply and let it starve for a couple of months.
            And more information for consideration - the undeniably superior forces of the Allies (both maritime and land) could not take the Dardanelles from the Ottoman
            Empires - all attempts were repelled thanks to the coastal defense system. And these are the Ottomans, who at that moment were inferior to the armies of all the great powers. Russian control over the desired territory would secure the entire Black Sea coast (always attacked by enemies). These arguments are only from the military sphere. And about the economic, everything has already been voiced.

            PS: do you really think that at the top of the Russian Empire all were fools and did not know that “the Bosporus and the Dardanelles would not have helped much either since ...”?
            1. Selevc
              Selevc 9 June 2013 09: 38 New
              +1
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              1. For your information under Alexander III, parity in the fleet was

              I repeat once again - NEVER there was parity between the Navy of Russia and Britain - during the time of Alexander the 3rd in terms of the number of Bronenos, shipbuilding capacities, and advanced technologies in shipbuilding, Russia was very, very lagged behind Britain ... Especially since during the Crimean War the Black Sea the fleet was simply destroyed and coastal fortifications were destroyed as a result of the defeat in the Crimean War ... The British fleet served colossal colonies of the metropolis around the globe and the Russian fleet rather appeared sporadically in remote regions and followed a more defensive strategy ...

              The French fleet under Napoleon was defeated in a series of naval battles. The culmination was the Battle of Trafalgar. The latter led to the complete destruction of the Franco-Spanish fleet. What do you think Napoleon should have conquered England, if he threw all his forces exclusively to ground forces?

              That’s why the French fleet was defeated - because the British had a numerical superiority at sea and, most importantly, the advanced tactics of using the Navy at that time ... After Trafalgar, Napoleon forgot about conquering Britain and the fleet and threw all his strength exclusively on the companies on the continent ...
              Hitler’s example generally “touches”

              Germany, for example, had serious surface forces and an impressive submarine fleet by 1939 - the most important thing is that the most modern ships and submarines - yes, they did some damage to England, but strategically this did not affect the course of the 2nd World War ... All that was required of them was to block the English Channel for several days in order to ensure the landing of German forces on the British Isles - but the Germans did not even try to do this because of the clear superiority of Britain at sea ...
              And there’s a great example of the 1st World War - the Kaiser fleet could not resist Britain in any naval battle !!!
              1. Selevc
                Selevc 9 June 2013 09: 58 New
                +2
                Defeating a sea power with one land army is VERY difficult
                Can a sea power defeat a powerful continental power with a strong land arimaea? For example, in the Crimean War, a whole coalition of European countries with a powerful Navy took ONE RUSSIAN CITY for three years !!! And the fact that the war was lost is 100% of the fault of Alexander the 2nd — the capture of Sevastopol is not a defeat yet, but at that moment the leadership of Russia sees a complete lack of will and determination for a war to a victorious end ... We would try England, France with Turkey, together with all its expeditionary forces to reach Moscow !!!

                PS: do you really think that at the top of the Russian Empire all were fools and did not know that “the Bosporus and the Dardanelles would not have helped much either since ...”?

                Exactly the fools - the events of 1914, 1917 showed the worthlessness and backwardness of the ruling elite of Russia - there is complete degradation of the ruling class, there are a lot of strategic mistakes in military planning that were made in the highest government offices. The result is quite natural all this herd of peacocks in luxurious uniforms was in the trash of History ...

                After 300 years of governing the country, the Russian monarchy was thrown out of Russia by a handful of Jewish revolutionaries — it’s funny to even think about it !!! It is necessary to fall so low !!!
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 9 June 2013 11: 46 New
                  0
                  Quote: Selevc
                  And the fact that the war was lost is 100% of the fault of Alexander the 2nd

                  In fairness, it must be said that the Crimean War can be called a defeat with a stretch of the nose. The Crimean War was part of a larger war, hostilities were fought over vast expanses (the Caucasus, the Balkans), and the dubious victory in the Crimean War was almost the only success of the coalition.
                2. Babon
                  Babon 9 June 2013 11: 54 New
                  +1
                  So how do you assess the actions of Menshikov in the Crimean War?
                  1. Selevc
                    Selevc 9 June 2013 16: 16 New
                    +2
                    Menshikov is a typical representative of the Russian military elite of that time - 90% I think were people of the same plan or almost the same ... By the middle of the 19th century, the ruling elite of tsarist Russia still rested on the laurels of the Victorians of Napoleon, the army was overgrown with corruption and all kinds of parasites. ..
                    And as a result, by the beginning of the Crimean War, there was a clear lag both in equipping the land army with new types of weapons and in the construction of a steam fleet ...

                    But if figures like Peter or Catherine stood in power - I think that this stay would be quickly overcome - but the whole drama is that the wrong people were in power ...
                3. Poppy
                  Poppy 9 June 2013 19: 06 New
                  +1
                  How to get to Moscow? they didn’t completely take Sevastopol, but only the south side, and the north remained with the Russian army
              2. Babon
                Babon 9 June 2013 11: 48 New
                0
                You say, the British Navy, but what about the battle at Kuantan? They didn’t even look at the battleships there, but they sank!
                1. Selevc
                  Selevc 9 June 2013 16: 03 New
                  +1
                  By the middle of the 20th century, the Dreadnought fever continued in the world - all the leading powers of the world built huge battleships and each tried to build them bigger and bigger ... It was a superweapon of the beginning of the 20th century ...

                  But then World War II showed that the battleships as a class of warships were already obsolete both morally and physically - they had more problems than good ... The century of sea battles "wall to wall" has already sunk into history and aviation dominated the sea .. And throughout the war, battleships used, at best, as floating artillery platforms to support landing ... By the ratio of investment and return, battleships were clearly a loss-making project - but they were certainly very beautiful ships !!!
      3. Apologet.Ru
        Apologet.Ru 8 June 2013 23: 29 New
        0
        The Black Sea straits were of great importance for Russia. Statistical data on Russian exports through the Straits clearly demonstrate the economic importance of the Straits. The main reason for the increasing importance of the Straits was the rapid development of foreign trade in southern Russia. So, during the period from 1906 to 1910, the export of cereals from the ports of the Black Sea amounted to 4691 thousand tons, from the ports of Azov - 2825 thousand tons, and from the Baltic - only 1081 thousand tons. For 1906 – 1910 the participation of the Black Sea ports in the export of grain both from the coast of Russia proper and from the Caucasus coast increased from 40% to 46,5%, ports of the Sea of ​​Azov - from 22,6% to 28%. Together, the Black and Azov Seas participated, therefore, in 74,5% of the total movement of cereals. Finally, in 1913, out of the total 10 670 thousand tons of exported bread, 7900 thousand tons, that is, more than 80%, were exported through the ports of the Black and Azov Seas.
    2. zennon
      zennon 8 June 2013 14: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: fenix57
      We would get the Bosphorus Strait-complete control over the Black Sea. Then, then, select ... hi

      The tsars fought for us not small lands. Then there was a social revolution and its organizer, the state criminal Ulyanov, the nickname Lenin and his last Khrushchev distributed Russian lands. Subsequently, select ... request
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 8 June 2013 16: 48 New
        -2
        Quote: zennon
        The tsars fought for us not small lands. Then there was a social revolution and its organizer, the state criminal Ulyanov, the nickname Lenin and his last Khrushchev distributed Russian lands. Subsequently, select ...

        The peak of territorial development was apparently under Ivan the Terrible, then there were territorial losses, the Romanovs also squandered a lot, even before the communists arrived.
        1. zennon
          zennon 8 June 2013 17: 14 New
          0
          Setrac
          The peak was later, after the Napoleonic Wars: Georgia, Poland, Finland. Still later, in the second half of the 19th century, Central Asia. What about the Romanov’s loss, what do you mean? Alaska? Well, this is not a loss, but a sale. Not a little money -7,2 million went to the development of the railway network and the purchase of steam locomotives in Austria. It’s necessary. So what about squandering, it’s in vain ... What else did the Romanovs lose? I don’t remember for a moment, tell me.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 8 June 2013 17: 40 New
            -2
            Losses are much greater.
            In America, not only Alaska, but also the entire western coast of North America and significant territories within the continent
            Manchuria - now 120 million Chinese live there, and 50-70 million Russians were supposed to live, and there would be no problems with the development of the east (although the Communists are no less guilty of the loss of Manchuria.
            In reality, we do not know the geography of the Russian state before the Romanovs. The Romanovs came to power as a result of many years of civil war (turmoil) against the old dynasty, during which time states were formed in distant provinces that did not recognize the legitimacy of the Romanov dynasty.
            1. zennon
              zennon 8 June 2013 18: 20 New
              +1
              Setrac
              Russia did not have any possessions on the west coast. Fort Ross was founded by private merchant Ivan Kuskov, who brought there 95 Russians. He bought it from the Indians, but formally these lands belonged to the Spanish crown.
              Fort Ross was sold to Mexican citizen John Sutter, that is, also not squandered. As for Manchuria, we signed the Nerchinsk Treaty back in 1689, and we stood on these lands. In 1898, according to the Russian-Chinese Convention, Russia rented the Liaodong Peninsula with adjacent islands from China, strengthened Port Arthur and built the commercial port of Dalniy. But it was RENT! So all that the Romanovs lost was half Sakhalin. We returned them according to the results of the 2nd World War.
          2. Alex
            Alex 18 August 2013 21: 17 New
            +4
            That's just a penny of those millions in fact it didn’t even reach Russia - the ship exploded (by the way, also English and money were transferred through an English bank - this is also the way). So as you can see, England has always been our "friend" and "partner."
        2. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 8 June 2013 22: 44 New
          0
          You are wrong - during the Time of Troubles Russia lost many western cities. At the time of the first Romanovs, there was a process of struggle for their return. The result - the accession (voluntary!) Of Ukraine. Under Peter the Great, not only many cities and lands were returned, but there were significant land increments - in the Baltic states, Persia, etc. And there is nothing even to say about the Catherine II period.

          Another thing the Bolsheviks (communists) - the "ingenious" Brest Peace, the loss of the Baltic States, Finland, Poland and others, the destruction of the army and navy, the destruction of not so backward (as the Communists prove to us) industry and infrastructure - Russia entered the WWI with one of the most powerful air fleets, several brands of cars were produced in the country, etc.
          And there is nothing to talk about the legal level - study in what conditions Lenin was kept.
          1. zennon
            zennon 8 June 2013 23: 00 New
            0
            Blackgrifon
            So what, in fact, am I wrong? "So all that the Romanovs lost was Paul Sakhalin. We returned them according to the results of World War II." You fully confirmed my words.
      2. Apologet.Ru
        Apologet.Ru 8 June 2013 23: 55 New
        +2
        Pride is taken for a great country when you read these lines: “By God's merciful grace we are the Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod; King of Kazan, King of Astrakhan, King of Poland, King of Siberia, King of Tauric Chersonis, King of Georgia; Sovereign Pskov and Grand Prince Smolensky, Lithuanian, Volyn, Podolsky and Finland; Prince of Estonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigalsky, Samogitsky, Bialystok, Korelsky, Tverskoy, Ugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgarian and others; Sovereign and Grand Duke of Novgorod, Nizov lands, Chernihiv, Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozersky, Udora, Obdorsky, Kondi, Vitebsk, Mstislav and all the northern countries ruler and Sovereign of Iversky, Kartalinsky and Kabardian lands and regions; Cherkasy and Mountain Princes and other Crown Sovereign and Possessor; Sovereign of Turkestan, Heir of Norwegian, Duke of Schleswig-Golstinsky, Stornmarn, Dietmar and Oldenburg and other, and other, and other "And what remains of this?
    3. knn54
      knn54 8 June 2013 16: 18 New
      +3
      -fenix57: Would you get the Bosphorus Strait-complete control of the Black Sea.
      Anglo-Franco-Russian secret agreement of 1915. There are so many reservations that it is unlikely that the "allies" would keep their promise. Moreover, Churchill made an attempt, the well-known Dardannel operation, to capture the straits for England, but failed.
      England provoked Turkey to fight on the side of Germany in order to close the Straits for Russia and block the Black Sea ports. They let German raiders into the Black Sea ...
      The gentleman gave his word - he took it.
  3. jamalena
    jamalena 8 June 2013 09: 41 New
    15
    - "Englishwoman shits" (Catherine II). Englishwoman crap always! Pirates do not trust!
    1. misterwulf
      misterwulf 8 June 2013 19: 50 New
      +1
      This is the time of Alexander-2 and later, and the “English woman is spoiling” —the Queen Victoria, who did not reach 1MB a bit.
  4. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 8 June 2013 09: 56 New
    +2
    History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. It is impossible to calculate millions of nuances, accidents, etc. Who does not agree with me - read stories about "fellow travelers". Personally, they are no longer interesting to me.
    1. smile
      smile 8 June 2013 15: 39 New
      0
      FC Skiff
      Yeah, with these fellow villains, lost and deserts in science fiction, it's time to end - got it already! :))))
  5. sscha
    sscha 8 June 2013 09: 57 New
    +3
    Even during the Russian-Turkish war for the liberation of Bulgaria, Lieutenant General Skobelev had the opportunity to take control of Constantinople. But he was not given envious and Germanophiles at the court of Alexander the Second. You look and the story was written in other colors and in a different way, but ...
    History does not tolerate subjunctive moods. hi
    1. stroporez
      stroporez 8 June 2013 11: 28 New
      +6
      Quote: sscha
      Envious and Germanophiles
      probably they promised to start shelling Istanbul with English ships if the Russian army enters there ..... oh, what rascals these "fila" .........
  6. kavkaz8888
    kavkaz8888 8 June 2013 10: 16 New
    +6
    As soon as we get in touch with England and other states, we get problems. If we don’t have any allies, what about the Germans? Two states in Europe are enough. The Slavs come to us (and the straits, by itself). The rest is for the Germans. Let the Scandinavians be taken away, re-educated. .
    1. old man54
      old man54 8 June 2013 21: 02 New
      0
      Quote: kavkaz8888
      If there’s nowhere without allies, what about the Germans? Two states in Europe are enough with a margin. The Slavs come to us (and the straits, of course). The rest is for the Germans. Let the Scandinavians be taken away, re-educated.

      Anglo-Saxons of all stripes were always afraid of such a development of events more than anything else! I AM ABOUT THE UNION OF GERMANY AND RUSSIA. and at the beginning of the 2nd MV, including, for which they made incredible efforts to deploy Hitler against the USSR.
  7. Hudo
    Hudo 8 June 2013 10: 23 New
    12
    The allies of Russia in the Entente, France and England, never made such a legal promise, everything was limited to verbal agreements or certain memoranda (compare the degree of legal elaboration of agreements on the post-war arrangement at the Yalta Conference in 1945).


    If Comrade Stalin didn’t succeed in 1945, then with Nicholas II there were zero chances with revelry of agents of influence of foreign states in the country, with leapfrog in the state apparatus, etc.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 8 June 2013 14: 22 New
      +3
      Quote: Hudo
      with Nicholas II with revelry agents of influence of foreign states in the country, with leapfrog in the state apparatus, etc., the chances were zero.
      Rasputin alone is worth ...
      Quote: Hudo
      even Comrade Stalin didn’t succeed in 1945
      After the liberation of Crimea, the Primorye Army remained there until the end of the war. When it completely dominated the sea, it was obviously not engaged in anti-airborne defense. It did not work then, but as they say: there is always a chance!
    2. zennon
      zennon 8 June 2013 14: 59 New
      +2
      Hudo
      If you remember, Federal Chancellor Kohl promised our losharik Misha that NATO would not be spread east. In words ...
  8. cartridge
    cartridge 8 June 2013 10: 45 New
    +7
    Anglo-Saxons can not be trusted even in smallness. Even with the Germans, despite two wars, they can be negotiated. And the British and Americans will always keep a knife in the sleeve, which they will hit at the moment when we least expect it.
    Ideally, Russia's policy in Europe would be more successful if, instead of the sly Entente, we would bet on Germany. And today this recipe has not lost relevance. German technology, coupled with almost unlimited Russian resources, can bring a block of these states to an unprecedented level of political and economic influence. Putin understands this and Merkel understands this. Therefore, the ties between Russia and Germany, despite the demagogy around the so-called “human rights” are sustainable and steadily evolving. And this is strategically very correct.
  9. B_KypTke
    B_KypTke 8 June 2013 10: 49 New
    +1
    Nothing, a little time will pass and the heiress of the Byzantine Empire - Russia, which has preserved the Orthodox Faith in incredibly difficult conditions, will restore historical justice. It is not worthwhile for St. Sophia Cathedral to stand under the minarets. Then there will be a "plate with a blue border" in the form of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles.
    1. sleepy
      sleepy 8 June 2013 13: 43 New
      +1
      Although I didn’t set a minus, I’ll note that after the Islamization of Russia
      the problem with the straits will disappear by itself.

      In the Nevsky district they plan to build the tallest mosque in Russia.
      http://www.gazeta.spb.ru/1182729-1/

      In St. Petersburg, a kindergarten with an Islamic bias opens. http://www.gazeta.spb.ru/664219-0/

      Uzbek Petersburg.
      http://welcomespb.com/news6.html

      The Uzbeks called Petersburg the most tolerant city in Russia.
      http://www.gazeta.spb.ru/901247-1/

      Children of migrants who have studied at Russian schools for at least three years are invited to give a residence permit together with a certificate.
      http://www.gazeta.spb.ru/1198469-0/
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 8 June 2013 16: 57 New
        -4
        Quote: sleepy
        Although I didn’t set a minus, I’ll note that after the Islamization of Russia
        the problem with the straits will disappear by itself.

        Why is this your passage? Do you hate all Muslims? These are your problems, not the problems of the Russian state.
        1. sleepy
          sleepy 8 June 2013 22: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Setrac
          "Why is this your passage? Do you hate all Muslims? .."

          As an option, the military alliance of Turkey and Russia on the basis of the same religion.
          Turkey is not too eager to dance to the tune of Washington and / or Brussels,
          although it is part of NATO. And in Germany there are enough Turks.

          PS I treat Muslims differently,
          I am more likely positive towards Islam.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 9 June 2013 00: 20 New
            -1
            Quote: sleepy
            As an option, the military alliance of Turkey and Russia on the basis of the same religion.

            Without bothering with religion, Turkey must be drawn into the CU and CSTO.
  10. stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 8 June 2013 11: 08 New
    +9
    Would Russia receive after winning the First World Straits?
    Never for any gingerbread.
    Neither, first of all, Great Britain nor France would allow Russia to become a FULL Euro-Asian hegemon.
    1. old man54
      old man54 8 June 2013 21: 07 New
      +2
      Quote: stalkerwalker
      Would Russia receive after winning the First World Straits?
      Never for any gingerbread.
      Neither, first of all, Great Britain nor France would allow Russia to become a FULL Euro-Asian hegemon.

      Well, a lot would depend on the hardness of Russia itself! Why did the Jews finance the revolution!
      1. fartfraer
        fartfraer 9 June 2013 11: 45 New
        +3
        I won’t argue about the financing of the revolution (it was the Germans or the Jews weren’t important), but the revolution didn’t take place in the “ideal” country. To get into unprepared war, a lot of losses, the economic crisis are the fruits of the management of the “great martyr.” Nicholas 2 against his relative (distant, but still) working out the loans of the Europeans with the blood of Russian soldiers. You can minus, but for the sake of interest, read why RI entered the war (not reasons, namely reasons)
        1. old man54
          old man54 9 June 2013 19: 24 New
          0
          Quote: fartfraer
          I won’t argue about the financing of the revolution (were they Germans or Jews are not important),

          I will, why not argue that !!! The Germans financed Lenin, I don’t argue, but Lenin didn’t prepare the revolution itself, he overslept it in the well-fed Switzerland, which has a lot of evidence! But the movement itself and the masses of the people for the revolution more than one year, Trotsky prepared with the comrade, you apparently do not know! Trotsky-Bronstein, arrived in Russia through the Far East from USA, with a lot of money from American Jewish bankers with the aim of rocking the state power of Russia and creating in it something like the control (external) that they Jews established with us only after 1991 . And he would probably succeed, he almost succeeded, but German intelligence during the 1st MV quickly moved into the plans of world Zionism and created its own alternative project - Lenin! Therefore, a trip through enemy Germany in a sealed wagon under the protection of German intelligence, funding and a hasty peace with the Germans in Brest-Litovsk in 1918. Lands, western Ukraine and Belarus, paid financial assistance for this matter. Something like this. But with all the rest, in comparison with Trotsky and that prospect of his power, Lenin was certainly a blessing to the Russian ethos in general!
          1. fartfraer
            fartfraer 9 June 2013 21: 37 New
            +1
            old man, I’m talking about that) it doesn’t matter who financed. it doesn’t matter why it became possible (revolution). Nicholas 2 had little understanding of what he controls and how things are going in his empire. This is the root cause.
            1. old man54
              old man54 10 June 2013 03: 12 New
              +1
              Well, yes, yes! from the weakness of the supreme power everything went! And now he, Nikolashka, is also ranked among the Saints by the Orthodox Church, in general laughter and stupidity beyond reason! And in the war of the 1st MV, Nikolashka climbed the main because of the Turkish straits, as I know, well, the British persuaded him very much, although this war was on us, Russia, on the side.
              1. fartfraer
                fartfraer 10 June 2013 07: 28 New
                0
                and the tsarist government owed a lot of money to the French.
          2. Alex
            Alex 18 August 2013 21: 33 New
            +4
            [quote = old man54] [quote = fartfraer] The lands of western Ukraine and Belarus paid financial assistance in this matter for payment. [/ quote]

            As far as I know, western Ukraine and western Belarus fell into Poland (and not Germany!) As a result of the failure of the Soviet-Polish war (thanks to Tukhachevsky) and received no compensation (ha ha) for this. But the Brest-Litovsk world did not last even half a year: the revolution also covered Germany. What goes around comes around.
  11. omsbon
    omsbon 8 June 2013 11: 10 New
    +1
    The problem of the straits still stands now, but it can be solved favorably, only if the political and economic situation in the world is in Russia's favor so that we will wait.
    As the Japanese say: "Sit by the river and the water, sooner or later, will carry the corpse of your enemy!"
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 9 June 2013 12: 02 New
      0
      Quote: omsbon
      As the Japanese say: "Sit by the river and the water, sooner or later, will carry the corpse of your enemy!"

      This phrase does not fit here, it doesn’t say what to “wait,” flowing water means any events, respectively, sitting at the current water means monitoring events or any processes. This is simplistic.
  12. reichsmarshal
    reichsmarshal 8 June 2013 11: 16 New
    +5
    Finally, at least one sane author. And then on the box they got sick of Nikolashkin’s and blame everything on the Bolsheviks, as if it was the Bolsheviks who all were asking ... al!
  13. dmit-xnumx
    dmit-xnumx 8 June 2013 11: 23 New
    +2
    Yes, it’s not for nothing that there is a popular expression- “Facts are a stubborn thing, but a person is even more stubborn!” - this is me about the "subjunctive mood.
  14. dropout
    dropout 8 June 2013 11: 23 New
    +5
    Anglo-Saxons have historically been rivals of Russia. But it amazes me how many forum users forget that it is German boots that have been trying to trample on our land for centuries with manic persistence. There can be no honest, lasting alliance with the Germans. I hope everyone remembers which Russia has two reliable allies.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 8 June 2013 14: 26 New
      +6
      Quote: dropout
      it is the German boots that have been trying for several centuries to stomp our land with manic perseverance
      the military-political union of Germany and Russia is a nightmare for British diplomacy. Here they pushed their foreheads, not forgetting to fish in troubled waters.
      1. sleepy
        sleepy 8 June 2013 14: 54 New
        +3
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        "The military-political union of Germany and Russia is a nightmare for British diplomacy ..."


        Unfortunately, the Germans were almost gone - some Turks ...
        So Germany is now also an unreliable ally.
        1. old man54
          old man54 8 June 2013 21: 18 New
          +2
          Quote: sleepy

          Unfortunately, the Germans were almost gone - some Turks ...
          So Germany is now also an unreliable ally.

          Yes, hell you guessed it! Moreover, after the 97th year, a lot of ours left, by the blood of the Germans, but born and raised with us: in Siberia and northern Kazakhstan! so ... not everything is so bad, there is more than a reason to unite politics in the field!
          1. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 9 June 2013 07: 49 New
            +3
            Quote: sleepy
            Unfortunately, the Germans were almost gone - some Turks ...
            My opinion is that the nationals will come to power, but they will always come in German (alas, ah-ha-ha-ha) and all this Turkish gilding will be sprinkled with the knock of laced shoes. And other hereditary Europioids are not averse to establishing a “clean order” in their kingdoms. Perhaps I’ll go against the opinion of the majority of forum users, but IMHO, IMHO, IMHO europioids are not blue at all, but smart, persevering in their convictions and pragmatic people. If there is a political “sanction”, the Muslim issue will be resolved absolutely within a year. I draw such conclusions from communicating with my husband’s best friend’s sister (he is a norg) + the historical heredity of European statehood. And ONLY I went out of town today to the traditional festival "Rock over the Volga", I heard Ramstein live ......... ............. So I write under the impression drinks What to do, I love when the guys live singing bully
      2. old man54
        old man54 8 June 2013 21: 15 New
        +2
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        the military-political union of Germany and Russia is a nightmare for British diplomacy. Here they pushed their foreheads, not forgetting to fish in troubled waters.

        finally a strategically thinking person has appeared. "+" To you. What is Jewish policy, what is Anglo-Saxon says - divide and conquer! It was not for nothing that Gorbachev in the late 80s demanded, first of all, the withdrawal of troops from East Germany! Neither about the Czech Republic, about the polandia, who did not stutter then, because the main thing between us and the Germans was to drive a wedge!
    2. zennon
      zennon 8 June 2013 15: 14 New
      +3
      Quote: dropout
      Anglo-Saxons have historically been rivals of Russia. But it amazes me how many forum users forget that it is German boots that have been trying for centuries to trample on our land with manic perseverance.

      “You can’t reach Berlin from Berlin, but you can always get to Berlin from Petersburg.” Count Peter Ivanovich Shuvalov.
    3. old man54
      old man54 8 June 2013 21: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: dropout
      Anglo-Saxons have historically been rivals of Russia, but it amazes me how many forum users forget that it is the German boots that have been trying for centuries to trample on our land with manic perseverance. There can be no honest, lasting alliance with the Germans.

      and here you are mistaken fatally !!! Even from the soldiers of the Second World War (ours) I heard that the Germans are in many ways similar to us, as stubborn and ready to fight to the end. Although we are different in many respects, but ... both a man and a woman are two opposites, but this does not prevent them from being happy together ?! :) I would only be friends with the Germans in Geyrop! But the Anglo-Saxons will die with bones, but they will interfere with such strategic unity!
  15. AntonR7
    AntonR7 8 June 2013 12: 55 New
    0
    It is sad that the conspiracy of the general and political elite succeeded either out of stupidity and naivety, that having eliminated the monarch in a difficult period, it would be possible to put the monarch in their favor, or by conscious betrayal, not without the help of England. Who knows, alas, the generals forgot about the oath, and the lesson for the Russian people is that any revolution and upheaval is primarily beneficial to our enemies and "friends."
    1. fartfraer
      fartfraer 9 June 2013 11: 52 New
      0
      in order for there to be no revolution (a change of power “from below”), it is necessary that the “tops” are not forgotten. Does any of you still recall that an official is a hired worker? And the president, and the policeman, and any other official? Are they the people (citizens) of the Russian Federation? If I hire a worker who, in addition to promising "everything will be", does nothing else, do I have to pay him, or drive him up?
      but I apologize, this is not entirely on the topic of the monarchy in RI, and on the topic-governance was far from being aware of what was happening in the empire, therefore the revolution
  16. Russ69
    Russ69 8 June 2013 13: 17 New
    0
    Alas, the dream of the Russian tsars to annex Constantinople to Russia was not realized and the Britons always intervened.
    1. old man54
      old man54 8 June 2013 21: 22 New
      +2
      Not yet evening! Yes, and the Slavs are still there, despite the fact that now they are in a deep crisis of the national spirit! Still will be, I believe !!!!!!!!!!
  17. Sour
    Sour 8 June 2013 13: 29 New
    +2
    In short, everything is clear. Cards are clearer than all the arguments.
    In case of victory in the war, Russia would receive:
    1) The straits, from which the sense is zero and zero tenths, because in order to enter the ocean, Gibraltar or Suez plus Djibouti must also be controlled. If anything, control of the straits of Turkey has yielded nothing, either economically or geopolitically. Well, let’s say, the possession of these straits gave control over maritime communications between Russia and Italy, or Russia and Greece. Is it that important?
    2) Polish lands (Silesia plus southern Poland) in addition to the already existing Polish lands, and even Galicia (with all the consequences arising from this region). Absolutely worthless and even harmful acquisitions that would complicate the already difficult internal situation in Russia.
    If all the money spent on the war (or at least a fifth of it) was spent on internal reforms in Russia (for example, on the redemption of landowners' lands and their transfer to peasants), now Russia would be much larger in territory, much more densely populated and economically stronger , than now. And no revolution would be needed.
    Greetings to those who pulled Russia into this war. By the way, unlike the 2nd World War, Russia had a lot of chances to avoid a war. But they did not take advantage of any.
    1. sleepy
      sleepy 8 June 2013 13: 59 New
      +5
      It was because of the worthlessness of Russia’s participation in this war that such a phenomenon as fraternization with the Germans spread widely.
      Except for the truces, I can’t remember whether the Russians fraternized with the Turks, French, Japanese, British, Poles, Finns ...
      But, as a result of this senseless war, the Russian soldiers did not stand on ceremony with their officers, and then all the officers went on, both right and wrong, and long afterwards there were only commanders in the Red Army, not officers.
      Until I. Stalin returned the epaulettes for Christmas 1943 - January 6.
      http://cccp-revivel.blogspot.ru/2013/01/stalin-vernul-pogony-na-rozhdestvo.html
    2. old man54
      old man54 8 June 2013 21: 23 New
      0
      n-yes, the strategist of you, Sour, that one!: (((
      1. fartfraer
        fartfraer 9 June 2013 21: 40 New
        0
        What exactly did not suit you in the comments of the forum member "sour"?
        1. old man54
          old man54 10 June 2013 03: 16 New
          0
          Quote: fartfraer
          What exactly did not suit you in the comments of the forum member "sour"?

          read below, I explained there, perhaps I don’t want to repeat myself! Do you find his comments adequate and competent, visionary in terms of geopolitics and development strategies of the country? Explain
          1. fartfraer
            fartfraer 10 June 2013 07: 33 New
            0
            old man, I do not argue about the need for straits, but they would not have received anyway. As far as RI fought with the Turks, it has never received straits for its use.
            Well, in the comet, the sour phrase “If all the money spent on the war (or at least a fifth of them) was spent on internal reforms in Russia” seems to me very true. But here again we return to the one who ruled the empire at that time.
  18. T-73
    T-73 8 June 2013 13: 36 New
    +5
    Mikola 2 was an infantile idealist. Where did you climb and for what? He allowed Russia to get involved and get bogged down in a war that did not concern us in any way. They wouldn’t give anything to Russia, they would dynamize as the Allies wanted. The same Entente, remember for what was created? Eh. Pope Alexander could put everyone back in cancer, and Mikolka would never
    1. smile
      smile 8 June 2013 15: 47 New
      +4
      T-73
      No ... nikolashka was a worthless, insignificant little man, his diaries eloquently speak about this ... the only one. that he succeeded well - killing a raven ... that’s all that was wrong ... a martyr, his mother ...
  19. T-73
    T-73 8 June 2013 13: 40 New
    +1
    Quote: dropout
    it is the German boots that have been trying for several centuries to stomp our land with manic perseverance

    what centuries? Medieval Crusaders-Divers + two world wars, which fit into 40 years. but who has been creating all the conditions for 2 centuries so that Russia always fought? I can’t even imagine ..)
  20. Selevc
    Selevc 8 June 2013 13: 49 New
    +1
    The thing is that already at the beginning of the 1st World War it became clear that traitors moles were sitting in the Russian General Staff !!! The fact that the Germans had a strategic initiative on the eastern front almost the entire war suggests that they were uninterruptedly supplied with the plans of the Russian command ...

    In 1917, the war reached its climax - Germany had to solve something radically to turn the tide ... I think they probably helped the forces destabilizing Russia in every way - but the very fact that the front was far from the western borders by 1917 Russia speaks of the incompetent waging of the war by the Russian leadership ...

    And the fact that they would not have received the straits in case of victory - so this problem has been going on since the beginning of the 19th century ... Even Nikolai the 1st was offered to land a mass assault in the Bosphorus ... And no England would be able to do anything with this to do ...
    1. Babon
      Babon 8 June 2013 23: 52 New
      0
      You may ask, what do you think about Admiral Rozhdestvensky? a little off topic. of course, but next year.
  21. Sour
    Sour 8 June 2013 13: 54 New
    -4
    Quote: T-73
    They wouldn’t give anything to Russia

    The straits could give. Because in the era of developed railway transport, they have already lost all significance. What did these straits give in terms of economics? Transporting goods to Naples or Athens? Yes, by rail it can be done. Moreover, the Mediterranean by that time ceased to be an economically developed region.
    Militarily, too, zero sense. For the defense of these straits, a fleet and coastal forces would be required no less than for the defense of the Black Sea coast of Russia, and maybe more. In short, these straits would be only a burden for Russia. Therefore, they would give them to us, and even easily. Something useful would not have been given, and these straits are easy.
    1. old man54
      old man54 8 June 2013 21: 28 New
      +1
      you read the same ones as Sour, and ... I wonder what university they teach, "strategists", huh :))) The Straits, the only ones that open access from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, did not promise Russia anything or anything :))) But the Britons were probably fools too, which in every possible way prevented the emergence of Russia among the Mediterranean powers? :)) Then, other geopolitical prospects would have been drawn, and in general, the policy of Russia would have been differently built, and even now, with these straits, the situation around Syria would develop differently, not at all like that!
    2. builder74
      builder74 9 June 2013 07: 25 New
      +1
      Not everyone is given strategic thinking (I haven’t been given it). But reading books and articles of specialists, BEFORE you say something, is necessary.
  22. Ascetic
    Ascetic 8 June 2013 14: 00 New
    +9
    The straits have always been historically the subject of Russia's desire. And Britain did everything possible to prevent Russia from receiving them, conducting active two-faced diplomacy in the region. Few people recall such an aspect of geopolitics of that time as the struggle of the powers for India. Now, by the way, huge propaganda efforts are being made, so that we forget about this great page of our history. Except that the "campaign of Platov" presented in a caricature is associated with the struggle for India. But in the West they are well aware of how things really were, and what kind of psychosis “Russians are coming” reigned in England when Russia moved step by step towards the pearl of the British Crown. By the beginning of WWI, Russia was already very close to India in Asia, and access to the straits promised the prerequisites for the next step - the Suez Canal, and then please be kind enough to communicate with the colonies around Africa. Russia went to South Asia not only by land, but also through the Suez Canal. This grandiose scenario was realized by Russian tsars. The British opposed this in every way.
    This was extremely beneficial to our country, but, of course, the defeat of Russia did not allow us to take advantage of the new prospects.
    1. Babon
      Babon 8 June 2013 14: 18 New
      0
      After all, it went down in history as the "Big Game"?
    2. Selevc
      Selevc 8 June 2013 17: 42 New
      0
      Why are you rushing about with these straits? Do you still remember how Napoleon promised Paul Malta !!! This straits is such a temptation for suckers - an occasion to involve a huge herd of fools in the world massacre !!!

      The territory of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles was NEVER in any way connected with Russia, and therefore Russia had no rights to it and does not have ... For a start, it would be nice to join Romania and Bulgaria - by the way, a much more realistic project, which in the case of Romania even began to carry out - even Europe did not allow Russia to carry out this - although Russia repeatedly fought in the Balkans and was close to the accession of the Balkan countries ..
      What to say about the straits?
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 8 June 2013 17: 48 New
        +1
        Quote: Selevc
        The territory of the Bosporus and Dardanelles was NEVER in any way connected with Russia and therefore Russia had no rights to it and does not have ...

        This is a controversial issue, in the West they want us to believe that.
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 8 June 2013 22: 47 New
          +1
          Quote: Setrac
          This is a controversial issue, in the West they want us to believe that.

          Well then, explain exactly how the territory of the straits is connected with the Russian Empire? The local population is much closer to Ankara, to Sofia or Athens than to distant Moscow !!!

          With the same success, one can justify Russia's claims to the Suez, Gibratar or Panama Canal ...
          1. Babon
            Babon 9 June 2013 00: 00 New
            0
            Of course you are right, but such distances did not interfere with London. Specifically, the Russian Empire wanted a free exit to the Mediterranean Sea. Without any quotas, as they say now. Just left the squadron and that's it, no one. without asking, well, we could definitely block the Suez Canal then, or Britain should have a Giant Fleet in Malta. but still. who will block faster!
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 10 June 2013 19: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Selevc
            The local population is much closer to Ankara, to Sofia or Athens than to distant Moscow !!!

            You are partly right, Moscow cannot claim anything, the empire was the capital of Volgograd, formerly Tsaritsyn (Or maybe this is the mythical Tsargrad - the city of kings?).
            Quote: Selevc
            With the same success, one can justify Russia's claims to the Suez, Gibratar or Panama Canal ...

            We have no evidence that this is so; we have no evidence that this is not so! This is a matter of faith, not science, whose historians you believe! So, let the Germans write the history of Russia again?
    3. VasilijB
      VasilijB 19 July 2013 01: 44 New
      0
      It is amazing how soon the "omnipotent" Britain easily parted with India (and indeed with all its other richest colonies).
  23. T-73
    T-73 8 June 2013 14: 01 New
    +1
    Quote: Sour
    they have already lost all meaning

    Oh oh You forget about Suez and our Far East. And the lack of an icebreaker fleet in the early 20th century. Yes, the same “Krasin” later what could he do? And crossing the Cape of Good Hope is not easy. Ships went on coal and somewhere had to bunker + time + human factor
  24. Sour
    Sour 8 June 2013 14: 05 New
    -2
    Quote: T-73
    You forget about Suez

    Yes, that's just what I don’t forget about him. And you, hike, forget. Suez and Gibraltar were controlled by the British, and the Bosphorus is not needed without control of them. That's never needed. If anything, the Turks in the era of the steam fleet never prevented our ships and warships from navigating through these straits. But there were problems with the British, for example, during the transition of the Nebogatov squadron.
  25. Abakanets
    Abakanets 8 June 2013 14: 09 New
    -6
    Thanks to Chlenin for the merged World War I. Nobody doubted that Germany would fall, but the most infamous
    "Brest Peace" is equivalent to the capitulation of the USSR in December 1944. If the victory in the First World War would have been received, the Russian Empire would have received a minimum of Constantinople, Western Ukraine and the Polish lands of Germany.
    1. smile
      smile 8 June 2013 15: 52 New
      0
      Abakanets
      Wah !!! And to whom did Stalin surrender in 1944? What was the surrender? .... what are you. from Volkhov picked up the basil? :))))
    2. Reyngard
      Reyngard 8 June 2013 18: 53 New
      -3
      Totally agree!
  26. Sour
    Sour 8 June 2013 14: 09 New
    -1
    Quote: T-73
    and our Far East

    The construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway has greatly reduced the severity of this problem.
    1. T-73
      T-73 8 June 2013 22: 14 New
      0
      What severity of the problem did it reduce? Did the supplies of cruisers go to the Far East along the Trans-Siberian Railway? There is one force - the fleet. What? armored shells, turrets of guns (by the way, not a single car of that time can stand it), rivets are the same to lead on the train? Where to collect? By whom? I won’t explain about the straits. Learn materiel
  27. Sour
    Sour 8 June 2013 14: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Abakanets
    Western Ukraine and the Polish lands of Germany.

    Such “acquisitions” are a thousand times worse than any losses. Personally, I will somehow live without Western Ukraine (and I will never pay), and all the more without Poland.
    1. Abakanets
      Abakanets 8 June 2013 14: 25 New
      -5
      Thanks to Ilyich, the country's population decreased by 25 million people, less people died in World War I.
      1. smile
        smile 8 June 2013 16: 01 New
        +5
        Abakanets
        Yeah. well, bad Lenin, he was able, by running a country that was on the brink of complete destruction by his predecessors and their masters, having virtually no resources to drive the invaders from most of the country, save it, stop the civil war imposed on us, which actually began in the summer of 17 Murmansk, Arkhangelsk If he is. such a bastard, did it to our detriment. then in your opinion, we must give the Far East to the Japanese. The coast of the World Cup - to the dwellers, the French, Murmansk, Arkhangelsk-Americans ... do you call for this? Yes, you are a patriot, adnaka! :))))
        1. Abakanets
          Abakanets 8 June 2013 16: 19 New
          -1
          To begin with, he himself brought the country to this. Even at the Kerensky dash, people did not die of hunger.
          1. smile
            smile 8 June 2013 17: 25 New
            +2
            Abakanets
            Let's start with what we recall. that the surplus was introduced even with nicholas ... what do you think. from a good life? So far, Nicholas, and then the liberals destroyed and brought the country. Lenin projected in Switzerland and on the waters, and had a negligible impact on the life of Russia ... and he came to power. when state power was virtually destroyed, and a civil war was raging in the country, the army was gone, the Germans paraded across Russia without encountering resistance, there was no food supply, the food supply system was destroyed. industry arose, on the outskirts of the Entente created the ugly brainchild of the Treaty of Versailles. but there is no strength ... there is nothing, not even the police and local authorities. everything is destroyed, everything is wasted ...
            1. Abakanets
              Abakanets 8 June 2013 18: 53 New
              -8
              Your message is saturated with a degenerative Soviet interpretation of history. As they say, a communist is worse than a homosexual.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 8 June 2013 19: 28 New
                +2
                Quote: Abakanets
                Your message is saturated with a degenerative Soviet interpretation of history. As they say, a communist is worse than a homosexual.

                Are you not a communist?
              2. smile
                smile 8 June 2013 19: 59 New
                +2
                Abakanets
                Your degeneration does not allow you to make sure that I am simply stating the facts?
                Of course, you have no time to study the history of the motherland, you just need to confirm a couple of high-profile. absolutely empty phrases, remember a couple of ideological cliches with which their masters generously supplied perestroika dissidents and that’s all, a special exposer is ready .....
                By the way, you are also not familiar with Soviet propaganda - after all, our official propaganda claimed that the Bolsheviks were the main and leading force that made a decisive contribution to the overthrow of tsarism ...
                To summarize, you don’t know a damn and are not trying (probably not able) to know the history of your country ... looking at you involuntarily you will come to the conclusion that part of the people really degenerated and degraded ... congratulations! :))) in principle, you are no worse than a homosexual ... so ... about the same level ... :)))))
                By the way, I would not have time to become a communist, since I was 71 years old.
                1. fartfraer
                  fartfraer 10 June 2013 10: 48 New
                  0
                  yes .. it’s difficult to explain to people like Abakan) they firmly believe that in tsarist times there was no famine and lack of ammunition on the fronts.
                  1. dmb
                    dmb 10 June 2013 13: 07 New
                    0
                    And it’s even more difficult to explain to them that Lenin was right in calling this war predatory. Unfortunately, even quite sane people in this case resemble Zhirik with his washing boots in the Indian Ocean. Neither the straits nor Constantinople NEVER belonged to Russia. And our "super patriots", voting about double Western standards, nevertheless are nostalgic for the straits and foreign territories that they did not get. At the same time, they are not at all embarrassed that the population of these territories did not want to stay in Russian citizenship at all, and would call the Russians the occupiers, just as we rightly call the Germans. Well, why should our grandfathers die? For the interests of Nikolashka, his relatives and large grain traders? That is why the first decree of the Bolsheviks was the Decree on Peace, which the people supported. So Masons with Jews and the Entente with Germany were least involved in the victory of the revolution.
  28. Valery-SPB
    Valery-SPB 8 June 2013 14: 35 New
    +2
    Quote: Hudo
    Hudo SU Today, 10:23 AM New

    The allies of Russia in the Entente, France and England, never made such a legal promise, everything was limited to verbal agreements or certain memoranda (compare the degree of legal elaboration of agreements on the post-war arrangement at the Yalta Conference in 1945).


    If Comrade Stalin didn’t succeed in 1945, then with Nicholas II there were zero chances with revelry of agents of influence of foreign states in the country, with leapfrog in the state apparatus, etc.


    Will not the respected Hudo remind you, and with whom, in fact, in the Second World War, Turkey fought? With such interest Comrade. Stalin in 1945 could demand the surrender of the territory of Turkey? In my opinion, the author compared only the degree of elaboration of the documents of the allies.
    1. Sour
      Sour 8 June 2013 14: 53 New
      0
      Quote: Valery-SPB
      With such interest Comrade. Stalin in 1945 could demand the surrender of the territory of Turkey?

      Turkey is unlikely. But Stalin had to give, for example, South Korea to the Americans, although all of Korea was liberated by Soviet troops.
      1. zennon
        zennon 8 June 2013 15: 28 New
        +1
        Sour
        Stalin didn’t have to. He died by this time. Malenkov had to July 27, 1953. March 8, 2013 the DPRK government canceled the non-aggression peace treaty with South Korea. And it would not be sour! lol
        1. Sour
          Sour 8 June 2013 15: 50 New
          +1
          Why are you saying that ?? !!! Horror !!!
          And I did not know that Stalin died in 1948 (it was then that the DPRK and the Republic of Korea were proclaimed as independent states).
          If anything, these two states have already managed to start a war between themselves, in 1950. It turns out that Stalin had already died by that time (as you say).
          1. zennon
            zennon 8 June 2013 16: 42 New
            0
            Sour
            But Stalin had to give, for example, South Korea to the Americans, although all of Korea was liberated by Soviet troops.

            The states were proclaimed. Only the war, as a result of which Korea was almost all united (the Busan bridgehead remained up to 120 km along the front and up to 100-120 km in depth), began on June 25, 1950. And no one to give South Korea to us without a war not going to. From the very beginning it was clear that the amers would not back down.
            1. T-73
              T-73 8 June 2013 22: 22 New
              +1
              SW zennon. Do not you think that we see the first fruits of the exam and the chicks from the Fursenkov nest? It seems to me personally that Sour is sure that it is impeccable and knows everything. The trouble is, if he studies in history. And so ... truth is born in a dispute (however, this is not about history)
              1. zennon
                zennon 8 June 2013 23: 06 New
                +1
                Quote: T-73
                SW zennon. Do not you think that we see the first fruits of the exam and the chicks from the Fursenkov nest?

                Alas, T-73. But I think that Mr. Sour is older than you think, and did not capture Fursenkov’s trends. However, I could be wrong. hi
      2. old man54
        old man54 10 June 2013 03: 18 New
        0
        such was the agreement with the amers, which came to Yalta in 1945.
    2. zennon
      zennon 8 June 2013 15: 21 New
      +1
      Valery-SPB
      Stalin could not even claim the lands of Armenia with Mount Ararat, lost after the 1st World War. I tried, but could not ...
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 8 June 2013 17: 21 New
      -1
      Quote: Valery-SPB
      Will not the respected Hudo remind you, and with whom, in fact, in the Second World War, Turkey fought? With such interest Comrade. Stalin in 1945 could demand the surrender of the territory of Turkey? In my opinion, the author compared only the degree of elaboration of the documents of the allies.

      To get the straits after WWII, Stalin had to crank out a complex combination (history has shown that he did not go for it). Give the Caucasus to the Germans, Turkey enters the war against the USSR and the USSR gets an occasion to pick up the straits.
  29. Sour
    Sour 8 June 2013 14: 47 New
    0
    Quote: sleepy
    then went to all the officers - both right and wrong

    Many of them later became marshals - Vasilevsky, Shaposhnikov, Tolbukhin, Govorov, Egorov, Tukhachevsky ...
    And those who became generals should be considered dozens.
    So the officers in Russia were different. And the soldiers usually treated them as they deserved.
    Curious moment. After the October Revolution, general election of commanders was introduced, up to the division officers. And so many officers the soldiers retained in their posts. The most interesting thing is that those who earned the respect of their soldiers then fought on opposite sides of the front.
    1. zennon
      zennon 8 June 2013 15: 34 New
      -1
      Sour
      Well, I think the fate of Marshals Yegorov and Tukhachevsky is well-known to you. Like the fate of generals, of whom there are dozens to count ...
      1. Sour
        Sour 8 June 2013 15: 45 New
        -3
        So it is already 1937, and not 1917. The sleepy colleague meant revolutionary years. Do not interfere in a bunch. And if you interfere, then everything, and not selectively, as many love.
        1. zennon
          zennon 8 June 2013 16: 21 New
          0
          Sour
          Many of them later became marshals - Vasilevsky, Shaposhnikov, Tolbukhin, Govorov, Egorov, Tukhachevsky ...
          And those who became generals should be considered dozens.

          I didn’t quote a colleague but you. Here are your words. We didn’t have any generals in 1937 either. The name was introduced on May 7, 1940. I don’t intend to disturb anything. I remember everything.
    2. smile
      smile 8 June 2013 16: 10 New
      +6
      Sour
      The general election of commanders was introduced by the Provisional Government in the spring of the 17th, at the same time soldiers' committees were created ... and the army and navy almost instantly gave oak ... so that the liberals who destroyed the country should be appreciated ... and the Bolsheviks picked up power in a dying country, like a drunken woman under a fence (forgot the nickname of a site visitor who owns the phrase about a woman).
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 8 June 2013 17: 34 New
        +7
        Quote: smile
        The general election of commanders was introduced by the Provisional Government in the spring of the 17th, at the same time the soldiers' committees were created ... and the army and navy almost instantly gave oak ...

        The army and navy of tsarist Russia "gave the oak" much earlier - the stupidly lost companies of 1904-5 and the years 1914-1916 speak of this ... Moreover, the army elite first gave the oak - but as you know, "the fish rots from the head" ... And the 1917th year was just the culmination and a completely logical result of the decay of the previous years - the Bolsheviks only raised power that was lying in the mud and it’s stupid to blame them for the fact that before they came in that very shit !!!
        1. Russ69
          Russ69 8 June 2013 17: 42 New
          +5
          Quote: Selevc
          - The Bolsheviks only raised the power that was lying in the mud and it’s stupid to blame them for the fact that this power was in the same shit before they arrived !!!

          I agree, nefig was to change power in February 17th.
          So much so that they changed, so with their liberal ideas they laid out the whole army, with their "Soldier Committees". Insanity was utter. Moreover, it is not surprising that the liberals noted once again precisely from the shitty side.
          There would be no denial of Nikolashka, then with the Bolsheviks it is not known how else it would have happened. You see, and the Civil War was not then.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 8 June 2013 17: 51 New
            +2
            Quote: Russ69
            There would be no denial of Nikolashka, then with the Bolsheviks it is not known how else it would have happened. You see, and the Civil War was not then.

            The fact of the renunciation is difficult to prove whether the renunciation was unknown or the documents were forged. According to the murder of the royal family, it can be assumed that there was no renunciation.
            1. Russ69
              Russ69 8 June 2013 17: 55 New
              +2
              Quote: Setrac
              The fact of the renunciation is difficult to prove whether the renunciation was unknown or the documents were forged. According to the murder of the royal family, it can be assumed that there was no renunciation.

              The Bolsheviks shot it, and not the Provisional Government, at that time history had already turned in a completely different direction, and not as those who prepared the denial thought.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 8 June 2013 18: 18 New
                +2
                Quote: Russ69
                The Bolsheviks shot it, and not the Provisional Government, at that time history had already turned in a completely different direction, and not as those who prepared the denial thought.

                Here the question is this.
                If the abdication is forged (by the interim government, it doesn’t matter), then the former king is a hero, albeit d-r-a-k.
                If the renunciation is real, then it was correctly shot, he should not have renounced it, TRAITOR. The truth remains the question in whose favor he denied.
                1. Russ69
                  Russ69 8 June 2013 18: 28 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Setrac
                  If the renunciation is real, then it was correctly shot, he should not have renounced it, TRAITOR. The truth remains the question in whose favor he denied.

                  Yes, I’m not praising Nikolashka. "Not for Senka, a hat" for him was the crown of the Russian Empire.
                  It was necessary, according to the law of wartime, it was necessary to shoot all of these from the Provisional.
            2. zennon
              zennon 8 June 2013 18: 35 New
              -1
              Setrac
              The fact of renunciation is difficult to prove ...
              Yes, what are you talking about? The mass of witnesses is described in memoirs. The opinion of ALL commanding fronts was sought. Generals Evert A.E. (Western Front), Brusilov A.A. (South-Western Front), Sakharov V.V. (Romanian Front), commander of the Baltic Fleet, Admiral Nepenin A.I. Velikiy Prince Nikolai Nikolaevich stated that he would pray for the sovereign’s refusal of the crown to save Russia and the dynasty. Telegrams are in the archives, as well as the signed act.
            3. Selevc
              Selevc 8 June 2013 22: 38 New
              +4
              Listen - but the tsar (even if he was a little strong-willed person and politically influential figure) could unite the serious forces of the country under his leadership, and his closest relatives had every right to make them claim the throne, but in reality they ran away like a bunch of cockroaches - they simply swallowed the cycle of events of 1917 ...

              They, through their actions and their whole lives, proved that as the ruling class they had a place only at the dump of history !!!
              1. zennon
                zennon 8 June 2013 23: 41 New
                0
                Selevc
                Exactly !!! Tsarism is rotten to the ground. They, all this Tsar’s Kodla didn’t deserve such a country, with such a history, and such a people! At the decisive moment, and yet he took command over himself, to abandon the country leading the hardest war! Sign the abdication , understanding that he is confusing. How can you characterize this trickster? Rescuing a pathetic Jewish gang ...
                The only thing I agree with Lenin is the hatred of the last Romanov, with his wife, Rasputin, etc. Do you have any idea how many millions of lives, what losses his betrayal turned into? This codena deserved her dog death! Now, remember with what pomp their corpses were re-rammed by EBN. A worthy successor ...
        2. smile
          smile 8 June 2013 20: 06 New
          +1
          Selevc
          I agree unconditionally. I think your comment is the complement of mine, or mine is yours, no difference ... :)))
        3. lexe
          lexe 9 June 2013 20: 50 New
          0
          But doesn’t it bother you that the Bolsheviks, as parasites, tried to seize power precisely during the war? At first, in 1905 they stuck, it didn’t go .. then in 1917. And the war is not an ideal time of life for the whole people. They were not blessed in the Crimean War no agitators (down with the war) were found, well then the red project was still not ripe in the minds of the world behind the scenes.
          And who ultimately won the civil? Trotsky is Stalin's greatest enemy. Stalin pushed these cosmopolitans. He played back through the streams of Russian blood, this is how this struggle of all against everyone took place.
          But was it all we needed?
          As for the oak ... if we had such an oak in 1941, the Germans would not have hibernated near Moscow. You read the memoirs of German officers of the 1st World War, write about yourself directly, complete nervous and moral exhaustion and compare their morality in 1941 ... That's when they forgot about idiology and remembered that it was mostly the Russian people who were fighting, the thing went. And in the end they won (as always in history) precisely on the root-national argument. What did our soldiers sing and dance at the walls of the defeated Reistag? Anthem of the Soviet people? Marseillaise?
    3. T-73
      T-73 8 June 2013 22: 27 New
      +2
      No need to idealize. They put the pre-election officers against the wall. Didn’t like it. And the army is a discipline. The most demanding were put in the first place
    4. sleepy
      sleepy 8 June 2013 23: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: Sour
      "Many of them later became marshals ..."

      I agree, it was more correct to write what got to many officers,
      rather than to all officers.
      I had to read how, after the revolutions in Petrograd, soldiers and sailors cracked down on officers because of hostility,
      worse only gendarmes hiding from the population.
    5. Alex
      Alex 18 August 2013 21: 58 New
      +4
      Just do not need about Tukhachevsky. He spent almost the entire WWI in a German camp, Napoleon’s complex was growing. He returned to Russia only in 1917 and received nothing from the soldiers.
  30. Sour
    Sour 8 June 2013 15: 42 New
    +7
    Quote: sleepy
    Unfortunately the Germans are almost gone

    The Germans remained ... had to communicate with them. And now sometimes it is necessary.
    The older generation is Russophobic. He knows nothing about modern Russia, and does not want to know. We are convinced that if it were not for NATO, then Russia would have long ago captured Ukraine and the Baltic states, and then attacked Poland and Germany. Gorbachev and Yeltsin are very warmly remembered, and they disapprove of Putin. During the Chechen wars, everyone sympathized with the militants, and now they are also convinced that the Caucasians are tearing themselves from Russia, and the Kremlin does not give them. Islamist attacks in Russia cause them more sympathy for the Islamists than for the victims of the attacks. All of them are convinced that in Europe the Islamists are "bad", and in Russia they are "good."
    Young people are mostly illiterate in the political sense, and are not at all interested in countries outside the EU.
    So the Germans remained ... a dumb herd of idiots and Russophobes. I advise everyone to forget about this country.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 8 June 2013 17: 47 New
      +8
      Quote: Sour
      Islamist attacks in Russia cause them more sympathy for the Islamists than for the victims of the attacks. All of them are convinced that in Europe the Islamists are "bad", and in Russia they are "good."

      The Pole on the next branch about Polish fangs clearly confirms this idea.
    2. old man54
      old man54 10 June 2013 03: 21 New
      +1
      and I, too, personally knew Germans, and western ones, after 91 more! It’s normal to relate to Russia, not all of course, but still.
  31. Semyon Albertovich
    Semyon Albertovich 8 June 2013 18: 03 New
    +8
    No. We always have the Vlasov, Gorbachev, Shevarnadze, Nemtsov and Medvedev.
    1. Reyngard
      Reyngard 8 June 2013 19: 06 New
      -10
      Would you be silent about Vlasov, or are you dear to Stalin?
      1. Russ69
        Russ69 8 June 2013 19: 09 New
        +7
        Quote: Reyngard
        Would you be silent about Vlasov, or are you dear to Stalin?

        Of course it’s expensive, for there is something. Even taking into account the wrong things that also had a place to be.
      2. smile
        smile 8 June 2013 20: 13 New
        +7
        Reyngard
        Or maybe you would be silent? Aren't you ashamed not even disguising yourself to defend the traitor and the Nazi henchman? Or do you think that the new world order and the Ost plan, which provides for the destruction of our people, for the sake of which it fought in the service of Hitler ... is this what we deserve? ... hmm, how can I not recall the lampshade, whom you deserve ... so to speak, from the allied hands of the SS man ....
      3. lexe
        lexe 9 June 2013 23: 34 New
        0
        Vlasov, of course, is an absolute evil traitor. But he was a difficult person, a major military commander of KA. Then why? With his consent to serve Hitler, the Russian people realized that war was not for life but for death. Stalin brought the national dimension to propaganda in time and most importantly cruelty shocked the people and gave rise to anger towards the invaders. The whole problem is that a lot of our people lived on the captured land of the Germans and are captured not only because of betrayal (war nevertheless).
        The Germans launched a test ball and lured the bait that the Russian people, with proper treatment, are ready to serve for schnapps and bread. This also created a split among German generals about the Russian question. Was Vlasov a Trojan horse? I won’t take the liberty to argue. That was a traitor and evil is a fact. It is necessary to study archives.
        But for me it is even more evil to say that in parallel with the Second World War we also had the 2nd civil.
        The Germans also had their own evil — their plans were all sorts in relation to us. The drafters of these plans understood very well that they were signing the Third Reich’s sentence, for the Russian people would sweep away everything in anger.
        It was a reflection and not an answer to you.
  32. misterwulf
    misterwulf 8 June 2013 19: 45 New
    +1
    And they bring me demons, swearing that "the straits were our prize for victory"!
    But why didn’t this, say, the Panama Canal or Antarctica “with straits” become a “prize”?
  33. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 8 June 2013 20: 19 New
    +3
    That is why the revolution in Russia was beneficial for both the Entente and Germany, the Entente since "the Moor did its job" and they actually didn’t need Russia anymore, the Russian soldier proved his military superiority and was no longer needed and even scary, we’ll remove it, let the Russians cut themselves. And the Germans were allowed to transfer about 80 divisions to the Western Front, receive indemnities and main food, though instead they got chaos at their border and slow rotting of the troops, but they got the opportunity to increase the number of soldiers going to the Entente machine guns in the west .Austria rested only on the Germans, and Turkey was also slowly plunging into anarchy and for the Germans it was like a suitcase without a handle, well, Geben and Breslau were there. Well, think Great Britain prevented Russia from occupying Constantinople throughout the 19th century, and then suddenly became generous? So Lenin was just as cute for the British and French as he was for the Germans.
  34. shurup
    shurup 8 June 2013 20: 27 New
    +1
    A very pervasive analysis of the situation conducted on a site that raises funds to support political prisoners. Which, I think, is not necessary to explain.
    I dare say that the failure of one of the battleships did not change the situation.
    The massive construction of landing ships of the Elpidifor type was carried out with the approval of the Tsar and the Duma, not for pleasure trips to Bulgaria.
    The bottom line is that the huge number of Russian plans always catastrophically lags behind current needs, including and now. What opponents enjoy and use.
  35. T-73
    T-73 8 June 2013 22: 44 New
    +2
    Pancake! if you think about it, then the article should be added only for what does not allow us to rust. The people froze, remembered, and pretended. Interestingly, somewhere else (I do not mean Russian emigrants) does the article about events a century ago cause such a debate?
  36. lexe
    lexe 9 June 2013 20: 07 New
    0
    I think that the Allies would complete a deal with the straits. Why? Yes, simply because we just did not have parity with England at sea. Each of us had our own trump card - they had them on the sea on land, and that was that parity became a compromise for 2 sides. Only one Wilhelm came to parity, buoying huge amounts of money into his fleet. After our Tsushima, he realized that there’s nothing to potentially sea strong ally (in the short term) in our person ... and began to carefully consider the land option ...
    The German Navy almost stood idle, without waiting for its Russian Navy companion. I recall England proceeded in building a fleet from the worst layout for itself, the total tonnage of possible enemies.
    I’m thinking, but could the British during the division of the world after such a grand war
    in exchange for strategic territorial concessions, demand political concessions from us. Nevertheless, an absolute monarchy in a vast space with a high birth rate is an absolute threat. I recall that the tsar did not strongly protest at the abdication ...
  37. Centaurus
    Centaurus 9 June 2013 21: 39 New
    +1
    It was necessary to prevent provocations such as the assassination of the Archduke-like-him-there in Serbia. And even more so do not react to them headlong.
    And if they reacted, then it was necessary to stand in the guise of war to lay the British squadron and fire from all the guns. And pass France to Nem4ura.
    Vile, but effective. Although, in relation to the British government, the very concept of the word "meanness" generally loses any negative connotation.
  38. old man54
    old man54 10 June 2013 03: 27 New
    0
    but I think that it was necessary to set an unofficial main goal in the 1st MV - to master the straits, BOTH, the European part of Turkey (the northern coast of the Sea of ​​Marmara), and Kostantinopol! It’s sluggish to wage the war on the German Front, to go on the defensive there, and to concentrate maximum efforts and troops on the direction of Constantinople, to develop offensives and eventually force Turkey to withdraw from the war on conditions favorable to us, i.e. undo the straits and Constantinople! And the Little Shavers and the custodians, if they had been with the Germans, would have hollowed each other to the fullest, since they needed it! And then we would be in chocolate, the main thing would be to prevent the unrest of the 17th year.
  39. Tot-enot
    Tot-enot 10 June 2013 22: 46 New
    0
    There was only one way to win that war: DO NOT WAR
    If Russia did not intervene in the European squabble, there would not have been such upheavals at the beginning of the century.
  40. Bobrovsky
    Bobrovsky 11 June 2013 21: 06 New
    0
    Once upon a time, my father-in-law proved to me that the cause of the First World War was a shot in Sarajevo. I tell him that the main thing was the contradictions and the desire to fight, since there were many claims to each other, and he was all about the shot. There would be no shot, there would be another reason. He did not understand this. Now many trumpet that if there were no Lenin, then there would be no revolution and civil war. Well well. He did not make any revolution, but arrived at the ready. He looked at the cowboys who had come to power, and when they were tired of everything, he took power away from them, like snotty kids.
    No one, no straits, we would not give. And we got into World War I because of French loans and our own dope, which later caused corresponding shocks. The country needed big reforms, but the authorities did not understand this. And not in 1917, so in 1925 a revolution or riot would have taken place anyway. The Americans, not so long ago, having put all the data on Russia since 1861 into the big American computer, got the very revolution that happened. And they calculated all the decisions of the Soviet government for the entire existence of the Soviet government. And it turned out that we made the most optimal decisions to fulfill the tasks facing the country.
    The officers in the tsarist army were wonderful, but not one of them was sergeant major, on whom the company rests, or even a platoon non-commissioner did not give a hand - the lower rank. By the way, under Peter the first, who dragged into the army of foreign ranks, both captainarmus and corporal and sergeants were considered officers. That is, the commanders, although younger. The division in the Red Army was absolutely correct. The junior commanders - to the foreman, the middle commanders - to the captain, the elder - to the colonel and the highest - generals and marshals.
  41. lexe
    lexe 12 June 2013 17: 09 New
    0
    The main thing is Constantinople. Perhaps we would have a new capital ...
    This is a powerful ideological argument that would shut up all Russophobes inside the Empire. And the straits are such a trifle ... With such new Russian-Byzantine-Orthodox energy, we would dig a channel of any length.))) And not with the hands of slaves but with the minds of engineers, who already thought globally.
    The Renaissance was planned not for Europe but for Russia! Mankind has lost a lot from the fact that our Renaissance did not come then. What? Yes, in everything, in technology and in art and in politics. And where is the world now? Yes, hell.
    The backstage of the world is a bunch of people who are pulling humanity towards progress. This one-sided and not far-off backstage. We would have lived for 150-200 years and flew to Mars with the new Russian Copernicans and Leonardo da Vinci.
    1. VasilijB
      VasilijB 19 July 2013 02: 11 New
      0
      Laziness is the engine of progress, not Orthodoxy.
  42. Shamil Dinmukhametov
    Shamil Dinmukhametov 11 December 2019 18: 12 New
    0
    Last card The future of Germany (except the Caucasus) more than embodies the plans of Germany in terms of economic. She is the locomotive of the entire EU, which includes almost all of Europe, except the UK.