Military Review

Centenary of the Great War. Facts against politicians' myth-making

130
Centenary of the Great War. Facts against politicians' myth-makingVasily Dmitrievich Shirokorad with his wife. 1915 year. Photos from the family archive of the author


Almost as a century they fought.
Almost a hundred years forgotten by you,
I want to date, I said
What is wrong your warrior.
Or I am not worthy in the line
Heroes of Russian proudly become.
With “King, Fatherland and Faith”
I went to defend Russia.

Dmitry Borisov


1 August in the Russian Federation will be celebrated for the first time in memory of the Russian soldiers who died in the First World War. 99 years ago the war began, in which about 1 million Russian soldiers and officers died, and 3 million more were taken prisoner.

Why did they forget about them for whole 90 years? Because Lenin called it imperialistic and aggressive. And so all of Russia was forced to repeat these words? Oh, quit! You never know what the Bolsheviks called for - do not drink, do not smoke, do not swear obscenities, refrain from extramarital sex. And what did the people do? The Bolsheviks ordered in 1926 to rename the famous Kronstadt fort "Krasnaya Gorka" to "Krasnoflotsky", and it remained "Krasnaya Gorka" even in the secret documents of the Great Patriotic War.

Alas, I have never heard in the conversations of ordinary people "The Great War" or "The Second World War". Before 2013, in a number of publishing houses I was repeatedly told: “The First World War doesn’t interest anyone, we’ll not publish a book about it, it’s better to write about the Great Patriotic War”. And my grandfather, Vasily Dmitrievich Shirokorad, who fought on an armored train in the 1915 – 1916 years on the Caucasian front, was not considered a veteran, and my father, Boris Vasilievich, who volunteered for 1941, was considered a veteran and had the necessary benefits. At the same time, neither my grandfather, my father, nor our other relatives had any doubts about the fairness of this.

RANKING OF Fallen on the battlefield

Of course, we must honor the memory of all our soldiers who died in all the wars of Russia. But between the dead in the Great Patriotic War and the First World War there is a difference, and a big one. And if big politicians say the opposite, then, to put it mildly, they are cunning. And you can bring them out to clear water with a simple question: “And during your visit to the PRC, would you dare to lay a wreath on the graves of hundreds of Russian soldiers who died on the march to Beijing in 1900? But our soldiers showed miracles of heroism, defeated many times superior enemy forces and took Peking. They were showered with awards by Nicholas II, and the name of Lieutenant Burakov, who died on the gunner "Koreyets", was called the captured Chinese destroyer.

No, not one of our statesman in China will ever dare to recall this war. The war with the “boxers” is officially forgotten both in the USSR and in democratic Russia.

In the same China, both the authorities and the population of 68 for years have made a clear distinction between the graves of our soldiers killed in 1904 – 1905 and in 1945. In the first case, the dead Russians and the Japanese are invaders and colonizers, and in the second - the liberators of the Chinese people.

The generals Krasnov, Shkuro, the marshals of Mannerheim and Budyonny participated in two world wars and for both received many orders. So, now they all do heroes and put them in one row? No, the Russian people will not understand this. Go to Kiev and Lviv, they will understand there, but we will not.

Someone will think that I am exaggerating. Unfortunately no. For example, in Tsarskoye Selo, a memorial is being created at the cemetery to the soldiers of the First World War. Very well. But for the company, as an element of this memorial, a monument is being erected to the "sailors-Kronstadt", that is, to the Kronstadt rebels who died in 1921. And this is not the same thing at all. If only because the insurgents were instigated by the sailors from the battleships Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol, who in the spring of 1917 brutally killed more naval officers than they died in the First World War at all fleets... It was not without reason that even in 1920, the red military men from the former officers were teased: “Hey you, lieutenant from“ Petropavlovsk ”.

But the project of building a huge memorial "Russian necropolis" in Belgrade, "where soldiers of the Russian army who died in the First World War are buried." (Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of 28 August 2012, the number 151-p). The rhetorical question, how did the Russian soldiers of the First World War end up in Belgrade? There is a white army cemetery. And besides, over half of those buried did not participate at all in the First World War.

Monuments of the White Czechs, that is, the Czechoslovak Corps, which in May-June 1918 of the year began a civil war in Russia, following the instructions of the Entente government, are erected all over Russia. Started and moved aside. The Czechs quietly left the front, but occupied the strategic highway Transsib from Novonikolayevsk to Irkutsk. Of course, the Americans, the British and the French had already run the railway, and the Czechoslovakians were only guards. The Czechs gave Admiral Kolchak and many Russian generals and officers red for reprisals, but successfully brought about a quarter of Russia's gold reserves to the newly-created homeland.

And so they installed a whole series of monuments: in Vladivostok in 2006, in Buzuluk in 2007, in Yekaterinburg in 2008, in Nizhny Tagil in 2009. So let's go further, we will establish monuments to Hetman Skoropadsky, Marshal Mannerheim, Generals Wrangel and Krasnov. Or maybe it's time to stop and limit ourselves to honoring the memory of those who died in 1914 – 1917? Let's put their cemeteries in order. But the burial of whites, reds, interventionists, nationalists, Makhnovists and other participants in the Civil War is a separate issue that has nothing to do with the First World War.

We will create the museums of the First World War, restore where they survived, the fortifications of 1914-1917. Finally, let us recall the Kronstadt fortress, which is a monument to all the wars of Russia, starting from the North. From 1921 until the mid-1990s, the Kronstadt forts belonged to the Navy, whose command was not in the best way to deal with historical rarities. So, not a single cannon installed there in 1867–1920 was preserved at all forts of Kronstadt. And look at the Sveaborg fortress, which in 1918 passed to Finland. For the Finns, the Russians are occupiers, but they retained both the fortifications and dozens of imperial army guns. And in other places in Finland, Russian fortifications and Russian guns have been preserved. Well, now we have the Kronstadt forts began to be transferred to private individuals. What will remain of them in a few years is not hard to guess.

At one time, Alexander Tvardovsky wrote: "He who hides the past jealously is the one who does not come together with the things to come." Alas, we still do not know why and how Russia entered this war. For the poor Serbs who did not agree with the Austro-Hungarian demand for an investigation on the Serbian territory of the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand by the Austrian police?

How is the United States and Israel reacting to the attacks? What are the requirements, what kind of police? A rod across the border of a sovereign state Tanks, bombers and cruise missiles are flying, and all the powers of the world are being shut up in a rag.

FRIENDS OR ENEMIES

A lot of pearls appeared in our media, justifying Russia's entry into the war: “Russia cannot abandon its ally (Serbia) and lose the outpost in the Balkans, demonstrating an obvious weakness. Germany would still find a reason to start a war. ” “Sazonov decides to take the position of armed neutrality. The mobilization of the Russian army is a way of pressure on the powers. ”

But let's turn to the obvious facts. For 99 years, our politicians and historians have been trying to turn Germans into sworn enemies of Russia. In fact, the German people have always been a potential ally of Russia. And the point is not that the Germans suffered completely from Russophilia. Nature (for atheists) and the Lord God (for believers) made Russia and Germany natural allies against their original enemies - Poles and French. Another question is that domestic scholars roughly tear out individual examples of rare Russian-German conflicts from the context of history. Well, there was the Battle of the Ice, in which up to hundreds of knights participated, “and the miracles were beaten without a number” (quote from the Novgorod Chronicle). And how many times did the Novgorodians and the Germans beat Lithuania?

The first non-aggression pact against Poland was signed by Yaroslav the Wise and the German emperor Konrad. In 1031, Russians and Germans struck simultaneously from the west and east, and “tasted the dashing and fearful”.

Negotiations with the German emperors about the military alliance were conducted by all our sovereigns: Vasily III, Ivan the Terrible, Boris Godunov, the head of the Yaroslavl government of 1611 – 1612, Prince Pozharkovo-Starodubsky (Pozharsky is a nickname given by the old prinods of kings for the old-prinubsky princes. it is “Prince Pozharkovo-Starodubsky”), Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and others.

In 1854 – 1855, Britain and France attacked Russia and organized an economic blockade for it. The only state that supported Russia as a sale weapons, and diplomatic activity, was Prussia. Thanks to her, the blockade was reduced to a minimum.

When, in 1870, the emperor Napoleon III declared war on Germany, Alexander II ordered the Russian corps on the western border to be fully operational. In St. Petersburg, they feared that the cheeky nephew decided to repeat his uncle's feats and, having defeated Prussia, would move further east. It would have been fateful for the Prussians to enter Paris, and only then did Prince Gorchakov publish his famous circular, which destroyed the articles of the Paris 1856 of the Year demeaning for Russia.

In the 1877 – 1878 years during the Russian-Turkish war, England was prepared to attack Russia. And then through the railway station Verzhbolovo and by sea hundreds of heavy Krupp guns of caliber 229 – 356 mm were sent from Germany to Revel and Kronstadt. Russia bought several ocean liners from Germany with the aim of converting them into cruisers for action on British communications.

In 1891 – 1892, Tsar Alexander III concluded a military alliance with France. However, the aim of the Russian government was not an attack on Germany, but on the contrary, an attempt to stabilize the situation in Europe, reasoning both sides. Another no less important goal was to curb the expansion of England in the Mediterranean, in Africa and Asia.

The French willingly went to the union with Russia. However, their goal was just a new European war to the last soldier, of course, Russian and German. The whole country dreamed of revenge and the seizure of Alsace and Lorraine - the controversial lands, many times passed from hand to hand. For this, Paris slowly agreed with London, and the entire anti-British dimension of the treaty disappeared.

Alexander II, Alexander III, Nicholas II were well aware that the seizure of Russian German territories inhabited by Poles, or Austrian Galicia would create much more problems for the empire, given the nationalism of the Poles and the dominance of the “Ukrainians” in Galicia. Equally, William II was not eager to get hold of the Polish clergy in full. During the Russian-Japanese war, England actually fought on the side of Japan. After the Gulsky incident, the English fleet prepared to attack Admiral Rozhestvensky's 2 Pacific squadron off the coast of Spain. And only a sharp cry from Berlin stopped the "enlightened navigators."

The 2-I and 3-I Pacific Squadrons passed dozens of French ports in Europe, Africa and Asia. But our brave allies didn’t let our ships go to any of them. Russian squadrons managed to reach the Far East solely through the help of German supply vessels, primarily coal miners. Few people know that the German tugboat Roland was sunk by Japanese ships in Tsushima along with our squadrons.
In the meantime, echelons with the newest guns, 15-cm howitzers, projectiles of all calibres, torpedoes continuously flowed through Verzhbolovo. At German shipyards, destroyers and submarines for the Russian fleet were built under the guise of yachts.

CONTRIBUTION OF VERIFIED

Nicholas II truly appreciated the position of England and France in the Russian-Japanese war. October 15 1904 of the year Nicholas II sent Wilhelm II a secret telegram: “I can’t find the words to express my indignation about the behavior of England ... Of course, it is time to put an end to this. The only way to achieve this, as you say, is for Germany, Russia, and France to agree to destroy Anglo-Japanese arrogance and insolence. Make and draft a draft of such a contract, please, and report it to me. As soon as he is accepted by us, France will have to join her ally. This plan often comes to my mind. He will bring peace and tranquility to the whole world. ”

Artillery shells during the First World War. 1918 poster of the year

October 30 received William's reply: “I immediately turned to the Chancellor, and we both secretly, without informing anyone, made up three articles of the contract. Let it be as you say. We shall be together. Of course, the alliance must be purely defensive, directed exclusively against the attacker or the attackers in Europe, something like a mutual fire insurance company against arson. ”

And now 11 July 1905 of the year on the yacht "Polar Star" near the island of Bjorko Nikolai II and Wilhelm II signed a treaty of alliance. If the Björk Treaty entered into force, there would be no guarantee of World War I and the whole history of mankind would have gone the other way. However, agents of influence of France and England ruled the ball in Russia. Deeply conspiratorial "Freemasons" acted at the very top, and in the provinces, slobbering intellectuals and anxious young ladies, forgetting about the ruins of Sevastopol, were credited with "Pyshka" by Maupassant. But on his return to St. Petersburg, the king was literally attacked by his ministers, including Prime Minister Witte, Foreign Minister Lamzdorf and others. The king was forced to ask "cousin Willy" to denounce this treaty.

For the second time, Nicholas II wanted to negotiate with Wilhelm during a meeting in Potsdam on October 22 1910. However, Foreign Minister Sazonov, who accompanied the king, refused to sign the treaty. In the end, in 1911, in St. Petersburg, a truncated part of the contract was signed, which dealt exclusively with the construction of railways in Turkey and Persia.

There were no economic reasons for the war with Germany either. The share of Germany in Russia's imports was 50%, France - 4,6%, England - 13,3%.

It is still unknown how Russia entered the war. In correspondence with Wilhelm Nicholas II 15 July 1914 of the year (old style) bitterly writes: "I expect that very soon, yielding to the pressure produced on me, I will be forced to take extreme measures that will lead to war."

Nicholas II was forced into a world war, although he had no shortage of warnings. As early as February 1914, a prominent statesman, former Interior Minister Pyotr Nikolayevich Durnovo, submitted an extensive report to Nikolay II. Durnovo wrote that a purely defensive Franco-Russian alliance was useful: “France was secured by an alliance with Russia from Germany’s attack, the latter by the tested peace and friendship of Russia from the desire for revenge from France, Russia by the need for Germany to maintain good neighborly relations excessive intrigues of Austria-Hungary in the Balkans.

The Tsar was warned and frightened by the Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich by revolution. Against the war was the queen. Strongly opposed the war and Gregory Rasputin. Accidentally or not, the “old man” on the eve of the war was seriously wounded by a psychopath in Tobolsk and could not effectively influence the king.

In 1907 – 1910, our generals and admirals proved to the king that the Black Sea Straits could not be captured by Russia during a unilateral action. But it will be easy to do during the world war, speaking on the side of Britain and France against Germany and Austria-Hungary.

Already during the war, England and France promised Russia to Constantinople, while they themselves concluded a secret separative agreement, under which they mutually promised in no way to give the Straits to Russia. Moreover, both London and Paris hatched plans for the division of the Russian Empire after the defeat of Germany. Priislinsky Krai (the name of the Kingdom of Poland, used in official acts of the tsarist government since 1888), the Baltic states, Finland, and, whenever possible, Ukraine and the Caucasus, were subject to extraction.

For the first time in history, Russia fought not for joining any territories, but for its own dismemberment! And it is now called the "Second World"? The question arises, what if for some reason the alliance with Germany did not take place? Was there any alternative way? Was. Russia had to fight with Germany, as it was planned during the reign of Nicholas I and Alexander II.

MILITARY EXPENSES AND CORRUPTION

Entering the throne in 1825, Nicholas I decided to cover the western border of the empire, building a number of new fortresses there, which, in combination with the old ones, would form three lines of defense. The first line includes the fortresses located in the Kingdom of Poland: Modlin, Warsaw, Ivangorod and Zamost. In the second half of the 19th century, all the great fortresses of the Kingdom of Poland were interconnected by highways and railways. In addition, telegraph and telephone (cable) communication was established between the fortresses.

The second line of the western fortresses included (from north to south): Dinamünde class II fortress (Ust-Dvinsk from 1893, Ust-Dvinsk in 1959 entered the city line of Riga), II class fortress Osovets and I class fortress Brest -Litovsk.

The third line of fortresses was located in the rear, the main of which were Kiev, Bobruisk and Dinaburg.

A number of officers of the Main Artillery Directorate and the Main Military Engineering Directorate suggested that the Minister of War and the Tsar should combine the fortresses with fortified areas (UR). There was a large population there that could be voluntarily-coercively involved in the construction of SDs. Russian artillery factories could produce the most powerful guns caliber 305, 356 and 406 mm. Stocks of heavy guns on ships and coastal fortresses were enormous. Thus, plans to strengthen the fortresses and the construction of URs were very real. Nevertheless, the generals won, demanding a campaign against Berlin.

By placing its armies behind the three lines of fortresses, Russia could become the monkey that climbed the mountain and enjoyed watching the tigers fight in the valley. And then, when the "tigers" would have pretty much patted each other, Russia could launch a large landing operation in the Bosporus. The only chance for us to take the Straits could arise only in the midst of war.

And by capturing the Straits — Russia's only goal worthy of war — Nicholas II could also play the role of a peacemaker, becoming an intermediary between the warring powers. Even if the Entente refused to negotiate and achieve the surrender of Germany, exhausted France would never go to war with Russia, even for the sake of Constantinople.

The construction of fortresses and SDs would be Russia's armed neutrality during the world war. But the total mobilization, which announced the Chief of the General Staff, General Yanushkevich, breaking the phone that connected him to the king, was in fact a declaration of war. To keep the army mobilized for months without fighting in Russia meant an economic crisis and revolution.

Recall that the French in 1914 – 1918 managed to sit behind the forts of their fortresses Verdun and others, not letting the enemy go further than 100 – 150 km deep into their territory. And in Russia, with 1894, the fortresses were not actually engaged. By the year 1914 in the Russian land fortresses there was not a single modern heavy weapon with a rollback along the barrel axis. The 14 consisted of thousands of serf guns of the 1877 and 1867 types and even the smooth-bore 1838 models of the year.

By the 1914, in the land fortresses of France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Belgium there were hundreds of armor-mounted artillery installations, and in Russia there was one (!) In the Osovets fortress, bought in France “for experiments”. By 1918, the French army had more than 400 heavy implements on railway installations. And in Russia there were two (!), And even then an unsuccessful design.

On the eve of the war, the Minister of War Sukhomlinov published the famous article “We are ready!” In the newspaper “Exchange Vedomosti”, for which politicians and historians had scoffed at him for decades. However, the brave general was largely right. By the beginning of the war, Russia had 7112 field guns, and Germany had just 5500. So the efforts of the French politicians, military, industrialists and masons Russian army was really ready to march on Berlin. But, alas, the Russian army was not ready for a positional war. She had neither modern heavy artillery, nor battalion artillery, nor mortars, which, by the way, the Germans had hundreds of 1914 – 7,5 caliber by the year of 25.

The Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich, the artillery inspector-general, presented the Tsar with a plan to rearm the siege artillery by the year 1917, and the serf artillery by the year 1930.

Alas, the First World War is still terra incognita for our historians, but for now, readers are told tales about the Ilya Muromets bombers, Fedorov assault rifles, Lebedenko's wheeled tank, etc. This is about the "victory stolen in 1917". But few people know that in Russia by 1918 there were no tanks produced, manual, aviation, large-caliber machine guns, but only one "Maxim". We didn't even produce pistols, let alone submachine guns. Again, only one revolver.

And who knows that in Russia 95% of guns, rifles and machine guns were made at government factories. Private factories prohibitively inflated prices. Here, for example, Izhora state factory produced ship armor at the price of 4 rubles. 40 cop for the pood, and the Marine Ministry gave the order to the Mariupol private plant at the price of 9 rubles. 90 cop per pud (newspaper "Morning of Russia" for 26 September 1906 of the year). But the price of ammunition in 1916 year: 76-mm shrapnel cost at a state-owned factory 9 rubles. 83 cop, and on the private - 15 rub. 32 cop., That is, the overpayment was 64%. 76-mm grenade (in this case, high-explosive fragmentation projectile) cost 9 rubles. 00 cop and 12 rub. 13 cop respectively; 122-mm grenade - 30 rub. 00 cop and 45 rub. 58 cop; 152-mm grenade - 42 rub. and 70 rub. etc.

Finish a banal resume. We must remember all the victims, learn history and draw proper conclusions.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
130 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. omsbon
    omsbon 27 July 2013 08: 39 New
    18
    Already during the war, England and France promised Constantinople to Russia, and they themselves concluded a secret separation agreement, according to which they mutually promised not to give the Straits of Russia. Moreover, both London and Paris hatched plans for the division of the Russian Empire after the defeat of Germany.

    Although sometime, Western liberals were honest with Russia? NEVER !!!
    1. Letterksi
      Letterksi 27 July 2013 09: 45 New
      +9
      Russia has always considered itself a part of Europe and thought about integrating with it. After Peter I, the main part of the "intelligentsia" always bowed to the "euroservices". And now everything is repeated. Many are again shouting for the abolition of visas with Europe, talking about European integration. They will throw Russia as in the old days.

      There will come times when all offshore accounts and purchased foreign property will be simply confiscated from the Russians under the pretext of non-observance of human rights and lack of democracy

      There should be no faith in Europe, too often it has dampened its reputation
    2. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 27 July 2013 19: 16 New
      +2
      Quote: omsbon
      Already during the war, England and France promised Constantinople to Russia, and they themselves concluded a secret separation agreement, according to which they mutually promised not to give the Straits of Russia. Moreover, both London and Paris hatched plans for the division of the Russian Empire after the defeat of Germany.


      As they say, save the Lord from friendship with arrogant Saxons.
    3. Gladiatir-zlo
      Gladiatir-zlo 28 July 2013 09: 47 New
      +2
      and WHAT IS A leader who does not know history in a true, factual key, has surrounded himself with agents of influence, hostile to foreign countries and circles. Allowing to plunge the country into a destructive war, without even a ghostly chance of victory, because even victory destroyed more than war. And finally, a small digression, the founder of NATO, this is how he described the main idea "NATO is being created with the aim of keeping: Russia outside Europe, Germany under Europe." And how idiot is it to be if this idea has not left the minds of the Anglo-French elite for hundreds of years?
  2. user
    user 27 July 2013 08: 44 New
    10
    I have repeatedly written "Remember how the First World War began", I will repeat myself.
    Today's situation, the one-on-one situation recalls the situation before the First World War (the difference in details). I simply urge you not to engage in hatred and to seriously approach this issue. All countries have their own problems in the armed forces, neither the United States nor China can even remember Europe, the only way out for countries that determine world geopolitics and lead the economically developed part of the world is THE GREAT WAR. Well, they can’t solve their accumulated problems and their Wishlist in a different way, only at the expense of others (including Russia and the CIS). The unification of the countries of the Customs Union and the CSTO countries, ending internal differences is our only way out
    1. user
      user 27 July 2013 08: 46 New
      +1
      Almost no time left
    2. optimist
      optimist 27 July 2013 16: 32 New
      0
      Quote: user
      Today's situation, the one-on-one situation recalls the situation before the First World War (the difference in details). I simply urge you not to engage in hatred and to seriously approach this issue.

      Totally agree with you. Analogy 100% !!! In 1914, the stupid tsarist government pursued three main goals: the elimination of the advancing revolution, the diversion of the people from politics, and the seizure of the Black Sea straits. As they say, let's go for some wool, - the haircut has returned. One can only pity the millions of innocent citizens of Russia who were killed and maimed in that war. But this is not their fault: they performed their duty in relation to the then state. And the worst thing is that the repetition of history can no longer be avoided: the current government will also try with the help of "small and victorious" to solve most of its problems. The whole question is only with whom this time we will be pushed head-ons: with the Muslim rabble or with the Chinese? ... fool
      1. lexe
        lexe 27 July 2013 16: 55 New
        -3
        As they say, they went for wool, the haircuts returned.

        And what if under a different system, we did not want the wool of politics?
        Who cut us in 1941. No, of course we were cut under the most ingenious leadership. Stalin took into account the mistakes — when the generals cheated on the tsar, but he didn’t take into account that without them the generals ... the war was a massacre. And so we would have been hit in 1914. arrange the king oprichnina and rearing.
        There were people loyal to the king, but they were cleaned up during the terror before the revolution.
  3. Oleg1986
    Oleg1986 27 July 2013 09: 25 New
    -21
    The redness of Leninism in the article rolls over. A mummy from the mausoleum would be pleased with a diligent student.
  4. borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 27 July 2013 09: 29 New
    12
    from the Don. I counted and believe, Russians and Germans are the GREATEST WARS !!! Therefore, the Anglo-Saxons, at all times, by hook or by crook, tried and are trying to pit these peoples together! As they say, rake the heat with the wrong hands. Yes to and what kind of fighter-warriors they are !! Well, France has more than once experienced the power of Russian and German weapons. I do not at all praise the Germans who raised the flag of fascism. This is what our governments would have opened their eyes to the machinations of the USA and their sixes. Otherwise, our warrior perishes for someone’s interests, as it was in World War I. Glory and eternal memory to our soldiers.
  5. apro
    apro 27 July 2013 09: 30 New
    +4
    think ten times before you start, but if you don’t start thinking about throwing it away, this war was unnecessary for Russia, well, you would have won if you had to fight against the French and the British.
    1. lexe
      lexe 27 July 2013 17: 21 New
      0
      Well, they would have won then had to fight with the French and the British.

      I don’t agree with you. After battling with the Germans, the French needed a doctor with long-term treatment. In addition, the French saw Russians next to them on the Western Front. Do we still remember their pilots in the Second World War. And then to Russia? Yes, I would have deserted all the French army along with a new order for a new war. So the tsar looked far away sending Russian formations to France.
      And the British, without the French and Germans, always offer only one ... peace treaty.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 28 July 2013 08: 28 New
        0
        Yes, you can watch as much as you like, there will be no sense if you do not know how to understand. And Nika # 2 had no understanding at all as a fact. There were simply people, but no weapons, and, most importantly, no ammunition. So soldiers were sent to France to be armed and supplied by the Franks. It's easier than carrying tons of b / p. And, of course, after the revolution these "Saviors of Paris" were very well thanked by the hospitable hosts.
      2. shasherin_pavel
        shasherin_pavel 28 July 2013 14: 05 New
        +3
        The French government saw Russian cannon fodder next to it, read how they treated our soldiers when they saved France, and how they thanked them after the revolution after signing the peace treaty in Brest-Litovsk. France was ready to fight until the last Russian soldier. We had more than 200 French patriotic pilots, and a whole division fought near Borodin, and what would we have heard about them if the history of the French division had not ended there?
        1. lexe
          lexe 28 July 2013 16: 03 New
          -2
          The French government saw Russian cannon fodder next to it,

          This is precisely the government and not the people. And the people still need to prove the need for a new war. And what about the former allies? And shedding blood for Paris? And as for gratitude, this is to the French government.
  6. anip
    anip 27 July 2013 09: 30 New
    +6
    I always thought, why Germany and Russia fought against each other in world wars? After all, always in cases where Germany and Russia performed together, they achieved success. You could be together in both world wars. And if during World War II, because of Hitler’s policies, an alliance with Germany was hardly possible (even the nonaggression pact only delayed the Reich), but during the First Pest it was possible to speak in alliance with Germany, then certainly they would divide Europe and push France, at least, into the backyards.
    1. knn54
      knn54 28 July 2013 07: 23 New
      -2
      -anip: I always thought, why did Germany and Russia fight against each other in world wars? After all, always in cases where Germany and Russia performed together, they achieved success. You could be together in both world wars.
      Wilhelm resolution: “We must pay the Serbs, and moreover, as soon as possible!”, “Now or never!”. “The publication in 1919 of the secret diplomatic documents of the Austro-Hungarian government, as well as the German ones, published in the same year by Kautsky in a separate collection, brought irrefutable confirmation of this conclusion and revealed to the smallest details all the threads of the Vienna conspiracy and the support that he found from Emperor Wilhelm and his government. "
      Germany’s geostrategic goal is to control Europe on the Berlin-Baghdad line by building a railway, including CONTROL over the Straits! To accomplish such a task, it was necessary, having destroyed Serbia, to oust Russia from the Balkan Peninsula and replace its influence with the Austro-Hungarian one, which the Kaiser admitted with full frankness, noting, according to his habit, on the fields of Chirshsky’s report (German ambassador in Vienna) on July 24 1914, that "Austria must take precedence over small states in the Balkans at the expense of Russia, otherwise there will be no peace." It was clear that as long as a viable Serbia existed, Austria would not be able to calmly own the five million Serbs annexed by Erenthal together with Bosnia and Herzegovina, let alone realize the old dream of the capture of Thessaloniki, and Germany, without taking Constantinople into its own hands, could be drawn from the great road designed to connect Hamburg with Baghdad, all the benefits that its builders expected from it! ”

      Sazonov, highly appreciating the economic, military and cultural potential of Germany, points out the dangers posed by German foreign political expansion: “It was clear to each of the powers of Concord what awaited it in the event of the triumph of Germany. Russia lost the Baltic acquisitions of Peter the Great, which opened access to it from the north to the Western European countries and needed to protect its capital, and in the south lost its Black Sea possessions, up to and including Crimea, intended for the purposes of German colonization, and remained, therefore, after the final establishment of dominion Germany and Austria-Hungary on the Bosphorus and the Balkans cut off from the sea in the size of the Moscow state, as it was in the XVII century. At the same time, Poland was redrawn in a new way and fell into vassal relations with Austria.
      This is what awaited Russia. ”
      Sergey Dmitrievich Sazonov. Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire in 1910-1916,
      MEMORIES. 1927 year.
      Although I regard Sazonov as an Anglophile, personally, not unambiguously.
      - Having located its armies behind the three lines of fortresses, Russia could become that monkey that climbed the mountain and enjoyed watching the tigers fight in the valley. And then, when the “tigers” would prettyly pat each other, Russia could begin a large landing operation in the Bosphorus. The only chance for us to take the Straits could arise only at the height of the war.
      I would also add the possibility of defeating Japan (the UK would not be before it) and returning (at least) the territories lost by Russia in the Russo-Japanese war. Plus there was no debt to the British on loans that Russia gained during the war. And Turkey with its straits was an ally of Germany
      PS Strangely enough, the war in Russia was REALLY wanted by everyone except Nikolai.
      When the war began, JOY in the country knew no bounds. Only later did the "cheers-patriots" SNICK and found the culprit, Nicholas 2.
      PPS And what could be the alliance between the internationalist Stalin and the nationalist Hitler?
      1. Hort
        Hort 29 July 2013 07: 58 New
        0
        the union could be quite good for itself. Purely from pragmatic attitudes, not ideology. I recommend reading the works of Haushofer (whom Hitler did not listen to and then planted) and "History of International Relations" in the late 30s and early 40s.
  7. Fin
    Fin 27 July 2013 09: 35 New
    +7
    The king was forced to ask "cousin Willy" to denounce this agreement.
    For the second time, Nicholas II wanted to negotiate with Wilhelm during a meeting in Potsdam on October 22, 1910. However, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Sazonov, accompanying the tsar, refused to sign the agreement

    Well, where are the monarchists telling tales of a strong king? He perfectly understood the threats of Russia and did the opposite. Worthless, weak-willed, incapable of making decisions of a pros..l empire. Any minister acted as he wanted.
    1. nnz226
      nnz226 27 July 2013 14: 37 New
      +7
      In-in !!! Because of this worthless jerk on the throne, Russia also drank blood to the very top !!! And he was counted among the saints - an idiot!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. pensioner
        pensioner 27 July 2013 17: 23 New
        +2
        Quote: nnz226
        In-in !!! Because of this worthless jerk on the throne, Russia also drank blood to the very top !!! And he was counted among the saints - an idiot!

        I completely agree with you. That's who all the polymers are ...
      3. poquello
        poquello 27 July 2013 18: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: nnz226
        In-in !!! Because of this worthless jerk on the throne, Russia also drank blood to the very top !!! And he was counted among the saints - an idiot!


        The king suite is dancing, there was nothing to cut out the royal family.
        I understand that you would certainly rule better.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 28 July 2013 08: 31 New
          -1
          And what does the family have to do with it? Of course, it is a pity for the children, and Nikolashka and Aliska - there they are dear. They should be grateful to the Bolsheviks in general. It would have been fried in hell, and so, according to martyrdom, we could have gone to heaven.
          1. poquello
            poquello 28 July 2013 14: 01 New
            +1
            Quote: alicante11
            And what does the family have to do with it? Of course, it is a pity for the children, and Nikolashka and Aliska - there they are dear. They should be grateful to the Bolsheviks in general. It would have been fried in hell, and so, according to martyrdom, we could have gone to heaven.


            Oh, no king - did not become friends with the Germans. Russia could merge Austria-Hungary Serbia, as it did now with Yugoslavia, and make friends.

            The revolutionaries burn in hell for the stolen victory in the First World War, IMHO sabotage and revolution is the work of the West.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 28 July 2013 15: 10 New
              +2
              No king, Serbia - a European prostitute. Let us recall how they thanked the Bulgarians for ensuring victory over the Turks. And I did not say that it was necessary to be friends with the Germans. it was necessary to observe their interests and normally prepare the industry for war. And then he climbed everywhere, and everywhere he received his crowned head. I climbed into Manchuria - I got Tsushima, I tried to get into the Balkans, I got the 2-th Balkan, I climbed into the WWII - so I completely dried out the country.

              The revolutionaries burn in hell for the stolen victory in the First World War, IMHO sabotage and revolution is the work of the West.


              Yeshkin cat, is this, probably, the Bolsheviks failed the East Prussian operation, and, having almost double superiority over the Germans, got a boiler? Probably the revolutionaries created a shell hunger at the front and sent soldiers to the front line to get rifles in battle. It was probably the revolutionaries who twice missed the German fleet into the Gulf of Riga, while our dreadnoughts stood in bases. Of course, the Bolsheviks handed over all the fortresses in the way of the Germans. What bad revolutionaries.
              1. Modus
                Modus 28 July 2013 22: 40 New
                0
                Totally agree with you!
                There is much more to add:
                - the Bolsheviks shamefully handed over the fortresses Novogeorgievsk, Kovno, Brest-Litovsk to the German landweer in the summer of 1915, etc.
              2. poquello
                poquello 29 July 2013 00: 57 New
                +1
                And how did the war end for Germany?
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 29 July 2013 01: 55 New
                  0
                  How do wars against the Naglosaxons usually end if there is no Stalin? Yes, they bought the top, who surrendered their armies, which, incidentally, were in the territories of their opponents.
          2. shasherin_pavel
            shasherin_pavel 28 July 2013 14: 21 New
            +2
            We shed tears for the French kings, and the kings of England, who were first slaughtered and then revived from a drop of royal blood that they found from someone who was not exterminated under a hot hand. And how many rulers were executed by blood relatives for the throne?
        2. shasherin_pavel
          shasherin_pavel 28 July 2013 14: 16 New
          +2
          When will everyone finally understand that Nicholas abdicated the throne, and by that time was no longer tsar! What he had left was the royal blood, for the sake of which the White Guards tried to free him, because they did not have unity on this issue either. Some for the Constituent Assembly, some for the Tsar ... some for the forest, some for firewood. Nicholas did not transfer power to the Constituent Assembly, but transferred it to the Grand Duke, and he don’t be a fool, showed everyone a fig and refused the historical flogging and execution. But what if you agreed? Nicholas, a family man, and not a tsar, would have been elevated to a saint, because he would have been another tsar, not Nikolai. Now even Bloody Sunday has been forgotten by our politicians. After all, we are now going against our grandfathers, who called Nicholas "bloody". You can be an executioner, but you can only give orders to execute, you cannot pardon. And if the Bolsheviks did not show themselves well during the time of Trotsky, he only made the right conclusions, if you want to rule, keep the reins in your fist.
        3. user
          user 30 July 2013 21: 34 New
          0
          Well, firstly, the royal family was cut out after he merged the EMPIRE, and secondly, he chooses his retinue i.e. the death of the family is the result of the reign of the monarchy of Nicholas II and there is nothing to distort the facts ....
      4. baskoy
        baskoy 27 July 2013 19: 06 New
        +2
        It would be necessary to rank Yeltsin among the saints — two boots of steam!
  8. Constantine
    Constantine 27 July 2013 09: 49 New
    +5
    Again poop on the fan.

    Original source http://nvo.ng.ru/


    For those who don’t know, I remind you that this is one of the newspapers included in Berezovsky’s holding.

    Where do admins look? stop
    1. Fin
      Fin 27 July 2013 10: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Constantine
      Again poop on the fan.

      Original source http://nvo.ng.ru/


      For those who don’t know, I remind you that this is one of the newspapers included in Berezovsky’s holding.

      Where do admins look? stop

      What do you disagree with? Justify.
      1. Ka3ak
        Ka3ak 28 July 2013 00: 30 New
        +1
        Jaundice seems to me that every fact is taken and distorted. A major war was ripening, everyone felt it. To remain without allies in it, as in 1812, 53rd. And fight against all of Europe?
        And the allies were such that they would not bite a finger in their mouth.
        Wilhelm's telegram to his chancellor:
        Dear Bülow, with this I am sending you an encrypted telegram that I have just received from the Tsar, which I deciphered with the help of Cuno and Gauguinau. His Majesty begins to break through a cold sweat because of the Gauls, and he is such a rag that even this treaty with us does not want to conclude without their permission, and therefore does not want to conclude it also against them. In my opinion, Paris must not be allowed to know anything before we receive the signature of the “tsar-father.” For if you inform Delcassa before signing the treaty, it is tantamount to giving a telegram to Cambon and printing it on the same evening in "Times" and "Figaro", and then the matter is over ... This turn of affairs is very upsetting, but does not surprise me: he (ie the king) in relation to the Gauls - because of loans - is too spineless. "

        With such an attitude, they would be used to the allies and thrown into the landfill, no worse than the Anglo-Saxons did. There can be no neutrality in World Wars. The German Union could well turn into a knife in the back ... And now, you can easily argue and boldly convict.
        1. Fin
          Fin 28 July 2013 11: 48 New
          +2
          This telegram just confirms that the king once again showed weakness. Darted between two to whom to join, and Russia had no goals for the war and meaning in it. And as usual I didn’t guess.
          And this:
          In correspondence with William Nicholas II 15 July 1914 year (according to the old style) writes bitterly: "I foresee that very soon, yielding to the pressure exerted on me, I will be forced to take extreme measures that will lead to war."

          like I'm sorry Wilhelm, but I’ll have to fight with you, even though you’re my relative. And if you got involved in something that is not necessary, then imitate the database.
          Foreign policy is the prerogative of the king and all the events of the beginning of the 20th century ...
          He wouldn’t do anything, the Germans would smash the Gauls and the Britons would sit in their Alcatraz with their heads bowed proudly.
          1. Ka3ak
            Ka3ak 28 July 2013 14: 07 New
            0
            Weak king, it happens. But the matter was not the tsar, but in Russian society itself, it was confused, divided, and did not know what he needed from life. But that is another question.
            As for the carts and the Germans. That Germany, that another country, we were certainly not a friend. For the banal reason that they all selfishly fought for "a place in the sun." They fought for themselves and in order to rip off the enemy like sticky. Whether it was possible to stand on the sidelines at all, I don't know, I'm not sure. In 41, we seemed to be friends with Germany. But who did it save? An alliance with Germany after the defeat of France would not put us one on one with the Germans?
            Hedgehog it is clear that Germany was needed first of all. She needed a redistribution of the colonial world. She raised her head and demanded more and more space in the sun. And this place under the sun was sought not only in the west.
            1. Fin
              Fin 28 July 2013 15: 22 New
              +1
              Quote: KA3AK
              Weak king, it happens. But the matter was not the tsar, but in Russian society itself, it was confused, divided, and did not know what he needed from life.

              The first bell rang in 1905 when the war was lost. It was already clear who our enemy was for the near future. There was enough time to draw conclusions and show "what is needed for life." And what did he do? Nothing!
              The country confidently slipped into anarchy and chaos.
              Quote: KA3AK
              Whether it was possible to stand aside at all, I don’t know, I’m not sure.

              Why not? Watch from the mountain. What did it threaten? Yes, nothing. 41 years old is a completely different story.
    2. poquello
      poquello 27 July 2013 18: 49 New
      +2
      Quote: Constantine

      Original source http://nvo.ng.ru/


      For those who don’t know, I remind you that this is one of the newspapers included in Berezovsky’s holding.

      Where do admins look? stop

      IMHO is not prohibited to post jaundice.
      As well as to explain that it is jaundice.
      It’s at least strange to describe World War I without a Brusilov breakthrough.
  9. mirror
    mirror 27 July 2013 10: 22 New
    10
    There is no difference between the dead for the Reds, for the Whites and for the rest, others, and others. These are our people and our soldiers. And they fought in Russian, as expected. Only the Bolsheviks managed to justify the whole history of their country before them. Ordinary soldiers suffered - in the Kaliningrad region, World War I fought, and there are many graves of Russian soldiers. Nobody has ever recalled them. Come on, they just didn’t remember the soldiers of the First World War, didn’t remember the graves of the soldiers of Friedland, Gross-Jegersdorf, Preisisch-Eylau - I think that you know the names of the places where the famous battles took place, and they are all here on Russian territory. I am sure that many Kaliningraders have never heard of anything like this. No one drove schoolchildren to bow to the graves of heroic ancestors, no one spoke about them in newspapers and on TV, their graves are forgotten and abandoned.
    What kind of patriotic education did you have to talk about here? What they sowed, they reaped. It is not for nothing that the people used to characterize a bad person - "" Ivan, who does not remember kinship "So maybe it's enough to divide ordinary soldiers into right and wrong?
    1. radio operator
      radio operator 27 July 2013 14: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: Spiegel
      There is no difference between the dead for the Reds, for the Whites and for the rest, others, and others. These are our people and our soldiers. And they fought in Russian, as expected.

      Gold words.
      Neither add nor subtract.
    2. Corsair
      Corsair 28 July 2013 00: 18 New
      +2
      Quote: Spiegel
      There is no difference between the dead for the Reds, for the Whites and for the rest, others, and others. These are our people and our soldiers. And they fought in Russian, as expected. Only the Bolsheviks managed to justify the whole history of their country before them.

      The tragic history of the Russian Empire, the USSR and modern Russia in the 20 century is inherited from wars, revolutions and perestroika ...
      BUT this story is OUR, we have nothing to be ashamed of, the memory of the past must be preserved, IN MEMORY OF THE SOURCES OF THE FUTURE
      1. poquello
        poquello 28 July 2013 14: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: Corsair
        Quote: Spiegel
        There is no difference between the dead for the Reds, for the Whites and for the rest, others, and others. These are our people and our soldiers. And they fought in Russian, as expected. Only the Bolsheviks managed to justify the whole history of their country before them.

        The tragic history of the Russian Empire, the USSR and modern Russia in the 20 century is inherited from wars, revolutions and perestroika ...
        BUT this story is OUR, we have nothing to be ashamed of, the memory of the past must be preserved, IN MEMORY OF THE SOURCES OF THE FUTURE

        Still that memory was not beaten, and it will be like the amers who defeated Hitler.
  10. creak
    creak 27 July 2013 10: 36 New
    +5
    The author pretentiously titled his article "Facts against the myth-making of politicians" and declares that the First World War is terra incognita for historians. But the author has a problem with the facts - the fact that Russia has Ilya Muromets bombers is not a fairy tale, but a fact. These bombers were mass-produced and only during the war the troops received 60 aircraft, which at that time was a very impressive figure. No other country in the world had airplanes similar to it in terms of flight characteristics. If the article is devoted to the First World War, then where does the participation of the Russian army in the suppression of the boxing uprising in China have to do with it? Following this logic, should one decisively probably condemn Suvorov for his participation in suppressing the uprising in Poland and the storming of Warsaw? Therefore, the author should not feed us with fairy tales about the age-old backwardness of Russia - in Russia, both aircraft and armored vehicles and the most modern destroyers of the Novik type were produced ... But the passage that 95% of weapons were manufactured at state-owned factories, after without any The transition follows a banal, as the author himself described it, a summary - you need to remember the history and draw the proper conclusions. In my opinion, this primarily refers to the author of the article - not everything is in order with historical facts and conclusions. really respect and, probably, you shouldn't consider only he knows what is hidden from others ..
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 28 July 2013 09: 40 New
      -1
      And the number of these "Ilyevs"? And what motors were installed on them? And why did our "imperial falcons" fly on "morahs" and "newpors"?
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 29 July 2013 01: 56 New
        0
        That is, there is nothing to argue, therefore, we just put a minus. Yaza always beat the truth :).
      2. Modus
        Modus 1 August 2013 21: 17 New
        0
        TOTAL about 70 of these aircraft were produced. There were few of them at the front: 2-4 pieces. in 1915, then about 10 on all fronts. The pilots of "Ilya Muromets" did not like it. The reason is very weak and unreliable motors, poor climb rate, etc. There is a good book by Finne (one of Sikorsky's associates) about these "Muromtsy" - I recommend it.
        TOTAL for 3 years of WWII Murom residents made about 400 flights. Oddly enough, the most reliable engines of the "Muromtsy" were pre-war German, installed on 2 "Muromets", French and English (obtained already during WWI) were capricious and unreliable.
  11. Zhzhuk
    Zhzhuk 27 July 2013 10: 40 New
    +4
    I liked the article and really how the allies were set against each other, and it’s interesting that the tsar changed his mind under the pressure of the ministers, it’s funny, still in whose hands the military factories were in good condition to see someone working in the war, and I won’t be surprised that there was a foggy albion
  12. Turner
    Turner 27 July 2013 11: 20 New
    +5
    And my grandfather went missing in this war, and my grandmother was waiting for him 56 years, until she died
  13. mirror
    mirror 27 July 2013 11: 34 New
    -1
    Anyone who interprets facts is a peacemaker himself :-)
  14. sergey72
    sergey72 27 July 2013 11: 57 New
    +2
    Quote: ranger
    Therefore, the author should not feed us with fairy tales about the age-old backwardness of Russia - both aircraft and armored vehicles and the most modern destroyers of the "Novik" type were produced in Russia ... But

    But from this place in more detail, dear ranger .....
    1. creak
      creak 27 July 2013 12: 24 New
      +3
      I can only add a few facts, since the article focuses on the facts. In addition to the revolver, an unsurpassed three-ruler of Mosin was produced, Russian artillery was in no way inferior to foreign artillery. Battleships built in Russia took part in the Great Patriotic War. As for the tanks, who except the Great Britain had them in service? For over 10 years, the country has built the Trans-Siberian ... And as for corruption, when was this issue in our country irrelevant? The country lagged behind Western Europe, but was not backward.
      1. sergey72
        sergey72 27 July 2013 12: 29 New
        +2
        You there touched on the topic of Novik in general and the then military-industrial complex in particular ... You would have to read the same Shirokorad to start, you will learn a lot of new things ..
        1. creak
          creak 27 July 2013 12: 41 New
          +1
          I am familiar with the work of Shirokorad, but I am also familiar with other studies on this topic, for example, the outstanding military theorist NN Golovin "Russia in the First World War." As they say, Shirokorad is not alone .... And the initial stage I went through a long time ago and I wish you. All the best.
          1. sergey72
            sergey72 27 July 2013 13: 04 New
            +1
            Yeah, Golovin is the ultimate truth .....
          2. alicante11
            alicante11 28 July 2013 09: 54 New
            +1
            Regarding "Novik", it is strange that this "pepelats", undoubtedly outstanding, was in a single copy. And all his followers, as it were, to put it mildly, were somewhat slower. I'll give you a little hint. Novik had German boilers and turbines. But our later destroyers were equipped with domestic ISU, with all, as they say, following.
            It should also be noted that Novik did not appear from a good life. The lack of modern high-speed cruisers (and something tells me that we had a problem with this since the 19th century, if we compare the Goddesses and Askold with the Bogatyr) led to the need to equip the destroyers with more powerful artillery. The result was Noviki. A sort of undercruisers and re-destroyers. Those. again, a magnificent boat, but ... obtained by accident and not from a good life.
      2. alicante11
        alicante11 28 July 2013 09: 46 New
        +1
        Mosinka is a rulez, but Russian artillery, of course, is numerous and the gun is a good 3 hdyumovka (though I don’t remember if they made a normal grenade for it, or how they threw shrapnel with some shrapnel), only with the heavy artillery they exited. The Germans had more of it, although in general they were inferior in terms of the number of guns. Tanks - the Franks had, except the English. The Trans-Siberian Railway is, of course, cool, but it was this Trans-Siberian Railway, or rather its insufficient capacity, that became the main cause of the defeat in the REV.
        So, we had everything. That's just not enough. Thank God that the Bolsheviks were able to do everything and in abundance, otherwise we would not have survived the second "nah osten" in a century with that tsarist economy.
        1. Modus
          Modus 28 July 2013 22: 55 New
          +1
          The grenade for the 3-inch was never made. The weakness of the explosive strength of the grenades of our 3 inches was written by the Japanese during the years of the REV. Our commanders knew about this, but did not bother to do ANYTHING by the beginning of the WWII. The 3-inch spapel was good for hitting an OPEN located target. (I recommend reading the book of the Russian artillery general E. Barsukov). Tanks during the WWI were with the French (Renault-17, very successful, by the way) and even with the Germans (a little). By the number of graduations
          In the years of the WWII artillery shells, Russia was hopelessly behind everyone.
          Indeed, during the war of 1914 - 1918. total shots were consumed:

          France
          75 mm caliber about 163 rounds,
          155 mm caliber about 28 million shots

          Germany
          All calibers about 271 533 000 shots.
          Including: approximately 156 000-mm, 000 77 cm, 67 000-cm and 000 10,5-cm. caliber.

          England
          All calibers about 170 386 000 shots.
          Including: approximately 99 000 mm cannon, 000 76 mm howitzer, 25 000 mm howitzer, etc.

          Austria-Hungary
          All calibers about 70 000 000 shots.

          As we see, the tsarist army of “Russia that we lost” in the consumption of artillery shells during the WWII was hopelessly behind even the low-powered Austria-Hungary (by 20 MILLION shots). There is nothing to compare with other countries - from France and Germany, the gap is almost SIX TIMES, from England - by three and a half.
          It was necessary to pay for this lag on the battlefields with the enormous blood of the Russian infantry ...
  15. sergey72
    sergey72 27 July 2013 12: 17 New
    +3
    In our family, a photo of the paternal great-grandfather of a participant in that war is carefully kept ... He was seriously wounded in the spring of 1916, commissioned ... Soldier "George" for bravery.
  16. Marat
    Marat 27 July 2013 13: 36 New
    +5
    As for the "victory stolen in 1917" ... By the end of 1916, the front had stabilized, the Central Powers went into a deep defense, their reserves were exhausted (for example, Ludendorff admitted that by 17 the defeat of Germany was inevitable), Russia by 1917 was strong as once the war was at first. Even if the qualitative composition of the army was not the same, but the quantitative only increased. Therefore, many historians believe that Russia could decide the outcome of the company alone. To this confirmation, oddly enough, I consider a successful initial outcome of the "offensive Kerensky "- when the actions of artillery (which by the way had not yet been decomposed as infantry units) and a few shock units inflicted significant damage on the enemy and broke through the front !!! Unfortunately, due to the well-known events, there was practically no one to support the attackers ...
    1. Ka3ak
      Ka3ak 28 July 2013 00: 39 New
      -1
      All the same, there is a craft about our country. What happened was not in vain. The retreat of the people from the Truth (the retreat was certainly long before 1917) inevitably leads to its crush. God forbid we were then to win the war.
    2. xan
      xan 29 July 2013 15: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Marat
      As for the "victory stolen in 1917" ... By the end of 1916, the front had stabilized, the Central Powers had gone on a defensive defense, their reserves were exhausted (for example, Ludendorff admitted that by 17 the defeat of Germany was inevitable), Russia by 1917 was as strong as the war once

      Fuck such stabilization and "stronger than ever"! Russia should be such as to be able to deal with everyone without any allies, like Napoleon. If it cannot, the ruling class and the emperor personally are to blame. Alexander 1 did not hesitate to intimidate his relatives (he read at Manfred's), and Nicholas 2 did not hang a single "corrupt official from the army". How could Brusilov stand for the tsar, if he let go of the Kiev sugar refiners who were trading with the Germans, whom Brusilov was going to hang?
    3. Modus
      Modus 29 July 2013 23: 31 New
      +1
      The July 1917 offensive of the Russian army ended in terrible shame :. the flight of entire divisions, looting, pogromicides and rape of their own population. Kornilov was forced to order the execution of scum on the spot, and their corpses were put up at crossroads, others as a warning. It helped a little. Read his desperate orders of the time. What a victory there ...
      1. Marat
        Marat 1 August 2013 18: 19 New
        0
        Yes, that’s exactly how it was, I don’t argue, it was a gamble, etc. I’m talking about the initial stage of the offensive. When the shock units formed from loyal, disciplined soldiers and officers entered into battle, so to speak, a healthy element. With the support of artillery ( and the artillery was pulled to the place of the breakthrough a lot, more than never to this company, I mean Russia) just demolished the enemy’s front lines and broke through the front, but when the main part of the strikers was knocked out, the usual units were put into action, which began to rally, dispute an order In short precious time was upuscheno.Eti events perfectly described Denikin.Nu waited for the counter-offensive of the Austrians and Germans, and then the events occurred as described by you.
        Why did I mention this offensive at all? I can only guess what would happen to the Austrians if the Russian army were morally healthy.
        1. Modus
          Modus 1 August 2013 21: 25 New
          0
          I think that it would be just a repetition of the mistakes of the Lutsk breakthrough. Alas, there were no means (and skills) to expand the breakthrough and turn it from tactical success into operational success with the Russian army. The Germans would throw some of their regiments to the Austrians, inflict counterattacks on the flanks and that’s all.

          By the way, our guards regiments were among the first to decompose. These "guards", not wanting to fight, killed their commanders and mocked their corpses for several days, not allowing them to be buried. The specific names of the victims and the details of this are in my articles.
          1. Marat
            Marat 1 August 2013 22: 36 New
            0
            The fact is that it raises doubts about the possibility of the Germans to give the Austrians reinforcements, since the offensives were to begin on all Russian fronts, and the allies were to strike from the West. By 17, the manpower reserves of the Central Powers were running out, Ludendorff himself wrote that the position of Germany was "almost hopeless ... Our defeat seemed inevitable if the war dragged on."
            And the Austrians alone could hardly cope with someone.
            Unfortunately, all the guardsmen were killed under Kovel and Stokhod.
            1. Modus
              Modus 2 August 2013 19: 51 New
              0
              The Germans were quite successful in maneuvering their forces, transferring their "fire brigades" to problem areas.
              Alas, the Russian troops have never been able to break through their front. Losses during FOUR of these attempts in 1916 completely repelled the Russian commanders' desire to attack the Germans until the very end of this year.
              And then - Nicholas denied. Dumb-headed and arrogant liberals came to power and mass decomposition began in the army and the country.
              1. Marat
                Marat 4 August 2013 00: 03 New
                0
                Well, on the Caucasian front, things were not bad with us. At least the Turks could be pulled out of the war. They took Trappsund, and there were no major fortifications on the way, the Turks were definitely saved by the revolution (and there is one step to the Bulgarians). ?
                1. Modus
                  Modus 4 August 2013 09: 04 New
                  0
                  The Caucasian front was tertiary. The capture of Trebizond (back in 1915, EMNIP) did not solve anything. There were no roads there and the very supply of the troops in it with food, etc. was a big problem (General Schwartz, the hero of the defense of Ivangorod) was appointed commandant of the fortress of Trebizond. He left interesting memories. There was no land road to Constantinople from Trebizond - only mountains. Our clever people started "Orthodox Christianization" of Trebizond (they began to support the Greeks) and infringe on the Turks. They started building a church there, etc.
                  Speaking about the prospects of landing in Constantinople, one must bear in mind the presence of German submarines in the Marmara and Mediterranean Seas. If necessary, the Germans would have brought them to Chernoye and our Black Sea Fleet would have thought little. Our generals perfectly understood this and convinced the tsar not to participate in this scam.
                  And the Turks, by the way, did not experience big problems with l / s. In 1916, they even managed to transfer several of their divisions to Europe, to the Eastern Front, to help the Austrians. And they fought well there.
                  1. Marat
                    Marat 4 August 2013 13: 08 New
                    0
                    I don’t know, by January 17, the Turks of the 2nd and 3rd armies totaled 112300 bayonets, 4360 sabers, 500 sappers, 10000 Kurdish cavalry with 381 guns and 318 machine guns, while our army had 183775 bayonets, 31834 sabers .4 air squadron with 591 guns and 1057 machine guns. The current balance of forces and means allowed the Russian command in the new company to develop success in Asia Minor, as well as launch a wide attack against the Turks together with the allies that advanced in Mesopotamia and Iraq.
                    At the expense of the transfer of divisions: for sure, they could not refuse the Germans to transfer their forces, since the Turks defended themselves only with German assistance. Similarly, Russia "replenished" the ranks of the French army on the Western Front, paying off the French supplies with the blood of a Russian soldier.
                    1. Modus
                      Modus 4 August 2013 15: 10 New
                      0
                      Once again I will say that the Turkish front was tertiary.
                      The British took (in 1917) both Baghdad and Jerusalem, for example, and not some lousy Trebizond. And then another year they fought against the Germans until they were broken.
                      The Turks transferred their divisions to the Austrian sector of the front in 1916.

                      With your assessment, "Russia" replenished "the ranks of the French army on the Western Front, redeeming French supplies with the blood of a Russian soldier" - I agree 100%
                      1. Marat
                        Marat 5 August 2013 12: 22 New
                        0
                        That is, you want to say that a way out of the war in Turkey, and then Bulgaria, would practically not affect the course of the war?
                      2. Modus
                        Modus 5 August 2013 22: 52 New
                        0
                        As long as the German troops remained combat-ready (early fall of 1918), it was very difficult to remove these countries from the war.
                        Turkey had several fronts (Caucasian, Thessaloniki, Middle Eastern, Baghdad (against the British), Arabian, etc. and in general - not bad fought, even imposed the British in the Dardanelles in 1915.
                        Enough forces to send troops to Europe to the East. Front, against Russian

                        Russia, even more so, could not have defeated it alone.
  • Marat
    Marat 27 July 2013 13: 41 New
    +1
    Russia itself needed not to pull, but to capture the straits. And bargaining, having its own troops there, with the countries of the Entente would be much simpler. Given the chances of a successful outcome of the landing operation were great, Kolchak was right.
  • Indifferent
    Indifferent 27 July 2013 14: 16 New
    -3
    Yes, the article is too "red"! As if back in Soviet times. The loss figures are very far from the official ones. We lost two and a half million people in that war. Taking into account direct combat losses and deaths of prisoners from the Germans. But the "reds" lost more than 20 million in the next war. 10 times more. And nothing heroes! And those nameless and forgotten nobody ...
    The Germans suddenly became friends !? They invaded the troops, betrayed us in wars, and directly, like the same Suvorov, and when civilian officers led our armies, rewrote and mutilated our entire history, having previously destroyed almost all the archives, and this all lasted hundreds of years and suddenly they were friends! Straight from a sore head to a healthy one. They are friends now, but they are not allowed to enter without visas and are sitting in a NATO bloc with other friends who are ready to tear us to shreds at the first convenient opportunity.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 28 July 2013 09: 57 New
      +1
      But the "reds" ended the war in Berlin. And the "little ones" ... you know where.
  • fzr1000
    fzr1000 27 July 2013 14: 24 New
    +3
    Like it or not, the Anglo-Franks turned out to be more cunning than the Germans and Russians. Sorry.
  • radio operator
    radio operator 27 July 2013 14: 26 New
    +3
    July 11 1905 of the year on the Polar Star yacht off the island of Björke, Nicholas II and William II signed an alliance agreement. If the Björk Treaty entered into force, there would be no guarantee of World War I and the whole history of mankind would go in a different direction. However, agents of influence from France and England ruled the ball in Russia. At the very top, deeply conspiracy “Freemasons Masons” acted, and in the provinces slobbering intellectuals and anxious young ladies, forgetting about the ruins of Sevastopol, were read out by the “Pyshka” of Maupassant. But upon his return to St. Petersburg, the tsar was literally attacked by his ministers, including Prime Minister Witte, Foreign Minister Lamsdorf and others. The king was forced to ask "cousin Willy" to denounce this agreement.

    Now, of course, it is easy to talk about what should be done and what should not.
    In my opinion, with all due respect to the last Russian emperor, he openly did not pull on the tsar. The burden was too heavy for him. He would have reigned, I suppose, in peacetime, but war ...
    She does not make concessions. Alas, all his life he strove to be like his father - a mighty, externally and internally, a real Russian autocrat, Alexander III, but he could not even resist the liberal whispers of the court “European sycophants”.
    He had a sober period of time when a wise domestic policy was being pursued - when Peter Arkadyevich Stolypin was the Minister of the Interior, and then the Prime Minister. And ... another alas. He also got rid of him, for the sake of palace opinion.
    It is unfortunate that Alexander III did not live to a very old age. Perhaps we would still live in the Russian Empire.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 28 July 2013 10: 00 New
      +1
      I put you "+", although I do not agree with the last postulate. It was Alexander # 3 who arranged for us our magnificent alliance with the paddling pool. So with him and his faithful nee Dagmara Danish, Russia would also get into the war on the side of the Entente. And the state of the economy would hardly have been better. With all the consequences
  • The comment was deleted.
  • lexe
    lexe 27 July 2013 14: 41 New
    0
    The author forgets one thing - his ministers themselves pushed Wilhelm to the land option in Europe. So for Russia the war was justified. Or had to wait until all the Western Slavs were finally Germanized?
    If Wilhelm created his army exclusively to contain France and threw the rest of the budget to the Navy ... - I think in eastern Europe no one would have lifted a finger to redistribute the colonies. And the whole war could be decided during several major naval battles off the coast of England . It was necessary to arrange Tsushima, but already the British. And there would be no millions of fallen on the fronts.
    Constantinople was offered to Russia. But this is not just a city ...- but the key to uniting all Slavic Christians and Catholics and Orthodox. And what did Nicholas 2 need to do when his cousin moved away from him?
    Of course there were people both in Germany and in Russia who dreamed of clashing both nations and their arguments were very convincing.
  • shpuntik
    shpuntik 27 July 2013 15: 06 New
    0
    The author makes one mistake: he presents states as independent units in history. France attacked Russia, England attacked Germany, and so on. This is mistake. Napoleon attacked Russia, Hitler, not Germany attacked the USSR. Further: how did Napoleon and Hitler come to power? Who armed and financed them? Only in this direction can one find the root of the problem, the source of wars. This root is in the worldview, ideology, beliefs of those who finance wars, who eliminate kings, chancellors through bourgeois or "proletarian" revolutions.
    But in general, the article is good, the analysis is thorough, the message is correct, therefore +.
    I don’t know if the author is familiar with this book; if not, I advise you:
    PS Here is another, previously conspiratorial:
    http://www.zaistinu.ru/articles/?aid=685

  • Marat
    Marat 27 July 2013 15: 38 New
    +2
    The author insists on the eternal friendship of Russians with Germans throughout history, I will not argue ... But remember the Bosnian crisis, it was the Germans who played the most negative role in it for Russia, it was "cousin Willie" who took the side of the Austrians, and not the alleged eternal friends. Who knows, perhaps Germany's neutrality in that matter would have preempted Russia's participation in the First World War.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 28 July 2013 10: 02 New
      0
      Yes, you can also add Bismarck’s fatal mistake for both countries during the Berlin Congress. I understand that he really wanted to wipe his nose with the Russians for an alliance with the paddling pools. But he went too far and made Russia and Germany enemies.
  • GUSAR
    GUSAR 27 July 2013 15: 55 New
    0
    And what did friendship with the Germans give us? In Russia there is not a single monument to the soldiers of the 1st World War, is that right? Well, at least our soldiers deserved a monument ... And why then called the 1st World War II the second Russian?
    1. lexe
      lexe 27 July 2013 16: 22 New
      +5
      And because there was already one friend, Napoleon. He also wanted to beat the British to the sea, but chose the shortest way to defeat Britain, to Moscow! laughing
      Right Bermuda's historical triangle looms off the coast of foggy Albion ... laughing
      But we didn’t have any monuments from that meeting with Napoleon. But what is the difference from the Great and Forgotten? Just by 1914 we were already stronger and smarter than in 1812. and to Moscow the path for the external enemy was not passable, unlike 1812.
  • Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 27 July 2013 17: 10 New
    +1
    Writing the history of the First World War will never succeed in Russia, because always someone will remain dissatisfied, praise the monarchists, then cause dissatisfaction of the communists and liberals, praise the communists and blaspheme the monarchists, the same effect will only change sides, so now I can write my point of view and there will be a bunch of those who will clam and say that it wasn’t like that, so what? Everyone will have their own opinion. The Communists wrote their story, well, now the counterrevolutionaries who have come to power are trying to rewrite history, but things it’s so clumsy and inept that you won’t be amazed. If you wouldn’t just erect a monument and honor the memory of the dead, you should definitely start talking about the insidious communists who stabbed the Tsar’s government in the back, which was almost preparing to hold a parade in Berlin. Alas, the result World War I was the greatest disgrace of Russia along with 1991, and not because Lenin signed the Brest Peace, but because people still didn’t understand what they were fighting for, for England and France, for the Tsar and the Fatherland or for Constantinople that they had never given to us by. forgiving the situation, you will never remember with pride about the fight in which you were thoroughly swept, raped by a friend, taken away your wallet and still do not give a shit about your head. After all, no matter how cool we all know how this war ended for Russia, you can inflate remembering the great empire and the brilliant army, but the interlocutor still asks, what ended with what? And he will have to lower his eyes and slurred inexplicably about the damned communists. After that, the interlocutor will laugh, turn his finger at the temple and leave, with the confidence that We are inadequate.
    1. Marat
      Marat 27 July 2013 18: 35 New
      +3
      Nevertheless, Russia was on the verge of victory in this war. It is clear that history does not like the subjunctive mood, but it was not so bad as the Soviet textbooks wrote.
    2. Marat
      Marat 27 July 2013 18: 41 New
      +3
      At the expense of Constantinople ... Russia in 17 was preparing an amphibious operation to seize Constantinople, and with great chances of success, the operation was developed by Admiral Kolchak (I think it’s not just that later the plan to seize Constantinople was very interested in our "allies") The Tsar understood very well that they just won't give it up. That is why he insisted on the operation.
      1. Modus
        Modus 28 July 2013 23: 03 New
        +1
        You are wrong.
        The landing operation in Constantinople was planned back in 1915-1916, without any participation of Kolchak. But the generals were well aware that the landing across the Black Sea would be an adventure of clear water and would end with the landing of the landing in the sea. (The Dardanelles operation of the Allies perfectly demonstrated this) and dissuaded the king from her. I recommend reading A. Kersnovsky about this.
        1. Marat
          Marat 29 July 2013 11: 22 New
          0
          I know about this. I meant that for the 17th year it had already been decided to precisely carry out the operation to capture Constantinople. General Alexeyev, who asserted that the keys to the straits lay in Berlin, had discouraged the tsar in the first place. By the year 17, the landing from St. George’s cavaliers, and the enemy fleet was closed by mines, the chances were very good. And as for the Dardanelles operation, the main reason for the failure was the small number of Allied troops taking part in it.
    3. alicante11
      alicante11 28 July 2013 10: 37 New
      +1
      And if you just write the truth?
  • 1536
    1536 27 July 2013 17: 41 New
    -1
    I am far from thinking that scientific historical thought in Russia today has become so scarce that this article can be seriously discussed. But emotionally, the article is useful, because, alas, in the modern world those dangers that led to the war almost a hundred years ago have not been eliminated. Here is what V. Ulyanov (Lenin), a left-wing extremist Russian opposition politician, writes in his article “On a Separate Peace” (newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat, No. 1916): “The war was engendered by imperialist relations between the great powers, i.e. That is, the struggle for the division of the booty, for who should eat such and such colonies and small states, and in the first place there are two clashes in this war. First, between England and Germany. Second, between Germany and Russia. These three great powers, these three great robbers on the high road are the main figures in a real war, the rest are not independent allies. " You can replace Germany with China, or the United States, on the contrary, as you see it, instead of capturing colonies add "the struggle for democracy"), and the picture of modern political life will be almost complete. And the Germans have never been friends of the Russians. Our relations were built on opposites, on pragmatism, as it is now fashionable to say. And the Germans got it on the sopatka, when they really started to greyhound. Yes, by and large we have nothing to share with them, but "God save us from such friends, and we will somehow sort it out with the enemies."
  • datur
    datur 27 July 2013 18: 04 New
    0
    I’m thinking-- VERDENSKY MEAT GRINDER was probably European in style !!! - 10000000- INJURED IN a 3-month-old meat grinder - so the British decided !!! for they were the main ones in this madness !!! by the way the amers were not opposed, because it was not their soldiers who were dying there !! this is in question for the Kiev operation !!
  • rauffg
    rauffg 27 July 2013 18: 45 New
    +9
    and yet we are talking about soldiers-heroes of that war,

    because without a memory of the past there will be no future.
    1. nikkon09
      nikkon09 27 July 2013 21: 02 New
      0
      Quote: rauffg
      and yet we are talking about soldiers-heroes of that war,

      because without a memory of the past there will be no future.

      thank you
    2. sergo0000
      sergo0000 27 July 2013 21: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: rauffg
      because without a memory of the past there will be no future.

      Yes. Strong movie! good And wonderful words! drinks
  • The centurion
    The centurion 27 July 2013 19: 17 New
    +7
    World War I was very different in character from previous and subsequent ones. The previous decades before the war in military affairs were characterized primarily by the fact that in their development the weapon of defense sharply advanced compared with the offensive weapon. On the battlefield, a rapid-fire magazine rifle, a rapid-fire rifled breech-loading gun, and of course a machine gun began to dominate. All these weapons were well combined with powerful engineering preparation of defensive positions: solid trenches with communications, thousands of kilometers of barbed wire, strong points with dugouts, pillboxes, bunkers, forts, fortifications, etc. Under these conditions, any attempt by the troops to attack ended in a catastrophe such as the defeat of the Russian army in the Mazury marshes or turned into a merciless meat grinder, as under Verdun. The war for many years has become less manoeuvrable, trench, positional. Unprecedented losses and several years of great trench seating led to demoralization of the existing armies, then led to mass desertion, riots and revolutions, and ultimately ended with the collapse of the powerful empires of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German and Ottoman. And, despite the victory, apart from them, 4 mighty colonial empires, British and French, began to collapse and began to collapse.
    But the real winner in this war was the United States of America. They profited unspeakably on military supplies, not only swept clean all the gold reserves and budgets of the Entente powers, but also imposed on them enslaving debts. Having entered the war at the final stage, the United States grabbed not only a substantial share of the laurels of victors, but also a bold piece of reparations and indemnities from the vanquished. It was America's finest hour. Only a century ago, US President Monroe proclaimed the doctrine of "America for the Americans" and the United States entered into a stubborn and merciless struggle to squeeze the European colonial powers from the American continent. But after the Versailles Peace, no single power could do anything in the Western Hemisphere without the permission of the United States. It was a triumph of visionary strategy and a decisive step towards world domination.
    These lessons of war should never be forgotten and in no way become involved in conflicts for interests alien to us. And those who want to draw more than enough, and not only over the hill, but inside. This Vlasov and compradors, who are always ready to harm the country. Do not lag behind them, and patriots, who do not feed bread, but let them do some work or fight.
    1. optimist
      optimist 27 July 2013 19: 43 New
      +3
      Quote: Centurion
      These lessons of war should never be forgotten and in no way become involved in conflicts for interests alien to us. And those who want to draw more than enough, and not only over the hill, but inside. This Vlasov and compradors, who are always ready to harm the country. Do not lag behind them, and patriots, who do not feed bread, but let them do some work or fight.

      The whole trouble is that in Russia there are a lot of PR idurks who do not understand this. This site also has enough similar ones calling for help to "brotherly Syria". With a more or less careful study of the history of Russia, it turns out that she NEVER had real friends, but only singers and suckers. Even the same "brothers-Slavs" betrayed us always and everywhere. But what is there to go far: the former "cohabitants" in the USSR are now competing with each other, how to mix us more politely with shit. As one of the emperors said, “We have only two allies: the army and the navy. And until they gain their former strength, God forbid, even think about some kind of "help" ...
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 28 July 2013 11: 59 New
        0
        Well, about Syria, just Assad, this is perhaps the only governing clan that did not betray Russia. Therefore, to cover them is a noble cause. True, you just have to say. What guys, look what we allowed to do with Mukhomorych. But he was a hundred times better than Asadov. But in relation to Russia, he was a traitor. And so he was handed over to those for whom he had at one time exchanged friendship with Russia. But we will not surrender Asadov and Syria, because they remember the good and are true friends.
  • nikkon09
    nikkon09 27 July 2013 20: 38 New
    +1
    Quote: nnz226
    In-in !!! Because of this worthless jerk on the throne, Russia also drank blood to the very top !!! And he was counted among the saints - an idiot!

    I fully agree if a strong ruler (at least Putin's level) were in power, then our empire would have eternal peace, for no one would even dare to bark in our direction ...
  • vm68dm
    vm68dm 27 July 2013 20: 56 New
    +3
    hi good
    Quote: rauffg
    and yet we are talking about soldiers-heroes of that war,

    because without a memory of the past there will be no future.
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 27 July 2013 21: 18 New
    +1
    What was it was .. And yes, if yes, if only yes ... This is our story, that's all!
  • 094711601
    094711601 27 July 2013 23: 07 New
    +2
    It seems to me, no, I'm sure - We need a memorial with the Eternal Flame! Without a past, there will not be and will not be a present or a future!
  • Betahon
    Betahon 28 July 2013 00: 07 New
    0
    Reflections are very useful and instructive, for modern Russian rulers, they can be of great benefit, since nothing has changed strategically in the world over the past 400-500 years: England and France stubbornly and shamelessly divide the world, Germany and Russia sometimes fight for wit, America itself itself will die soon, China will never be a superpower!
  • Babon
    Babon 28 July 2013 12: 48 New
    +1
    Here is a movie about the war


    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Babon
      Babon 28 July 2013 12: 54 New
      0
      Extension

  • bubla5
    bubla5 28 July 2013 14: 00 New
    0
    That’s why Nestor Petrovich needs to erect a monument.
  • Enot-poloskun
    Enot-poloskun 28 July 2013 14: 39 New
    0
    I wonder why so many minuses put a good article?

    True eyes hurts?

    Indeed, in the First World (German), one Russia fought for some reason. Or maybe it’s understandable.

    For their own collapse, for debts to the French, and to the joy of lemongrass.
  • wax
    wax 28 July 2013 16: 27 New
    +1
    This is about the “stolen victory in 1917”.

    Bravo!
    We must remember all the dead, learn history and draw appropriate conclusions.

    Alexander! You are a real Russian patriot.
  • shasherin_pavel
    shasherin_pavel 28 July 2013 17: 16 New
    +2
    The author did not take into account one important fact: unlike us, the neighbors always chose allies for themselves who would pull the chestnuts out of the fire instead of them. They concluded peace treaties with us because they were afraid of losing their face completely, or because they needed an assistant in a war that they had already lost. From time immemorial, our neighbors raked up to us with affectionate words, when they sat with their ass on a hedgehog and spat on us as soon as their situation improved. This is what the French, Germans, Poles, Serbs can not forgive us that we liberated Bulgaria from Turkish rule, but they were not liberated ... as if the victory over the Turks was a pleasure trip, but it would be a little more and we would have the Turks of the world requested. Now many have forgotten that Turkey was invincible in front of all its neighbors. They forgot that no one in Europe believed in the victory over the Ottoman Empire and everyone dreamed of the defeat of Russia in the south in order to take the east and north for themselves. The British still cast their "Victoria Cross" from cannons taken in Sevastopol, and the battle near Balaklava, where they suffered complete defeat, consider the limit of courage of their soldiers and are proud of defeat as a victory, like Tolstoy: "Moral victory, moral victory" .. . etc. Stop looking for some allies among the neighbors, because they need us to win, to the last Russian soldier and nothing more.
    1. Babon
      Babon 28 July 2013 22: 59 New
      0
      Yes, the Poles also fought seriously with the Ottomans, and still remember this with pride, they stopped them. It's just that no one in the West knows about the victories of Russia at all, it was as if there was neither Suvorov nor Ushakov, in the West this period was not that Russian, even Turkish history had already been forgotten, and we already finished them in the 19th century. and just the west allowed another half a century to hold out the Ottoman Empire.
  • Sunscorpion
    Sunscorpion 29 July 2013 04: 00 New
    0
    about weapons, armaments, technologies, politics and the corresponding conclusions of that war there is an excellent book "Kuptsova AG The Strange History of Weapons. Deserters of War and Peace". He certainly has his own conclusions, but there are a lot of statistics ...
    1. Hort
      Hort 29 July 2013 12: 01 New
      0
      this book must be read very selectively. Because more than half of Kuptsov’s fabrications is a heresy of a person very far from weapons. Well, about the noble conspiracy - it's generally a song :)
  • Marat
    Marat 29 July 2013 11: 29 New
    -1
    I still don’t understand why many of you do not agree that Russia was one step away from victory in this war. Part of the Pyrrhic victory is not a question. But nonetheless. I would like to hear your opinion, gentlemen!
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 29 July 2013 12: 51 New
      +1
      Well, why is it not clear, compare the situation in the spring of 1944 and in the fall of 1917. What victory can be said if the army was driven into the inner provinces of the Empire, did not carry out any successful large-scale operation against the Germans throughout the war. How could you expect that in the remaining year this army will be able to return all that was lost in the 3 of the year and take Berlin?
      The Entente - yes, was a step away from victory. And then the Germans managed to gather strength and break the Allies in the spring of 18. It’s just as not unpleasant to recognize this, but the German army in WWI was invincible. She remained undefeated on the battlefield. They defeated Germany on the sidelines.
      1. Marat
        Marat 29 July 2013 18: 44 New
        -1
        Do not compare the fall of 1917 and the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th year. These are absolutely different times for the Russian army (the February Revolution, the Provisional Government and partly the Bolsheviks did their job). In April 17, a general Entente attack was planned on all fronts, while the Central Powers no longer they could transfer their units from west to east and in the opposite direction — they did not already have human resources. Russia delivered the main blow in Galicia, while the mistakes of the Brusilov breakthrough were taken into account. In Austria, which was still held at the expense of the German ar mission, it was not necessary to take Berlin, it was enough to withdraw the Austro-Hungarians from the war. And about the offensive of Germany in the spring of 18, this is the result of Russia leaving the war.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 30 July 2013 03: 35 New
          0
          Well, take the end of 17. Is it much better here? All polymers have already dried out. I just took the same length of time. If you compare with the end of 16, then the Second World War is characterized by a comparison with the Battle of Kursk. When the last attempt of the Germans to seize the initiative was thwarted. Are there similar successes in the history of the 1916 year against the Germans?

          In April 17, a general Entente attack was planned on all fronts, while the Central Powers could no longer throw their units from west to east and in the opposite direction — they already did not have human resources.


          What the Germans could and could not do, you can look at the results of the battles at Caporetto, as well as the operations of the beginning of the 18 year.

          Russia dealt the main blow in Galicia, while taking into account the mistakes of the Brusilovsky breakthrough. In Austria, which was still held at the expense of the German army, it was not necessary to take Berlin, it was enough to withdraw the Austro-Hungarians from the war.


          That's right, again the main blow in Galicia. We slaughter the Austrians, and then the Germans arrive from the northern sector of the front and the offensive is choking. as well as the Brusilovsky breakthrough itself.

          And about the German offensive in the spring, 18 is the result of Russia's withdrawal from the war.


          The German offensive in the spring of 18 was made possible by overcoming the crisis of positional war. Moreover, this crisis was overcome on both sides. But the Germans were the first to realize the results, because they had organizational measures, not technical ones. At what earlier, when the Germans conducted offensives on the western front, they perfectly transferred troops from the eastern front. Which in that war was Germans secondary after 1915 year. so why don't they do it again in the spring of 18? Even due to some alleged loss of territory in the east?

          In general, the dates indicated by me are most indicative of the results of the activities of the leadership of the countries in industry. RI waged war almost on handouts of the allies. Whereas in WWII, landlis was, although useful, but not a vital factor.
      2. poquello
        poquello 29 July 2013 22: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: alicante11
        Well, why is it incomprehensible, compare the situation in the spring of 1944 and the fall of 1917. What victory can we talk aboutif the army was driven into the inner provinces of the Empire, it did not carry out a single large-scale successful operation against the Germans during the entire war. How could you expect that in the remaining year this army will be able to return all that was lost in 3 years and take Berlin?
        The Entente - yes, was a step away from victory.

        Here is about this very victory of the Entente.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 30 July 2013 03: 38 New
          0
          And what side is Russia mooring here? We would be kicked in full. And we try to demand something. First, all promissory notes would be presented. Well, and then, depending on how quickly it got to nicholas that he was not part of the victorious camp in this war, they would have organized another Crimean Campaign for brain reduction especially dull.
    2. Modus
      Modus 29 July 2013 23: 35 New
      +2
      I have written quite a lot on this topic, though on a different site.
      Here is a link to the first part (of seven):
      http://www.proza.ru/2011/03/11/524
      If you are interested - read - then we will discuss.
      Yours faithfully,
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 30 July 2013 09: 19 New
        +1
        However, this is labor. Respect. The only thing that would be worth adding are comparative tables for the production of weapons. After all, even a comparison of the fired shells is a bomb for all "victorious". And if you develop ...
        1. Modus
          Modus 30 July 2013 19: 46 New
          0
          Thanks, Alik!
          If you are interested in the topic of PMV, come again.
          I have there a lot of interesting things written about it.
  • Hort
    Hort 29 July 2013 11: 59 New
    +1
    on the theme of the beginning of the First World War in Pikul's novel "I Have the Honor" is well written (though not purely historical literature). The Kaiser wrote to Nicholas about his readiness to "merge" the Austro-Hungarians if he canceled the general mobilization and did not send troops to East Prussia. Didn't listen, got a war with the Germans, although before that the Austrians were hollowed
    1. poquello
      poquello 29 July 2013 22: 39 New
      +1
      "The Serbian government tried to give a rather conciliatory response to the ultimatum presented. However, it still did not accept some of the requirements contained in it. After that, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 15. The next day, Belgrade was subjected to the first bombing.

      Russia was considered the patroness and protector of Orthodox Slavic Serbia. When the war began, Nicholas II sent a telegram to the German Kaiser Wilhelm, an ally of Austria-Hungary. The Russian tsar "in the name of the old friendship" asked the Kaiser "to prevent the ally from going too far in an ignoble war declared to a weak country." Wilhelm replied that the perpetrators of the "dastardly murder" in Sarajevo must receive deserved retribution ... The exchange of telegrams between the monarchs did not lead to any agreement.

      The situation was heating up every day, every hour. On the night of July 18, Nicholas II announced a general mobilization. Germany immediately demanded that the measure be lifted within 12 hours. "
      Along the way, the imploring Kaiser was in Pikul's inflamed imagination.
  • Marat
    Marat 30 July 2013 12: 22 New
    0
    If we compare with the end of the 16th, then the Second World War is characterized by a comparison with the Battle of Kursk. When the last attempt of the Germans to seize the initiative was thwarted. Are there similar successes in the history of 1916 against the Germans?


    To be honest, I don’t quite understand what you are making comparisons between the First World War and the Second World War. Because our country took part in both of them, I don’t think this is such a correct comparison. For a long time the USSR fought almost alone and with no one coordinated their actions at the front, in WWI the allies almost always acted together (it's another matter that the "allies" very often substituted Russia), and success in this war could only come as a result of common efforts - the allies attack from the west, Russia from the east.


    What the Germans could and could not do, you can look at the results of the battles at Caporetto, as well as the operations of the beginning of the 18 year.

    The battle of Caporetto took place in the late autumn of the 17 year, that is, when the Eastern Front froze in the grip of revolution and the Austro-Hungarians had the opportunity to withdraw troops from there and throw them at the Italians, this is once again a confirmation that when leaving war of Russia at the Central Powers opened a second wind.

    That's right, again the main blow in Galicia. We slaughter the Austrians, and then the Germans arrive from the northern sector of the front and the offensive is choking. as well as the Brusilovsky breakthrough itself.

    The fact is that, by and large, no one could already arrive, since removing troops from one sector of the front there was a big risk of getting a breakthrough at the place where they were before - the offensive was planned on all fronts, including Russian. Ludendorff, incidentally, admitted that in 17 in Germany there were no illusions about the outcome of this war, a defeat was inevitable.
    I will add that even the June "offensive of Kerensky" showed that Russia had great chances of success in the April offensive. If even a small number of shock armies were able to break through the front and inflict damage on the enemy, what to say about a healthy, disciplined army. Plus artillery actions, which by that time had not yet had time to decompose, like many infantry units.
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 30 July 2013 13: 11 New
      +1
      To be honest, I don’t quite understand why you are making comparisons between World War I and the Great Patriotic War. For the reason that our country took part in both? I don’t think this is such a correct comparison.


      Yes, everything is simple. To assess the capabilities of the Russian Empire to end the war in Berlin, as the USSR did. And, as you can see, by analogy, it turns out not very good for RI.

      For a long time the USSR fought almost alone and did not coordinate its actions at the front with anyone, while in WWI the allies almost always acted together (it's another matter that the "allies" very often substituted Russia), and success in this war could only come as a result the common efforts of the allies attack from the west, Russia from the east.


      Well, you said everything yourself. If the USSR, fighting against the most powerful enemy alone, has finally completely seized the initiative in the war, then the Republic of Ingushetia at that time continued to suffer defeat after defeat from the Germans on a front that is secondary to them. What victory can we talk about here?

      The battle of Caporetto took place in the late autumn of the 17 year, that is, when the Eastern Front froze in the grip of revolution and the Austro-Hungarians had the opportunity to withdraw troops from there and throw them at the Italians, this is once again a confirmation that when leaving war of Russia at the Central Powers opened a second wind.


      Sorry, this is not a confirmation. There were simply no Germans on the Italian front before. Therefore, it was their debut and benefit at the same time. What I had the honor to tell you.

      The fact is that, by and large, no one could already arrive, since removing troops from one sector of the front there was a big risk of getting a breakthrough at the place where they were before - the offensive was planned on all fronts, including Russian. Ludendorff, by the way, admitted that in 17 in Germany there were no illusions about the outcome of this war — defeat was inevitable.


      And how could they have arrived in the 16, but not in the 17? I meant - from the eastern front, from where they were transferred to the 16. At the same time, the Brusilov breakthrough was also supported by the actions of other fronts. Only to no avail.

      I will add that even the June "offensive of Kerensky" showed that Russia had great chances of success in the April offensive. If even a small number of shock armies were able to break through the front and inflict damage on the enemy, what to say about a healthy, disciplined army. Plus artillery actions, which by that time had not yet had time to decompose, like many infantry units.


      http://www.proza.ru/2011/03/11/524


      This is very well written here, really, thanks to the author. Read and do not say more nonsense about who and when decayed or did not decompose.
      1. Marat
        Marat 31 July 2013 20: 28 New
        0
        What I read the article that you advised is quite entertaining and interesting. Only the author approached the problem on the one hand, I think that you can probably find the recollections of the war participants who wrote about the tsarist army in lighter colors (for obvious reasons, white emigrants noted this, and in the USSR it was not customary to say something flattering about this). I do not want to deny the truth of their words, but nonetheless. As they say, how many people, so many opinions.
        I did not say that Russia alone can decide the outcome of the company (more precisely, I mentioned that some historians say so), this could only be done through joint actions with the allies. It was just that when France resisted in 1914 and Russia in 1915, then defeat The central powers became only a matter of time. In 1916, they were enough only to defeat Romania, and on all other fronts they went on the defensive. Of course, not everything went smoothly for the poorly armed and accustomed to fight with the big blood of the Russian army, but heavy defeats were replaced by istatelnymi pobedami.Plyus to this war on the side of the Entente were to enter the United States.
        I do not agree that the Eastern Front was secondary: Russia alone fought with half of all the forces of the Central Powers (during the Second World War, this figure will increase even more), at the same time, the French, British, Belgians fought against the other half of the forces of the Germans and their allies, Italians, Portuguese, Serbs, plus the colonies of Western powers. Naturally, in such conditions the Russian army had a much more difficult time (plus, again, weak weapons and the "habit" of fighting with a lot of blood).
        1. Modus
          Modus 31 July 2013 22: 53 New
          0
          Dear Marat, m. You did not pay attention, but ALL that article of mine was written solely on the basis of the memoirs of White émigrés and officers who were protagonists of Soviet power. This was done on purpose so that there were no reproaches that "this is the look of the red."
          In the USSR, it was customary to "praise" the Lutsk (Brusilov) breakthrough, for example. Pikul greatly praised the actions of the BF in the years of WWI in his books. We can recall other examples.
          What kind of "brilliant victories" of our troops OVER THE GERMANS during WWI you can recall, curious ?!
          The Eastern Front FOR GERMANS throughout the war was then secondary. Both Hindenburg and Ludendorf and Hoffmann directly write about this.
          Even in 1915, they assigned relatively small (Western) forces to it. Basically, second-priority Reserve and third-order Landver Corps. They even used a land storm. The German Guard was in the West for most of the war. However, in my article this was discussed in some detail.
          1. Marat
            Marat 1 August 2013 13: 27 New
            0
            But you must admit that among the white emigrants in the overwhelming majority there were other moods and views on this issue. The Lutsk breakthrough was "praised" in the USSR for the reason that it was commanded by the future founder of the Red Army as such, and Pikul very often moved a little aside from historical events, by the way.
            Brilliant victories I had in mind Lutsk, Chernivtsi, Erzurum, Trebizond, that is, I had in mind the events of 1916, but I did not write specifically about the victories over the Germans. By the way, the Warsaw-Ivanovo operation can be called a defeat for the German army.
            I would also like to add that the Russian army of the late 16th and early 17th years and after the February Revolution are two big differences. Naturally, it was impossible to count on success with the most revolutionary army in Europe, but with the first one it was very (although it’s clear that high-quality the army was no longer the same as in the year 14).
            1. Modus
              Modus 1 August 2013 19: 45 New
              0
              So what they say there is not about their VIEWS, but about the FACTS about which they (patriots and convinced anti-advisers, we emphasize) tell in their books.
              1. Do you seriously consider Brusilov "the founder of the Red Army" ?! I must disappoint you, he publicly supported the Red Army after the Polish aggression in 1920, and the founder of the Red Army was L.D. Trotsky.
              2. Pikul VERY praised the BF for its actions in the WWI. In fact, everything was much sadder.
              3. "Lutsk, Chernivtsi, Erzurum, Trebizond" - the first 2 battles were against the Austrians, the second 2 against the Turks. Except for the Lutsk breakthrough, everything else is just tactical successes that did not play ANY operational or strategic role.
              4. Against the Germans (our main opponents) then, alas, not a single battle was won. The Warsaw-Ivangorod operation of 1914 can be said to have ended in a "draw". The Germans advanced with limited forces, supported by the Austrian army of Dunkl. Our troops relied on the most powerful fortifications of Warsaw and Ivangorod and the Vistula, brought the Guard into battle. In the end, the Germans simply retreated (while capturing a huge chunk of Russian Poland. What was our “victory.” The losses were heavy, the “feeling of inferiority” of our commanders and troops in front of the German army was preserved and strengthened.
              5. Do you know that in the Russian army at the end of 1916 there were already cases of refusal of entire regiments (!!!) to carry out military orders ?! The Guards (Special) Army suffered heavy losses during several unsuccessful attempts to capture Kovel (to develop the Lutsk breakthrough) was completely bled and taken to the rear. The collapse of the attack of the Western Front on Baranavichy (80 thousand killed) led to the fact that the Western (the most powerful in composition) front stopped even making attempts to attack the Germans from August 1916 to February 1917 (when the complete collapse of the army began), etc. . etc.
              1. Marat
                Marat 1 August 2013 22: 16 New
                0
                It is difficult for me to argue with you on this issue because you have more in-depth historical knowledge, moreover, confirmed by historical documents.
                But ... At the expense of Brusilov, I got excited, or, more precisely, I did not correctly formulate his position or employment in the Red Army. Naturally, the founder was Comrade Bronstein, along with the brave warrant officer Krylenko, and Brusilov served as an adviser to the Red Army, as far as I know. Therefore, he was praised Soviet historians, although the breakthrough itself ended with the "Kovel meat grinder".
                Further, I never claimed that Lutsk, Chernivtsi, Erzurum, Trebizond were victories over the Germans. Although the same Pikul praised the victory at Gumbinnen.
                Yes, I heard about this. If I’m not mistaken during the Mitau operation. But the army was still quite a living organism compared to the rear, the troops still held more or less, but were ready to postpone another year of the war, another large-scale offensive on the Eastern Front ( the situation will change dramatically after February) For example, General Vinogradsky wrote about this in exile. Even from a purely military point of view, 1917 should have been the year of the victory of the countries of the anti-German coalition, Russia alone should have ended up in the camp of victors.
                I would also like to ask you: how do you explain the initial success of the June offensive of 1917 and what conclusions can be drawn (not 100% of course), do the tsarist, even tired army, take part in this offensive? I would like to hear your opinion on this issue.
                1. Modus
                  Modus 2 August 2013 20: 03 New
                  0
                  Pikul was a good writer, but an unimportant historian. He has quite a few mistakes.
                  The initial success of the July offensive is explained by the fact that it was undertaken against the AUSTRIANS, suddenly for them (they thought that the decomposition of the Russians was complete, but we scraped together several more or less combat-ready units. There was a strong artillery preparation. Then the Germans threw in very modest reserves, a counterattack and began the most shameful flight, about which the commander-in-chief Cornilorv wrote in his order: "Shame and disgrace, which the Russian army has never seen."
                  The tactics of the Germans since 1915 provided for the abandonment (if necessary) of the 1st and even the 2nd line of trenches (if necessary) (if necessary) with their artillery and retreat to the 3rd and 4th lines. Russian troops occupied these German trenches, then a powerful artillery attack Germans and counterattack on them, resulting in heavy losses, many prisoners and a "zero" result for us.
                  Our commanders in WWI never came up with any "antidote" to this.
                  1. Modus
                    Modus 2 August 2013 21: 45 New
                    0
                    I found the full text of the Kornilov telegram (after the beginning of the July offensive):
                    "The army of maddened dark people, who were not protected by the authorities from systematic corruption and decay, who have lost their sense of human dignity, is fleeing. On the fields that cannot even be called battlefields, continuous horror, shame and disgrace reigns, which the Russian army did not know from the very beginning This calamity can be stopped, and this shame will be washed away either by the revolutionary government, or, if it fails to do this, other people will be brought forward by the inevitable course of history, who, having removed the dishonor, at the same time will destroy the gains of the revolution and therefore also will not be able to give happiness to the country. There is no choice: the revolutionary power must take a definite and firm path. Only in this is the salvation of the motherland and freedom. I, General Kornilov, whose whole life from the first day of conscious existence until now passes in selfless service to the motherland, I declare that the fatherland is dying and therefore, although unsolicited, I demand an immediate end to the offensive on all fronts in order topreservation and salvation of the army for its reorganization on the basis of strict discipline and so as not to sacrifice the lives of the few heroes who have the right to see better days. It is necessary to immediately, as a temporary, exceptional measure, caused by the hopelessness of the existing martial law, the introduction of the death penalty and the establishment of field courts in the theater of operations. One should not be mistaken: the measures of government meekness, undermining the discipline necessary in the army, spontaneously cause the indiscriminate cruelty of the unrestrained masses, and this element is manifested in riots, violence, robberies, and murders. One should not be mistaken: death not only from the enemy's bullet, but also from the hand of his own brothers, constantly hovers over the army. The death penalty will save innocent lives at the cost of the death of a few traitors, traitors and cowards. I inform you, who are at the helm of the authorities, that the time of words, admonitions and wishes has passed, that an unshakable state-revolutionary power is needed. I declare that, while occupying a highly responsible post, I will never in my life agree to be one of the instruments of the destruction of my homeland. Enough! I declare that if the government does not approve the measures I propose and thereby deprives me of the only means of saving the army and using it for its actual purpose of defending the homeland and freedom, then I, General Kornilov, will voluntarily resign my powers as commander-in-chief. 391 1. General Kornilov. For my part, I fully share the opinion of General Kornilov and support what he said from word to word. Commissioner Savinkov.

                    Comments are superfluous, it seems to me.
                    1. Marat
                      Marat 2 August 2013 22: 30 New
                      +1
                      Yes, more than nothing. As they say there is nothing to cover. By the way, I was always interested in the question of why the Germans, Austrians and Turks did not immediately take advantage of the collapse of the Eastern Front and the Caucasus, respectively, because it was possible to solve all problems in three counts and throw all the forces to the west. have they been held back by tacit agreements with the Bolsheviks for so long? Consult me ​​in this matter, if possible.
                      1. Modus
                        Modus 3 August 2013 14: 07 New
                        0
                        They tried to do so.
                        The Germans broke through the Western Front in March 1918 and everything hung there by a thread. Fortunately, the fresh American divisions (which had already arrived there) unexpectedly for everyone showed a very high combat effectiveness. It was a hefty "weight" on the scales of the Entente.
                        (By the way, during the WWII years, Canada alone gave England 600 thousand volunteers (!!!) of which 60 thousand died in battle).
                        ANYWHERE did not meet the numbers. How many volunteers were during the WWI in the Russian army.
                        In fact, the Germans then fought WITH THE WORLD (and had good chances to win, however). Even Japan during the WWII sang against them.
                        HERE what force was then the German army ...
                        Turks and Austrians also tried to throw their units from the Eastern and Caucasian fronts to the west. But their armies were much weaker than the German and did not play a special role, gradually decomposing.
                        By the way, the set of 1917 were serious riots in the French army, which they ruthlessly suppressed art. and machine-gun fire, not allowing the infection to spread.
                        Perhaps, during the years of WWII decomposition only English and American troops escaped.
                      2. Marat
                        Marat 3 August 2013 21: 41 New
                        0
                        Well, then I’m interested in such a question. Why the Central Powers didn’t solve all the problems with Russia in the summer of 17, imposing their enslaving conditions on it, while leaving a minimum of troops on the former Eastern Front? And again: how true is it that there were fights between the Red army and Germans in February 1918? Or is this another Bolshevik legend?
                      3. Modus
                        Modus 3 August 2013 21: 49 New
                        0
                        In the summer of 1917, it was obvious that the Russian army was rapidly decaying. They contributed to this with all their might (organization of fraternisations, etc.), a large German offensive on the Eastern Front THEORETICALLY could somehow "awaken" Russia, but they did not want this. They were waiting for a complete collapse.
                        In February 1918, there were skirmishes between the Red Guards and the advancing Germans. Calling them battles is difficult. February 23, 1918 was declared the "Day of the Red Officer", EMNIP. From here the date was taken, I guess.
                      4. Marat
                        Marat 3 August 2013 23: 11 New
                        0
                        Well, as far as I know, the Moonsund operation meant the capture of Petrograd, and only the loss of the German fleet forced the leadership to abandon this idea. It turns out that the Germans in the autumn of 17 tried to completely seal the Eastern Front.
                      5. Modus
                        Modus 4 August 2013 08: 51 New
                        0
                        This is Pikul (about the seizure of Petrograd) composed, EMNIP. In fact, this was a routine landing operation on the islands of the Moonsund archipelago. During WWI, the Germans were vitally dependent on the supply of iron ore from Sweden. If our BF (which had submarines and ALL the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia of Finland with convenient bays managed to disrupt these supplies, Germany would not have been sent (!!!) to wage war. Alas, the BF could not do anything. The Germans did not even organize convoys there The British, in despair from the impotence of our submarine fleet in the Baltic, sent there several of their E-class submarines. The fact that they were able to break through the straits (Belts) was a feat in itself. The British submariners fought much more successfully than ours, but they too could not disrupt this communication, which is so important for Germany.
                        Our historians try not to touch on this topic.
                      6. Marat
                        Marat 4 August 2013 13: 19 New
                        0
                        I did not start from Pikul, arguing about Petrograd. Although I read "Moonzund" in one breath, as a student. For example, M.V.Oskin writes that in addition to mastering the Moonsund positions, the Germans set themselves the task of "invading the Gulf of Finland and further through fortress Kronstadt to the Russian capital-Petrograd ".
                      7. Modus
                        Modus 4 August 2013 15: 17 New
                        0
                        I read both Oskin and Tirpitz.
                        Memoirs of the second are much more authoritative and informative, agree. He writes NOTHING about the fact that the Germans had a strange imagination to force the Gulf of Finland clogged with mines with landing ships, overcoming the fire of a battery of forts of Kronstadt, Ino, Kr. Gorki and Ser. Horses.

                        Well, if they wanted, then in 1917 or 18g. they could easily take Petrograd from land (one army corps would have been enough for them).
                        They were then in Batum and even in Tiflis with a minimum of their strength.
  • lexe
    lexe 31 July 2013 21: 55 New
    -1
    Marat 1st World is a railway blitzkrieg (it was thought).
    Germany has created an excellent railway network.
    Germany had a high population density, which means an advantage in mobilization.
    Also, the defense industry-industrial cluster is superimposed on this network, as they say now.
    I think pulling into our open spaces was more of a problem for the Germans, because it is much better to pound the enemy from the railway wheels and with a full warehouse.
    And excellent science and the search for advanced types of weapons. The sources of which lie precisely in the disunity of the Germans in the era of fragmentation. Every German state had universities with liberal politics in them.
    The caste of the officer corps, even against the backdrop of those years, was striking because Germany was a young empire and it was on an emotional upsurge — passionarity was going through the roof in all sections of the population.
    It was a monster who longed for blood because young empires always itch.
    And we? we were the largest uncut diamond.
    In any case, we would be inferior to the Germans in 1914. But the distance was sharply reduced and the Germans decided to take a chance so as not to regret what they lost.
    "habit" of fighting with great blood

    This habit was not a dominant feature in the Russian military school. The highly educated Russian officer was abhorred by the idea of ​​crushing with a number - the mind did not allow me to get low-level pleasure but was looking for more dodgy options.
    Although there were also enough "mediocrities". And the blood was often massively shed only because of the severe necessity and technical backwardness.
    By the holidays and dates (and in the entire history of Russia is full of dates) no one has put people ...