Military Review

Myths and legends of the First World

77
Since 2008, the Fund historical Prospects is working to restore the historical memory of the First World War. During this time, conferences and round tables were held in Moscow, Kaliningrad, Paris, Vilnius. Books have been published and a large number of articles have been published. The 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War is approaching. Today we are opening a special column, The Great War. 1914-1918. " Throughout the year, it will publish materials that destroy stereotypes about this war as inglorious and meaningless for Russia.


Myths and legends of the First WorldOn the eve of the 100 anniversary of the First World War, we have to state with regret that the memory of this most important event for our country occupies an undeservedly modest place in the Russian historical consciousness. What is the reason?

Of course, the role was played by the fact that the First World War was eclipsed by two revolutions in Russia and the Great Patriotic War, the Great Victory of May 1945, obtained by unprecedented in the history of national superpower. However, in terms of the degree of influence on the further course of Russian and world history, the events of the 1914 – 1918 years are of tremendous importance, predetermining the future World War II.

But the main reason for the undeserved oblivion of the First World War in the national consciousness is that it was subjected to distorted ideologized interpretations in Soviet times.

If you look at school and college history textbooks starting from the 1920s, in them this war is characterized as “imperialistic”, “unfair” and “unnecessary to the people”.

The reason is obvious. In line with the revolutionary historical “school of Pokrovsky” and the Institute of Red Professors, which laid down a class approach to history, everything that existed before the revolution was declared an archaic struggle for false and hostile “working people” interests. And most importantly, it was necessary to justify Lenin’s slogan: “The defeat of one’s own government in the war” is a catalyst for the world proletarian revolution. This morally questionable thesis could only be justified by declaring the First World War a "criminal imperialist slaughter."

It is not surprising that, after decades of ideological processing, the memory of World War I was largely erased in Russian historical consciousness. We barely remember and do not honor the heroes who fell in battles for the honor and dignity of the Fatherland. Unless Aleksei Brusilov is occasionally mentioned, and even then, thanks to his transition to the side of the Bolsheviks. We have almost no monuments related to the events of 1914 – 1918. Rare exceptions - a stele erected in 2008 in Tsarskoe Selo near St. Petersburg and a memorial stone in the Kaliningrad region on the miraculously preserved mass graves of the participants of fierce battles for their history.

Today, in connection with the upcoming centenary of the First World War, there was a reason to learn to consider this “second Patriotic” panoramic, while maintaining ownership and not varnishing anything. It is necessary to carefully restore the memory of those events, subjecting revisions to ideologically motivated assessments. And for this, first of all we have to dispel the most stable and destructive myths that make it difficult to appreciate the feat of our ancestors and realize the true meaning of 1914 – 1918 events for the history of Russia.

But what myths are we talking about?

Myth number 1. Russia should not have got involved in this war

Some of the dowry "history experts" like to replicate the thesis: "Russia's participation in the First World War is a folly and a tragic mistake that could have been avoided." Or: "We should not have interfered in this massacre in order to save Serbia." What can you say? Do not get rid of the impression that such assessments are a mixture of naivety and self-confident desire to put forward the antithesis of the dominant point of view.

Being one of the most active participants in the “European Concert of the Powers”, Russia could not stay away from events of such magnitude that unfolded right at its borders and in the region of its responsibility and security - in the Balkans and in the Straits (Bosporus and Dardanelles. - Ed. .). And the matter is not at all in the "imperialistic" desire to get new sales markets and the idea attributed falsely to Russia to seize Constantinople. Russia had its own, not yet mastered domestic market, which promised to become European in scale, and therefore was not able to withstand intense economic rivalry with other states.

And our country had no territorial claims at all. The specific goal of mastering Constantinople was never set. Yes, there was a dream - to set up an Orthodox cross on St. Sophia! (Looking at how the Turks today do not hesitate to celebrate the enslavement of Constantinople with a salute, you unwittingly dream about it ...) But geopolitically it would be necessary only so that the Straits could not be cut off. At the same time, Russia has always realized that mastering Constantinople is almost impossible and would cause such a unanimous rejection of the leading Western European powers, especially England, which no fabulous military power could have overcome.

There is only a note from diplomat Alexander Nelidov to the sovereign of 1896, where he reflects on the chance and possibility of taking Constantinople. This note was “sucked away” by the accusers of the “aggressive policy of tsarism” from the Institute of the Red Professorship. However, the fact is that at the ministerial meeting it caused a purely negative reaction! The sovereign himself left a remark: “IF that would have been possible!” At the meeting, they discussed the danger for Russia of the crisis in Ottoman Turkey, which would immediately cause entry to the Bosphorus of the fleets of Western European powers. The task was set in such a development of events to at least have time with everyone, so as not to be ousted!

According to documents, and not speculation, the question of Constantinople again began to be considered already during the war. In the year 1915, when between England and France, the question arose of dividing the Arabian possessions of Turkey and protecting the Orthodox in the former Turkish territories, England, by the way, had already gained control of oil-bearing Mosul and Kuwait. So, the concern for “democracy in Iraq” has very old and very mercantile motives! Russia then began to probe the possibility of a strong and responsible presence in Constantinople. But the achievable configuration was seen not sole, again, but by international control, “but with Russian cannons on the Bosphorus”. By the way, some historians believe that after agreeing on such an option, England begins to finance the revolution in Russia in order not to fulfill its promise ...


Strategic aspirations to the beginning of the 20th century converged on the European maritime borders of Russia in Eastern and Southeastern Europe and survived until the beginning of the 21st century.

The interests of the formed triangle of Britain, Russia and Germany collided in the Balkans, in the Straits region, as well as in the Baltic, where Germany was attracted by its ambitions in the East and where the interests of Britain and the United States immediately manifested themselves after the First World War.

The inevitability of Russia's involvement in World War I was determined by the critical need to protect the results of its centuries-old history! She was threatened by the loss of the results of three hundred years of work on the north-western and southern borders, strategic exits to the Baltic and Black Seas, and the loss of the right of passage through the straits. It was not for nothing that the outstanding Russian diplomat Alexander Gorchakov once said that the Black Sea straits are light powers, blocking which Russia is easy to suffocate.

The central powers, led by Kaiser Germany, simultaneously sought to "Drang nach Osten" and "nah Süden" - dreaming of a withdrawal to the warm Mediterranean Sea through the Balkans and about ousting Russia from the Baltic and from the Straits region. The success of such a plan would allow the Germans to cut Europe along the strategic meridian from sea to sea, throwing Russia into the tundra, and the French into the Atlantic. Kaiser Wilhelm strenuously built the fleet and railway Berlin-Baghdad, which threatened to devalue the sea routes of England to the oil regions of the Middle East.

Of course, Russia could not be indifferent to observe these events, for such a prospect would mean the end of the status of a great power and the subsequent loss of independence. As for the support of Montenegrin Serbia, we could not abandon it to the mercy of fate, not only for religious, but also for strategic reasons. In the event of its capture, we would have to meet the war that we started not in more unfavorable conditions - the seizure of the Balkans would create a strategic bridgehead, and the Kaiser would create a "Berlin Caliphate", becoming the gatekeeper of the Straits instead of the Turkish Sultan. And do not forget that Germany declared war on Russia, and not vice versa!

Myth number 2. Russia's actions were due only to geopolitics.

However, the movement to the First World War had, besides purely geopolitical goals, ideological motives. A huge number of communist, social democratic, masonic, liberal organizations did not think about national interests, but dreamed of the collapse of political systems and traditions in order to lead the world to a single model on the ruins of the old world. Representatives of these “progressive” circles were distinguished by fierce enmity towards the church, Christianity, traditional values, monarchy, and state sovereignty — all that they considered attributes of a “dark past.”

Moreover, such ideas were equally characteristic of not only the Bolsheviks with their project of the proletarian International. Countless secret societies directly hoped that the bloody clashes would turn Europe into a “clean board” on which, after the collapse of Christian monarchies, it would be possible to draw new ideological postulates of the future world.

Of course, Russia also could not stay away from these processes. As an Orthodox monarchy, it defended the ideals of traditional Europe during the First World War - classical international law, national sovereignty, religious and family values.

Even the formation of a Franco-Russian alliance for Russia — the bastion of Christian statehood — was hampered by the republican status of “godless” France, which had to be made “allied” in the eyes of Russia! For the sake of rapprochement between Paris and St. Petersburg, the Vatican had to work hard, for which the appearance of the Russian-French alliance was a desirable scenario. From his presentation, the cardinals began to sing toasts of the French Republic, which, by the way, plunged many orthodox Catholics into shock.

Russia did not seek war, that is a fact. At the root of the idea of ​​disarmament, international peacekeeping efforts and arbitration stood the Russian emperor Nicholas II, driven by a deep awareness of the coming era, when war became not a continuation of politics by other means, but the greatest global calamity, the death of millions of people, which made senseless even the victory. And unlike US President Woodrow Wilson, who, with his Program of XIV points, concealed the task of dictating his conditions through international mechanisms from the standpoint of his tremendously increased strength, there was nothing like this in the consciousness of a noble sovereign.

Thus, Russia in the First World War fought for its borders, for their security, for their already-found outlets to the sea, for sovereignty, faith and the fate of Christians.

Myth number 3. Russia should not take the side of the Entente, but Germany

Another popular myth is that in the First World War, Nicholas II allegedly chose an ally incorrectly, which ultimately led to the 1917 national tragedy of the year. Russia should have fought on the side of Germany, not the Entente! Some in their fantasies believe that Russia was ready for a separate peace with Germany during the war ... Of course, today it remains only to lament that Russian-German relations in the twentieth century were blown up by two terrible German campaigns to the East. After all, between Russia and Germany over the centuries there has been fruitful cooperation. It is not for nothing that the Germanic culture still maintains a steady, albeit small, Slavophil current.

But speculation can not withstand any criticism. It is impossible to ignore the fact that the main geopolitical ambitions of Germany lay precisely in the East. Yes, the legendary Otto von Bismarck bequeathed in no way with Russia to fight. His words are known: "In the East, we have no enemies." But for some reason, the German militarist circles, these chicks of the Bismarck nest, only looked to the East, forgetting about the wise warnings of the “Iron Chancellor”.

Already twenty years before the First World War, in a secret note by a prominent diplomat, future Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow, it is written: “In a future war, we must push Russia away from Pont Yevksinsky and the Baltic Sea. From the two seas that gave her the position of a great power. We must at least 30 years to destroy its economic position, bombed its coast. "

What does this mean? The war with Russia was considered inevitable in Berlin in the nineties of the XIX century!
Famous views of Kaiser Wilhelm, who hated the Slavs, speeches in the Bundestag, geopolitical doctrine of Friedrich Naumann, testifying to the territorial ambitions of Kaiser Germany in eastern Europe and in relation to the Russian Empire. There is a map of the Pangermanists 1911 of the year (by the way, it is very similar to the NATO expansion map to the East), which includes the Baltic possessions of Russia, Ukraine, all of Eastern Europe, the Balkans to the Black Sea. Finally, it is impossible not to recall the Brest peace concluded by the Bolsheviks: it shows the purpose for which Berlin fought the war.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the exorbitant ambitions of Austria-Hungary and Germany led to the collapse of Kaiser Germany and Austria-Hungary. The lesson was not learned, and Hitler repeated the suicidal rush. In Germany, some minds are still wondering how a gifted and booming nation with a gigantic cultural potential could blind the monstrous ambitions and erroneous geopolitical calculations? In his memoirs, the penultimate imperial foreign minister, SDD. Sazonov believed that if the Germans did not think of themselves as the master of the world at the beginning of the twentieth century, their rapid economic growth, the talent of industrialists and engineers, together with the ability to work effectively by themselves, would put Germany into first roles in Europe in ten years.

However, the rapprochement between Russia and Germany - a factor in the stability of continental Europe - causes a real nightmare in the Anglo-Saxons from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present. The same NATO bloc America created not only against the USSR, which was not at all eager to move to Western Europe, barely coping with the acquired control zone in Eastern Europe. One of the goals of European integration was to dissolve and shackle the historical potential and will of Germany.

Myth number 4. Russia fought badly

Another “class” assessment from Soviet textbooks is widely known: “Russia in 1914 was a stagnant despotism, backward in comparison with other great powers and doomed to failure”. However, experts have proved on documents that the acute difficulties in the economy and finance during the war were not exclusively a Russian phenomenon. The devaluation of the currency, the growth of public debt, the food crisis and the card system - all these phenomena were observed in other countries - participants of the war, including Germany and the UK. Russia's position was by no means worse than others.

A separate conversation is prejudice about the Russian army, which allegedly did not know how to fight and, with rare exceptions, acted unsuccessfully. The most victorious armed forces are not insured against mistakes and defeats. As for the unsuccessful offensive in East Prussia at the very beginning of the war, it was undertaken by Russia in response to the pleas of the French government. The words of Marshal Ferdinand Foch are well known: “If it were not for the sacrificial performance of the Russians on the Eastern Front, then Paris would have been taken already in the very first months of the war.”

Yes, Russia did not want war and met the First World War in far from the best shape, being weakened by the 1905 – 1907 revolution and the Russo-Japanese war. She was just beginning to recover from the crises, and her armed forces were in a state of renewal.
Nevertheless, it was on the Eastern Front that the final victory was ensured! Russia showed the strength of its national character and loyalty to its obligations, our soldiers and officers showed miracles of valor and selfless service to the oath even after the collapse of the Russian Empire (Russian Expeditionary Force in France). And many operations were included in the textbooks as examples of military-strategic art, for example, the famous Brusilovsky breakthrough. But even as a whole, an unsuccessful offensive in East Prussia made the French victory on Marne in September possible and predetermined the strategic configuration in the subsequent years of the war. In general, the victory of the Entente was paid for with Russian blood.

Myth number 5. Russia suffered a defeat

This conclusion is a clear simplification. Yes, it was during World War I that the prerequisites for the February and October revolutions, which became a national tragedy for our country, matured. However, Russia cannot be considered defeated. Another thing is that the country could not take advantage of the fruits of its victory after the Bolsheviks came to power, who removed her from the cohort of winners and gave to the Entente the creation of a drawing of a new world.

It was not for nothing that Winston Churchill wrote in those years: “We can measure the strength of the Russian Empire by the blows that it sustained, by the disasters that it experienced ... Holding the victory in her hands, she fell to the ground alive, devoured by worms”.

In this regard, the question arises: why did the powerful patriotic upsurge at the beginning of the war give way to skepticism, fatigue, defeatism, and revolutionary fever after some time?

Of course, the abrupt change of perception by the Russian society of the First World War is largely related to its protracted nature. During the months away from the motherland, war inevitably dulls the initial impulse. Numerous victims in a foreign land, can not pass without a trace. The justification of the war was the preservation of traditional values, honor and dignity of the state. Such eternal old ideals are able to inspire at the beginning of the war, but then they begin to lose violent, specific slogans. We are talking about anti-monarchical, pacifist and revolutionary ideas. Their propagandists trumpeting the "uselessness of war" and called for revolution.

Internal fierce exposures are always very good for the enemy, who did not stand aside and actively sponsored revolutionary activities. The German leadership was interested in supporting the most radical forces in Russia. I saw with my own eyes a photocopy of a telegram from the German and Austrian archives, which Kaiser Wilhelm read out at breakfast: “The transfer of Lenin to Russia was a success. Starts to the planned activity ". And in the State Archives of the Russian Federation there is a document - a receipt in receipt of five million gold marks for the activities of the Bolsheviks. The German archives also contain orders to “allocate 6, an 10 emergency budget item,” then “15” and “20” for millions of gold marks for revolutionary activities in Russia.

Thanks to generous financial injections, the Bolsheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries and separatists received great opportunities. Their agitators permeated the army, which after the February Revolution "democratized" to such an extent that the officers actually lost control over the soldiers. As a result, one agitator was enough for one regiment to disintegrate spirit and discipline to insubordination.

However, I am not one of those who believe that it is possible to bring a revolution from the outside. However, when the country staggered, the external impact is of great importance for what kind of forces will prevail ...

Two Russian revolutions 1917 of the year were the result of those deep-seated processes that began to disrupt Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. The revolutionary intelligentsia of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries demanded tracing paper from Western European institutions born of the philosophy of progress, which was poorly combined with the religious foundation of the Russian state idea and the Russian autocracy, which, without the support of the elite and separated from the people, lost its creative potential. Extreme nihilism of the Russian intelligentsia encouraged her to mercilessly trample everything that Russia defended in World War I - the Orthodox faith, the monarchy, the tradition of law-abiding, ideals of service to the Fatherland.

The first crisis, aggravated by economic realities and the Russian-Japanese war, ended with the first Russian revolution, the October 17 Manifesto and constitutional reforms. Why did the ten-year activity of the State Duma of the Russian Empire fail to prevent the February revolution and the October revolution? But did the deputies and parties of those convocations of the Duma want to prevent this? They, not only left radicals - Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, but also Cadets, liberals of all stripes - wanted to destroy, not create. In the last years before the First World War, Russia developed by leaps and bounds. In steel production, railway construction, printing and the number of students per capita, Russia was already catching up with Germany. But the tumultuous modernization of the social fabric, it burst out of tension, and the conservative peasantry that fell out of their own world did not find new social connections. There was a massive lumpenization of the population, and the lumpen were easy prey for revolutionary propaganda. To a considerable extent, the revolutionary explosion was prepared for too rapid changes. It is impossible to pour in young wine in old furs!

But the former (only?) Tribune needed the Duma members to aggravate social antagonisms, and not to protect the state - they learned to appreciate it only in emigration. The great reformer Stolypin threw it to them: “You need great upheavals, and we need a great Russia!”

While the Russian army shed blood for the territorial integrity of the Fatherland, from the stands of the clique against the "incomprehensible war" and the "decomposed" army in favor of separatists of all stripes (familiar?) Were often paid for by the oligarch and the first political strategist of the revolution Parvus at the expense of General Headquarters Kaiser Germany.

All signs of a crisis epoch were evident, when people in the ecstasy of change begin to break the pivot on which everything rests. And this passion for self-destruction befell the Russian Empire at the height of the First World War, when Russia was actually holding the victory in her hands.

Summary

The memory of the First World War is important for Russian society because it allows us to understand very important and fundamental things: “Why did we have to fight in the 20th century? What goals and values ​​of national existence do we need to defend in order to continue ourselves in history? ”After all, at the beginning of the twentieth century, Russia faced such domestic political and geopolitical challenges that miraculously repeated at the turn of the 21st century. The restoration of the historical memory of the 1914 – 1918 war can awaken the lost sense of continuity in our history and save us from repeating mistakes.

Perhaps one of the main lessons of the First World War is in one obvious, but bitter truth: it is impossible to unleash disputes about the organization of the state in the rear of the national war with an external enemy.

A nation that is able to postpone such disputes for the sake of preserving the Fatherland, wins and continues itself in history, retains the ability to argue further.

If a nation breaks up at a crucial moment, then this inevitably leads to the collapse of statehood, huge losses and fratricidal civil clashes.

The outcome of our sacrifice in the First World War teaches us that external challenges should unite the nation. It is a sin to use difficulties for domestic political purposes.
In addition, many of today's painful processes for us (NATO expansion) are easier to understand, knowing the geopolitical and ideological background of the First World War, especially since the power arrows of pressure on Russia during that war miraculously repeated in the 1990s.

We still can not find unity on many issues of the past, present and future, which is very dangerous for the nation. But if, holding on to the thread of history, to return to 1914 a year, then we again become one people without a tragic split. Therefore, we must learn a new way the First World War, which will give us a vision of the geopolitics of the twentieth century, and examples of boundless valor, courage and self-sacrifice of the Russian people. Only those who know the history are able to adequately meet the challenges of the future.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. zao74
    zao74 13 November 2013 18: 20 New
    +9
    "Perhaps one of the main lessons of the First World War is one obvious but bitter truth: it is impossible to unleash disputes about the structure of the state in the rear of the Patriotic War with an external enemy."
    Our country has been in a state of war since the beginning of the 90s, and only now have we begun to think about punishments for separatist slogans ... But they would have started to "destroy" their heads right away and the Union would not have been destroyed.
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 14 November 2013 05: 54 New
      0
      Whatever you say, the 17th revolution for the country was harder and worse than the 20 years of tsarism ...
  2. kaktus
    kaktus 13 November 2013 18: 50 New
    +5
    “The outcome of our sacrifice in World War I teaches us that external challenges should unite the nation. It is sinful and base to use difficulties for domestic political purposes.
    In addition, many of the processes that are painful for us today (NATO expansion) are easier to understand knowing the geopolitical and ideological underpinnings of the First World War, especially since the power arrows of pressure on Russia in that war were surprisingly repeated in the 1990s. "

    Absolutely right! And next year is 2014. There are reasons to think.
    1. Andrew-59
      Andrew-59 13 November 2013 19: 04 New
      +2
      And "power arrows" repeat the entire history of Russia.
    2. sub307
      sub307 13 November 2013 21: 24 New
      +4
      "Reasons to ponder" are present no matter what year is next. “Thinking” is not harmful at all. And, for sure, this "conception" should have been indulged in by those Russian citizens who contributed to the "reorganization" of the Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century and some citizens of the USSR at the end, during the collapse of the USSR.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  3. drop
    drop 13 November 2013 18: 54 New
    +8
    For work, I arrived in Pardubice in 1980. It was necessary to establish the creation of a new radar. After work on the first day, I walked through this amazingly calm, beautiful and mysterious city. For half an hour h stood at the monument to a soldier, the personification and symbol of those who died in the First World War. During the trip, the Czechs told me a lot about this war. And we knew about it from the words of a soldier Schweik. Sad
  4. drop
    drop 13 November 2013 18: 54 New
    0
    For work, I arrived in Pardubice in 1980. It was necessary to establish the creation of a new radar. After work on the first day, I walked through this amazingly calm, beautiful and mysterious city. For half an hour h stood at the monument to a soldier, the personification and symbol of those who died in the First World War. During the trip, the Czechs told me a lot about this war. And we knew about it from the words of a soldier Schweik. Sad
  5. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 13 November 2013 18: 55 New
    +7
    Quote: kaktus
    “The outcome of our sacrifice in World War I teaches us that external challenges should unite the nation. It is sinful and base to use difficulties for domestic political purposes.
    In addition, many of the processes that are painful for us today (NATO expansion) are easier to understand knowing the geopolitical and ideological underpinnings of the First World War, especially since the power arrows of pressure on Russia in that war were surprisingly repeated in the 1990s. "

    Absolutely right! And next year is 2014. There are reasons to think.


    Russia for the Yusovites is now not a goal, but rather an obstacle on the way to the goal, but the goal of China. I will explain. The Yusovites are weighing a big war to write off the external debt (that's why they are so abundantly developing new weapons systems). The Chinese, who own the largest chunk of this debt, folded 2 + 2, and began frantically to arm themselves and modernize the army (it comes to the point that they commission new ships, almost without full-scale testing of new systems). The second largest holders of the debt - the Saudis (knowing that on occasion they will be reminded of the Wakhabis and Bin Laden), also began to crawl sideways into the shadows and arm themselves (new tanks and planes in large numbers), as well as flirt with Moscow. And on the other hand, the last flirting of the Yusovites with the oil-bearing Iran to which they owe nothing is a sign that they are looking for a "blank slate". They have already prepared Libya and Iraq (the countries are weakened and in chaos), during the war they will be able to freely enter and use oil. With Assad, the game is even more subtle, he was weakened and scared and "forgiven", at hour X he will simply be pinned to the wall and forced to choose a side, and it is not a fact that he will not choose the Yusovites, especially if the Iranian card plays. The role of Russia in this scenario is an outside observer, and ideally an ally of the Yusovites - if it succeeds in pushing its heads against China. Anti-missile defense systems in Europe are being built against China, knowing that it will not stop the Russian arsenal. The United States needs a war against Russia in this whole game last. Again, the ideal scenario for them is "Russia is an ally." Since together they will tear China and its allies to shreds without unnecessary losses, the PRC will find itself geographically between a rock and a hard place.
    The most interesting thing - I suspect that this scenario is known in the Kremlin. Too early in time, Putin bailed out Obama in the episode with Syria and turned the gates from Saudi’s unprecedented generosity. Add another desire to reconcile Iran with the West ... suggestive, it is worthwhile to calculate the benefits of Russia from participating in such a redivision of the world. One worth removing OPEC from the oil rudder is worth it, and the prospect of turning China into the most powerful superpower on the planet of Russian analysts is no more pleasing than US analysts, they are all familiar with the model of the Cold War model - everything is familiar and predictable there. I will be happy to hear your opinions.
    1. optimist
      optimist 13 November 2013 22: 39 New
      +2
      Quote: And Us Rat
      I will be happy to hear your opinions.

      It seems to me that you are absolutely right about the fact that the Americans want to kill creditors. Only they will do it with someone else's hands. And the whole question is who will become these "hands". Russia, as well as 100 years ago, is "candidate number 1". And amers by and large do not care who will beat their heads with whom: Russia with China, Russia with the Islamic world, or all against everyone. Here, like in old American westerns: the main thing is to start a "mess, and then it doesn't matter who is who ..."
    2. mirag2
      mirag2 14 November 2013 05: 57 New
      +2
      Complete nonsense - the USA and Great Britain are our enemies!
      And no China, no need to enter into fornication.
  6. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 13 November 2013 18: 55 New
    0
    Quote: kaktus
    “The outcome of our sacrifice in World War I teaches us that external challenges should unite the nation. It is sinful and base to use difficulties for domestic political purposes.
    In addition, many of the processes that are painful for us today (NATO expansion) are easier to understand knowing the geopolitical and ideological underpinnings of the First World War, especially since the power arrows of pressure on Russia in that war were surprisingly repeated in the 1990s. "

    Absolutely right! And next year is 2014. There are reasons to think.


    Russia for the Yusovites is now not a goal, but rather an obstacle on the way to the goal, but the goal of China. I will explain. The Yusovites are weighing a big war to write off the external debt (that's why they are so abundantly developing new weapons systems). The Chinese, who own the largest chunk of this debt, folded 2 + 2, and began frantically to arm themselves and modernize the army (it comes to the point that they commission new ships, almost without full-scale testing of new systems). The second largest holders of the debt - the Saudis (knowing that on occasion they will be reminded of the Wakhabis and Bin Laden), also began to crawl sideways into the shadows and arm themselves (new tanks and planes in large numbers), as well as flirt with Moscow. And on the other hand, the last flirting of the Yusovites with the oil-bearing Iran to which they owe nothing is a sign that they are looking for a "blank slate". They have already prepared Libya and Iraq (the countries are weakened and in chaos), during the war they will be able to freely enter and use oil. With Assad, the game is even more subtle, he was weakened and scared and "forgiven", at hour X he will simply be pinned to the wall and forced to choose a side, and it is not a fact that he will not choose the Yusovites, especially if the Iranian card plays. The role of Russia in this scenario is an outside observer, and ideally an ally of the Yusovites - if it succeeds in pushing its heads against China. Anti-missile defense systems in Europe are being built against China, knowing that it will not stop the Russian arsenal. The United States needs a war against Russia in this whole game last. Again, the ideal scenario for them is "Russia is an ally." Since together they will tear China and its allies to shreds without unnecessary losses, the PRC will find itself geographically between a rock and a hard place.
    The most interesting thing - I suspect that this scenario is known in the Kremlin. Too early in time, Putin bailed out Obama in the episode with Syria and turned the gates from Saudi’s unprecedented generosity. Add another desire to reconcile Iran with the West ... suggestive, it is worthwhile to calculate the benefits of Russia from participating in such a redivision of the world. One worth removing OPEC from the oil rudder is worth it, and the prospect of turning China into the most powerful superpower on the planet of Russian analysts is no more pleasing than US analysts, they are all familiar with the model of the Cold War model - everything is familiar and predictable there. I will be happy to hear your opinions.
    1. tomket
      tomket 14 November 2013 01: 18 New
      +1
      Americans are unlikely to go to a big war, this time. debts to China concern them much less than, say, debts to their own citizens. It will be necessary, they will forgive all their debts to China, and China will not be able to do anything, just remain with empty pockets, while the Americans slowly began to drag production back to the states. the mechanism of such an event is the usual devaluation of the dollar. In the extreme case of default, as we have in 98, it would be much more interesting for them to choke up the Saudis, at least on the basis of putting a sweet pill for Israel, and begin to curtail all this fuss with terrorists and freedom fighters.
      1. studentmati
        studentmati 14 November 2013 01: 39 New
        0
        Quote: tomket
        Americans are unlikely to go to a big war, this time ..

        The rest is politics!
        1. SPLV
          SPLV 14 November 2013 14: 25 New
          0
          "Economy is the highest policy". Talleyrand, I think.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. rexby63
    rexby63 13 November 2013 18: 59 New
    +9
    Natalia Alekseevna famous anglophile. I personally would not speak so clearly about the need for Russia to enter the war precisely at the initial stage. If you want to prove and show your significance, you don’t need to rush and follow the path of doubtful friends
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 13 November 2013 20: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: rexby63
      Natalia Alekseevna famous anglophile. I personally would not speak so clearly about the need for Russia to enter the war precisely at the initial stage. If you want to prove and show your significance, you don’t need to rush and follow the path of doubtful friends

      And you, apparently, are a great connoisseur of the history of Russia in the XNUMXth century? Give references to your work on this topic - read, discuss ...
      1. 11111mail.ru
        11111mail.ru 13 November 2013 20: 28 New
        0
        Quote: stalkerwalker
        Give links to your work on this topic - read, discuss

        This is where we should start, my dear! How was it quoted ..? Will you be rewarded according to your deeds?
        1. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker 13 November 2013 20: 35 New
          +4
          Quote: 11111mail.ru
          This is where we should start, my dear! How was it quoted ..? Will you be rewarded according to your deeds?

          Make it clear. In addition to gloating, nothing is visible ...
          And it’s not for you to repay ...
      2. rexby63
        rexby63 13 November 2013 21: 23 New
        0
        Judging by what? I expressed my opinion, is this condemned? Or is it just being discussed? Then why such a sarcastic tone?
    2. avt
      avt 13 November 2013 20: 40 New
      +5
      Quote: rexby63
      Natalia Alekseevna famous anglophile.

      Here by, rather a francophone. Well, the situation obliges you, how to write something else when placing the main place of work of her foundation in France? She is an intelligent woman, but she doesn’t agree with the text, well, there are a lot of stretch marks in the inevitability of Russia entering the war, and even more so to pass defeat for victory. request What kind of wording is this so smooth? They didn’t lose the war, but didn’t use the fruits of victory, and they turned the country upside down? I don’t want to express myself sharply, I admit I respect her as an intellectual, well, a woman, moreover, let's say, the article is a good mine with a bad game.
      1. rexby63
        rexby63 13 November 2013 21: 40 New
        +1
        when placing the main place of work of her foundation in France


        No, her fund, just in Moscow. You must be confused with the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation.
        1. avt
          avt 14 November 2013 10: 01 New
          +1
          Quote: rexby63
          No, her fund, just in Moscow.
          Perhaps he was confused, it was just a memory of a magnificent discovery, probably of a branch in Paris, where the granddaughter of Scriabin - Molotov was noted there.
      2. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 14 November 2013 01: 13 New
        0
        And at the same time as in sex - they wanted a classic, they got some kind of non-standard perversion.
    3. optimist
      optimist 13 November 2013 22: 32 New
      +2
      Quote: rexby63
      Natalia Alekseevna famous anglophile

      She is, first of all, a loyal zh.poliz of the current government. The top officials know very well that the current situation in the country is absolutely identical to the situation 100 years ago. Those. it is necessary to stir up the "small and victorious" in order to distract the plebs from the impending problems. which can be attributed to the war ...
    4. Andrew-59
      Andrew-59 13 November 2013 22: 50 New
      +2
      And at what stage should a Great Power enter the war? ..
      1. avt
        avt 14 November 2013 10: 08 New
        0
        Quote: Andrew-59
        And at what stage should a Great Power enter the war? ..

        And look how America did it in both World Wars. Of course, due to the geographical realities of Russia, it’s difficult to act this way. However, Stalin took into account past results and did not rush headlong, negotiated, signed the pact, pushing the borders to the west. pact territories for us are strategic.
        1. Andrew-59
          Andrew-59 14 November 2013 22: 53 New
          0
          Did Stalin have allied commitments with someone? Or was he just trying to allies ...? And America and all this Western ... are the warriors.
  9. stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 13 November 2013 19: 03 New
    +4
    Huge thanks to the author, Madame Narochnitskaya!
    The article, of course, is a bit short - the site format limits, but is extremely clear.
    Thanks again !!!
    hi
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 13 November 2013 20: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: stalkerwalker
      The article, of course, is a bit short - the site format limits, but is extremely clear.

      Yes, probably the author should use the comic book format, then it would become clearer to you doubly, triple, in ...- not. Brevity is the soul of wit. The immensity can be embraced only in the anecdote genre, when the narrator and the perceiver are well aware of all the nuances of the case and you only need to place the appropriate punctuation marks and slightly adjust the style.
  10. Drosselmeyer
    Drosselmeyer 13 November 2013 19: 38 New
    18
    The author of the article contradicts herself. In her opinion, Russia got into the war even over the straits, but according to the Porthos principle: "I fight because I fight!" The author never explained why it was necessary to enter the war after the suppression of the revolution and the unsuccessful Russo-Japanese war. And about the fact that RI fought unsuccessfully and was defeated, the arguments are simply childish. Yes, the French were saved, but after all, with a successful command, it was possible not to destroy the troops in Prussia, but to defeat the Germans. Then there were only defeats, with Brusilov's partial success. And how can you say that the Republic of Ingushetia was not defeated if the army disintegrated and the state disappeared from the world map? Isn't this the worst defeat? It is now fashionable to blame all failures on the Bolsheviks and others. But excuse me, but what was Nicholas II thinking, knowing the internal situation in the country?
    Russia did not have to get involved in this massacre. Kaiser Germany is not Nazi and the first goals of Germany were to redistribute the colonies in Africa and the destruction of the British Empire. Most likely, Germany would have been defeated without Russia, just America would not have allowed to destroy the British Empire, which, in principle, happened after Russia left the war.
    1. predator.3
      predator.3 13 November 2013 20: 04 New
      +4
      Quote: Drosselmeyer
      and what was Nicholas 2 thinking about, knowing the internal situation in the country?

      And Nicholas sat in Mogilev, playing the role of the Supreme Commander, in the morning he cleaned the snow or chopped wood, and the empire was ruled by Empress Alice coupled with Grishka Rasputin, i.e. the emperor took to chance.
      1. maxvet
        maxvet 13 November 2013 20: 31 New
        +3
        predator.3 you apparently didn’t add about cat and raven hunting.
        By the way, about East Prussia and our help to the "miracle on the Marne", enlighten me, but at least once in this way our allies in the Entente helped the Russian Empire by sacrificing their soldiers?
        1. predator.3
          predator.3 13 November 2013 20: 46 New
          +1
          yes about the raven did not mention.
        2. Selevc
          Selevc 13 November 2013 22: 09 New
          +4
          Quote: maxvet
          By the way, about East Prussia and our help to the "miracle on the Marne", enlighten me, but at least once in this way our allies in the Entente helped the Russian Empire by sacrificing their soldiers?

          The allies more than repaid Russia during the intervention ... Taking advantage of the country's weaknesses, they came for a walk, robbed, hung and drove home, leaving everything to their fate here ...
          And this is a payment for tens and hundreds of thousands of soldiers thrown into endless attacks on German machine guns with slogans like "Help France" !!!
          The entire course of the 1st World War speaks of the useless planning of war and even the effective work of banal moles in the Russian General Staff ...
          In general, personally, in my opinion, the allies of the Entente and their own elite have great framed Russia in this whole story ...
          1. Marat
            Marat 13 November 2013 22: 34 New
            +5
            It turned out that Russia paid for the supply of weapons to the allies with the blood of a Russian soldier. Moreover, "Russian blood" was not taken into account when paying by the Entente. In short, the allies were worse than the enemy, even miserable Romania put a pig on us.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Andrew-59
      Andrew-59 13 November 2013 23: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: Drosselmeyer
      Of course, Russia could not watch indifferently for these events, for such a prospect would mean the end of the status of a great power and the subsequent loss of independence. As for the support of a single-faith Serbia, we could not leave it to its mercy, not only for religious, but also for strategic reasons. In the event of its capture, we would have to meet the war that we started not in more adverse conditions - the capture of the Balkans would create a strategic bridgehead, and the Kaiser would create a “Berlin Caliphate”, becoming the gatekeeper of the Straits instead of the Turkish Sultan. And do not forget that Germany declared war on Russia, and not vice versa!
    3. Damask
      Damask 14 November 2013 04: 45 New
      +1
      And you answer the question. What would you do if an abnormal very strong rowdy sits next to you, who wants to bring everyone to his knees with the help of a force that is only looking for a reason to fight. Then I would find allies, so as not to fight alone and not to be beaten.
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. Normal
    Normal 13 November 2013 19: 43 New
    +8
    The author’s arguments did not seem convincing to me.
    Not a single myth is refuted or debunked.
    For that, at the end of the article, there are clear analogies with today and an attempt to correlate the government and the revolutionaries then and the government and the opposition today. The only thing missing is the famous "don't rock the boat".
    That's just a problem; there’s no war now, or is the article an allusion to what is about to happen?
    Well, if the current ones do not have enough intelligence not to exchange the state for the realization of indefatigable ambitions, then, apparently, a revolution is inevitable. Very sorry.
    1. optimist
      optimist 13 November 2013 22: 48 New
      +2
      Quote: Normal
      or is the article a hint about what is about?

      And day by day I have a firm conviction that this is exactly the case. For the "Siberian Crane" and otherwise will not be able to retain power when the economy finally goes downhill. While salaries and pensions are paid relatively stably, the plebs are mostly silent. But as far as I understand, after the “limpiyada” everything will start. I know history relatively well (for a layman) and I see that the external and internal situation now 100% corresponds to the situation 100 years ago. By the way, about the article. Madame Narochnitskaya for some reason "modestly" kept silent that the Germans declared war on Ingushetia after the start of mobilization. Nicholas would have sat quietly, I doubt, his descendants would still stick out on the throne ...
  13. Yarosvet
    Yarosvet 13 November 2013 19: 47 New
    16
    The main lesson ... it is impossible in the rear of World War II ... blah blah blah ...

    The main lesson is to reduce people to the state of cattle (while providing themselves with supercomfortable living conditions), then throw these people into the meat grinder of the war waged for their own prestige, and then appeal to the patriotic feelings of these people, replacing the concepts of "Motherland" and "Fatherland" , with their property and their Wishlist.
  14. makarov
    makarov 13 November 2013 19: 54 New
    +2
    "..And in the State Archives of the Russian Federation there is a document - a receipt for the activities of the Bolsheviks of five million gold marks. The German archive also contains orders" to allocate 6 million under Article 10 of the emergency budget ", then" 15 "," 20 "million gold stamps for revolutionary activities in Russia.
    Thanks to generous financial injections, the Bolsheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and separatists received great opportunities ... "

    And in previous materials, some figures also minus me precisely for these calculations. Say this can not be. Dullness and wretchedness of thinking.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 13 November 2013 21: 59 New
      +8
      Quote: makarov
      The German archive also contains orders “to allocate 6 according to Article 10 of the emergency budget”, then “15”, “20” million gold marks for revolutionary activity in Russia.

      So what did you highlight? What is 20 million against the richest state on the planet? And how much could the tsar allocate to fight the revolutionaries - if he wanted to? I think a lot more. For example, with his great-grandfather Nikolai, the 1st order in the country was such that none of the troublemakers dared to utter a peep ...
      It is not a matter of revolutionaries, but of the rotten power of tsarist Russia, which just so allowed to take power in the country of visitors to radical groups ...
    2. wax
      wax 14 November 2013 01: 42 New
      +2
      Maybe I minus you, referring you to serious work. You brought a quote from Narochnitskaya, but this is babbling, whose receipt? Moreover, "for the activities of the Bolsheviks." Where did this document come from in the state archive of the Russian Federation? Did the Bolsheviks keep it? Don't you notice the props? A copy of the telegram, but she saw the original. And what is this telegram talking about?
      Only that the Germans watched Lenin's passage. How else. In the German archives, under Article 6 of the emergency budget, there are millions "for revolutionary activities in Russia." Don't tell my slippers. And further in the heap - the Bolsheviks (of course, the first to be named), Socialist-Revolutionaries and SEPARATISTS (!). Yes, the HISTORIAN. Maybe she was a historian, but she became a lured propagandist and agitator. Moreover, the thought creeps in that it is anti-Russian. It's a pity. So she debunked the myth that Russia shouldn't have entered the war? Is there anyone here who believed her? It was not the historian Narochnitskaya, but the dissolute peasant Rasputin who was right - Russia did not need it, but England needed it, for which he received a bullet in the forehead from the British. It's a pity. It is a pity that Narochnitskaya began to exchange herself for cheap fiction.
      1. wax
        wax 14 November 2013 02: 27 New
        0
        Add a reference to the American researcher of documents Sisson
        http://wiki.istmat.info/док:документы_сиссона
        Everything is painted there as if by notes and without any saw, said, etc.
        In addition, it must be borne in mind that at such troubled moments in history, misinformation begins to roll. Kerensky, in his memoirs about the accusations of the Yolsheviks of German financing, writes that documents were offered with evidence of everything you want, just pay.
  15. makarov
    makarov 13 November 2013 19: 55 New
    -4
    "..And in the State Archives of the Russian Federation there is a document - a receipt for the activities of the Bolsheviks of five million gold marks. The German archive also contains orders" to allocate 6 million under Article 10 of the emergency budget ", then" 15 "," 20 "million gold stamps for revolutionary activities in Russia.
    Thanks to generous financial injections, the Bolsheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and separatists received great opportunities ... "

    And in previous materials, some figures also minus me precisely for these calculations. Say this can not be. Dullness and wretchedness of thinking.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 13 November 2013 20: 00 New
      +4
      Quote: makarov
      And in previous materials, some figures also minus me precisely for these calculations. Say this can not be. Dullness and wretchedness of thinking.

      Everything is fine.
      Mrs. N. Narochnitskaya "put the hooligans in the corner from history."
      Well, cons are the inevitable fee for the right to be heard. laughing
    2. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 13 November 2013 20: 17 New
      +5
      Judge not lest ye be judged!
      In hindsight, the "democrats" "found" somewhere in the archives of either the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, or else somewhere a typewritten COPY, of course, with autographs of either Stalin, or Molotov to the supposedly secret supplements to the Molotov PACT -Ribbentrop ", and, by the way, GB extended the secrecy rank based on the materials of R. Hess's flight to the UK right up to 2017!
      Here is "tolerance" for you! All their tolerance boils down to hysterical propaganda of adherence to truth and the spirit of truth, with an immediate readiness to shove these principles not only into their own pockets, but into their opponents' dupu!
      1. maxvet
        maxvet 13 November 2013 20: 35 New
        +1
        Any revolutionaries took money from those who gave them this money (the Irish from Hitler, Pilsudski from the Kaiser, from the USSR what kind of revolutionaries didn’t take money for beautiful promises). The bottom line is how promises were kept later. Although I think that the Germans themselves knew such promises the price, the main thing for them is "rock the boat"
    3. Yarosvet
      Yarosvet 13 November 2013 20: 37 New
      +6
      Quote: makarov
      ..A in the State Archive of the Russian Federation there is a document

      If I declare that Narochnitskaya has a check for 20 lem of cabbage in the depository of Sberbank that McFaul wrote to her for writing this article - will you ask me to prove it, or will you take a word like Narochnitskaya? smile
  16. Andrey Peter
    Andrey Peter 13 November 2013 20: 39 New
    +3
    Quote: stalkerwalker
    Huge thanks to the author, Madame Narochnitskaya!
    The article, of course, is a bit short - the site format limits, but is extremely clear.
    Thanks again !!!
    hi

    I would have stated the same thing easier (although perhaps not right). This war exhausted both Germany and Russia. And so Germany realized that Russia still has more resources - she went to bribe political parties in Russia. And I must admit Parvus has completed this task very successfully. I would not get involved in this Ulyanov (Lenin) I think I would buy another. This money allowed the revolution to start, of course, which weakened Russia. And allowed Geramania to get out of the war almost a winner. But then went the game of Lenin, who had to restore order in the country and not forget to settle accounts with his sponsors (speaking in modern language). And you know the general result, both countries are busted and each has its own problems. As for the Russian officers, in World War I they fought with dignity and glory. And they are not to blame for the sovereign being weak and unable to control the country, but more concerned about his family.
    Well, if I'm sorry, but it's short hi
    1. wax
      wax 14 November 2013 02: 09 New
      +3
      Lenin sent Parvus to hell; all Bolshevik organizations were forbidden to deal with the provocateur Parvus.
      Can you find something interesting here
      http://tr.rkrp-rpk.ru/get.php?1402
      You can read about Sisson's "documents" at least here
      http://www.plam.ru/hist/nemeckie_dengi_i_russkaja_revolyucija_nenapisannyi_roman
      _ferdinanda_ossendovskogo / p9.php
      but you can here http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1872537?uid=3738936&uid=2&uid=4&sid=211029
      17775307
      Etc. Everything has been verified long ago, and Mrs. Narochnitskaya refutes myths invented and gives a second wind to old myths that have long been exposed on the basis of meticulous research on documents. Even Goebbels, sitting on the German archives, did not think of thus pouring mud on the Bolsheviks.
  17. Alexha
    Alexha 13 November 2013 20: 53 New
    +5
    Every revolution is a tragedy, one can agree with the author. But fortunately for Russia, its revolutions led to an unprecedented take-off of the country, turning it into a world superpower. As for World War I, here: http://nvo.ng.ru/history/1-2008-11/21_12.html everything is shown much more substantively, specifically, with figures and evidence.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 13 November 2013 21: 48 New
      +1
      Quote: AlexHa
      Every revolution is a tragedy

      Why is there necessarily a tragedy? For example, the French are proud of their revolution ... And despite a really bloody beginning, it lifted France to unprecedented heights and united the nation like no other French king could have done before ... In addition, the French Revolution gave the world such absolutely progressive things as "Civil Code" and "Human Rights" ...
      And the slogan "Peace to huts and war to palaces" - in that situation was very fair, since these very "palaces" were obviously snickering !!!
      1. Alexha
        Alexha 13 November 2013 22: 11 New
        +1
        So I am about the same. But isn't the "bloody beginning" a tragedy?
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 13 November 2013 22: 21 New
          +2
          Quote: AlexHa
          But isn't the "bloody beginning" a tragedy?

          This is a tragedy - but such events on a global scale are usually rarely bloodless ...
  18. shasherin_pavel
    shasherin_pavel 13 November 2013 21: 19 New
    +6
    In order to consider in the right light the defeat of the country in the First World War, it is necessary, in my opinion, to begin the analysis of the facts of 1902. This was the year when a severe drought destroyed the crop in the country and led to starvation among the peasants. The famine brought hunger riots in 1903, and in some areas such riots were crushed by soldiers and sometimes even with weapons. Hunger riots were also suppressed in 1904. With the outbreak of the Japanese War, primarily peasants underwent mobilization. Mobilizing a worker with at least some qualifications is too expensive for breeders, and this is especially true in the heavy industry working for the front. Just shortly before the war, the demand among officers for like gloves increased sharply. You may ask: why are like gloves and defeat in the First World War? The thing is that before the war, the fashion of fighting again returns among the officers, and the soldiers' muzzles must be beaten with gloves so as not to get their hands dirty. Well, the peasant who received the rifle and got a couple of times in the face for its poor content can learn to care for the rifle ... Do not think that I hate Russian. To understand the difficulty of a Russian peasant mobilized for war, one must read the pre-revolutionary Russian writer Garshin. Now it’s even difficult for us to imagine the denseness faced by the writer himself, who settled in the village. But imagine a navy sailor: here is no longer a rifle, but armadillos and cruisers. And how many tons of ore you need to fill in the coal holds of the cruiser, designed for a long hike and you need to imagine what the armadillo or cruiser looked like after such a load. After loading coal, hours-long cleaning of the ship from coal dust follows. And so the officer goes on the upper or lower deck in his like gloves and with a handkerchief checks the cleanliness of the handrails. If the handkerchief is dirty, you can throw it away, and if the like glove gets dirty about something, then the sailor’s snout to the knocked out teeth or to the blood. The gloves are naturally overboard or in the furnace of the ship, and a new pair of like gloves are pulled out of the pocket. A soldier starving and flogging for hunger riots from 1902 to 1904, with broken teeth rides to the front and there he receives by no means joyful letters from the village where the family was left without a breadwinner. Let's fast forward to closer times - in 1927. Having opened the Political Dictionary of 1928, we can read that vacation for a worker with cash support exists only with the USSR. Pensions for all citizens of the country exist only in the USSR. No country in the world has a pension for workers. In Russia, pensions existed for public servants in high positions - these included Vladimir Ulyanov’s father, who lived on this pension of his parent and earned his first salary only at 27 years old. This is an exception even for a public servant. And how did the peasant family exist from which the breadwinner was mobilized. Very often, everything is blamed on the unsuccessful design of guns, shells and the lack of systems to save ships from overturning. And they completely forget that in the tsarist army, most often positions were bought with money or gifts, sometimes even with the wife of higher authorities. This practice was sometimes encountered during the years of V.O.V. among the wives of the commanders or marshals. Why three cruisers of the Pacific squadron in Vladivostok raiding on the coast of Japan panicked the command of Japan, and they were not hindered by poorly designed guns or bad shells. Admiral Makarov suppresses the beating of sailors, raises his spirits and is already preparing to give a decisive battle to the Japanese at sea, but the tragedy at sea takes the life of this commander and the life of the artist Vereshchagin. The actions of Rozhdestvensky, Kuropatkin and other commanders lead to defeat in the Japanese war.
    1. edmed
      edmed 14 November 2013 07: 46 New
      +2
      hi Excellent comment! Instead of investigating the problem from "roots" to "tops", some historians grab the "tops". It was the social structure that led Russia to defeat in 1905 and 1917. As some historians claim, the February roar. happened because of problems with the delivery of grain to Petrograd, and not because the Germans, British, Americans, Japanese, Martians, gave money to the revolutionaries.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. Shesternyack
    Shesternyack 13 November 2013 21: 34 New
    +5
    "A huge number ... of organizations did not think about national interests, but dreamed of the collapse of political systems and traditions, in order to bring the world to a single model on the ruins of the old world. Representatives of these" progressive "circles were distinguished by fierce hostility to the church, Christianity, and traditional values. .. "
    How are these ideas similar to the ideas of modern "liberals" about a "bright future"
  21. alone
    alone 13 November 2013 21: 50 New
    +2
    Unfortunately in Soviet times, insufficient attention was paid to studying the history of the First World War. I read the article with interest. This is still our common history.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 13 November 2013 22: 05 New
      +4
      Quote: lonely
      unfortunately in Soviet times, insufficient attention was paid to studying the history of the First World War ...

      That is why they called them "imperialist".
      But, as N.A. Narochnitskaya rightly noted, it was precisely in the results of World War I that the reason for World War II was laid.
  22. polly
    polly 13 November 2013 22: 08 New
    +2
    The estimates of that war are ambiguous, but we will honor and remember our fallen soldiers, and we will not remember ours, because all people are born to live ...
    In my small homeland, in the city of Spassk-Dalny, Primorsky Krai, there is a monument located on the street. Gorky. It was created in 1917, the author and sculptor are unknown. The monument is a truncated conical shape made of wild stone. The monument has a circular inscription: “The soldiers of Austria-Hungary, Germany and Turkey rest here”. The inscription is repeated three more times in other languages, including Arabic script. At the end, the date is “1917”. At the time of the opening, it was not just a monument, but a whole memorial complex with alleys that demarcate the graves.
    In 1917, the current location of the monument was the outskirts of Spassk, where soldiers of the First World War who died from wounds and illnesses were buried from the Spassky garrison camp of the Amur Military District, located in Spassk in 1915-1920. The number of prisoners of war of the Austrians, Hungarians, Turks, Bulgarians reached 8400 people. Many prisoners participated in the events of the civil war in 1918. Germans and Hungarians are on the side of the Red Army, Czechs and Slovaks are on the side of the White Guard. Few returned to their homeland. In autumn 2009, the monument was captured by Far Eastern television for a documentary about the Civil War in Primorye
    1. polly
      polly 13 November 2013 22: 18 New
      0
      Unfortunately, today the landscape around the monument has changed significantly and far from for the better, but people come, which means they remember ...
  23. Ross
    Ross 13 November 2013 22: 10 New
    0
    Quote: zao74
    "Perhaps one of the main lessons of the First World War is one obvious but bitter truth: it is impossible to unleash disputes about the structure of the state in the rear of the Patriotic War with an external enemy."
    Our country has been in a state of war since the beginning of the 90s, and only now have we begun to think about punishments for separatist slogans ... But they would have started to "destroy" their heads right away and the Union would not have been destroyed.

    If you look closely at the tsar's policy during the war inside the country, you are amazed. No censorship or control - German spies felt at ease. No cards, no martial law, no strike ban. The February revolution was pushed by a sharp rise in the price of bread in the month before February (remember the Egyptian "revolution" of our days - the same key!), All trade in which was concentrated in Jewish trading companies. Where was the power? After all, there is a long-term difficult war!
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. c3r
    c3r 13 November 2013 22: 11 New
    +1
    interesting article, and most importantly, the topic is relevant and almost unknown
  26. shasherin_pavel
    shasherin_pavel 13 November 2013 22: 32 New
    +4
    We are already moving on to 1916, and here we can recall that in the trenches noble officers come up with new punishments for soldiers, one of which has become massive is to put a soldier on the parapet under arms for ten, twenty minutes. And the soldier stands in German bullets facing the enemy and waits for his death every second. Why did such hatred of any officer flare up after the revolution? And someone else did not understand that there was nothing to fight for a Russian soldier in the First World War. And the first collapse of the army began after the February Revolution, with the creation of soldiers' committees, where a Russian soldier - a former hungry peasant, brought to the last anger by a massacre, could choose whether to go to war or not. And any war is won in many respects by the courage of the soldiers who know what they are fighting for, and, secondly, by the military talent of the command.
    1. wax
      wax 14 November 2013 02: 36 New
      +2
      It should also be added that the rumors about one rifle for three soldiers come precisely from that war, and zealous demo-historians added this to the Second World War.
      England supplied a lot of weapons (only fight, Russia !, coffin your people in the name of the allies), and not always of high quality. You can read about one rifle for three from the English ambassador of that time, George Buchanan, "My Mission in Russia" (1910-1918).
  27. Mikado
    Mikado 13 November 2013 22: 34 New
    +2
    "It's another matter that the country was unable to take advantage of the fruits of its victory after the Bolsheviks came to power, who brought it out of the cohort of victors and left it at the mercy of the Entente to create a drawing of the new world."

    The author, apparently, believes that if the Bolsheviks did not come to power, then after the defeat of Germany, the Entente would give Russia everything that was promised. I hasten to disappoint, even before the Bolsheviks arrived, the interim government recognized the independence of Poland (entered into force after the end of the war), negotiations were underway to recognize the independence of Finland, and there were raging uprisings in Central Asia and the Caucasus. With such a precarious situation inside and outside the country, even if the victors emerged from the war, Russia would see the hole from the donut from the Entente, and not Tsargrad with its straits. Yes, and would have cut pieces from it no less than with the Bolsheviks then lost.
    Well, there are many other historical errors in the article, for example, the same Kuwait, the British otkhapali themselves back in 1899, and not in 1915.
  28. studentmati
    studentmati 13 November 2013 22: 35 New
    0
    Well, if you recall Suvorov’s campaigns?
  29. Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 13 November 2013 22: 43 New
    +4
    I really respect Natalya Narochnitskaya as a historian, and indeed in general, but in terms of this rhetoric, her patriotism collides with, as I call myself, imperial history (a history that can be counted and measured), which speaks of an incredible "shell hunger ", about the lack of a sufficient number of small arms (that's really where there really was one rifle for several soldiers and there was no cartridge) and ammunition for it (the British talk about our attacks with guns, like with clubs ...), about the absence of machine guns etc. All this does not negate the valor of the Russian soldier and officer, but levels out the reasoning about victory ...
    Nevertheless, GLORY TO RUSSIAN HEROES! After all, as, once, someone agreed that "partners" achieve victories against each other with the blood of the Russian people.
  30. Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 13 November 2013 22: 46 New
    +3
    Of the First World War, the most forgotten episode is the participation of the Russian Expeditionary Force in battles on the Western Front hi


  31. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 13 November 2013 22: 49 New
    +1
    I apologize to all of you, but the topic offends and there are related relatives from the Cossacks.
  32. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 13 November 2013 22: 49 New
    0
    I apologize to all of you, but the topic offends and there are related relatives from the Cossacks.
  33. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 13 November 2013 22: 53 New
    +2
    here they are Russian heroes of those times
  34. Greyjojo
    Greyjojo 13 November 2013 22: 56 New
    +2
    Of all the tirades, I still did not understand:
    1) what were the goals and objectives of Russia in that war, especially this was pulled to enter the war without reserves and until the mobilization was completed, Maybe because the domestic industry was 70% foreign and the decision was made not by the emperor, whose Germans began to fry it? :)
    2) Why skillful army retreated in 14, 15 years;
    3) If it was for the faith of the tsar’s fatherland, then why did private enterprises ship military products with a 100-200% mark-up, and did the soldiers refuse to attack?
    4) Why skillfully fighting army suffered the largest losses among the countries of the Entente, and slightly less than Germany?
    1. Andrew-59
      Andrew-59 13 November 2013 23: 34 New
      0
      Read the article again.)) "While the Russian army was shedding blood for the territorial integrity of the Fatherland, from the rostrum they were clamoring against the" incomprehensible war "and the" decayed "army in favor of separatists of all stripes (familiar?) .."
      1. Greyjojo
        Greyjojo 14 November 2013 02: 29 New
        +1
        in 14 and 15 years ???
        mine was killed by the lack of shells, heavy artillery - as a result of the "patriotism" of "domestic" capitalists.
        And not some meetings there ...
        1. Andrew-59
          Andrew-59 14 November 2013 22: 55 New
          0
          And rallies as well.
      2. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 14 November 2013 10: 31 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrew-59
        "While the Russian army was shedding blood for the territorial integrity of the Fatherland, from the rostrum they clamored against the" incomprehensible war "and the" decayed "army in favor of separatists of all stripes (familiar?) .."

        Some "opponents" SEE only what they WANT TO SEE.
        1. Andrew-59
          Andrew-59 14 November 2013 22: 58 New
          0
          Some do not see anything, or see in the Soviet interpretation. The author is right ..
  35. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 13 November 2013 23: 03 New
    0
    Warriors who fell for the Fatherland!
  36. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 13 November 2013 23: 03 New
    +1
    Warriors who fell for the Fatherland!
  37. Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 13 November 2013 23: 08 New
    +2
    Well, I’ll add it on my own .... Again, according to PMV .... I don’t remember the author, I only remember the text, excuse me hi

    You went to the Masurian swamps
    Defending France's prestige,
    Russian Guard Infantry,
    Knowing Paris firsthand.

    A Supreme Regal Will
    He tore shoulder straps from the officers shoulder
    Sent the Semyonava system
    Chest on the "thorn" and buckshot.

    And Russia received loans,
    Entente selling you in advance.
    Only water lilies full of tears
    They still mourn you.

    And went to the Masurian swamps
    Glory to Peter the Great
    Russian Guard Infantry
    In Prussia, she stayed forever.

    And the blood goes thick
    Blowing fires with you.
    As if the Earth inside is empty -
    So much blood is needed in this ball.
    (C)
    1. Andrew-59
      Andrew-59 13 November 2013 23: 28 New
      +1
      Zvyagintsev.
      1. Landwarrior
        Landwarrior 14 November 2013 07: 21 New
        0
        Excellent thank you.
  38. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 13 November 2013 23: 17 New
    +2
    And where now can we see our HEROES?
  39. negeroi
    negeroi 13 November 2013 23: 28 New
    +4
    The army retreated because the author didn’t mention at all that the allies were worse than the enemies. They threw us banally. The shells. The British company Vickers didn’t put artillery shells on the Russian army. And even British researchers believe that the losses of the Russians were 1,5 million, at the beginning wars are a consequence of the lack of shells that Vickers did not put up, explaining that they themselves were needed. They simply exterminated us. They dragged us into the war and didn’t put weapons under contracts. Classic scam. To weaken Russia, so that we would die more, along with the Germans. not everything is as the author described it. And this is not a myth at all. It is clear that the authors have their own speculative goals. Through the fault of the Grand Duke, commander of the Western armies, and through the fault of the Allies, who did not even conduct active hostilities. And we did not have artillery, ammunition. From here and such monstrous victims.
  40. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 13 November 2013 23: 42 New
    +5
    And here is my relative and His ORDER I will not give to anyone or sell to you - I am RUSSIAN!
  41. Stinger
    Stinger 13 November 2013 23: 42 New
    +5
    As one friend of mine said, sometimes they weigh up stories on the scales. In my opinion, this article is just such a case.
    Firstly, no one doubts the valor and courage of Russian soldiers and officers. It is also impossible to call cowards and warriors of other countries.
    Secondly, the corporate interests of moneybags, the ambitions and greed of the rulers, under false wailing about the need to protect the fatherland (each from its enemy), dragged millions of people into the slaughter for interests alien to them. The attitude of peoples to these noble appeals is well described by Hasek, and Remarque, and Stendhal, and many other writers. We have, yes, not described. It was not before that. To say that this war was not "imperialistic", "unjust" and "unnecessary for the people" is to deny the obvious. And, as you know, the best politician is one who, relying on the ignorance of the masses, confidently denies the obvious.
    Thirdly, Dumas the father was right: History is like a nail on which you can hang anything.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 14 November 2013 10: 33 New
      +3
      Quote: Stinger
      To say that this war was not "imperialistic", "unjust" and "unnecessary for the people" is to deny the obvious. And, as you know, the best politician is one who, relying on the ignorance of the masses, confidently denies the obvious.

      The winners write the story ...
      Further down the text.
  42. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 14 November 2013 00: 31 New
    +1
    Beautiful RUSSIAN guys, and now anal-lytics will tell you the whole "truth"
  43. family tree
    family tree 14 November 2013 01: 07 New
    +2
    Very true article. Completely, from beginning to end, corresponds to the name Myths and legends of the First World War belay
  44. AlexxxNik
    AlexxxNik 14 November 2013 01: 13 New
    0
    [i] In this connection, the question arises: why did the powerful patriotic upsurge at the beginning of the war after a while give way to skepticism, fatigue, defeatism and revolutionary fever? [/ i
    perhaps because even then the media were perfectly controlled from the outside and did not work at all for the tsar-priest. One fine morning, a cry begins that Rasputin is sleeping with the queen, the war is not ours, the generals are traitors, and so on.
  45. uzer 13
    uzer 13 14 November 2013 03: 40 New
    +2
    For all the articles that I read, I always put the authors +, regardless of how much I support their point of view. Natalya Narochnitskaya is time to stop being a fool in Christ and to write custom articles. Or to take part in some kind of war to be in the know .And then we get a division of labor: Russian men always fight and die, and human rights activists and newly-minted Russian patriots describe their exploits, make a theoretical justification for their death and call on the people to make new victims for a just cause. They themselves live in Moscow and receive money from funds The CIA, all their property is located abroad, their children do not serve in the army and are trained somewhere in London, with no prospect and desire to return to Russia.
    Russia was not ready to participate in the 1st World War and the war with Japan was a clear demonstration of this state of affairs. To get involved in a new war, we need a more serious reason that you need to help someone or protect someone, there is no place for emotions in such matters. The Russian Empire died due to the inability of the monarchy to rule the state.
  46. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 14 November 2013 04: 56 New
    +2
    Complete, generally agitation and nothing more. What association does the author write in? external threat and war. How did it affect ordinary people and those who earned money in the war, financial and political capital? So ordinary people began to live even worse, and the bourgeois and officials even better. Which actually led to a revolutionary situation in the country. So the author is hypocritical and hypocritically conscious
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 14 November 2013 08: 07 New
      +7
      Everything is classic: To whom is war, to whom is mother mother!
      Only soldiers dying on the fronts from this is not easier.
      For the first year, they knocked out all the officers; according to the officer code, they went on the attack in front of the chain. And so even the students were assigned the junior officer rank and sent to the front. But the courage of a Russian warrior cannot be denied and GLORY to them!
  47. Same lech
    Same lech 14 November 2013 05: 30 New
    +1
    Yes, I agree - WAR is always blood, dirt, hunger, cold, disease and numerous deaths.
    And it is necessary to avoid it whenever possible - no matter how noble it may seem.
    To the author, a big minus for trying to mislead people, she didn’t see mountains of corpses of killed Russian soldiers — a very terrible sight.
    1. rauffg
      rauffg 14 November 2013 07: 13 New
      0
      and not only the corpses were feats. for example, the failed fortress Osovec.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. rauffg
        rauffg 14 November 2013 07: 21 New
        0
        and more about this feat:
      3. Same lech
        Same lech 14 November 2013 07: 33 New
        0
        Yes, this is a feat of honor for Russian soldiers and praise them for it - but is it easier for Russian mothers to give children wives who lost their breadwinners there.

        This heroism could have been avoided with the right military strategy.
  48. Unisonic
    Unisonic 14 November 2013 06: 25 New
    +3
    If the Great Patriotic War, or the Patriotic War of 12, are understandable wars, then this is an incomprehensible war. Russia took part in it at will. I could have watched aside. Draw conclusions, be flexible in diplomacy. But no, they fought. And it is not clear why they fought -> for pan-Slavic ideas, for the Slavic states of Eastern Europe, which, at the same time, wiped and wipe their feet on Russia to this day. In the First World War they fought against us, in the Second World War they fought against us, and now they are in NATO, in a bloc that was created against us.

    And in our allies, who was in the First World War? Those who did nothing Nichrome, those who constantly had to help out, and those who eventually attacked Russia from all sides, as soon as they finished Germany.
    And then they brought Europe to Nazism. Hitler was fed half of Europe, thereby only increasing his appetites, pitting countries among themselves, and renouncing the collective security treaty - i.e. they simply led the world to the Second World War by the hand. And again, Russia was in their allies, and again Russia suffered enormous losses, and again, Russia, after the war became enemy number 1.

    Times have passed, and again they are our non-alternative partners, as Mr. Rogozin said a couple of days ago.
  49. Bakht
    Bakht 14 November 2013 08: 54 New
    0
    The article is good, but too odious. The First World War was not needed by the Russian Empire. And no speculations and falsifications of this fact will change. It is the thesis that "Russia did not declare war" speaks about this. And Russia chose allies .... With such allies and enemies are not needed.

    Sazonov’s memoirs say that France, before the war and during the war, strenuously demanded that Russia grant independence to Poland. Sazonov had to sharply answer the Paleologist that Poland is the question that could embroil Russia and France. In the same memoirs of Sazonov it is said that Great Britain intensely pushed Russia to create an independent Armenian state on the basis of the Erivan province and Turkish vilayets. It turns out that Russia fought for ... the loss of its own territory.

    Since the goals of the war were completely unclear, it was only during the war that there was a desire to take possession of the Bosphorus. And immediately, as Russia announced this desire, how England launched the Gallipoli operation. The goal is to prevent Russia from reaching the straits.

    Finally, the February Revolution. In March 1917, after receiving news of the tsar's abdication in the English parliament, L. George declared "one of the goals of the war has been achieved." Just great allies.

    For some reason, the author forgot about these facts. About Russia's victories in the war. Everyone knows that France was saved with the blood of Russian soldiers. But who now in France remembers this. In 1918, the Victory Parade was held in Paris. What kind of troops you want were there. And not a single Russian battalion. Although Russian troops were in France at that time. If desired, one battalion could be formed for the parade. But ... the purpose of the war and the Entente and the Triple Alliance was the destruction of Russia. And the defeated do not participate in the parade. And most importantly, on the Eastern Front, Russia won victories over Austria-Hungary. Not a single victory over Germany was won. German generals quite rightly declared "only a few German corps dispelled the legend of the Russian army to dust."

    The union of Germany and Russia has always been a nightmare of the Anglo-Saxons. And it has always been useful for Russia. The fact that Germany had plans for the dismemberment of Russia (USSR) is a fact. In this direction, Russian diplomacy should have acted. Prove that these plans are counterproductive. And do not get involved in the war is not known for whose interests.

    So the article is a troika. One-sided selection of facts to prove the authors. Objectivity is not enough.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 14 November 2013 09: 50 New
      0
      Quote: Bakht
      And no speculations and falsifications of this fact will change. It is the thesis that "Russia did not declare war" speaks about this.

      Well, you must understand that the Germans are not fools - if mobilization is announced in Russia, then given the potential of Russia, Germany could not wait until huge armies appeared at its borders !!!
      1. Bakht
        Bakht 14 November 2013 13: 28 New
        0
        This is something confused with cause and effect. Who first announced the mobilization, do not tell?

        Russia had to smash Austria-Hungary. This would be in Russia's geostrategic interests and give it influence in Southeastern Europe. But in 1913, under pressure from the French, plans were changed and Germany became the main enemy.
    2. IS-80
      IS-80 14 November 2013 10: 04 New
      0
      Quote: Bakht
      In the same memoirs of Sazonov it is said that Great Britain intensely pushed Russia to create an independent Armenian state on the basis of the Erivan province and Turkish vilayets.


      As I understand it, whoever has a pain is talking about something.

      Quote: Bakht
      German generals quite rightly stated that "only a few German corps dispelled the legend of the Russian army to dust."


      How fully this legend is legend, they were fully convinced in 1945. However, they were convinced more than once during the First World War and before that.
      1. Bakht
        Bakht 14 November 2013 13: 25 New
        +1
        You misunderstand. Personally, nothing hurts me. Sazonov's memoirs are. And there were negotiations with Turkey in Livadia in 1913. The "Armenian question" was just discussed. And this was one of the reasons (I repeat "one") that Turkey took the side of Germany. Because, unlike Russia and England, Germany did not offer her such stupidity.

        A legend is not a legend, but a reality. And do not confuse the years 1914 and 1945. In World War I, find me one (!) Successful operation of Russian troops against the German army.
  50. IS-80
    IS-80 14 November 2013 09: 54 New
    +2
    The author clearly belongs to a glorious cohort of figures - the creators of a new history textbook, who diligently avoid uncomfortable facts and interfere with the truth and falsehood in greedy, hypocritical, unscrupulous, corrupt and extremely stupid people, proportions. In general, they do not like Russia, but themselves in Russia.