Military Review

Do not make ...

28



Not for the first time I have met with an attempt to glorify the World War I failed for Russia. And such attempts become frighteningly frequent. Let's agree immediately. I separate the "flies from cutlets." I separate the soldiers and officers who died heroically at the front in a senseless and hopeless war from the really rotten, stunned by the yellow infirmity of the political and military apparatus of the Empire.

He fought in the destroyed with heavy shells and wrapped in the blanket of gases Osovets, fought with an overwhelming enemy in the Gulf of Riga, broke through the Austrian front under the command of Brusilov, stood up to the end and did not surrender in the forests under Solda, retreated with the last half of the day to perform the same procedure for the wr unlocking wi im eternal memory and eternal glory. But to those who are guilty of all this, to those who have embroiled Russia in a completely unnecessary war for the interests of Naglo-Saxons, they have eternal shame and an aspen stake on the grave.

In this regard, I will allow myself to conduct a controversy with an article posted on the Military Review, entitled Myths and Legends of the First World War.

Myth number 1. Russia should not have got involved in this war.
What was Russia fighting for? In the same article, the author beautifully shows that Russia did not have any worthy goals in order to be drawn into this slaughter. There were no territorial claims, no geopolitical interests, no economic prerequisites. And for what they fought? For Serbia? For the "security zone in the Balkans"? Was this a “security zone”? Let us remember how, just two years before, Serbia had not looked at the interests of Russia and, with the participation of Turkey and other Balkan states, “dealt with” Bulgaria, which had just borne the brunt of the First Balkan. Yes, the Serbs wanted to spit on the interests of Russia. In the same way as it was in the days of Tito, and then, when Milosevic tried to sit on two chairs, leading the country to disaster. There is also an opinion that Russia "repelled" the attack of evil "Hans" who wanted to "scrub" it "from mozha to mozha". Excuse me, but why then, just nine years before, in Björk, the German emperor, “cousin Willy,” tried to force his stupid “little brother Nicky” into a union treaty and a division of spheres of influence? Or is it such a Teutonic trick? Russia and Germany had the same enemies. And they sat in London, Washington and Paris. That proved perfectly the finale of this war. After all, both Russia and Germany were losers, and the winners settled on the banks of the Potomac, Seine and Thames. There is also an "indisputable fact" that Germany declared war on Russia. Well, you can't really dispute the fact. Only for some reason, the Russian troops crossed the border, not the German ones, invading two directions into East Prussia. Actually, the Germans knightly threw us a glove, instead of cowardly (as Hitler did) sign some non-aggression agreement while they deal with the French. Although, of course, you need to understand that if Germany had not declared war, Russia would have had to declare it “to save France.”

So what did Russia fight for, what did she pay for with millions of lives and the existence of the empire? Yes, everything is simple - for loans issued by French bankers. For every franc of the tsar's debts, we paid a drop of Russian blood shed in defense of the lender. Before the tsar's nose, they hung up the old, rotten and sour carrot - the Black Sea straits. Carrot was notable, but old. For those who doubt the Tsarism’s desire to grab Constantinople, I can recall that the first Black Sea armadillos of the Sinop type had a piquant arrangement of GK artillery. They 4 guns looked straight ahead, weakening the side volley, but, allowing you to double the conventional scheme of the nasal fire. What would such a scheme be for? That's right, to break through the fortifications of the Bosphorus. And heavy artillery for the Port Arthur fortress was allocated from the fund of the Bosphorus expedition. However, the Russian Tsars laughed at the Bosphorus before. However, even this carrot soyuznichki wanted to strip Russia. Otherwise, why would they have to arrange the Dardanelles ordeals, about which the ANZAC fighters died in which are still being killed in sunny Australia?

Myth number 2. Russia's actions were due only to geopolitics.
But this is certainly a myth. No geopolitics, only "card debts". But why is it necessary to drag in some mythical "secret societies"? Are they freemasons? If I could have called then already. And then the Social Democrats, who were nowhere in power, were called, and then their eyes were shyly concealed. However, it is possible, I will not be about secret societies either. Their interests were completely intertwined at this time with the interests of the Naglo-Saxon and French bourgeoisie. The souls with all the fibers wished to strangle in a “friendly” embrace a dynamically developing and anticipating competitor - Germany. But what about the market, which should regulate everything? How is free competition? This is all for fools, for those who are weaker, who can be devoured by economic methods. And for those who have the audacity to be ahead of the Naxos, playing by their rules, the politics of encirclement and strangulation are in store, and at the end of the curtain there is a merciless war and predatory treaties. Should we, Soviet people, not know this?

Myth number 3. Russia should have taken the side not of the Entente, but of Germany.
In the event of war on Germany's side, Russia, being much weaker, could turn into a German satellite, as it did with Austria, which once reigned in the "caster" of German principalities. Such a place in Russia, of course, is not ranked. But it is still better than the bloody orgy of the Civil War and the red and white terror. But the coming to power of Stalin, who brought Russia to its proper rank, in this situation is very, very problematic. Therefore, in essence, we should be grateful to tsarism for its stupidity. But from this geopolitical nonsense does not cease to be geopolitical nonsense.

Myth number 4. Russia fought badly.
And what does the “class approach” mean here? If really fought - BAD. Let's start from the beginning. East Prussian operation. The double superiority of our troops, shells and ammunition and guns is enough, the Russian Guard (and also not all, of course) enters the battle against the landvernies (not all, of course) of the Germans! And the result? Not prepared? And who is to blame? Surely the Germans, who did not want to give us 40 days to mobilize? And, for example, the divisions of the Guards cavalry also had to be mobilized? Not? Then why did they do less than the only German cavalry division, after which they rested safely during and after Gumbinen, instead of pursuing the “defeated” Germans Pritvits?

Well, about the 1915 campaign of the year could simply be silent. The words "Great Retreat" says it all. If not for the shameful surrender of the Polish belt of fortresses. Almost without a shot. If all the fortresses fought back like the small fortresses of Osovets and Ivangorod did ... And so, the Germans got the heavy tools and shells so necessary for our army ... on a silver platter, or rather, in the cellars of the surrendered fortresses. I will not remind you how warriors were sent into battle with spikes on German machine guns, like hundreds of shells of heavy German guns, which had been torn down along with defenders, responded with a single shot of a field gun, which no longer had projectiles. Let's look at the famous Brusilovsky breakthrough. While the Austrians were beaten, everything was fine, it was worth facing the German “fire brigade”, then the offensive died. Yes, we could beat the Turks and the Austrians. But, as they say, why does the Italian army exist? To the Austrians, too, was someone to beat ... Is this really our level?

“And yet, it was on the Eastern Front that the final victory was secured!” It hurts me to say this, but this is a lie. Because the Germans only directed their main forces against us only in 1915. The rest of the time the main front was the western front. And at the same time, they also managed to slap on the necks of every Serb and Italian, with whom the Austrian allies were weak. Yes, Russia bore the brunt of that war. And without us, the Germans would have simply eaten the French. Still, the main burden of the four campaigns borne by the French and the British. The latter were even forced to make a general mobilization for the first time. And the French have not managed to recover from this bloodletting.

Myth number 5. Russia was defeated.
Yes, I did. Because, having lost, as in 1941, the cadre army, unlike the USSR, the Empire could not recreate it. Because she did not have enough industry. As there was no stock. After all, even the rifles and ammunition for them had to be bought abroad. Second largest weapons Russian infantry after our famous trilinea became an old Japanese "arisaka". And numerous Russian artillery fired less shells for the war than any of the great powers that participated in the war. In such a situation, it was impossible to recover what was lost during the retreats. Of course, the Germans did not capitulate on their own territory, but, knowing our allies and our complete dependence on them, it is perhaps better that the conditions of peace were dictated to us by the Germans, who were then a noble and strong opponent, and not imperial Saxons. They even managed to throw then, when the German Empire collapsed. But what could "snatch" from the allies of the Lord Kerensky, who thanks to them came to power? There is no time for the Straits, God forbid, that the integrity of Russia is preserved.

Summary.
Gentlemen and comrades. As you can see, the heroism of the Russian soldier could not save the shamefully merged imperial political and military elite war. When monuments are made to the fallen, I vote with both hands “for”. But when they begin to heroize and mythologize the most disgraceful moments and those who do not deserve it at all, the question inevitably arises. Who needs it? And for what? Yes, just everything. We want to take away our victory. They want to replace it with that old war, the victory in which the bad Bolsheviks allegedly stole from us. But it was not her! The West has been preparing its oblivion for a long time, Victory is like a knife in its heart. Well, we throw a bone. Like, you here, in due time, worked with us on errands ... heroic. But the worst thing is that it comes from our own government.
Author:
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim 16 November 2013 06: 49 New
    +1
    History, damn politics, when will we have a quiet life? Hmm, tolerance towards the realities of life is definitely not threatening us. And thank God!
    1. Army1
      Army1 16 November 2013 12: 57 New
      0
      Why no one remembered the Brusilovsky breakthrough, but the country was consumed from the inside, that's all. In any case, Russia is a winner, they just did not give time.
    2. makst83
      makst83 16 November 2013 14: 52 New
      +2
      the story is written by order of the kings.
    3. Yoshkin Kot
      Yoshkin Kot 21 November 2013 09: 50 New
      0
      Why at the most critical moments in modern society are polar points of view put forward, how did this happen, for example, during the events on Dubrovka? They testify to the fundamentally different philosophical foundations of consciousness. “Does the leadership intend to be consistent and finally suppress criminal terror without looking at the morally defiant human rights defenders and the“ world behind the scenes ”or will it continue to make efforts to find an imaginary agreement with the bandits?” - asked one. “To stop the criminal war against their own citizens or, moreover, the“ heroic highlanders ”fighting against the oppressive empire,” others demanded. The ranks of the latter have thinned noticeably during the second half of the 90s, but it was they that had the most direct impact on the formation of public opinion in the first half of the 90s. It was they who carried out an unprecedented mockery in history of their own state and army, surpassing, perhaps, even the revolutionary campaign of defaming the government, state and army financed by Kaiser Germany through the millionaire Parvus during the First World War. N. Narochnitskaya
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 16 November 2013 06: 51 New
    +8
    I can understand when the war is being fought to protect my family and friends, my home - it’s clear who you will die for.
    And when millions of people try to ditch under various ideas, this is already a crime.
  3. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 16 November 2013 06: 56 New
    +3
    Minus author, you’re tired of people like you already! For you there, but here you are against it, Here you like it, but here you don’t. This is our story, whether you like it or not. The rest is demagogy and an attempt to create a story that you personally like.
    1. avt
      avt 16 November 2013 16: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      Minus author, you are already tired and like you!

      And don't say! They are still from those distant times, now almost epic all whine, all these Durnovo Minister of Internal Affairs, that he wrote the report to Nikolashka No. 2 and described how it would end, the then Minister of Finance Kokovtsev also said that they were not ready for war and for this he was removed from his post by the future "Great martyr". Well, they did not guess that the current admirers of "Russia we have lost" know for sure better than their contemporaries that they were ready for war and even won it, even Witte was a half-Sakhalin and Anglomaniac. Rosen was one of the lesser known there. In general, a flock of demagogues. laughing
      1. hrych
        hrych 16 November 2013 23: 03 New
        +3
        Timeline of the beginning of the war:

        July 28, 1914. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. 1 August Germany declared war on Russia, on the same day, the Germans invaded Luxembourg without any declaration of war.

        On August 2, German troops finally occupied Luxembourg, and Belgium issued an ultimatum on the admission of German armies to the border with France. Only 12 hours were given for reflection.

        On August 3, Germany declared war on France, accusing her of "organized attacks and aerial bombardments of Germany" and "of violating Belgian neutrality."

        On August 3, Belgium refused a German ultimatum. Germany declares war on Belgium.

        On August 4, German troops invaded Belgium. King Albert of Belgium turned to the guarantor countries of Belgian neutrality for help. London sent an ultimatum to Berlin: stop the invasion of Belgium, or England would declare war on Germany. After the expiration of the ultimatum Great Britain declared war on Germany and sent troops to help France.

        On August 6, Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia.

        The first world war began.


        From myself: Where is the choice of Russia? If she is declared war, what should she do? Immediately capitulate? The Anglo-Saxons are undeservedly considered the culprit of the outbreak of war, but the chronology speaks differently and here the Anglo-Saxons on the contrary act nobly nothing threatened their islands. Another thing is the overthrow of our King, here the British have an aspen stake.
        If Austria-Hungary may be the first to declare war on Serbia over the assassination of the Archduke, then what the hell is Germany so frantic? And for some reason Germany declared Russia the first war, and the Austrians the last, a paradox. I would not be surprised that Gavrilo, having received the task of murder, was a fanatic from Mlada Bosna, but whoever sent him clearly worked for Germany, because in fact, only she began to fuss and did not give time to the Austrians and Serbs to agree, and even managed to declare war on all and sundry.
        The main reason for the war is the Kaiser insanity (this is a diagnosis), which still had an inborn deformity. And also the discontent of the Germans, who remained during the colonial division of the world in w ..
        1. Dezzed
          Dezzed 17 November 2013 20: 30 New
          0
          Russia could become a defensive defense and hell would Austro Hungarian warriors do anything.
      2. hrych
        hrych 16 November 2013 23: 17 New
        +2
        The author cited a bunch of myths, exposed them all, exposed the autocracy, but just did not say the main thing: Russia declared war.
        1. avt
          avt 17 November 2013 10: 25 New
          0
          Quote: hrych
          The author cited a bunch of myths, exposed them all, exposed the autocracy, but just did not say the main thing: Russia declared war.

          It is certainly so, no doubt, but again, if you dig into the details, well, in the events preceding the declaration of war, the picture is not at all so monochromatic, well, it is clearly not Malevich's black square called Death of the Sun. the course of negotiations preceding the announcement, well, at least from the shots in Sarajevo. There is no analogy with 1941, although Narochnitskaya practically carries it out.
          1. hrych
            hrych 17 November 2013 15: 16 New
            +2
            A colleague, of course, can be indirectly linked to the events in Sarajevo, Germany's declaration of war on Russia, but damn it, where does Luxembourg and Belgium have to do with it. It's like Krylov's fable "The Wolf and the Lamb". And yet Russia was waging a war on foreign territory, and the military industry was rebuilt, moreover, if you take aviation, then the Ilya Muromets aircraft are a qualitative leap of civilization. The problem of the Tsar is a lack of understanding of internal problems, something like GDP, which is the winner in the world arena, the development of civilization has started, but what is happening in society is a complete failure and that it will be swept away.
            1. avt
              avt 17 November 2013 21: 52 New
              0
              Quote: hrych
              and the military industry has been rebuilt, moreover, if we take aviation, then the Ilya Muromets aircraft are a qualitative leap of civilization. P

              A classic example of unpreparedness, well, "readiness" according to the present, and underestimation by the military leadership of a new type of armament. Firstly, they did not allocate enough funds for production at the beginning, and secondly, despite the proposal of the designer and production workers, they immediately make a large series of about 100 aircraft and use their separate division, butted for a long time and tediously with the Grand Duke, who oversaw the nascent Air Force and who relied on imported airplanes, naturally smaller ones. wanted, 100 airplanes could not, the train left, in particular because of the evacuation of the plant in Fili, where production was already launched after the civilian Germans from Junkers. In contrast to the Germans, who already during the war had an industry really prepared for war in quality and quantity developed their air force, including bomber aviation with all the Goths and Friedrichshafen amy "
              Quote: hrych
              The king’s problem is the lack of understanding of internal problems,

              request Exactly as well as external ones. Well, intellectually, he was thinner, the owner of the Russian Land, not according to Senka was the cap of Monomakh. It was not in vain that his own nominee Stolypin was scrapped - a contradictory figure, but a real patriot of the fatherland, and with tacit consent and Nika's connivance. And Stolypin, by the way, according to the memoirs of Wilhelm, warned the Kaiser in a private conversation about the inadmissibility of war between us, because, again, according to the memoirs of the ex-Kaiser, according to Stolypin, the result of the war will certainly be the inevitable fall of both monarchies.
    2. vjhbc
      vjhbc 17 November 2013 22: 31 New
      +1
      do you think that our children should also clap their hands on what is happening now because for them it will already be history
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      . Everything else is demagogy and an attempt to create a story that you personally like.
  4. the polar
    the polar 16 November 2013 07: 03 New
    +3
    This set of articles "Myths and Legends of the First World War" is as insignificant in content and anti-historical as the Brewer-Svanidziev "stories" about "bloody Bolsheviks, German spy Lenin and ghoul Stalin."
  5. predator.3
    predator.3 16 November 2013 07: 05 New
    +4
    Everyone imagines himself a strategist, Seeing the battle from the side!
  6. domokl
    domokl 16 November 2013 07: 08 New
    -5
    I got the feeling from the article that I ended up in the 20-30 years of the last century. What did the author want to say? To humiliate the Russian soldiers? To humble the autocracy? Russian officers and generals?
    Dear, they all said already then, And the whole world knows this. But it’s a shame to fight with the graves.
  7. Humpty
    Humpty 16 November 2013 07: 08 New
    +3
    For fans to poke in the spirit that they say Russia could sit aside, you should familiarize yourself with Schlieffen’s plan in general terms.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 16 November 2013 07: 19 New
      +6
      For fans of war, you should familiarize yourself with the list of the irretrievable losses of RUSSIA in this war.

      The terrorist attack of the Serb brother, so to speak, turned out to be the occasion of the outbreak of World War I, in which millions of our Russian peasants died (was it worth it to defend such people leaving unhappy Russian mothers and wives)
  8. makarov
    makarov 16 November 2013 07: 16 New
    +1
    I could admit to some extent (part of) the author's correctness if he referred to specific materials. In this case, the author makes "awesomely loud conclusions" which are more conjectural, but he puts them in an affirmative form. It's the same thing if he got them out of his own nose. That only is the conclusion "an old Japanese" arisaka ". He simply does not know that Arisaka is essentially a remake of the German Mauser. What else to talk about ????
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. predator.3
    predator.3 16 November 2013 09: 49 New
    +5
    Let's take a look at the famous Brusilovsky breakthrough. While the Austrians were beating, everything was fine, it was worth colliding with the "fire brigade" of the Germans, and then the offensive died.


    Let's take a look, On the whole, the South-Western Front had an advantage over opposing Austro-German forces in manpower - 578 thousand bayonets against 448 thousand and light artillery - 1770 guns against 1301, but inferior in heavy artillery - 168 guns against 545. The South -Western Front included the 8th, 11th, 7th, 9th armies. The Austro-German troops consisted of the 4th, 1st, 7th Austro-Hungarian armies, the South German army and several separate military groups. The successful start of the summer offensive was not supported by other fronts. Two attempts to advance the troops of the Western Front on June 2 (15) and June 20–26 (July 3–9) and the forces of the Northern Front on June 20–26 (July 3–9) ended in complete failure. On June 26 (July 9), Nicholas II decided to transfer the direction of the main attack to the southwestern front and transferred to Brusilov his strategic reserve - Special Army of General V.M. Bezobrazova in the three buildings. In July-August, the troops of the 3rd, 8th and Special armies fought fierce battles on the Stokhod river, unsuccessfully trying to break through the German defenses in the Kovel direction. Large losses forced the Russians to cease attacks by July 31. Despite partial success, the offensive of the Southwestern Front was of great strategic importance throughout the 1916 campaign. The enemy lost in May-August up to 1,5 million people, including over 400 thousand prisoners (Russian troops lost about 0,5 million people); Russian troops captured 581 guns, about 1800 machine guns, about 450 bombing and mortar shells. As a result of the Brusilovsky breakthrough, the forces of the Austro-Hungarian army were so undermined that until the end of the war they could no longer carry out active actions. The offensive was of great help to the Allies, since the enemy, having thrown 30,5 infantry and 3,5 cavalry divisions to the Eastern Front, was forced to stop the offensive in Trentino against Italy, and ease the pressure on Verdun in France. Under the influence of the Brusilovsky breakthrough, Romania decided to enter the war on the side of the Entente. The offensive led by A.A. Brusilova was a new form of breakthrough front line positions. Along with the fighting on the Somme River, the offensive of the Southwestern Front marked the beginning of a general turning point in the course of World War I in favor of the Entente countries.
    Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2009.
  11. creak
    creak 16 November 2013 10: 02 New
    0
    The article is so unsubstantiated and superficial that it does not deserve a serious comment, it was written simply in an amateurish manner ... The author simply cannot handle such tasks. Minus.
  12. Walking
    Walking 16 November 2013 10: 08 New
    +1
    Do not rush to extremes, the truth in the middle.
  13. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 16 November 2013 11: 48 New
    +2
    Of course, it's very easy to just put a minus and write, the author is wrong, "I know the truth," the author expressed his point of view, which is also supported by a number of people. Of course, the "minus" people know everything better , but still I would advise them to read the opinion of a person who is much smarter than them, who reached a certain social status and, most importantly, who lived at that time and saw everything with his own eyes, unlike the “minus” people, he understood even then that the “minus” people could not understand a hundred years old, he wrote to Nikolai a memorandum, where he accurately outlined the future of Russia, if she continued the policy of the Entente, it went down in history as "Durnovo's note", but Nikolai plugged his ears with bananas and continued the policy that brought him to the basement of the Ipatiev house.
    1. creak
      creak 16 November 2013 13: 56 New
      +1
      I also expressed my point of view and it is also supported by a number of people, in particular in the previous comments ... And the article is superficial, if only because the author’s statements are not supported by specific figures and facts, also a kind of myth-making. In addition to the note by Durnovo, there are other sources that provide a different view of the causes and course of the WWII. And in general, it’s enough to water the history of Russia, it is backward and so-and-so .. It contained both heroic and tragic pages, but this is our story and I think that we need to perceive it as it is, without hanging labels ... We are already passed, that's enough. The collapse of the country and the army is not shameful, but one of the tragic pages, and unfortunately it was not the only one ... And I did not claim that I knew the truth, nor was the author’s opinion the ultimate truth. And those who probably gave me minuses know how things really were?
      1. Standard Oil
        Standard Oil 16 November 2013 14: 41 New
        +2
        You are right in many ways, this war is densely covered in myths, and since the truth has long been lost, it remains to be judged by the results, what was the outcome of the First World War? And whose point of view will we take for truth? The point of view of the Communists? But then the whites will be unhappy. The point of view of the whites? But then the reds will be unhappy, how should we be? Or let's just physically exterminate the dissent.
        1. creak
          creak 16 November 2013 15: 35 New
          +1
          Or maybe just let everyone remain in their own opinion and with the current discord in society at the present time it is hardly possible to have a single point of view not only on the WWII events, but also on other historical events. Even on yet another tragic page and the reasons that gave rise to it - the initial period of the Second World War, there are directly opposite points of view even among its participants ... And to shoot the dissent - and we also went through it, where there is no evidence - there is strength, and the most compelling argument is a bullet By the way, I had a chance to read a number of memoirs of the WWI participants published in recent years and almost none of them consider the loss in the war shameful, but consider it a tragedy and regret that Russia was in the camp of the vanquished ...
  14. alone
    alone 16 November 2013 11: 48 New
    +3
    soon there will be a 100th beginning of the first world war. If you analyze the situation then, war was inevitable. A new redistribution of the world map was needed. As a result, at least 4 empires collapsed.

    I think that there was no need to guess whether it was necessary to participate in this war or it was not necessary. The train left as they say. The lot was thrown and there was no turning back. And one detail is unforgettable, Russia was an empire. Any empire wants to expand its possessions. This is an accent.

    and about the truth

    Hiking KZ Today, 10:08 AM
    Do not rush to extremes, the truth in the middle.


    there’s nothing to say. drinks
  15. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 16 November 2013 12: 45 New
    +2
    And where does the people decide to start a war or not, to attack or not? So about any war you can say twenty years later. Would you speak on this topic to the guys lying in the hospital after being wounded? I think they pelted you with crutches and ducks.
  16. Motors1991
    Motors1991 16 November 2013 17: 09 New
    0
    I already wrote before, but I’ll repeat it. If Russia hadn’t entered the war, what happened? France would have suffered no less deafening and quick defeat than in 1940. England would have hidden on its island. What do you think the Germans would do It’s right Russia, but in this case, the Russian state would have to fight alone against Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania, which probably joined them. I think the result of this war was even more catastrophic than in 1941 and what would it be God only ended for us. Therefore, Russia had no choice not to fight, just to fight in a coalition, otherwise it would have to be fought alone. .Another question to everyone, where did the articles about the Rothschilds go?
  17. Same lech
    Same lech 16 November 2013 21: 15 New
    0
    If yes, if you take an example With the United States, they enter the war at the most favorable moment for themselves, and all the cream of victory is appropriated.
    And Russia, as always, is obliged to save someone besides its people.
    I categorically disagree with the false conclusions that RUSSIA would certainly engage in a war of another’s will.
    1. Motors1991
      Motors1991 17 November 2013 15: 50 New
      0
      The states could afford to go to war when it is convenient, they are 5 miles from Europe, and we have a common border with Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey, so in this case the comparison is inappropriate.
  18. Zomanus
    Zomanus 17 November 2013 16: 41 New
    +1
    And the author says nothing against the rank and file. The author speaks against those for whom this rank-and-file was thrown into slaughter. And the worst thing is that it is constantly repeated. The allies were also saved in the Second World War, throwing our soldiers into the attack on the Eastern Front. Also, in the first Chechen war, the boys were sent to the slaughter. And such an attitude towards the soldier, like "women are still giving birth", leads to the degeneration of the nation, because the most trump child-producers are knocked out first of all, since they are always ahead in the attack. The strong features of the gene pool are simply being washed away.
  19. rodevaan
    rodevaan 18 November 2013 09: 53 New
    0
    It is a pity that Peter I was not in Russia at that time, and it is a pity that Alexander III did not survive. I think no war would have happened. Alexander III would not allow the Fritz to militarize with impunity ...
    Nikolai was clearly not born at the right time.
  20. alicante11
    25 December 2013 08: 33 New
    0
    I largely agree that the article is weak. Links should be provided. To be honest, this is just a reaction to "myths". More suitable for "post under the article", but too large. In general, I did not even know that it was published. I thought I was squeezed. Accidentally climbed into the profile and saw that they had published something :).
  21. Kassandra
    Kassandra 2 December 2014 12: 10 New
    0
    so the Russian Army suffered a defeat in 1917 in WWI, or did someone with his Nadezhda Konstantinovna come in a "sealed carriage"?