Military Review

England vs Russia. Getting involved in World War I and “help” during the war

23
England vs Russia. Getting involved in World War I and “help” during the war Political games


Russia was drawn into a confrontation with Germany not only with the help of political alliances, but also along the dynastic line. Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, the grandson of Nicholas I, married to his great-uncle Xenia Alexandrovna, the eldest daughter of Alexander III, sister of Nicholas II, loved to relax in the French resort of Biarritz on the Atlantic coast. In the same place members of the English royal house constantly rested. In the spring of 1907, the English king Edward VII came to the French resort. Through his wife, the English monarch, Alexandru the Danish, she was the elder sister of the Russian empress Maria Feodorovna, they were related to each other. Friendly relations were established between Prince Alexander and King Edward.

It must be said that both aristocrats were masons of higher degrees of initiation, and masons played a large role in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They were involved in the bleeding of Russia and Germany. Edward became the great Master of British Masons, while still a Prince of Wales. True, he officially resigned these powers after taking the throne. Alexander Mikhailovich became a Freemason at the end of the XIX century together with his brothers. Alexander was in the Masonic "Grand-Ducal box", was the founder of the "Admiralty Lodge".

Many works have been written about masons, but there is little reliable information about them. These organizations did not leave behind archives, declarations and manifestos. Everything was done in secret, decisions were made orally. In addition, we must not forget about the famous Masonic discipline. However, the Masonic organizations, taking into account the fact that they included representatives of high society, the aristocracy of Western Europe, church hierarchs, bankers and industrialists, the color of the intelligentsia, had a strong influence on the life of humanity. Brick by brick "bricklayers" built a new world order.

10-11 July 1905, the yacht "Polar Star" in the skerries at Björk hosted the meeting of the Russian Emperor Nicholas II and the German Kaiser Wilhelm. At this meeting, the German monarch persuaded Nicholas to sign a union agreement. The treaty contained the obligations of the parties on mutual assistance between Russia and Germany in Europe in the event of an attack on one of them by any European power. On the whole, the treaty was anti-British. In the future, the Russian-German alliance was supposed to be transformed into a tripartite Russian-German-French. This treaty was supposed to undermine the position of England in Africa and Asia. However, under pressure from Russian ministers, among whom were many Masons, the treaty lost its force. A particularly important role in this detrimental to the future of the Russian Empire was played by Foreign Minister Lamsdorf and Chairman of the Council of Ministers Witte (he was an agent of the influence of the “financial international”).

3 August 1907, during a meeting between Nicholas II and Wilhelm II in Swinemünde, the Germans tried again to find a reasonable compromise with the Russians. Chancellor Bülow was not averse to raising the Björk Treaty again. The German side wanted to achieve a "tacit" consent to the recognition of the treaty in Björk as retaining force. France was to remain outside this agreement. In the Baltic, it was proposed to maintain the status quo. Berlin was supposed to help Petersburg and Vienna settle the Balkan issue. The Germans also wanted Russia’s agreement to extend the Persian Baghdad railway to Persia. Germany offered Russia a loan if Russia accepts these conditions.

It should be noted that some German politicians had quite a reasonable vision of the future. So, in one of Bulow’s letters - from 6 November 1905 of the year - it was noted that if the Russian Empire unites with Britain, “this will mean the opening of the front directed against us, which in the near foreseeable future will lead to a big international military conflict. What would be its consequences? Will Germany be the winner of this disaster? Alas, most likely Germany will be defeated, and it will all end in the triumph of the revolution. ”

In fact, this is a variant of the “Durnovo note”. Former Minister of the Interior of the Russian Empire (in 1905-1906) Peter Durnovo in February 1914 presented Nikolay II an analytical note, where he warned against Russia's entry into a world war. In it, this conservative statesman actually predicted the development of events in the coming years. He accurately predicted the composition of the two main military-political coalitions in the oncoming war, the fact that Russia would get the role of "a ram penetrating the thickest German defense," correctly noted the "insufficiency of our military reserves." In the event of a defeat, he predicted "a hopeless anarchy, the outcome of which is difficult to foresee." Failures on the front were to become the main prerequisites of the revolution, therefore Russia at any cost should have avoided being drawn into the European massacre. Durnovo predicted the defeat of the "intellectual" parties that dominated the Provisional Government. They had to quickly lose power, giving it more active left radicals, who attracted people with populist slogans. His equally gloomy forecast for Germany has come true. According to the statesman Durnovo, losing the war will lead to a successful revolution.

There is every reason to believe that the failure of the negotiations in Swinemünde was predetermined by tight ties between the Russian and English masons. After the failure in Swinemünde, in the same month, on a yacht standing a few miles from Gangut, Nikolay and the English ambassador Arthur Nicholson signed an agreement on the division of the spheres of influence of the two great powers in Tibet, Afghanistan and Persia. Moreover, the treaty was more beneficial to England, since Russia had the best starting opportunities on the continent to expand its influence.

On May 28 (June 10), 1908, the British royal yacht Victoria and Albert, accompanied by a military squadron, arrived in Revel. The royal couple Edward and Alexandra Danish arrived aboard the North Star yacht. The English king, knowing the love of the Russian emperor for various regalia and signs, promoted him to the rank of British Admiral fleet. Nikolai was presented with a uniform and a sea saber of the sample of 1827, which pleased him very much. During this meeting, the creation of the Entente, a military-political bloc of Russia, England and France, directed against Germany, was agreed.

Thus, England was able to achieve impressive success in drawing Russia into a conflict with Germany. True, we must not forget that the British at that time acted in complete agreement with the French. Paris put a lot of effort to preserve and strengthen the anti-German alliance with St. Petersburg. Russia was entangled with financial fetters and debts. It is necessary to take into account the role of French Freemasonry, a significant part of Russian Freemasons obeyed the French lodges. Under the onslaught of England and France, Nikolaev Russia could not stand it and became more and more distant from Germany. Although it was with Germany that economic and military cooperation looked the most profitable.

At the same time, the British and French made efforts to undermine the military power of the Russian Empire. In no case Russia should have come out of a war as a winner. "Financial International" wanted to destroy the Russian and German empires, having received huge profits from this business. The French firm Schneider, along with the artillery inspector general and the corrupt official, Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich, as well as the board of the private Putilov factory, took control of the development of Russian heavy artillery. The result was sad - by the beginning of the war, the Russian Empire was very seriously inferior to the heavy artillery of Germany.

At the same time, the British attacked the Russian naval artillery. After 1905, a significant part of the Russian naval guns was a sample of Armstrong and Vickers firms. At the beginning of 1912, several Russian dealers came into contact with the Vickers board. They offered the Russian government to build a huge private gun military factory with the participation of the firm Vikkers. Moreover, at this time, the existing Gun Plant in St. Petersburg and the Motovilikhinsky plant in Perm urgently needed orders and capital investments for the development of production. The capacity of the Obukhov plant allowed to fully satisfy the orders of the Maritime Department. Motovilikhinsky plant was not loaded at all, was out of work. Therefore, there was no particular need for a new plant. It was necessary to develop existing enterprises. However, tricky businessmen were able to persuade the Navy Department, and the emperor apparently didn’t really go into it by signing the relevant document.

They decided to build a huge factory in Tsaritsyn. From the autumn of 1915, the company was to produce guns of caliber from 130 to 406 mm. In addition, the firm Vikkers received an order for the supply of 356-mm guns for Izmail-class battlecruisers. The Izmail-class cruisers were laid out in the 1912 year at the Admiralty and Baltic factories. By the planned date, having mastered more than 20 million gold rubles, the company was not ready. The commission found several unfinished workshops in Tsaritsyno, two or three dozens of machine tools, etc. Thanks to the wartime conditions and censorship, the government managed to hide from the public the truth about the scale of the failure of foreign and domestic businessmen, and Russia's defense capability seriously suffered. The government decided to nationalize the plant. However, the Russian concessionaires and the Vickers firm, which had an 25% stake, raised a terrible squeal supposedly being robbed. The British ambassador put pressure on the emperor. As a result, Russia still had to buy back the unfinished. Under the Soviet regime, the Tsaritsynsky plant was renamed Barricades and had to be built almost from scratch.

Interestingly, in 1914-1917's. Obukhovsky plant, which belonged to the Maritime Department, without any problems he began to produce 356-mm guns (same type with British, but better quality), and then produced and prototype 406-mm guns. Thus, domestic manufacturers could themselves carry out orders of our fleet. There was no need for a Tsaritsyn adventure. The "faithful allies" continued to deceive and rob Russia.

"Help" during the war

England was an ally of Russia during the First World War, but help was minimal, often formal. The British provided more or less real help only on the Baltic Sea. In the fall of 1914, the British government decided to send several submarines to the Baltic. But their real goal was not to fight the Germans, but to observe the German fleet, intelligence. British submarines got to the Baltic through the Danish straits or arrived in Arkhangelsk, from where they were loaded onto barges and taken by inland waterway to Petrograd. Total British submarines destroyed around the German 8-10 steamers and two old cruisers. Two boats were lost. After the conclusion of the Peace of Brest, the remaining submarines were blown up by crews in Finland, and the personnel returned to England through Sweden.

Deliveries weapons from England to Russia were small, besides expensive, and the weapons were often of poor quality or could not be used. When it turned out that because of the mistake of Prince Sergei Mikhailovich, Russia was left without heavy artillery, the military ministry tried to buy weapons abroad. From the beginning of the war to the end of the war, nine NIKX-mm Vickers howitzers, 305-39-mm howitzers, 203-96-mm howitzers and 152-52-mm guns arrived in Russia. And the 127-mm howitzer "Vikkers" were supplied with tractors - steam tractors "Big Lion". However, the Russian roads could not withstand such gravity, and the artillery systems had to be left in warehouses. The British placed four hundred 305-mm howitzers, five 114-mm anti-aircraft guns and 75 mortars for field artillery. Given the volume of weapons involved in the war, it was a drop in the ocean.

In addition, to Russia in 1915-1916. put 161 light armored car, twelve 40-mm anti-aircraft self-propelled guns. Of the small arms, London delivered 128 thousand Arisaka rifles, previously intended for the Japanese, 540 Gochkis machine guns, and for aviation - 400 Lewis light machine guns (used in infantry during the Civil War). It should be noted that deliveries were not free, but paid for in Russian gold, and the prices were very high. In particular, the British took an order for the supply of Vickers type machine guns, which practically did not differ in their performance characteristics from the Russian Maxims. A machine gun cost 2362 rubles. The Tula plant for "Maxims" took half as much. In addition, the British transferred the order to the American company Colt. The order was disrupted, but paid for by Russia.

The British practically did not help the Russian fleet. We limited ourselves to the supply of about twenty 305 mm guns and forty 40 mm anti-aircraft guns. In addition, the British basically refused to supply military news - aircraft of the latest models and Tanks. And later, London supplied the white armies more generously, without refusing these latest models. Thus, British firms did not miss the opportunity to make good profits from Russia, and the British military assistance was almost imperceptible in the general military production of the Russian Empire.

On top of that, the British “threw” Russia in geopolitical terms. During the war, London and Paris promised St. Petersburg to give Constantinople and the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. However, they were not going to keep their promise. England and France concluded a separate agreement in which they promised in no way to cede the straits of the Russian Empire. Moreover, the British and French hatched plans for the dismemberment of the Russian Empire after the defeat of Germany. They planned to take away from Russia Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, and, if possible, Little Russia and the Caucasus. It turned out that at first Russia acted as “cannon fodder”, realizing the plans of the British and French political elite, as well as the “financial international”, and then, after the defeat of Germany, the weakened empire was to become a “killed bear”, whose skin would be shared western predators.

However, there was a serious problem. At the end of 1917, in London and Paris, politicians and the military were already anticipating a quick victory, which, in their opinion, remained a few months. It was assumed that in the 1917 year, the German Empire, due to a shortage of raw materials and foodstuffs, a pre-revolutionary situation in society, would surrender to the Entente. True, Russia by this time has become stronger than it was. Its economy continued to grow even during the war years, when it fell among all the warring powers. The Russian army and navy became even stronger than in the 1914 year. The Russian troops held up well, struck powerful blows at Austria-Hungary, which did not suffer a military-political catastrophe only because of the help of Germany. The Russian army was victorious on the Caucasian front, threatening to withdraw through Anatolia to Constantinople. The Black Sea Fleet dominated the Black Sea and could conduct a landing operation, supporting the Constantinople operation from the sea. The army was preparing to conduct a series of offensive operations during the 1917 campaign of the year. Therefore, in the event of a victory over Germany, we would not have to talk about dismembering Russia, but giving it the promise, seriously strengthening the Russian military-strategic power. Having received Constantinople and the straits, Russia would dramatically strengthen its position in the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Persia, ensure complete security of the inner regions of the empire from the Black Sea direction, since the Black Sea became the “Russian lake”. England and France could not go for it. They have already fought with Russia about this in the Eastern War of the 1853-1856.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
England vs Russia. Fight for Persia
England vs Russia. Getting involved in World War I and “help” during the war
England vs Russia. Organization of the February Revolution
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Terrible ensign
    Terrible ensign 17 December 2013 09: 55 New
    +5
    The English gentlemen do not have permanent allies, but they have constant interests and all the steps of Great Britain are dictated exclusively by the pure pursuit of their goals.
    The "German Party" in the Russian government lost. If the Russian-German alliance had been formalized (and the possibilities of such were quite probable not only at the beginning of the 80th century, but also before the 90-XNUMXs of the previous century), then the history of mankind, the history of the XNUMXth century would have been completely different - without Hitler and the second world war ... Alas, the historical process does not know the subjunctive mood.
    Since the time of Ivan the Terrible, England, the United Kingdom, has been in anti-Russian positions, seeing a natural adversary in the Russian state, jealous of its territories, material and human resources.
    The frank dementia of the last Russian emperor in political terms, the "fifth column" in the person of the Masons and the openly bought high officials of the Republic of Ingushetia led Russia to what everyone knows.
    Thanks to the author for the article. There are small stylistic overlays, but the essence of the material is revealed quite fully.
    1. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 17 December 2013 12: 31 New
      +3
      With a weak ruler, the country's loss is obvious!
  2. Yarik
    Yarik 17 December 2013 10: 49 New
    +4
    The effectiveness of the British submarines was much cooler than ours. Their fleet was a fleet. And the fact that they are scum with respect to Russia is not even discussed.
  3. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 17 December 2013 11: 47 New
    +4
    Here we scold and scold the British, but the British are the British and should not care about the welfare of Russia, we must take care of this ourselves, only we have trouble with personnel as a rule. A lot of yap, all sorts of idealists and + crooks, thieves, intelligent people are not enough. Plus, as history shows, people in the Russian government are very easy to buy, we have some strange system of "way up", as a rule, not the most capable, like the Anglo-Saxons, go there, but the sycophants who kiss the ruler's ass most faithfully, though from time to time this system breaks down and really smart people like Peter I or Stalin turn out to be at the helm, and after their death everything returns to a rotten swamp, if you want to break this scheme, the ruler usually dies "suddenly". In the same Great Britain, the ascent of the elite completely different, but there the "golden boys" study in Oxford, Cambridge and Eton, specializing in training the future elite, and sometimes debauchery and obscurantism are going on there, but what is the result? American "Gorbachev or Nicholas II?" It sits deeply in the system itself, be it Russian or Soviet statehood. Most likely it all began with Muscovy, which learned so well to please the Tatars, who, in gratitude, raised them above the rest and allowed them to collect tribute, and from there it went: appeased the Tatar master, he patted you on the head and awarded you the title.
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 17 December 2013 13: 05 New
      +1
      Everything is written well, "but sho, again" Is Moscow to blame?

      PS ON Peter 1 is a moot point ... but in this context is not the point.
      1. Standard Oil
        Standard Oil 17 December 2013 13: 11 New
        0
        Quote: fzr1000
        Moscow is to blame

        Eh, if everything was so simple, then we would live happily ever after. Just if you paint in detail, then hundreds of pages will not be enough.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 18 December 2013 00: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: Standard Oil
      Here we scold and scold the British, but the British are the British and should not care about the welfare of Russia, we must take care of this ourselves, only we have trouble with personnel as a rule. A lot of yap, all sorts of idealists and + crooks, thieves, intelligent people are not enough. Plus, as history shows, people in the Russian government are very easy to buy, we have some strange system of "way up", as a rule, not the most capable, like the Anglo-Saxons, go there, but the sycophants who kiss the ruler's ass most faithfully, though from time to time this system breaks down and really smart people like Peter I or Stalin turn out to be at the helm, and after their death everything returns to a rotten swamp, if you want to break this scheme, the ruler usually dies "suddenly". In the same Great Britain, the ascent of the elite completely different, but there the "golden boys" study in Oxford, Cambridge and Eton, specializing in training the future elite, and sometimes debauchery and obscurantism are going on there, but what is the result? American "Gorbachev or Nicholas II?" It sits deeply in the system itself, be it Russian or Soviet statehood. Most likely it all began with Muscovy, which learned so well to please the Tatars, who, in gratitude, raised them above the rest and allowed them to collect tribute, and from there it went: appeased the Tatar master, he patted you on the head and awarded you the title.


      I don’t remember who wrote it - maybe Tarle.
      After Emperor Alexander I, heed the voice of the dying Kutuzov, who advised stopping on the borders of the Russian Empire and not finishing Napoleon, but rather reconciling with him, and then concluding an alliance against Great Britain, Russia ceased to be a subject of world politics, but became its object, the goal of the British primarily manipulations.
      And given the desire to get the moon (Constantinople), Russia was doomed to act in Europe as a defender of British interests.
      Why, in fact, do the British blame this? They consistently and honestly defended their interests, we didn’t do that.
  4. Hort
    Hort 17 December 2013 13: 45 New
    +4
    in the circles of British diplomacy there was (and may still be) such a saying: "To defend the interests of Britain to the last Russian."
    And after all, they were going in the right direction - towards the continental union, which Milyutin wrote about in his time, and many after him. But the "holy" amperator was led to the wiring, although the same Kaiser promised him to merge Austria-Hungary if the Russians did not carry out a general mobilization and climb into East Prussia.

    In Pikul's novel "I Have the Honor" this whole topic is well described (albeit journalism), I recommend it.

    Well, in the 17th, unfortunately, there was not enough time and, again, the tough political will of the king to prevent a revolution. Instead of crushing somewhere in the bud, and somewhere vice versa, to meet towards - I chose to throw the throne .. The emperor is also me, the Etitsky cat ...
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 18 December 2013 00: 31 New
      0
      Quote: hort
      in the circles of British diplomacy there was (and may still be) such a saying: "To defend the interests of Britain to the last Russian."
      And after all, they were going in the right direction - towards the continental union, which Milyutin wrote about in his time, and many after him. But the "holy" amperator was led to the wiring, although the same Kaiser promised him to merge Austria-Hungary if the Russians did not carry out a general mobilization and climb into East Prussia.

      In Pikul's novel "I Have the Honor" this whole topic is well described (albeit journalism), I recommend it.

      Well, in the 17th, unfortunately, there was not enough time and, again, the tough political will of the king to prevent a revolution. Instead of crushing somewhere in the bud, and somewhere vice versa, to meet towards - I chose to throw the throne .. The emperor is also me, the Etitsky cat ...


      I'm afraid by the year 17 it was too late to show rigidity.
      Correctly Mackensen wrote in 1916, looking at the results of the Russian offensive - "... looking at the incredible losses that the Russian army suffered, I was sure that a revolution would break out in Russia in less than a year - not a single country, not a single army can bear such monstrous losses ... "
      Actually - he looked into the water. In the course of the 1916 breakthroughs, the last cadre officers were mowed down, and worst of all, all the guards were completely mowed down - the only fully loyal dynasties ...
      When the riots began, there was simply no one to suppress them.
  5. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 17 December 2013 13: 49 New
    +4
    Pelevinsky - "Englishwoman crap", you can describe everything that has happened in Europe for the last 200 years.
    On the eve of both world wars, Russia and Germany were not going to fight. Moreover, the relationship was rather friendly and there were all the prerequisites for an alliance and joint action against England. But how everything "happened by itself" we know very well. Because militarily, since the time of Nelson, England has not shone; rather, on the contrary, we can say that all the successes of England have been achieved by successful and effective actions in foreign policy, by playing off their opponents. In turn, the stupidity and weakness of the leaders of Germany and Russia led to huge sacrifices and mutual exsanguination. And twice with a small interval, with live witnesses, what can we hide here - it's just skill, aerobatics. We must learn and strive to do the same.
  6. Yarik
    Yarik 17 December 2013 15: 58 New
    +2
    Armored cruisers like "Crassey" are considered obsolete at that time and at that theater (Baltica) it is wrong. They were nothing for Jutland, and we had enough "Bayan". "Magdeburg" would have made such an outdated one at a time. And stones are not needed.
  7. Uhe
    Uhe 17 December 2013 16: 25 New
    0
    When the February Revolution happened and the Russian Empire ceased to exist, Chercell said that the goal of World War I was achieved. But this ghoul did not take into account one thing - among the Bolsheviks there were not only many real Russian sober-minded statesmen, but they were supported by all sane and progressive statesmen and military figures of the Empire, so Stalin managed to make the USSR a natural successor to the very allegedly perished Empire.

    In general, the events before 1914 were very reminiscent of the current ones - the same corrupt officials (Witte was named the best prime minister of the world for taking huge amounts of money to Britain and the United States), the same powerless people who were robbed by the authorities. The revolution of 1905 broke out, partially crowned with success - relief from the government, and then, with the assassination of the Archduke, Britain unleashed the First World War and dragged the king into it.

    By the way, it was precisely understanding the enormous significance of Russia's friendship with Germany that Lenin insisted on leaving the war so as not to finish off Germany for the sake of the British nits, and Trotsky, who was a British agent, insisted on continuing to a victorious end. Lenin was right. Then Stalin managed to unite the eastern part of Germany, which historically belonged to the Slavs in ancient times, and the current Germans there are descendants of both the Slavs and the Germans, into a single Slavic-German alliance. But it happened after the Second World War, which was again unleashed with the support and with the support of the British and the USA. Britain and its continuation, the personification of the United States, are our main enemies in the last 500 years.
  8. klim44
    klim44 17 December 2013 17: 46 New
    +1
    "That's just this ghoul" - you shouldn't. If Chersil did not like Russia, then that was his right. By the way, there is no blood of his compatriots, the British, on his rkeakh. again, it was only thanks to Churchill that England did not join Hitler's Germany. You don’t like foggy albion, but that doesn’t mean that you are a ghoul. Logically
  9. POMA
    POMA 17 December 2013 18: 04 New
    0
    Of all the Russian rulers, Stalin alone was independent of no one.
    So they don’t write anything about him, maybe only after centuries we will look at it differently, and maybe the people in those years felt it at a subconscious level.
    Now they are minus. wink
  10. parus2nik
    parus2nik 17 December 2013 18: 41 New
    +2
    Russia never had friends .. even the little brothers Slavs hooted the Germans .. The Bulgarians invited the Germans to the kingdom .. The Serbs understood, they knew that the Russian Empire would be less prepared for the world massacre by 1917, they were just in a hurry to kill the Archduke in 1914 .. Moreover, the shots in Sarajevo are not just shots, but shots in the back of the Russian Empire ...
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 18 December 2013 00: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: parus2nik
      Russia never had friends .. even the little brothers Slavs hooted the Germans .. The Bulgarians invited the Germans to the kingdom .. The Serbs understood, they knew that the Russian Empire would be less prepared for the world massacre by 1917, they were just in a hurry to kill the Archduke in 1914 .. Moreover, the shots in Sarajevo are not just shots, but shots in the back of the Russian Empire ...


      Here is +100500
  11. Motors1991
    Motors1991 17 December 2013 18: 49 New
    +2
    The mysterious enemies are always to blame for everything: the Masons, the financial international and God knows who. The simple question is: Why should England, France, Germany and further down the list worry about Russian interests? There’s no brother in the picture, each for himself. Therefore, From the middle of the 19th century, England and Russia were irreconcilable enemies, the Russian Empire went to the borders with India, another effort and the British crown lost its main diamond - India. The mistress of the seas is simply powerless on land against the Russian army. This is how a white shark thrown ashore, can beat, shake its tail, bite its teeth, but not for long. So the task asks what united such irreconcilable enemies? Family ties? So the Romanovs were the closest relatives of the Hohenzollerns. But if you put aside the unconfirmed speculation about the Masons and look at the matter from an economic point of view, the picture emerges is completely different. Towards the end of the 19th beginning of the 20th century, the German Empire I became the strongest state in the world, posing a threat to the whole of Europe, including Russia. The Berlin-Baghdad railroad is a nail in the lid of the coffin of the Balkan aspirations of Russia. In the straits of the Russians would be met not the usual Turks, but formidable Teutons. Breakthrough of the Germans in Iraq is a threat not only to English India, but also to Russian Central Asia. In the event that Russia went in the wake of German politics, the defeat of France and England was inevitable, in this case Russia would have to face Germany sooner or later, face to face, a very predictable result - the defeat of Russia and the loss of the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, possibly St. Petersburg, because the tsar had no choice: not to fight, only to fight with the difference that in one case, fight in a coalition of great powers, in another, in proud The Russian Empire collapsed fighting in a coalition, what would it be with her if she fought alone. I want to add about Churchill that he allegedly rejoiced at the revolution and the collapse of the front in Russia, it’s again you’re idle thoughts and no more. At the time of Russia’s withdrawal from the war, England and France had 170 divisions against 200 German divisions and fortune clearly leaned in favor of Germany, there was nothing to rejoice about, the allies frantically searched and supported any forces ready to fight the Germans. He was lucky, the Russian Empire with the last gasp, it inflicted a fatal bite, infected the German troops located in the East with the revolution virus, and in the decisive German offensive on the Western Front in August 1918 these decomposed divisions refused to advance.
    1. user
      user 17 December 2013 22: 17 New
      -1
      It is of course the way you write. There is only one small nuance, England and France at that time were our official allies.
  12. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 17 December 2013 21: 05 New
    +1
    <<< There was no need for the Tsaritsyn adventure. "Loyal allies" continued to deceive and rob Russia. England and France concluded a separate agreement in which they promised not to cede the straits to the Russian Empire in any way. Moreover, the British and French hatched plans to dismember the Russian Empire after the defeat of Germany. >>>
    This policy is veiled and frank, but it is always only ENEMY in relation to Russia that the Naglosraks have been pursuing for centuries since the establishment of relations with Russia under Ivan the Terrible and, unfortunately, the ruling elite of Russia, harming national interests, was never able to effectively resist their numerous intrigues and often fell into the traps set by them, which was largely facilitated by the open betrayal of the highest masonic dignitaries and even members of the imperial family who always had influence and access to the emperor! And today this "scam" policy in relation to Russia with its "partnerships", "reboots", etc. "noodles" continues to be actively pursued and, again, with the help of a homegrown libesral LOBBY!
    1. Hort
      Hort 18 December 2013 07: 41 New
      +1
      the lobby was not liberal. In general, many librellists of those years were outstanding people, not like the current ghouls.
  13. not main
    not main 17 December 2013 21: 46 New
    +1
    From small arms London supplied 128 thousand Arisaka rifles, previously intended for the Japanese. They helped the Japanese in 1904-05 too! To be more precise, they acted against Russia! And with "sincere" assurances of friendship!
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 18 December 2013 00: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: non-primary
      From small arms London supplied 128 thousand Arisaka rifles, previously intended for the Japanese. They helped the Japanese in 1904-05 too! To be more precise, they acted against Russia! And with "sincere" assurances of friendship!


      That's right, in 1904 Japan was a close ally of Britain, and Russia an adversary, albeit in the Cold War, but an adversary
  14. groin
    groin 18 December 2013 09: 26 New
    0
    Envy is to blame. All wars, revolutions, coups, etc., all because of envy. But there is something to envy. Who has Russia problems? With those who vitally need influence and resources. For them, all methods are good, without any morality. Russia can unite everyone and everything without a warrior (Thank God there is everything in Russia, it can still share it with kindness). It did not lead an aggressive warrior, they themselves joined it and escaped from others. There are many examples in the history, one of the USSR is worth it. than a threat to the masses, financial internationals, etc. (Losing influence, respectively, funds. What will they pass on to the children?) The worst thing is that all normal people understand this everywhere, but their real rulers have different goals.
  15. 11111mail.ru
    11111mail.ru 18 December 2013 19: 12 New
    0
    A little bit about English politics:
    1. Where did Karl Marx write "Capital"? In Great Britain.
    2. Where did A. Herzen publish "The Bell"? In Great Britain.
    3. Where did the second congress of the RSDLP go? In Great Britain.
    Where are the current "friends" from Russia running to? To the UK.
    Proverb: A gentleman is the master of his word and can take it back at any time! Note that this is not about Russians!
  16. Marat
    Marat 18 December 2013 21: 34 New
    0
    The author, as I understand it, is convinced that Russia was on the verge of victory in the war. Once I expressed a similar opinion here, but my opponents broke my unbiased opinion to the smithereens, bringing a cloud of interesting material. All the same, I think that if the Entente defeated the Germans without Russia, then with Russia even more so.
  17. unknown
    unknown 21 December 2013 13: 30 New
    0
    Russia was on the verge of victory
    The October coup tactical task was to prevent the exit of the war of Austria-Hungary.
    As for England, which crap Russia, this is happening not the last 200, but at least 500 years. Since the time of the Jewish (merchant heresy), which the Jews (Europeans) call the Reformation.
    But even in her victory over Russia, England did not gain much benefit. She just delayed the collapse of her unprofitable (for the mother country) empire. The Zionist states destroyed it all the same with the hands of Germany and Russia revived by them. Can one then call the great politician Churchill?
    And the topic of treason at the top of the Russian Empire is very relevant.
    Since the time of the Jewish (merchant, Protestant) dynasty, the so-called Romanovs.
    Although, what traitors are they?
    Simply, the rulers-invaders, in the country they conquered during the Great Troubles.
    The misfire occurred only on Stalin. He tried to pursue his own policy, although the Zionist states remained the main beneficiary of his actions.
  18. yehat
    yehat 24 December 2013 13: 26 New
    0
    in the article the truth is mixed with utter lies.
    take for example a link to undermine artillery production.
    it is said that the Obukhov plant began to make 356mm guns without problems. This is not true!
    He could make 1-2 guns a year and then had to prepare a lot! And it was necessary 12x4 pieces and 2 more to the training ground, not counting the production of 305m guns, etc. Therefore, the government ordered some of the guns in Germany and the USA, and the USA received unique artillery technologies for free (in Germany there were technologies similar to Russian ones).