Military Review

England vs Russia. Organization of the February Revolution

42
The First World War, as predicted by Russian right-wing figures, became a catalyst for the destruction of the Russian Empire. Actually, this war was organized to destroy the monarchical empire, where the power belonged to the aristocracy, which, although gradually eroded, but still was a barrier to the victory of the merchants living on the principle of "everything is bought and sold." The Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires were to be the victims of predatory businessmen from the "financial international", which was mainly concentrated in France, Great Britain and the USA.


Especially these predators, or rather parasites, dreamed of seizing upon the riches of Russia. The Russian Empire was the main prize of a big war. On the ruins of the old empires they planned to build a new world order. World War I was a deadly trap for Russia. Already in 1916, in London and Paris, the question arose of what to do with Russia. It was believed that Germany, due to lack of resources and food, the growth of protest attitudes in society, would soon capitulate. Russia also showed good results in the war: its economy continued to grow even under wartime conditions, although all other warring powers experienced a decline in production (not counting the United States, which entered the war at its very end, and used the resources of the warring countries before); the Russian army and navy became stronger by the year 1917 than in the year 1914. The situation has become dangerous. In case of victory over Germany, I would have to share with Russia, give her part of the Polish lands of Germany, Galicia, which belonged to Austria-Hungary, the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, Constantinople. In addition, Russia would receive Western Armenia by strengthening its position in Anatolia. All this seriously strengthened the strategic position of Russia in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, in the Mediterranean. Russia turned the Black Sea into a “Russian lake”, having completely secured its borders in the Black Sea direction.

All this strengthened the world role of the Russian Empire. Western experts predicted that if the trends of Russia's rapid economic development and the gradual loss of the role of Western Europe remain, then by the middle of the century the Russian Empire will dominate the planet not only militarily but also economically. And this is taking into account its demographic power - in terms of population, the Russian Empire was second only to China and India, and its population continued to grow rapidly.

In the event of the collapse of Germany, the West would have to pay the bills for the help of a Russian soldier. In the West, another scenario was not ruled out. Once in a critical position, the German Kaiser of surrender in the west might prefer a separate peace in the east. There were chances for such an agreement. Germany has long been connected with Russia by hundreds of related threads. Yielding to the Western powers, Berlin would have to give up the colonies, Alsace, Lorraine, possibly the Ruhr, to abandon the ocean development program fleet, greatly reduce the army, pay indemnity. And having agreed with Russia, one could hope that Petersburg would be satisfied with concessions from Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Russia had no particular complaints against the Germans.

Therefore, the politicians of Britain and France, and the “financial international” behind them, decided that the best option for them was the elimination of autocracy in Russia and the establishment of a “democratic” republic. Fortunately, the Russian monarch did not seem to be a man capable of “iron and blood” to preserve an absolute monarchy and empire. All the conditions for the implementation of such a plan have already been. Russian society was dissatisfied with the war, it was torn by strong, fundamental contradictions. There was a powerful “fifth column” —from high-ranking freemasons, including representatives of the Romanov dynasty, aristocratic families, ministers and politicians to nationalists, separatists and socialist revolutionaries. The central government showed weakness and indecision. There was no effective security service capable of identifying and neutralizing various groups of conspirators.

Most of the “democratic” leaders in Russia who were supposed to transfer power were “brothers” around the boxes to the same Western politicians and public figures and businessmen, or were under their influence. On the one hand, the “democratic” Russia was to bring the war with Germany to a victorious end, to remain loyal to the allies in the Entente. On the other hand, the “democratic” coup had to destabilize Russia in such a way that it could not take advantage of the fruits of the victory and eventually lost its national borders - the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic States and Finland. Yes, and the new Russia itself was to pass under the control of the “world community”.

Since the beginning of 1916, the British ambassador to Russia, George William Buchanan, and the French ambassador, George Maurice Palaeologus, have developed good relations with dignitaries, with Russian liberal parties, in particular with the Cadets and Octobrists. Buchanan supported the ideas expressed by liberals to establish a constitutional monarchy in Russia. Moreover, foreign ambassadors established contacts with all the major groups of future “fevralists” —the aristocratic-grand-prince, general, and liberal-masonic. Ambassadors conducted negotiations in grand salons and secret meetings. Many conspirators openly visited embassies. The regime in the country, even in conditions of war, was very liberal. A state security service capable of crossing such processes did not exist.

England vs Russia. Organization of the February Revolution

George William Buchanan in the embassy library. 1914 year.

In some cases, the arrogance of ambassadors reached such an extent that they openly put pressure on the government. In 1916, Ambassador Buchanan put the question of the creation of a "ministry of trust" before Emperor Nicholas II. At the end of May 1916, Buchanan specially visited Moscow to award the highest British order of Moscow Mayor M. V. Chelnokov. Head Chelnokov became a British peer. It should also be noted that he was at the same time the chief authorized officer of the All-Russian City Union and the “brother” of a high degree of dedication. In the same year, 1916, Chelnokov, justifying his last name, began to regularly attend Headquarters, conducting negotiations with Alekseev and other generals.

Thanks to the acquaintance with the grand dukes, generals and Duma leaders, Buchanan and Paleolog received secret information about the military operations of the Russian army, its condition, plans, possible personnel shifts in the highest echelons of power, statements of the emperor and empress in narrow circles. In fact, English and French ambassadors acted as residents of hostile states, and as organizers of a coup d'état. In their presence, negotiations were conducted on coup scenarios, and the ambassadors of the Allied powers, did not interrupt the interlocutors, did not force them to abandon their anti-state activities, and did not inform the emperor.

The British Ambassador Buchanan talked more with conspirators from the Duma environment, lawyers and industrialists. The French ambassador Paleologue preferred more grand salons, like the salon of Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna. In addition, Paleolog established the traditional strong ties of Paris with the Polish elite. He regularly met with the tip of the Polish aristocracy - Prince Stanislav Radziwill, Count Iosif Potocki, Count Adam Zamoyski, etc. Poland.

Princess Olga Paley, the wife of Grand Duke Pavel Alexandrovich, who was one of the most active conspirators in the grand duke's group, recalled in emigration that the British Embassy, ​​on instructions from Prime Minister Lloyd George, became a "hotbed of propaganda." He was constantly visited by such well-known liberal figures and future leaders of the Provisional Government, like Prince Lvov, Milyukov, Rodzyanko, Maklakov, Guchkov and others.

Some rumors about the activities of ambassadors reached the Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which informed the emperor about this. According to Anna Vyrubova, the emperor talked about the active participation of the British ambassador in intrigues against the autocratic power, that the embassy almost held meetings with the grand dukes. Nicholas II wanted to send a telegram to the English monarch with a request to ban the British ambassador from interfering in Russia's domestic policy, seeing in this British desire to cause a revolution in the Russian Empire and weaken it by the time of the peace talks. The emperor was not going to ask for the recall of Buchanan. “This is too harsh,” said Nikolai. Thus, the Russian supreme power had some information about the conspiracy and could harshly stop the activities of the conspirators, but did not. Nikolai considered such actions “sharp”, “inconvenient”. In general, it is possible to understand Nikolai Alexandrovich, in order to prevent a coup, he had to “clean out” a significant part of the house of the Romanovs and the Russian elite. He didn’t have enough spirit for that.

Thus, a significant part of the imperial "elite" —the representatives of the Romanov family, the top generals, Duma leaders, representatives of urban and industrial bourgeois organizations, industrialists, bankers and lawyers — rallied against the emperor and autocratic Russia. These disparate forces were coordinated by the British and French embassies, as well as by the Masonic lodges. Therefore, the thesis that "the Bolsheviks destroyed the Russian Empire," is erroneous and deceitful. The Bolsheviks are simply trying to shift the responsibility for the destruction of the empire. It was destroyed by its degenerated old elite, who betrayed “old Russia”. Naturally, many justified their actions with good wishes. Like, they wanted to build a “new, democratic Russia” free from the “shackles of autocracy”. We have heard it before. We wanted the best, but it turned out - as always. Destroyers can not create!

The British played a fatal role in the fate of the last Russian emperor and his family, not only when they took an active part in the destruction of the Russian empire, but without giving them the opportunity to go to England. The royal family was originally under house arrest at the imperial residence of the Alexander Palace in Tsarskoye Selo. 4 March 1917, Nikolai Alexandrovich addressed the Chairman of the Provisional Government, Prince Lvov, with a request to allow him and his family to go to the UK. Three days later, the Provisional Government announced that it was ready to ship the Romanovs to Romanov (Murmansk), and from there to England. Russian Foreign Minister Pavel Milyukov met with British Ambassador Buchanan. The parties discussed the possibility of Nikolai Aleksandrovich’s departure to Britain and came to an agreement.

The version that revolutionary soldiers and sailors prevented the departure of the Romanov family is untenable. In the spring of 1917, the influence of the Bolsheviks on the masses was still insignificant. The Provisional Government still had considerable authority and military capabilities, and liberal speakers were popular. In the very Murmansk there were British warships, which, if necessary, could provide sufficient convoy for Nicholas and his family. There were no problems with taking the Romanov family out of Russia.

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, although he was not a royalist and did not sympathize with the Russian emperor, gave a positive response to the offer to take the Romanovs to England. He viewed the tsar as an additional trump card for influencing the Provisional Government in Russia. The British Prime Minister believed that he would be supported in Buckingham Palace. After all, the British monarchs were relatives of the Romanovs. However, he was wrong. The British monarch actually refused to accept the Romanovs. First, George V "not found" free space. In addition, the king expressed doubts about the expediency of a relative's visit to London, stating the possibility of dissatisfaction in society, activating the revolutionary movement in England. As a result, the king proposed to explore the possibility of the departure of the Romanov family to France. Thus, having refused entry to Nikolai Aleksandrovich, King George V signed the death sentence to him and his family.



Sources:
Aliev S.M. History Iran XX century. M., 2004.
Berberova N. People and Lodges. Russian masons of the XX century. M., 1997.
Demurin D.M. The Russian-British Opposition in Persia // http://www.zlev.ru/133/133_3.htm.
Shambarov V.E. Alien invasion: a conspiracy against the empire. M., 2007.
Unknown trip. Cossacks in Persia in 1909-1914 // http://www.cossackweb.narod.ru/kazaki/r_nzvphd01.htm.
Porokhov S. Battle of empires. England vs Russia. M., 2008.
Shirokorad A. England, neither war nor peace. M., 2011.
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
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ahmed Osmanov
    Ahmed Osmanov 30 December 2013 10: 00
    +4
    These aristocrats always had one goal - to destroy, weaken, subjugate, put their people in the power structures of Russia.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 31 December 2013 04: 38
      0
      Quote: Akhmed Osmanov
      These aristocrats always had one goal - to destroy, weaken, subjugate, put their people in the power structures of Russia.


      No. The aristocracy together with the nobility created the Russian Empire.
      The question is that the last king was not suitable for managing the empire.
      Even under his father, the aristocracy served and was the backbone of the regime.
      1. JackTheRipper
        JackTheRipper 1 January 2014 02: 34
        -1
        Quote: cdrt
        No. The aristocracy together with the nobility created the Russian Empire.
        The question is that the last king was not suitable for managing the empire.
        Even under his father, the aristocracy served and was the backbone of the regime.

        An old, hackneyed song that the king is bad, but tsarism itself is perfect. Heard ...
        Now let’s listen to the contemporaries of your kings, A. Blok, from whom the estate was burned:
        Quote: Alexander Block
        Why is the ancient cathedral full of holes? - Because for a hundred years the obese pop here, hiccuping, took bribes and traded vodka.
        Why are they spoiling in kindly manor estates? “Because they raped and flogged the girls there: the wrong gentleman, so the neighbor.”
        Why are centenary parks being felled? “Because for a hundred years, under their spreading lime trees and maples, the gentlemen showed their power: they poked a beggar in the nose with money, and a fool with education.
        It's like that.

        And a thousand times right was Pushkin (who lived before Nicholas, but nonetheless) said about tsarism:
        "We'll strangle the last king with the intestines of the last priest!"
        1. orthodox
          orthodox 1 January 2014 11: 47
          +1
          To attribute this quatrain to Pushkin is unproven. The source of pathological malice is in the bowels of the French Revolution, if you have the strength to read, here is the link: http://feb-web.ru/feb/pushkin/serial/v75/v75-107-.htm
        2. AntonR7
          AntonR7 5 January 2014 23: 24
          +1
          The monarchy of the Russian type, I think, is a national idea. Uniting Russians because the monarch is a symbol. It is no coincidence that the British wanted to weaken and destroy the autocracy, by the way, if someone reads Churchill's memoirs "The World Crisis" then it is written in black and white that we do not need a strong united monarchical Russia, it is necessary to make it a republic with autonomy of national outskirts, such Russia will be weaker and more preferable to us. I think in a monarchy there is more plus, if not twist, only a person who has a lot of power and with a long term of rule really has the opportunity to carry out long and useful reforms.
  2. Magadan
    Magadan 30 December 2013 10: 34
    +5
    The article is good, but about Nicholas - not true. He was not going to run away from the country, although he could do it a thousand times
    Yes, there were conversations of third parties about the removal of the Tsar’s family, but the Tsar’s family was not going to flee anywhere. Moreover, the letters have survived to this day, where Nikolai directly refused to flee to Denmark (if I remember exactly Denmark)
    1. Standard Oil
      Standard Oil 30 December 2013 15: 06
      -3
      Quote: Magadan
      The article is good, but about Nicholas - not true. He was not going to run away from the country, although he could do it a thousand times
      Yes, there were conversations of third parties about the removal of the Tsar’s family, but the Tsar’s family was not going to flee anywhere. Moreover, the letters have survived to this day, where Nikolai directly refused to flee to Denmark (if I remember exactly Denmark)

      Well, that he didn’t run away, even if he would have saved his family, he and the Empress-horseradish would have been shot and shot with them, but it’s a pity for the children.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  3. RoTTor
    RoTTor 30 December 2013 10: 38
    -19%
    Demonization of the role of England in our history is as insanity as nonsense about "world government" or "world Zionist conspiracy."
    The sales agent for education and the writing graphomaniac of the elderly poisons the information space with such nonsense.
    Well, he has it - an order that matches the inferiority complex.

    Each country pursues its own geopolitical goals by its own methods, depending on its own forces and means. it was and always will be.

    But there are no "smart", "insidious" and so on. countries.
    1. sincman
      sincman 30 December 2013 10: 59
      +3
      Quote: RoTTor
      Each country pursues its own geopolitical goals by its own methods, depending on its own forces and means. it was and always will be.

      But there are no "smart", "insidious" and so on. countries

      There are only "smart" and very "insidious" methods ... in some countries, and of course all God's dandelions.
      1. sincman
        sincman 30 December 2013 11: 03
        +2
        Actual cartoon about these same methods ... How many years have passed, but nothing changes ...
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 31 December 2013 04: 41
        -2
        Quote: sincman
        Quote: RoTTor
        Each country pursues its own geopolitical goals by its own methods, depending on its own forces and means. it was and always will be.

        But there are no "smart", "insidious" and so on. countries

        There are only "smart" and very "insidious" methods ... in some countries, and of course all God's dandelions.


        Well, in fact, Russian and then Soviet diplomacy always differed laughing
        Would you read that they write about our diplomacy, for example, in Turkish history textbooks laughing
        The only thing was that the Russian was more professional than the Soviet, which is not surprising. Soviet was largely created from scratch, and Russian from the traditions of the Grand Dukes
        1. AntonR7
          AntonR7 5 January 2014 23: 27
          +1
          What do you want from the Turks to hear about us ?! People whom we beat more than once.
    2. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 31 December 2013 11: 04
      +1
      Quote: RoTTor
      writing graphomaniac of old people poisons information space with such nonsense

      On the contrary, N. Starikov elucidated some aspects of the history of Russia, the consideration of which, due to your political and sexual addictions, causes you to have a persistent reaction of depletion of the contents of the intestines and bladder ... and in the
      Quote: RoTTor
      poisons information space with such nonsense
      then you undoubtedly have the palm!
      Quote: RoTTor
      he has it - an order that matches the inferiority complex

      Do you have complete disinterestedness? Well, yes, slandering the history of Russia, spreading common "truths" borrowed from Goebbels and other fascist scum is a "worthy" field of activity for liberals.
    3. aleshka
      aleshka 2 January 2014 06: 23
      +1
      I will not argue with you! but look who was the winner according to the results of two World Wars ??? England and its former US colony !!! With minimal (in relation to Russia and Germany) casualties, a lot of money was earned on military supplies, I'm not talking about the increased influence of these countries in the world !! So it’s worth considering who benefited from these war ???
  4. Skobelev
    Skobelev 30 December 2013 10: 46
    +1
    The February revolution in the Russian Empire, in my opinion, occurred for the following reasons:
    - The government of Nicholas II was not popular in the Russian Empire, it could not arrange for the release of sufficient quantities of ammunition and weapons for the warring army. The composition of the government was greatly influenced by Rasputin, who compromised the royal family;
    - the warring army of the Russian Empire did not have decisive successes in the WWII in the third year of the war. The losses of the army were excessively large, mainly the cadre officers of the army were knocked out;
    - In St. Petersburg there were interruptions in the delivery of food;
    - the war became not popular among the people, the soldiers did not want to fight;
    - The issue of providing the peasants with land was not resolved;
    - Opposition political parties functioned freely in the warring Russian Empire, which even had their own factions in the State Duma.
    etc.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 31 December 2013 13: 09
      +1
      Quote: Skobelev
      The February revolution in the Russian Empire, in my opinion, occurred for the following reasons:
      - The government of Nicholas II was not popular in the Russian Empire, it could not arrange for the release of sufficient quantities of ammunition and weapons for the warring army. The composition of the government was greatly influenced by Rasputin, who compromised the royal family;
      - the warring army of the Russian Empire did not have decisive successes in the WWII in the third year of the war. The losses of the army were excessively large, mainly the cadre officers of the army were knocked out;
      - In St. Petersburg there were interruptions in the delivery of food;
      - the war became not popular among the people, the soldiers did not want to fight;
      - The issue of providing the peasants with land was not resolved;
      - Opposition political parties functioned freely in the warring Russian Empire, which even had their own factions in the State Duma.
      etc.


      In my opinion mixed facts, causes and effects.
      1. Russia in WWII did not have positive national goals: the straits were politically unattainable in alliance with England and France, there was nothing to share with Germany, in general, too, with Austria-Hungary, the only nationalist aggressive pan-Slavic propaganda prevented (its consequence is support for the hotbed of terrorism, and with aspirations for hegemony in the Balkans - Serbia).
      2. In other words, the country and the people did not need war. No one understood what we were fighting for. The war against may provide an incentive for a while, but it will not give an explanation of the war with such losses as in 1916. A war for something is already needed here (for example, for the survival of the people, as in WWII)
      3. The terrible losses of 1916, when the entire backbone of the cadre army was lost: just like virtually all cadre officers (and this was always the throne support, after all, the Russian Empire and the RIA were inseparable), and the guard, which was always supported completely combat-ready and was always loyal to the throne
      4. Inability of the government to form a government of general confidence
      5. The infantilism of all parties of the Russian political system without exception
      6. Weakening efforts to suppress the Bolsheviks and SRs after the death of Stolypin
  5. Tron
    Tron 30 December 2013 10: 46
    +8
    How much evil the Anglo-Saxons did in our country. But they will be rewarded as they deserve
  6. Horn
    Horn 30 December 2013 11: 27
    +11
    ... the British embassy, ​​at the direction of Prime Minister Lloyd George, has become a "hotbed of propaganda." He was constantly visited by such well-known liberal figures and future leaders of the Provisional Government as Prince Lvov, Milyukov, Rodzianko, Maklakov, Guchkov and others

    - Something this reminds me of ... Nemtsov, Kasyanov, Kasparov ... The embassy of one Naglosaksonsky country ... And the goals, most important, the same: to destroy the empire!
    1. cap-blood
      cap-blood 3 January 2014 22: 08
      +3
      I absolutely agree with you. By the way, pay attention to how all these ambassadors and envoys became more active in Ukraine. This is unprecedented. And their "Rodzianko" here at least a dime a dozen. The government is weak, tied hand and foot by its European assets, the SBU is lazy and unprofessional. The analogies are complete, the methods are similar. As always, history does not teach anything ... And as for the primary sources, you don't have to go far: Lenin. PSS. Politizdat.
  7. Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 30 December 2013 11: 59
    +2
    I am sure that we will turn our neck to these naglosaks! Maybe sooner, maybe later. They will not go anywhere and will answer for everything!
  8. wax
    wax 30 December 2013 14: 34
    +4
    Stalin adequately answered the Anglo-Saxons in the future and would have brought the matter to its logical end - the collapse of the world financial empire, but political pygmies came to power, and then direct traitors to the Lenin-Stalin case. Russia is alive and has a chance to return to its historical path.
  9. Walking
    Walking 30 December 2013 15: 16
    +7
    All these high-ranking officials themselves chopped off the branch on which they sat, took off the king, destroyed the army and, as a result, lost everything.
  10. bublic82009
    bublic82009 30 December 2013 15: 39
    +1
    historians say now if it weren’t for the Revolution Russia would have won and it would have been this and that. guys with a king like Nikolai 2 Russia could only come to the February revolution. the king was limp. weak officials
  11. drop
    drop 30 December 2013 16: 31
    +1
    If only history had taught our President to remove thieves, militants and destroyers from his entourage.
  12. kaktus
    kaktus 30 December 2013 17: 17
    +1
    The article is certainly interesting, BUT: intrigue, intrigue, intrigue ... organization of coups ... and so on in the same vein .... Does your story exist? Or does it all come down to other people's intrigues? No.
  13. msv
    msv 30 December 2013 18: 05
    +4
    Quote: Skobelev
    The February revolution in the Russian Empire, in my opinion, occurred for the following reasons:
    - The government of Nicholas II was not popular in the Russian Empire, it could not arrange for the release of sufficient quantities of ammunition and weapons for the warring army. The composition of the government was greatly influenced by Rasputin, who compromised the royal family;
    - the warring army of the Russian Empire did not have decisive successes in the WWII in the third year of the war. The losses of the army were excessively large, mainly the cadre officers of the army were knocked out;
    - In St. Petersburg there were interruptions in the delivery of food;
    - the war became not popular among the people, the soldiers did not want to fight;
    - The issue of providing the peasants with land was not resolved;
    - Opposition political parties functioned freely in the warring Russian Empire, which even had their own factions in the State Duma.
    etc.


    All these are derivative stages of far-reaching goals. The author of the article correctly, in my opinion, put the emphasis and initial reasons for the struggle against Russian statehood. And the main mistake of Nicholas II is the underestimation of the 5th column, and, accordingly, indecisive actions (or rather, inaction) at a decisive moment.
  14. msv
    msv 30 December 2013 18: 07
    0
    Quote: RoTTor
    Demonization of the role of England in our history is as insanity as nonsense about "world government" or "world Zionist conspiracy."
    The sales agent for education and the writing graphomaniac of the elderly poisons the information space with such nonsense.
    Well, he has it - an order that matches the inferiority complex.

    Each country pursues its own geopolitical goals by its own methods, depending on its own forces and means. it was and always will be.

    But there are no "smart", "insidious" and so on. countries.


    What your beliefs are based on is not entirely clear.
  15. msv
    msv 30 December 2013 18: 07
    -1
    Quote: RoTTor
    Demonization of the role of England in our history is as insanity as nonsense about "world government" or "world Zionist conspiracy."
    The sales agent for education and the writing graphomaniac of the elderly poisons the information space with such nonsense.
    Well, he has it - an order that matches the inferiority complex.

    Each country pursues its own geopolitical goals by its own methods, depending on its own forces and means. it was and always will be.

    But there are no "smart", "insidious" and so on. countries.


    What your beliefs are based on is not entirely clear.
  16. unknown
    unknown 30 December 2013 18: 25
    +9
    Not demonizing Britain’s destructive role in our history is stupid.
    Britain is our main enemy. Even nowadays, all threads lead to London. Zionist states with the help of the Soviet Union destroyed the British colonial empire. But in reality, it was like that, an internal showdown. The old British empire was an unprofitable enterprise. But the British themselves did not want to rectify the situation: who, of their own free will, wants to say goodbye to imperial status. Overseas vassals did the black work for them. Hands of Japan and the USSR. At the same time, the overseas Zionists seriously decided that they were the first. Forever. Fools. Britain retained its currency and after the collapse of the dollar will retain its position completely fenced off from the eurozone.
  17. barbiturate
    barbiturate 30 December 2013 19: 39
    +3
    It has long been known about the role of England in many destructive processes in Russia in the 18-19th century, and the British themselves recognize this, what's the secret? The British themselves boast of the revolutions in France and the assassinations of emperors in Russia and their statements on this subject. There is no man - no problems, and the masses of money for the money of several hirelings can be inflamed and overthrown anyone. The formula has long been known - destabilization, chaos, civil war, in favor of whom it is not waged - the weakening of the state or its collapse
  18. bikoleg
    bikoleg 30 December 2013 19: 53
    +1
    Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov was a good man, he loved his family very much ... But the Sovereign Emperor did not fulfill his mission! Well, the entire opposition, that then and now, without replenishment from outside, will not be able to do anything. Pay attention to Ukraine, how many "crows" immediately flew. What money is spent on Independence Square, and the Syrian opposition ... There are hundreds of these examples!
  19. T-12
    T-12 30 December 2013 21: 58
    +3
    The article is interesting, but reflects only part of the evil that fell upon Russia after the 14th year.
    The very prehistory of the global conflict, the alignment of forces and countries, did not serve as a signal for the statesmen of that time and in order to soberly judge the role and place that is assigned to Russia.
    And Russia was assigned the most shameful role - cannon fodder for the Anglo-French ragamuffins! Lacking serious contradictions that would have cost the wars with Austria-Hungary and Germany, Russia, represented by Sazonov and a group of conspirators, provoked World War! It is known that the German ambassador tried to persuade Sazonov to cancel the mobilization, but Sazonov impudently climbed and dragged the Russian Empire with him into destruction! Russia was banally used as a LOCH against the Middle Empires! Russia, represented by Sazonov, actually became an indicator of the First World War! The so-called cannot. "Slavic brotherhood" (which actually never existed) is worth the very existence of the Russian Empire!
    But as you know, the loser is always to blame and Germany is bent to the plinth. The bomb for the new World Out was laid.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 31 December 2013 13: 16
      +2
      Quote: T-12
      The article is interesting, but reflects only part of the evil that fell upon Russia after the 14th year.
      The very prehistory of the global conflict, the alignment of forces and countries, did not serve as a signal for the statesmen of that time and in order to soberly judge the role and place that is assigned to Russia.
      And Russia was assigned the most shameful role - cannon fodder for the Anglo-French ragamuffins! Lacking serious contradictions that would have cost the wars with Austria-Hungary and Germany, Russia, represented by Sazonov and a group of conspirators, provoked World War! It is known that the German ambassador tried to persuade Sazonov to cancel the mobilization, but Sazonov impudently climbed and dragged the Russian Empire with him into destruction! Russia was banally used as a LOCH against the Middle Empires! Russia, represented by Sazonov, actually became an indicator of the First World War! The so-called cannot. "Slavic brotherhood" (which actually never existed) is worth the very existence of the Russian Empire!
      But as you know, the loser is always to blame and Germany is bent to the plinth. The bomb for the new World Out was laid.


      Well ... beginning with the refusal to follow the advice of the dying Kutuzov and expelling the enemy from his country, concluding an alliance with him and jointly opposing England, Russia as a rule involuntarily acted in the interests of England (at the same time, sometimes in sharp conflict). So Thu was no stranger already.
      But the country's entry into the war, during which the country suffered huge losses, and then simply disappeared, while not having ANY realistic national goals in the war - this is the "peak" of the policy of Nicholas II, the apotheosis ...
  20. T-12
    T-12 30 December 2013 22: 06
    +3
    Continued:
    Suppose what would happen if the government was led by P. Stolypin. (respected by me).
    First, under no pretext would he allow Russia to be drawn into the world conflict against the interests of Russia. Flirting Entente countries and not articulate promises did not reflect the real interests of Russia.
    Secondly, it is clearly seen that the Black Sea straits are insignificant in comparison with those acquisitions that the Anglo-French will receive in the event of the defeat of the German Empire and the loss of their colonies.
    Thirdly and most importantly, the sluggishly current participation of Russia in the conflict would have led to the defeat of the Entente already in 15g. with automatic cancellation of all debts both in England and in France.
    That's where the strategic goal of Russia was, and not the Slavic rake!
    1. Uhe
      Uhe 31 December 2013 15: 55
      -2
      Stolypin was a layman who did a lot of trouble due to the fact that he led the elephant in a pasudny shop. Remember that during his lifetime he was called the Hangman. Do you respect the hanger of the Russian people?

      The only person who could prevent the tsar from getting involved in the war was Rasputin;) There were no other such people with such influence on the tsar. This is the whole trouble of the last years of that pro-Western state.

      Any Westerner at the helm of Russia is the misfortune of the Russian people and state. The same goes for Eurasians. The Russians had their own way to Peter 1, they must return to it.

      And who was able to unite the eastern part of Germany, where only the Germanized descendants of the Slavs live, with other Slavic states into a single economic and military alliance? Stalin. There was no other such person in Russian history for a long time and will not be there for a long time. But the Saxons, before they were captured and destroyed by the Franks, were our brother friends. And faith was one.
      1. T-12
        T-12 31 December 2013 17: 09
        +3
        Under him, under Stolypin, Russia would not have come to revolution. And he hung the enemies of Russia, which actually corresponded to the strategic interests of Russia, and the enemies rebelled after his murder and were no longer afraid of the regime. To the enemies of Russia, I attribute all kinds of sucking democrats as the extreme right (they will later become Bolsheviks), so leftist. Purely dog ​​bandits like Stalin and the whole Caucasian rabble, all of them and a little reddened to Siberia - forever (not as it really was, to Volodya Nadezhda came to Shushinskoe for a mating, and Yoska-bastard, the wife of the front-line soldiers inseminated, this penal servitude? !!), and stained with blood - hang in the square!
        The loss of seasoned enemies, Russia would have survived.
        About Pera you generally bent. Before him, anyone could wipe his feet about Russia, he created a state!
        About Westerners in power in Russia. Catherine has grown territories more than all Russian tsars!
        About the Slavs in Europe. Yes, they are, have been and will be in Europe, but they never had a desire for Russia, you live in a fairy tale about the Slavic brotherhood. After the war, Slesia moved to Poland, but already in the 50's. they fought for a return to Germany (GDR) at that time. And your tales that the Germans planned to destroy the Slavs cannot stand up to any criticism - this is a Jewish tale to put Russians under tanks. In Germany itself, the Slavs accounted for more than 30%, Bulgaria 2 World War II was an ally of Germany, 1,2 million Russians were in German uniforms, approx. 60 million Slavs, and if not for the partisans, then they would have avoided repression. History must not be known by hearsay, however.
        1. Deniska
          Deniska 20 January 2014 16: 33
          0
          I read posts ... It seems sensible, but sometimes it doesn’t agree .... So I definitely won’t minus it!
  21. SlavaP
    SlavaP 31 December 2013 01: 28
    +5
    No wonder. The interests of Russia and Britain intersected always and everywhere: Central Asia, the Balkans, Eastern Europe. So there was no love and never will be - there is Politics.
    1. Uhe
      Uhe 31 December 2013 15: 53
      +3
      True, only for some reason that it is possible for Britain, Russia and the Russians refused a priori;)

      Therefore, kicking the British striped red-haired cam is necessary only for themselves.
  22. Uhe
    Uhe 31 December 2013 15: 52
    +3
    It is very good that more and more they say that the real destructive revolution in 1917 was organized by pro-British forces and at their expense. It was Britain that destroyed the Russian Empire, and its agents of influence led to the overthrow of the king.

    And it is the Bolsheviks who saved the Empire from final destruction by overthrowing the Provisional Government, a government aimed at the destruction of Russia, in full, as Fursov aptly put it. And it was precisely the defenders of this Provisional Government — and there were a majority among the white Republicans! - Invaders were invited to Russia in the form of the Entente. It is surprising that in 1991 the ideological followers of the Februaryists came to power in Russia, who continue to destroy our country and plunder it.

    In 1917 there was one anti-coup d'etat - February, and one anti-coup - October. That is why the latter is called the Great October Revolution.
  23. T-12
    T-12 1 January 2014 14: 09
    -4
    Uhe, you sovdepovskih tales have read and are not able to determine the truth from propaganda. husks!
    The coup in October / November was carried out by a gang of drunken sailors and soldiers, where the accidental leaders were Trotsky and Lenin (the order is correct). "Great October Revolution." it was called by the Bolsheviks themselves, which at the time was a local event in the whirlpool of history. How can an event be "Great" if the Winter battalion was guarded only by the women's battalion ?! It was Eisenstein who kissed and made the coup more meaningful and costly. Like the character Al. Nevsky, who, as you know, collaborated with the Mongols and did not do anything heroic, but was just a provincial prince / konaz, whom the Mongols appointed and removed for their inability to lead, as is observed today, until now.
    Cinematography and artists completed the hegemonization of the coup. I will not disclose to you a secret that the "ticket" in Soviet cinema and art was the politicization of works. Over the years, the events of the 17th were overgrown with myths and simply fables, and from time to time from the deck of characters, participants were extracted whose "faces" and whose actions did not correspond to the political attitudes of the next "leader" in the USSR.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 5 January 2014 00: 20
      0
      Quote: T-12
      The coup in October / November was carried out by a gang of drunk sailors and soldiers, where Trotsky and Lenin turned out to be random leaders (the order is correct).

      This coup, as you put it, was the first step towards building the strongest state in the 20th century: already in the 20s and 30s, buildings were built in the USSR according to the most advanced projects in the world, a whole "army" of great Soviet scientists began their career. designers, engineers and cultural figures, by the end of the 30s giant factories were built in the country, an energy system was created, new fields were explored, new sparsely populated territories were developed, universal literacy and medical care were introduced, the network of roads and railways was restored and expanded, created and equipped with everything the Red Army and the Soviet fleet and much much more ...
      In truth, the great was October 1917 !!! This event can only be compared with the Great French Revolution - but in terms of scale and heritage, the October Revolution is orders of magnitude cooler !!! And all this eventually led to the Red Flag over the Reichstag, Kurchatov’s nuclear explosion and Gagarin’s flight ... That’s the story ...
      What would remain if Nicholas remained in power - only God knows - but one story of the 20th century is clear, it would be completely different ...
      1. Deniska
        Deniska 20 January 2014 16: 57
        0
        In the reign of Nicholas II, a new stage began in the development of Russian entrepreneurship. It was associated with a fundamental structural restructuring of Russian trade and industrial potential. This was the era of the creation of industrial giants, raising the efficiency of the country's economy to an unprecedented height. For the first decade of the reign of Nicholas II, the state budget increased from 965 to 1947 million rubles, i.e. more than 2 times. By 1913, it amounted to 3,4 billion, and was deficient and significantly exceeded the state. budgets of countries such as England, France and Germany. The total volume of industrial production during the reign of Nicholas II increased by more than 5 times. No country in the world at that time knew such a pace.
  24. Stinger
    Stinger 1 January 2014 16: 39
    +3
    The British always loved us:
    - in 1853-56, the British themselves, in alliance with France, landed in Crimea, blocked Kronstadt,
    - July 6-7, 1854 subjected to nine-hour shelling by ship artillery Solovetsky Monastery
    - On August 18-24, 1854, the squadron of Admiral Price tried to capture Petropavlovsk.
    The British continued their attempts to defeat Russia in the twentieth century. Soon after the revolution, on December 23, 1917, an English-French agreement was concluded on the division of spheres of influence in Russia: the Caucasus and Cossack regions entered the zone of Great Britain, and Bessarabia, Ukraine and Crimea entered the zone of France. At a time when the old army had already collapsed, and the Red Army had not yet been created, the British tried to seize important key points from Russia in order to use them as starting points for further expansion. On March 6, an English landing party was landed in Murmansk, on August 2 of that year, British troops landed in Arkhangelsk, and on August 4, British troops occupied Baku.
  25. SlavaP
    SlavaP 1 January 2014 23: 15
    0
    I was rummaging in my card index and came across a couple of articles "on the topic" - I will try to translate and publish soon.
  26. Consul-t
    Consul-t 4 January 2014 23: 56
    +2
    Friends, I remembered a joke about the topic.
    In the 19th century, French was taught in schools, as a result we broke Napoleon and entered Paris.
    In the 20th century, German was taught in schools, as a result, we piled on Hitler and took Berlin.
    In the 21st century, English is taught in our schools - our country has never had such a rich choice ...
    (who break it?))))
    1. T-12
      T-12 5 January 2014 15: 02
      -1
      Consul-t, and now you need to learn Chinese and the end of the show! That broke into Russia of the 11th century.
  27. Dovmont
    Dovmont 5 January 2014 15: 23
    0
    George V forbade the entry of the Romanovs into Small Britain !! ?? I am snapping hard! Who is King George? The constitutional monarch, in other words - a little fart, parsley is an unloaded, aristocratic Tuer clown. His decision did not carry any weight without the approval of parliament. And if he barked against Nikolashka and his ex-imperial empress, then so he was ordered by the financial and political bigwigs of this stinky island!
  28. Aleksandr2
    Aleksandr2 17 January 2014 09: 49
    0
    Fortunately, the Russian monarch did not seem to be a man capable of “iron and blood” to preserve the absolute monarchy and empire.

    There has been no absolute monarchy since 1905.
    1. Deniska
      Deniska 20 January 2014 16: 48
      0
      In my opinion it is Pity !!! that did not turn out ...
      It was then necessary to tidy up all this stupid sailor ...