Military Review

Do we need a Turkish coast?

Do we need a Turkish coast?

It was Tsargrad that was supposed to be the main prize for the Russian Empire in the all-European war that began in the summer of 1914. Before that, only once in the whole thousand history Russia - in the spring of 1878, our country had a real chance to firmly straddle the Black Sea straits. However, this chance was missed in Berlin not without the participation of the “honest broker” Bismarck. Does Russia need straits? This question today, a hundred years after the war, remains relevant.

Before the beginning of World War I, the straits and the place of Constantinople on the map of Russia were of immense not only economic but also political importance. Back in 1913, Foreign Minister SDD Sazonov emphasized to the emperor in a memorandum: “The straits in the hands of a foreign state mean the subordination of the whole south of Russia to this state” and did not tire further to assert that they are “the vital nerve in all our economic life”. (See “Constantinople and the Straits, v. 1, p. 183). Yes, the formal owner of the straits - “reformatted” Turkey in the first months of the war took expectant neutrality, but no one doubted that Istanbul was eager to recoup for the humiliation of the Balkan wars in the Russian Caucasus. Professor Trubetskoy stated that the question of Constantinople is “for us the question of our daily bread ... about all of our political power and our cultural mission, about the most spiritual" I "of Russia." (“The National Question”, Moscow, 1915. “Constantinople and the Straits”, v. 1, p. 97).

The theme of the straits was constantly exaggerated in the State Duma. Here the head of the cadets, P.N., was especially zealous. Milyukov, who, in his endless speeches, awkwardly tried to convince the Entente countries that in general they would lose little, but their ally, Russia, would become more powerful, and therefore more active in the implementation of allied projects.

The acquisition by Russia of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, he argued, “has nothing to do with the conquering tendencies that supporters of the future organized world of Europe want to put the limit with good reason ... Possession of Constantinople and the Straits is the end, not the beginning ... Eliminating the issue of the straits will make it possible to solemnly attribute in the sanctuary of history for so long tormented Europe "Eastern Question". (World War Questions, 1915, p. 548).

This “elimination” of the Russian authorities was considered in an expanded version, which in order to ensure the functioning of the water artery annexation of the islands that control the straits, such as Imbros, Tenedos, Lemnos and Samothrace. Promising "not to absorb the independent Balkan peoples," Russia nevertheless sought to become their "common political center", sweeping away the Habsburg monarchy and the Ottoman Empire in its path. Tsar Nicholas II was to take the place of Franz Joseph and Mehmed V, and his empire to become a great Mediterranean power.

England could not agree with this position. There would have been a powerful maritime state on the Mediterranean, which would have turned into a big exit from the “Russian lake” - the Black Sea, forcing Europeans to recall with fear the glorious times of the Mediterranean expeditions of Admiral Ushakov and his comrades. Moreover, Russian influence would manifest itself on the road to India, and Russia itself would have the opportunity to influence all of Asia Minor, penetrating African countries and spreading its expansion all the way to the Indian Ocean.

Frankly fearing such a development of events, England, on the one hand, continued to uphold its “conservative thesis”, which had already been rolled around in Berlin, - the straits are in the sovereign disposal of Turkey as an integral part of its territorial waters, and should be closed to military ships of all foreign states. But on the other hand, in the course of the development of hostilities on the Western Front, England prepared an independent invasion of Constantinople, without Russia's participation and with the auxiliary naval support of France. Yes, in many ways it was something like an impromptu - the outspoken imperialist, indefatigable in his energy, sir Winston Churchill, acted as the main ideologist and performer of such an expedition. For him, who served as the first Lord of the Admiralty, actually combining the powers of the naval minister and commander-in-chief fleet, mastery of the straits has become almost a paranoid goal. For the sake of its achievement, everything came to fruition - cynicism (Russia needs to demand more “cannon fodder” in order to use it on the Western Front and liberate part of the Allied forces to conquer the straits), unscrupulous lies (when Churchill brazenly claimed in his memoranda that they support his idea influential members of the House of Lords, who actually either hesitated about the correctness of such a decision, or rejected it altogether) ... And, finally, the usual swindle: to involve the military forces of Bulgaria and Greece in the annexation of the Straits and in Learning victories to leave unfulfilled promises to them as “compensation”.

As is known, Churchill’s “sea project” began in February of 1915: February, the external forts of the Dardanelles were destroyed by 25, and the allied ships (without the Russian, of course) entered the straits.

Russia was embarrassed, not believing that the well-organized Turkish detachments of defenders of Constantinople could beat the British and their allies. In the memorandum of March 4, 1915, Russia sharply demanded that the city of Constantinople, the islands of the Sea of ​​Marmara "be finally incorporated into the royal empire." (“Constantinople and the Straits”, No. 49, p. 252). However, the bargaining over the straits, always so tough, acquired a completely different character, as soon as it became clear that the Allied operation in the Dardanelles had suffered a complete failure. The British surprisingly quickly retreated, having received support from the Russians for the defense of Egypt and the routes to India (the brilliant raid of the cavalry corps of Neratov overturned all German-Turkish hopes to expel the British from the Middle East). The French were completely satisfied by the agreement of Russian diplomacy with the fact that France after the victory would be able to determine itself (in addition to Alsace and Lorraine in Paris, they were seriously thinking about annexing the Rhineland).

Meanwhile, with the commissioning of the newest Russian dreadnoughts on the Black Sea, even the German cruiser “Goben”, beautifully renamed by the Turks to the “Sultan Selim Yavuz” (“The Terrible”) or simply “Yavuz”, could not oppose the Russian landing operation in straits. The past, as is known, does not recognize the subjunctive mood. Nevertheless, in our “semi-virtual” time, alternative historical research is becoming increasingly popular every year. Today, entire military history volumes with characteristic names are regularly published: “... What if?” It’s not easy to say what would happen to Russia and Europe if in 1916, in parallel with the onset of the victorious Russian South-Western front, General Brusilov somewhere two or three army corps were landed to the south of Burgas for a swift throw ... Talented Russian historian Anton Kersnovsky justifiably blamed the Russian Stavka for exchanging the walls of Constantinople for Wallachian huts, deciding to support the newly-minted, but immediately defeated This ally is Romania.

Let us try, after scrolling through the alternative scenario, to find out the reasons why, instead of shedding rivers of blood in fruitless battles with the Austro-Germans, it was not decided to strike the weak link of the Fourth Alliance - Turkey? And at the same time for Bulgaria, which, given such a development of events, being politically completely unstable, could well have just gotten out of the war. By the way, this happened three decades later - already during the Second World War.

It should be immediately noted that no UN or League of Nations, even if they already existed at that time, could hardly change anything - the Russians smashed the Turks in the Caucasus over and over again and already rushed to Anatolia and even to the “purely British interest "- between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

The British and the French, who, at the suggestion of the irrepressible Winston Churchill, were so severely burned in the Dardanelles, no longer bothered about dreams of Constantinople. Yes, helping the Russians to beat the Turks again, where they had just beaten them, the Allies would hardly have become. But then, unlike the 1878 of the year, they wouldn’t interfere exactly. Although even the usual bombardments from the sea in the same places where they did not manage to break through, it would have been quite enough from the British and French to create almost ideal conditions for the Russian "march to Constantinople." After all, the Turks really could not have put more strength in Thrace than they had previously opposed to the Allies in the Dardanelles. Those two or three Russian corps, if there were cannons and ammunition, would have done away with the already fairly battered Turks in a matter of weeks, especially since such a blow would surely be supported by the next offensive of the Caucasian Front, which would draw off the last Turkish reserves.

Russian to Constantinople from Bourgas remained a few transitions, and as soon as they almost without a fight would have taken Edirne (Adrianople) - this "key to Constantinople" with the ancient sultan's palaces, the sultanate itself, and the "Young Turk" triumvirate of pasha, who had laughed at that by the military efforts of Europe, which had been stupid in the straits, would have been forced to ask for help from the Germans and the same Bulgarians. But the forces of the Germans were at that time literally connected to the last division, starting with Verdun and ending with those that saved the Austrians, who were almost finished off by Brusilov in Galicia. Bulgarians, in general, barely kept at Thessaloniki and Monastir.

The refusal to take Constantinople seems all the more mysterious, as in Russia and in Europe many already guessed that the throne under Nicholas II was reeling. But from a military point of view, the walls and forts of Constantinople did not present any obstacles for the Russians, and even the position of Chataldzhi, who were almost crushed by the selective Bulgarian regiments in 1912, would not stand for long against heavy cannons. Russian troops in 1916 could enter Tsargrad almost unhindered. It is unlikely that a bold landing operation would immediately lead the Allies to victory, but even the very fact of its preparation could change a lot in the situation of forces at that time. The Turks, of course, were euphoric after the victory in the Dardanelles, but they looked at the prospects of the war as a whole, soberly, especially considering the prospect of joining the United States Entente. The Young Turks were aware that they had been placed on the wrong horse, but they seemed more interested in the prospect of a complete seizure of power in the country and the elimination of the sultanate as such. And for this, even such a disgraceful defeat as the loss of the capital would not prevent it.

But we will continue to consider our alternative scenario. "So, our city ... What to do?" They say that a red commander, from intellectuals, who, by the way, quickly learned what the Makhnovists wanted, sent this telegram to the Civilian. Well, it's a civilian, it's easier there. Another thing is what to do with Russia with Constantinople, if there somewhere in February 1917-th Russian regiments were already quartered? At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Slavophiles discussed this question with particular pleasure, especially when Bulgarian king Ferdinand Coburg almost rode into Tsargrad on a white horse in 1913, seriously believing to remind the world that after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Bulgarian king Kaloyan immediately transferred the capital to Veliko Tarnovo and ordered to call it Constantinople. I wonder what options would have turned out then? And would not World War broke out a year and a half earlier? With a slightly different alignment of forces?

So, to return the enemy's capital to the defeated Turks? Somehow not with his hands - for what they fought? Do not turn it into a free Russian city - like Odessa, which is far from the metropolis. Or is the traditional colonial version suitable?

But both for Russia and in the case of a serious new war it is impossible to protect, as Sevastopol clearly showed. The straits themselves are generally transformed into some kind of “through passage”. The Pan-Slavic variant - the capital of the great and united South Slavic power, also does not pass. Brothers Slavs in the Balkans and so do not find a common language, and for Constantinople and completely shoot each other.

But why not make Constantinople neutral? On the border of Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. For the sake of such a case, the Greeks can even grab a piece of the Asian coast from the Turks. But with one condition - the straits of the authorities of this neutral city are opened and closed exclusively with the permission of Russia, by the right of the victorious power, and with the consent ... of Turkey, as the second Black Sea power. But since the Russians never took Constantinople, it was not worth dreaming of its neutrality. What kind of "closed" straits there?

In the days of the war, cautious strategists and politicians, opposing the irrepressible Milyukov, repeatedly said that the capture of Tsargrad by the Russians could cause a psychological shock in Europe and by this provoke something like a revolutionary explosion. Not in Russia, but in the Balkans and in Asia Minor. Is it too far-fetched fears? The Germans trampled Belgium in the dust and marched straight to Paris - and nothing. The war did not end, but only dragged on. With Constantinople for Russians, the question was only when? “The lost moment will not return forever. Time at war is valued in seconds,” said Napoleon. And this moment Russia missed, it seems, precisely in the summer of 1916 of the year. Confidently advancing Brusilov's South-Western Front was not supported by other fronts. They did not support him with a blow to Constantinople.

How much stronger could Russia have staked out for herself what she had won from the Austrians in the same Galicia, if she had Constantinople in her hands, it is not easy to say. But is it any wonder - that the Russians, even if they took Constantinople, didn’t ask for themselves much, understood forty years before the astute Bismarck. He even wondered: "I cannot be more Russian than the Russians themselves." It is not by chance that after Shipka, in response to the fears of the Reichstag deputies that the Russians would soon establish control over the Black Sea straits, he said about the post-war world: “Russians don't care ... They only need a few bunches of pasha, but victory firing in Petersburg and Moscow ". Judging by the fact that the Russian elite did 1917 in February, and the Bolsheviks followed it in October of the same year, the postwar world was not important for Russians and during the World War ... Tsargrad remained for the Turks, who the British promised not only to keep the country intact, but also ... to profit at the expense of the Russians in the Caucasus. However, the British promises remained promises - on October 30 of Turkey, 1918, Turkey on board the English warship signed an armistice with the English admiral, after which the British occupied dominant positions in Constantinople and the straits, leaving the allies the role of extras. 16 March The British captured the most important government institutions in Turkey. But the allies did not succeed in settling in Constantinople for a long time - in the Greek-Turkish war that flared up shortly after the Versailles peace, the Turkish army, updated after a series of defeats by Kemal Ataturk, defeated the Greeks, forcing the British to leave the French with the French.

And what about Russia? The tsarist government, and then the Provisional Government, having lost power, turned the “bill” issued by the Entente against the straits to ashes.

Former ambitions had to be forgotten altogether, when 16 in March 1921 was signed in Moscow between Russia and Turkey, which, in particular, stated:

“In order to ensure the opening of the straits and the free passage through them for trade relations of all peoples, both contracting parties agree to transfer the final drafting of the international statute of the Black Sea and the straits to a special conference from the delegates of the coastal countries, provided that its decisions do not damage Turkey’s full sovereignty, as well as the security of Turkey and its capital, Constantinople. ” ("Collection of existing treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the RSFSR with foreign states", Moscow, 1921. Ed. NCID, issue.NUMX, p.2).

All this is so. But once again, let’s try to imagine a different turn of history - the widespread offensive of Russian troops on the Western Front, the defeat of Germany, Austria-Hungary and their allies, and, along the way, the expedition of the Russian fleet and ground units to the region of Constantinople. So, Constantinople and the straits are ours, but could Russia weakened by the war be able to maintain control over them? Unlikely. In any case, Bulgaria and Greece would have to be connected to this process of “consanguineous”. Most likely, Greece, because the Greeks made up a significant amount of the population in Constantinople itself. But the inevitable result would still be their gradual crowding out, pogroms, massacres, and distant Russia would hardly be able to protect them. And Turkey would again become the mistress of the straits. However, all this is far from reality. In World War I, Russia did not have a powerful, modern fleet, modern weapons - tanks, cannons, - she had a great advantage in manpower, but this force was half-starved and ragged by the end of the war, moreover, it had almost completely lost its faith "in the king and the fatherland."

Well, well, it was in the First World War, but why the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 now the USSR did not try to put the straits under its full control and make Constantinople a “socialist city?”.

The victorious country had a mighty military potential and modern military equipment, the Black Sea was plied by formidable Soviet cruisers and destroyers ... Moreover, the reason for this was, and very serious. Turkey in 1942 year concluded a secret agreement with Nazi Germany. According to this document, in the event of the fall of Stalingrad, she immediately declared war on the USSR. Apparently, I really wanted to bend the Transcaucasus under this “victorious wave” ... Stalingrad was defended, and the Turks immediately returned to the shadow of neutrality. Shouldn’t they be punished for such treachery? Wouldn’t the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus be useful to us? Wouldn’t it be natural to bring back the long-suffering Christian Constantinople under our wing? What prevented this? Hardened ideological dogmas or simply looming concerns of restoring Soviet cities destroyed by the enemy? These questions have no answer. Only one thing is clear: for modern Russia, my Black remains just a big lake, the straits are open for NATO ships, and in the Black Sea, NATO members began to feel freer because of the pro-Western policy of the leadership of Ukraine, a country that just nearly ended up on the verge of civil of war.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. konvalval
    konvalval April 3 2014 21: 58
    We may not even need the shore, but the straits are just right.
    1. schizophrenic
      schizophrenic April 3 2014 22: 14
      Quote: konvalval
      but the straits are just

      To control the straits would have to control the coast. Russia had chances for world domination and it is now difficult to say why they were not used.
    2. Lissyara
      Lissyara April 3 2014 22: 38
      No one read below? 1936 Convention "Montreux"
      I understand that everyone is waving sabers, our Crimea! But nobody canceled the international shipping rules.
      Further, there is a separate "appendage" for ships (and not ships) equipped with nuclear power plants (nuclear power plants) and carrying atomic weapons on board (I explain to the pioneers from the site - in our childhood it was called "nuclear bomb" or "nuclear missile")
      "The order of passage of warships through the Black Sea straits is governed by Articles 8-22 of the Convention. It is clear from Appendix IV to the Convention on the Regime of the Straits that the fleets of the Black Sea states may include ships of any class (ie, aircraft carriers). to carry out flights of aviation on board ships.
      Non-Black Sea countries are allowed to navigate through straits into the Black Sea only light surface ships and auxiliary vessels with a displacement of one ship of no more than 10000t. The total displacement of the squad of ships at the time of passage of the straits should not exceed 15000t. and their passage is permitted only in the daytime. Non-Black Sea states are not entitled to introduce aircraft carriers and submarines into the Black Sea. The total tonnage of the squadron of warships of non-Black Sea countries located in the Black Sea should not exceed 45000t.
      The time spent on the Black Sea by a detachment of warships of non-Black Sea countries should not exceed 21 day, regardless of the purpose of the parish. Turkish authorities should be notified through diplomatic channels of the passage of warships through the Black Sea straits, for non-Black Sea countries - in 15 days, for the Black Sea - usually in 8 days, but not less than three. The passage of foreign warships through the straits and during the war is regulated. If Turkey is a belligerent, the passage of ships depends entirely on the Turkish government.
      The Black Sea states are obliged annually as of January 1 and July 1 to report to the Turkish government the total displacement of the ships of their fleet. "
      People, behave more humane! Ushak Pasha / no one else in the Turkish Empire called the enemy fleet commander a high title / (Admiral Ushakov) could have succumbed to Turkey with cancer, but there are rules for diplomacy.
      No need to depart from the rules of civilization. You can’t prove anything stupid ABIZyan if his brains are absent as a class.
      Let's look at the world realistically, and not from the point of view of an ordinary on the 1 month of service with Kalashnikov in his hands.
      1. Lissyara
        Lissyara April 4 2014 00: 28
        I forgot to add ... Displacement of "Admiral Kuznetsov" on paper 44200 tons, real about 49500 ...
        About the carab of the class "president on deck" CVN-107, who was nicknamed George Bush - water cut 100700 tons.
        So this one in the Bosphorus just gets stuck ...
        1. jjj
          jjj April 4 2014 00: 55
          "Kuznetsov", by the way, leaving the Square, did not ask for any permission to pass at all. When the Turks threatened to detain the fugitive, the Kuznetsov commander answered shortly: "Try it."
          They didn’t even try
          1. Orc-xnumx
            Orc-xnumx April 4 2014 03: 06
            So the warship of the Black Sea state. They had no right.
    3. Fucknato
      Fucknato April 4 2014 00: 47
      ... we would have these straits right now.
  2. platitsyn70
    platitsyn70 April 3 2014 21: 59
    yes it would be nice to control the strait
    1. vadson
      vadson April 3 2014 22: 08
      Panamanian? )))
      1. Vityok
        Vityok April 3 2014 22: 21
        Yes, and the Bosphorus is not bad! laughing
  3. Crazyzyear
    Crazyzyear April 3 2014 22: 10
    Quote: platitsyn70
    in the Black Sea, NATO began to feel freer due to the pro-Western policies of the Ukrainian leadership

    It's time to repeat the bulk of "Selfless" as in 1988 on the mattress frigate in the Black Sea. I think they will have boiling water with blood, they will not have enough strength for more. Apart from yapping and imposing sanctions, nothing else can be done.
  4. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 April 3 2014 22: 15
    What prevented this? Hardened ideological dogmas or simply looming concerns for the restoration of Soviet cities destroyed by the enemy?
    The appearance of atomic weapons in the Anglo-Saxons. The balance of power was not in our favor, before the appearance of the atomic bomb with us. And after that they organized NATO, and almost immediately included Turkey in it, which is equivalent to a letter of protection.
  5. Shesternyack
    Shesternyack April 3 2014 22: 23
    If Russia had survived until the end of World War I, even if it had captured Constantinople, the British would still not have allowed the Empire to gain a foothold. They would play the same scenario as the Russian-Turkish 1877-78gg. Nobody needed Russia in the Mediterranean.
  6. corn
    corn April 3 2014 22: 27
    There is an article on Wikipedia:
    "Territorial claims of the USSR against Turkey"
    The chronology of events of the Soviet period, which is absent in the article at the Military Institute.
    We can draw conclusions.
  7. Arh
    Arh April 3 2014 22: 29
    The straits were formerly Greek !!!
  8. Bakht
    Bakht April 3 2014 22: 31
    Who can name the high-profile victories of the Red Banner Black Sea Fleet of the USSR during World War II?

    I understand what patriotism is. If you just want to chat here, then yes, I agree. Terrible cruisers plowed the Black Sea. But if someone wants to know reality, then ... nothing significant has happened.
    1. corn
      corn April 3 2014 22: 44
      In Soviet times, there was a joke
      SF - the most fleet
      TF is also a fleet
      BF - thug fleet
      Black Sea Fleet - it's a fleet, it's not a fleet.
      SF, TF, BF, PF (Northern, Pacific, Baltic, Black Sea) - letters on the shoulder straps of sailors and foremen.
      I do not want to offend anyone.
    2. Saburo
      Saburo April 3 2014 23: 08
      And what was going on there? Basically, the Black Sea Fleet provided artillery support from the sea and transported troops and military supplies. The most serious opponents were the Romanian fleet and a number of German and Italian torpedo boats. The Black Sea Fleet suffered major losses from the actions of German aircraft and from mines, and in almost all cases from its own. Submarines of the Black Sea Fleet sank mainly Turkish ships. And for example, the defeat of the Romanian convoy Patria, this is the most successful operation of the USSR in the Black Sea against the fleets of the Axis countries, on the account of the Air Force.
      So no surprise. Here, too, the factor of "its puddle" works, only when the enemy's aviation dominates the air, it is not on our side.
      1. Bakht
        Bakht April 4 2014 10: 25
        Quote: Saburo
        And what was going on there?

        There was a lot going on. For example, at the very beginning of the war, a boom mine was put up in the Kerch Strait. By order of Kuznetsov. And the Azov flotilla was commanded, it seems Gorshkov. To prevent the breakthrough of enemy submarines in the Sea of ​​Azov. And even a barrage from Moscow was set up. The maximum depths in the Sea of ​​Azov are 13 meters. A very wise decision.

        Then they decided to put a minefield on the approaches to Sevastopol. On it, a mass of transports and warships were blown up. Only Soviet.

        As for artillery support, there are also a lot of questions. In May 1942, the Germans broke through the Crimean front just along the Black Sea coast. But the fleet of the army did not provide any artillery support. For the fleet, the value of one old battleship was higher than the value of a whole front.

        As for the landing operations of the Black Sea Fleet, it’s better not to speak at all. And since 1943, by the personal order of Stalin, large ships (from the destroyer and above) did not go to sea at all.

        I do not question the courage and courage of ordinary sailors and officers. But the whole BSF as a whole slept through the war. And hoping that in 1946 he could have landed in Turkey - just utopia. Even Vladimirsky managed to oversleep the famous landing in Novorossiysk. And Bassy ripped it off.
    3. Orc-xnumx
      Orc-xnumx April 4 2014 02: 57
      Quote: Bakht
      Who can name the high-profile victories of the Red Banner Black Sea Fleet of the USSR during World War II?

      I understand what patriotism is. If you just want to chat here, then yes, I agree. Terrible cruisers plowed the Black Sea. But if someone wants to know reality, then ... nothing significant has happened.

      There were no victories! Not only at the Black Sea Fleet, but also large surface ships at the Red Banner Baltic Fleet, since there was Oktyabrsky at the Black Sea Fleet, and Tributs at the Red Banner Baltic Fleet! Their principle, like that of any mediocrity - "no matter what happens"!
  9. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S April 3 2014 22: 31
    If Turkey blackmails Russia with the straits with it (Turkey) they will figure it out at once, they will not look at the fact that it is a NATO member. And we do not need the straits yet, only an extra headache.
  10. polkownik1
    polkownik1 April 3 2014 22: 49
    A completely transparent hint. This thought should be considered ...
  11. voliador
    voliador April 3 2014 22: 56
    What is the use of talking about what could be right now? You need to remember, but think about what is happening now and will be tomorrow.
  12. shelva
    shelva April 3 2014 23: 04
    But I wouldn’t refuse Sinop ... would
  13. B_KypTke
    B_KypTke April 3 2014 23: 12
    Over time, Constantinople will be under our patronage and, accordingly, the Bosphorus.
    Too unstable Turkey today. And it’s not forever that the Sophia Cathedral stands under the minarets.
    PS And in Russia there is a saying .. Appetite comes with eating .. something like that.
  14. DPN
    DPN April 3 2014 23: 43
    EVERYTHING this once again proves that England rules the world in general, and while nature itself does not wash it off into the Atlantic, it will probably be so. The British are able to choose leaders in their country - Margaret Teacher was ready to crush Argentina with atomic weapons for her islands. WE can’t do that.
  15. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa April 4 2014 00: 09
    Everything is simple here. Straits from them, American ships roam near our coast in the Black Sea without demand. We have straits, we roam along their shores in the SRZ. sea ​​without demand. As if the benefits are simple and obvious.
    1. Lissyara
      Lissyara April 4 2014 00: 19
      Chunga Changa! See shipping documents.
      The straits are "no one's", they are neutral. And if you need to drag a nuclear aircraft carrier and 5 nuclear submarines through the Dardanelles - drag them to your health, having submitted an application in advance (if there is no hostilities).
      Do not write for a blizzard.
      And aviation, I mean the Air Force, can cross countries according to orders (again in peacetime).
      1. Orc-xnumx
        Orc-xnumx April 4 2014 02: 43
        Quote: LiSSyara
        Chunga Changa! See shipping documents.
        The straits are "no one's", they are neutral. And if you need to drag a nuclear aircraft carrier and 5 nuclear submarines through the Dardanelles - drag them to your health, having submitted an application in advance (if there is no hostilities).
        Do not write for a blizzard.
        And aviation, I mean the Air Force, can cross countries according to orders (again in peacetime).

        Learn the mat. part!
  16. Woldemar
    Woldemar April 4 2014 00: 32
    We do not have the audacity to do so. Westerners spit on all the rules and regulations when they need something. And we are simple Russian felt boots (Bismarck spoke correctly). But it’s better to be like cynics like the British (I speak for their government).
    The article is interesting.
    And we do not need straits. We have a good relationship with Turkey. According to the total tonnage of ships, for non-Black Sea fleets and the time of their stay in the Black Sea, the conditions are met. What else do you need? Why ruin a relationship with a neighbor? It's better to be friends. And our conflict with Turkey is at hand only for our sworn Anglo-Saxon friends. Here they really need free straits to threaten us from the south, here let them break their teeth themselves - once they broke it in World War I during the Dardanelles operation. And by the way, this fact, the defeat of the British in that operation, proves that Turkey was a strong adversary and our victories over it are very glorious, no matter who tries to belittle them.
  17. Orc-xnumx
    Orc-xnumx April 4 2014 02: 40
    Turkey must be pulled to its side. The Eurasian Union with Russia and Turkey is a very strong, almost impenetrable tandem! The task of Russian foreign policy is to make Turkish leaders look at the future. And the prospect is a joint domination in a degenerate Europe!
  18. Pyckaya-dubina
    Pyckaya-dubina April 4 2014 03: 16
  19. DimDimych
    DimDimych April 4 2014 03: 19
    Do we need a Turkish coast?

    Nope, not needed! there are Turkish Maidan continuous ...
    what if will be needed, then not only the coast, but whole turkey - coverbut very Politely... wink
  20. Skif
    Skif April 4 2014 03: 23
    The straits were needed in the 18th-19th centuries, for which frequent and bloody Russian-Turkish wars were fought. But now, in the age of globalization, WHY are they needed? "Shob boo?" For the entire west to take up arms, as in the Crimean War? Now the world is ruled by the Internet, not guns, and everyone will reckon with a STRONG country, and the straits of the ship will pass duty-free, and not only the aircraft carriers.
    1. mamont5
      mamont5 April 4 2014 05: 56
      Quote: Skiff
      To the whole west took up arms, as in the Crimean War?

      You might think that the West is supporting us now? The West can be either neutral towards us (fearing our strength) or the enemy (if we are weak).
  21. mamont5
    mamont5 April 4 2014 05: 52
    Yeah, Constantinople and the Straits ... That would be just great! But first, Ukraine, to connect with Transnistria, and there ...
  22. DAYMAN
    DAYMAN April 4 2014 06: 03
    Professor Trubetskoy stated that the question of Constantinople is "for us a question about our daily bread ... about all our political power and about our cultural mission, about the very spiritual" I "of Russia." (The National Question, Moscow, 1915. Constantinople and the Straits, vol. 1, p. 97).

    PROFESSOR!!! The representative of the Russian intelligentsia and not LIBERAST! Strange, huh?
  23. Delink
    Delink April 4 2014 06: 26
    How much do not argue what would happen if ..... But the answer lies in the earth for a hundred years.
    All the same, the truth cannot be found, and the Anglo-Saxons will not tell the truth.
  24. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee April 4 2014 06: 27
    - "How the Prophetic Oleg is now being assembled
    nailed shields to the gates,
    Suddenly a man runs up to him
    and, well, lisps something! "
  25. parus2nik
    parus2nik April 4 2014 06: 53
    After 100 years, you can wave your saber .. Imagine something else .. Imagine nothing .. First, from the very beginning, all of Europe, I emphasize everything .. I knew that Russia was completely rearmament and would be ready for war no earlier than 1919. Therefore, by the hand of G. Principle, Russia would have drawn in the war, if France, England understood England in the event of the defeat of the Entente, they would not have lost much, Russia would have had to part with many, if the Entente had won, Russia would have withdrawn from the debt, and weakened and did not ask much, including the straits .. One of the goals of the WWII is to undermine the economic and political potential of Russia ...
    1. Motors1991
      Motors1991 April 4 2014 13: 49
      Kaiser Wilhelm believed that the war should have started in 1920, then Germany would have been completely ready. As for the article, it’s complete nonsense. The author must first find out how many Russian corps fought on the Romanian front, and then tell tales about Burgas. This was largely due to the fact that in the interests of the South-Western Front almost all the heavy artillery was pulled from other directions, therefore the advance of the Western Front in support of Brusilov could not even theoretically be successful. As soon as the heavy artillery was taken away from the SWF, it stopped. fantasizing, it would be more real to strengthen the Caucasus front and try to occupy Asia Minor, while Messopotamia and the Middle East were cut off with their bread, formidable Germans could do little to help the Turks, the road network was weak, maneuvering by forces, as they did in Europe, it was hardly possible , at the same time, the Russian army would rely on the support of its fleet, which dominated the Black Sea, about through Sinop, Trabzon and other ports.
  26. individual
    individual April 4 2014 07: 30
    Russia and Turkey are looking for rapprochement of positions in politics.
    Yes, Turkey is a member of NATO, but Istanbul’s economy is not allowed into the EU.
    Than to crowd in the waiting room of Brussels, the Turkish authorities pay attention to Russia and the Customs Union, which expands the economic opportunities of both countries.
    Let the coast be a Turkish beach for vacationers, and we need Turkey as a tool for managing near Asia.
  27. Bagatur
    Bagatur April 4 2014 23: 08
    At the turn of the 1913th-1453th centuries, the Slavophiles discussed this issue with particular pleasure, especially when in XNUMX the Bulgarian king Ferdinand Coburg almost drove to Constantinople on a white horse, seriously believing to remind the world that after the fall of Constantinople in XNUMX the Bulgarian king Kaloyan immediately moved the capital to Veliko Tarnovo and ordered to call her Tsarigrad.

    From where? Tsar Kaloyan (1197-1207) with the Turks in the 1393th century. Turnov sex under the Turks in 1453 and in XNUMX the kingdom of Bogar did not exist ...