Military Review

Valery Shambarov: “The empire was stabbed in the back ...”

54
Valery Shambarov: “The empire was stabbed in the back ...”Conversation with the famous historian, author of capital work on the First World War "The Last Battle of the Emperors"


- Valery Evgenievich, the monarchies of Russia and Germany have traditionally been friends and interacted. How and why did they suddenly become mortal enemies in 1914?

- Indeed, the Russian dynasty of the Romanovs and the German (more precisely, the Prussian) Hohenzollern were tied by kinship and political sympathies. Whenever the two powers turned out to be allies, they received a tangible gain. This was manifested both in the period of the liberation of Europe from Napoleon, and in the tangle of wars and intrigues that brewed around the long-standing hotbed of international tension - Poland, and at the moments of revolutionary crises in Western countries. The friendly position and unequivocal support of Russia helped Prussia to brilliantly win the wars with Austria-Hungary and France, rally the motley jumble of the German kingdoms and principalities into a mighty monolithic empire. Although Russia won at the same time. She was able to reject the terms of the Treaty of Paris imposed on her by France and England after the Crimean War, which forbade the creation of military bases and fleets on the Black Sea.

Kaiser Wilhelm II, while heir to the throne, was in our country, became friends with the future Tsar Nicholas II. In the correspondence, they called each other "cousin Willie" and "cousin Nikki."

- This is a well-known fact and causes confusion.

- Monarchs do not always determine the political lines of their states. On the contrary, the monarch expresses the position of his subjects (or the ruling elite). And the interests of our countries began to diverge sharply. The German Empire, born under the thunder of cannons and under the victorious fanfare, turned out to be quite militant. Fast and bright successes turned the heads of the German military, politicians, diplomats. They fought with their neighbors.

Russia realized the danger of German ambitions. The course was taken to maintain peace and stability in Europe. The Germans were not allowed to finish off France. We tried to restrain the expansion of Germany and Austria-Hungary into the Balkans ... But by doing so our country became the main obstacle for any aggressive plans. And these plans were grand! Fascism did not exist yet, but its "beginnings" matured much earlier. Not in Nazi Germany, but in Kaiser! Pan-Germanism was the dominant ideology — it included the theories of the “higher race” and the “living space in the East”, and the notorious justification of aggression. As for the plans, the Germans aimed at world domination.

The creation of “Great Germany” was envisaged, in which Austria-Hungary, the Balkans, Scandinavia, Belgium, Holland, northern France, Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine were to enter. All this was connected with the colonies that were to be taken away from the British, French, Belgians, and Portuguese. And the Kaiser’s ally, the Ottoman Empire, under his patronage, rolled out her lips to take away from Russia the Transcaucasus, the Caucasus, Central Asia, to spread influence over the Volga region and the Urals. In Berlin, encouraged such projects.

And the war itself promised super-profits to the banking and industrial corporations of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Sulila super-profits oligarchs of other powers - primarily the United States. By the way, the American and German banking clans are closely intertwined. For example, the largest German bank was led by Max Warburg, and in the US financial system were run by his two brothers, Paul and Felix. They were financial advisors to President Wilson, Paul Warburg became vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.

Banking and industrial aces paid for war propaganda. She overwhelmed the entire German people. These sentiments were fully picked up by Kaiser Wilhelm himself. Obuyanny complex, very unbalanced and immensely vain. Contemporaries wrote - he was most fascinated by the enthusiastic roar of the crowd, honors, he dreamed of the greatest accomplishments.

In such conditions, the traditions of friendship with Russia turned into a hypocritical disguise. For example, during the Russian-Japanese war, William II portrayed himself as a sincere friend of “cousin Nikki”, but for his neutrality forced him to conclude a very unfavorable trade agreement for Russians on 10 years. And most importantly, the Russian forces tried to push the Russian forces east to untie their hands in Europe. But with Russia it was supposed to maintain peace only for the time being. Plans for the war against our country, the German General Staff developed and corrected in 1872, 1875, 1879, 1894. Finally, the Schlieffen Plan was compiled and approved in 1905.

- Do you think it was possible to avoid a collision in the summer of 1914 of the year?

- Not. In the summer of 1914, it was impossible to avoid war from Russia. Because the war was predetermined in advance, and not predetermined in Petersburg. Note that Tsar Nicholas II did everything in his power to prevent a catastrophe. Now many have forgotten that he was the first to initiate international congresses on disarmament, and at his insistence an international court was created in The Hague to resolve controversial issues peacefully. Nikolai Aleksandrovich made great efforts to eliminate contradictions with Germany.

For example, in 1910, the king met with the Kaiser in Potsdam and offered to negotiate mutual concessions. The parties also had to make mutual commitments on non-participation in groups hostile to each other, and a number of specific proposals were stated. Wilhelm verbally agreed. But in fact, all let down on the brakes. Because Germany, biting the bit, rushed to war. And did not even consider it necessary to hide it. In the same 1910, when Berlin was visited by the Belgian king Albert, the Kaiser simply stunned him by giving an offensive tirade at the ball to France. Then he introduced him to General von Kluck, noting that this is the very commander who “will have to lead the march to Paris.” Moltke, without hesitating, told Albert that “the war with France is approaching”, since this state “provokes and annoys” the Germans.

The Germans provoked two crises around Morocco - but both times the conflict could still be hushed up. Periodical exacerbations of the situation in the Balkans also became the pretext for war. The Balkan Wars broke out in 1912, and Wilhelm II on December 8 convened a meeting of military leadership. The topic of the meeting was formulated as “The best time and method for the deployment of war”. According to the Kaiser, it was necessary to begin immediately. Chief of General Staff Moltke agreed that "a big war is inevitable, and the sooner it starts, the better." But he pointed out that it was necessary to conduct propaganda training: “It is better to ensure the national character of the war against Russia.” And only the commander of the naval forces Tirpitz objected that the sailors were not yet ready: “The Navy would be interested in shifting the beginning of large-scale military operations by a year and a half.” We agreed with his opinion. A year and a half - it was the summer of 1914.

The same term was called Russian intelligence. At the beginning of 1914, the German and Austro-Hungarian military leaders actively conducted meetings, the latest coordination of plans. German army rearmament programs were calculated before 1916, but the dates were corrected. Outlined all the pressure to spring 1914.

When the Serbian Masonic terrorists from the Black Hand organization killed the heir to the Austrian throne, Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo, this was exactly what was required of all the supporters of the war. In Vienna, they joked that the murderers had to erect a monument for such a “gift.” And Wilhelm II, having received a report on the terrorist act, inscribed in the margins: “Jetzt oder niemals” - “Now or never.”

As is known, Serbia was presented with an ultimatum, in effect depriving it of sovereignty. She, at the prompting of Nikolay, II found the optimal solution - to submit the matter to the international Hague court for consideration, having agreed in advance to execute the sentence! No, this option did not suit the aggressors! At least something in the ultimatum was not fulfilled - Austria immediately declared war. Opened through the Danube artillery bombardment of Belgrade. The king tried to reason with the Austrians demonstration of force, announced mobilization. But this is precisely what Cousin Willie used as a pretext. I made some noise that the Russians were mobilizing, preparing to attack Germany and Austria, and declared war on Russia.

By the way, the Kaiser, his military leaders and diplomats were not particularly considered with logic. The propaganda screamed that the Russians were threatening - but at the same time the German armies did not rush east, but west! On neutral Belgium, neutral Luxembourg and on France! And where is the logic, if the "Russian threat" was just an occasion. And the Schlieffen-Moltke plan worked out in advance provided for just such an order: first crush the Western opponents, the French with the British, with a “blitzkrieg”, and then transfer all forces to Russia ...


- How strong and independent was the military industry of pre-war Russia?

- Pre-war Russia was one of the most advanced and developed powers of that era. Over the years, 50 industrial output has grown in 10-12 times (for 13 pre-war years - three times), and for some indicators the increase was just fabulous. Chemical production increased 48 times, coal mining - 700 times, oil - 1500 times. The huge country was covered by a network of railways, the Donbass coal deposits, the oil fields of Baku and Grozny were developed. Russia has created the world's largest and best oil refining industry. 94% of oil was processed domestically, the products were famous for their quality and cheapness.

Mechanical engineering developed rapidly. 63% of the equipment of the means of production were manufactured in domestic enterprises. Such giants as the Putilov, Obukhov, Russian-Baltic plants were built, the largest textile centers in the Moscow region, Ivanovo, Lodz, etc. were formed. Textile products fully provided for Russia itself, it was widely exported.

But agriculture, food industry, did not yield. In our country, there were 21 million horses (75 million in total in the world). 60% of farms had 3 and more horses. Russia received as much profit from the sale of butter alone as the sale of gold. In the global food market, it was the absolute leader. She ranked first in the world in the production and export of grain, for the production of sugar. Half of the products sold in Europe were made in Russia. Between 1890 and 1914, foreign trade has tripled.

In terms of industrial production growth and labor productivity growth Russia in the early twentieth century. came in first place in the world, ahead of the United States - which also experienced a period of rapid growth. In terms of production, our country ranked fourth, and in terms of per capita income, it was fifth in the world. However, these figures were determined by foreign researchers and are very incorrect. Because the economic systems of the Western powers included their colonies (or, in the United States, raw materials appendages). Due to this, the manufacturing industry metropolis received high gross figures. But the “souls of the population” of the colonies and appendages were not taken into account. And if, for example, the population of India were to add the population of India, Burma, Egypt, Sudan, etc., then the real figure of "per capita income" would have been much lower than the Russian one.

However, not everything was smooth. Moreover, the shortcomings belonged specifically to the military field. But the shortcomings were not scientific and industrial, not technological, but organizational. Despite the presence of a powerful national base, the war ministry led by General Sukhomlinov preferred to place many orders for weapons and ammunition abroad. Heavy guns, airplanes, motors, projectiles and ammunition were ordered from British, French, even German firms. It was believed that this is more convenient and easier. No need to fool your head with the establishment of production, track, check. He signed the contract, paid for it and received it ... Although in reality this specificity had another significant reason - corruption. Foreign representatives covered Sukhomlinov from all sides, generously fed with bribes.

The results were deplorable. During the battles in all the warring countries, without exception, it turned out that the consumption of weapons and ammunition is many times higher than planned. In France, an acute shortage of shells and cartridges became apparent as early as August-September 1914. In Germany, in December 1914 - February 1915 was struck by a natural “hunger”. Available shells were transmitted only to those areas where hot battles rattled. The rest of the guns were silent, did not respond to the fire of Russian batteries. In our country, the military was taught to shoot not at random, but precisely. Thanks to this, we reached the spring of 1915. But all the warring powers, with alarming symptoms, frantically modernized and developed their own production. But the military ministry of Sukhomlinov again went the usual way.

He ordered everything necessary at the British Vickers-Armstrong factories. An order for 5 million shells, 1 million rifles, 1 billion rounds of ammunition, 8 million grenades, airplanes, aviation motors, guns and other equipment was adopted, this should have been enough for the 1915 campaign. But Russia was openly framed. The Russian armies had won a number of brilliant victories by this time. They beat the Germans near Warsaw and Lodz, tattered Austria-Hungary, taking Galicia from her, and destroyed the Turkish army near Sarykamysh. At that time, the Western Allies had absolutely nothing to brag about. They were afraid that Russia would make the main contribution to the victory, and after the war it would become a leader in the international arena, and would be able to dictate its terms of peace.

The Russians were not even warned that their military order in England would not be fulfilled. It was not until the shipment deadline, March 1915, that the British War Minister Kitchener suddenly announced: all the products had to be taken over by the British army.

- How would you characterize military training in the Russian army and from opponents?

- In the 1914, the Russian army was significantly superior to other powers in terms of training, and inferior in technical equipment only to German and Austrian - but they purposefully prepared for war. Weapon it was better, or at least no worse than foreign analogues: the Mosin three-line rifle, the Nagan revolver, the Maxim machine gun improved by Tula gunsmiths. The machine guns were on the 8 regiment - just like the Germans and French. One of the best in the world were three-inch (76 mm) guns of Baranovsky. In the division there were 48 guns (the Germans - 72, the French - 36). In total, the Russian army had 7030 guns (of which 240 were heavy). For comparison: in Germany - 9398 guns (1300 heavy and 996 siege), in Austria-Hungary 4083 (960 heavy and 338 siege), in France - 4800 (there was no heavy at all).

The first field radio stations created by A.S. Popov and captain Troitsky were introduced back in 1900, and by the beginning of World War there were “spark companies” in all corps. Telephone and telegraph communication was widely used. The troops numbered more than 3000 vehicles (the Germans only had 83 units, they underestimated the vehicles, intended it only for the advanced troops). The air force made up the 263 aircraft and the 14 airships. Again, for comparison - in Germany 232 aircraft and 15 airships, in France - 156 aircraft and 5 airships (when Geoffroy argued for aviation, he dismissed: “Well, this is for sports!”).

In Russian navy magnificent seaplanes M-5 and M-9, designed by D.P. Grigorovich, they were considered the best in the world. In 1913, a multi-engine Sikorsky aircraft “Russian Knight” was created at the Russian-Baltic Plant, and at its base was the Ilya Muromets bomber, it already had special bomb pendants, droppers and sights. For pilots on this plane, a Kotelnikov parachute was used.

Russian designers Fedorov, Tokarev, Roshepey have already created the first samples of automatic rifles. In 1904, midshipman Vlasov and Captain Gobyato invented a mortar. There were samples of light machine guns, "anti-aircraft" guns. They remained at the level of development, but by the beginning of the war they were not in other countries. By the way, there were no hand grenades in the European armies, they were considered to be complex and dangerous weapons. The Germans made grenades not by factories, but by sappers, and were used by them. The Russian grenades were already produced, began to enter the army. The new Manual for the infantry envisaged throwing grenades at the enemy before the bayonet attack. But in practice, the troops have not yet been trained.

Russian strategy and tactics were advanced for that time, taking into account the experience of the Japanese war. The offensive was recognized as the main type of combat, but due attention was also paid to defense. Attacked in rarer orders than in the West (intervals up to 5 steps). Climbing, dashes, nominations or single soldiers under the cover of fire of those who remained in place were used. Not only in the defense, but in the offensive from the soldiers needed to dig in. The army was trained in oncoming combat, operations at night, instead of bayonet fire tactics were introduced. The infantry showed very good results in shooting, and the gunners did not know their equal - in their midst it was considered a matter of honor not just to shoot straight, but also thoroughly, even cogs, to know their gun. Russian artillery in the Japanese war for the first time used shooting from closed positions using a protractor and a panorama, and used aerostats to adjust the fire. The cavalry was also well prepared, and they were taught to act both on horseback and on foot.

An important role was assigned to the individual training of soldiers and commanders. Russian officers and non-commissioned officers were real masters of military affairs. The classic of military pedagogy M.I. In his works, Dragomirov demanded: “Closely communicate with subordinates”; “Put service above personal matters”; “Not to be afraid of independence”. The cadre Russian army was superior to the German one in the quality of the fighters. The soldiers in it served in the literal sense of the word choice. Russia contained much smaller armed forces than its human resources allowed. From recruits medical commissions selected only 52%! The most healthy and strong. (In Germany, only 3% of overt disability were sifted out).

For a visual comparison, the army of Allied France is best suited - by the way, it was considered “advanced”. She did not even enter the protective form. The French began the war in red pants, red caps (with officers with white plumes), in blue uniforms and overcoats. The cavalry was adorned in glittering cuirass, in helmets with horsehair tails, feather sultans. When the Minister of War Messimi proposed to introduce protective uniforms, it was considered that this would undermine the spirit of the army, and the former Minister of War Etienne exclaimed in parliament: “Le panta руon Rouge Sele France!” - “Red pants are France!”

French military science rejected defense. The field manual, adopted in 1913, taught: "The French army, returning to its tradition, does not recognize any other law than an offensive." Not only did the soldiers not dig in, but they also forbade them not to stain their form, not to lose their vigorous appearance and offensive spirit. It was written in the orders: “Never will the French army dig trenches, it will always attack decisively and will not humiliate itself before defense”. A month before the war, one hussar lieutenant landed under arrest for introducing the squadron to digging trenches.

Attack taught close systems, to achieve greater pressure. Intelligence was considered an insignificant trifle - it is impossible to linger, think. It was required “to immediately start all means to battle”. And the role of artillery was reduced to a “squall of fire” - to continue the road by throwing infantry. Heavy artillery was not at all. It was believed that she would slow down the pace of the attack. Communication was via messengers. Such a novelty as the radio did not take into account. And the phones were provided only for the senior bosses, because the telephone wires in the parts would prevent their rapid progress.

Shooting was not enough (for the cavalry, the course was just 3 of the day). The main were supposed to be bayonet and saber blows. The infantry was trained in “Napoleonic” marches on 40 km. Worked out the standards for bayonet throwing - 50 M should be overcome in 20 seconds. It was believed that the enemy needed 20 seconds to reload a rifle, aim and shoot. Was it any wonder that the Germans overturned and crushed the French army, with one jerk they reached almost to Paris. They would have taken Paris too - if the Russians hadn’t saved them, they hadn’t struck in East Prussia and had not distracted the enemy.

The training of the German army was much better, but it was also somewhat inferior to the Russians. Tactics lagged far behind modern requirements. Defense was given insufficient attention. When attacking, attacks were envisioned in full growth by thick chains, at intervals in the 2 pitch, or even in closed columns. The chain had to keep equal. Such an archaic method was also worked out - after a certain number of steps the chain stopped, took aim, fired a volley and marched on (under enemy fire). Cavalry was also preparing for attacks in tight formations. A German strategy for the experience of the last century, aimed to win in one general battle. The need for strategic reserves was denied, it should have been thrown into battle all at once - and won. Errors had to be corrected during the battles, and they cost a lot of blood. Contemporaries described how Germanic dense chains fell under Russian machine guns and shrapnel. As they attacked, they remained lying down with whole companies and battalions.


- How fair is the opinion that the losses among the officers and guards contributed to the collapse of statehood by the year of 1917?

- This is just a legend, born by the same officers. By the way, the losses were not as big as they are usually portrayed. Russia is not overstrained, not bled. The latest report of the tsarist army’s casualties was presented in the “Special Records Management Report” No. 4 (292) from 13 (26) February 1917. On all fronts since the beginning of the war, 11.884 officers and 586.880 lower ranks were killed and wounded; the number of gas poisoned was 430 and 32.718, respectively; loss of the wounded and sick - 26.041 and 2.438.591; contused 8.650 and 93.339; Missing - 4.170 and 15.707; 11.899 officers and 2.638.050 soldiers were in captivity. Total: 63.074 officer and 5.975.341 soldiers (TsGVIA USSR, f.2003, op.1, d.186, l.98).

The damage of our armies was less than in other countries. Russian soldiers killed about 600 thousand, in Germany for the same period - 1,05 million, in France - 850 thousand. And it was quite natural, because the royal command did not allow such lengthy meat grinders as Verdun or Somme. If the operation was unsuccessful, it was stopped, unlike the French or German generals, who stubbornly threw new and new contingents into suicide attacks.

About as many Germans, Austrians, and Turks were in captivity in Russia, as were our soldiers in enemy captivity. In terms of injury, diseases and contusions were dropped much less than in the armies of the enemy, despite the fact that Russian doctors approached the examination much milder than the German and Austrian ones, many of the commissioners recovered, worked, and later fought in civil.

No, the loss of 63 thousand officers (of which 12 thousand dead) could not be fatal for the state. By the way, of these 63 (and 12) thousand, only 15-20% belonged to personnel officers. The rest are storekeepers, yesterday’s intelligentsia, or yesterday's soldiers, who have exhausted the officer's shoulder straps with their valor, who have completed short courses. However, we note another feature. The officers themselves, including personnel, were thoroughly infected with the ideas of liberalism, democracy, and even socialism. Many generals and officers were in the ranks of the conspirators who prepared and carried out the February revolution, which overthrew Russia into chaos. And if they did not participate in the conspiracy, they sympathized with the revolutionary coup. Suffice it to recall the position of the great princes Nikolai Nikolaevich, Kirill Vladimirovich, the generals Ruzsky, Radko-Dmitriev, Evert, Kornilov, Brusilov, Krymov, etc.

We can also cite such an eloquent example — the famous Kornilov regiment, which consisted of volunteer officers on the roads of the civil war and at the White Guard parades, sang together its Kornilovsky march:

... We do not regret the former

The king is not our idol ...

They even considered complete revolution in the chaos of total disaster as a blessing! They still believed that the overthrow of the monarchy would benefit Russia. And only Bolsheviks - usurpers and German henchmen blamed for disasters. Later, some rethought their views, but it was too late. By the way, here it is competent to give other numbers of losses for comparison. Revolutionaries have always justified the coup - as if he saved Russia from the "imperialist slaughter." In fact, the civil war has cost our people 15-17 million lives. So compare with the losses of the “imperialist slaughter”.


- Why in the last years of the war the "left" parties managed to seize the political initiative? Where did the monarchists go to 1917?

- No, not in recent years. Paradoxically, only the “left” parties were represented in the political spectrum of Russia. They differed only within themselves, from each other — the Cadets, Octobrists, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Social Democrats, Bolsheviks. In our country, there were no significant and authoritative "parties in power" at all. Perhaps the case was explained historical features of Russia. It has traditionally been a monarchy, and its monarchist foundation, as it were, did not need party props. There is Vera, Tsar, Fatherland, what other parties?

For several years, no conspirators and foreign agents could crush a powerful state and stir up a multimillion-dollar people. But by the beginning of the tragic crucial events, the country and the people were already seriously ill. The bacilli of this disease were also introduced from the outside, from the West. They did not immediately hit the Russians. But the infection spread gradually over several centuries. Fashionable theories, “free” morals, ideas of liberalism ... The disease encompassed Russia “from the head,” from above. The aristocracy, the nobility, the so-called cultural strata of society got used to focus on Europe, foreign views and assessments became role models, were perceived as “generally accepted” axioms.

The main cover for ideological sabotage was “enlightenment” (and “enlightenment” was given a very important role in Freemasonry, it was opposed to religion). And the Westernizing system of education that has become established in our country has become a ready channel for infecting Russia with liberalism. The same European standards and theories were taken as a basis - and along with the humanities and technical sciences, the intelligentsia received other “supplements”: imbued with “national inferiority complexes”, got used to consider foreign as “advanced”, and its own — “backward”. And from here it was seen as a truth of the main necessity of reforms according to foreign models.

It is not by chance that the professorial-teaching environment became the focus of the liberal spirit. Sowed in the souls of young people the seeds of free-thinking, atheism, doubt. These seeds were combined with the usual young fronderism and gave abundant shoots. The temptations of “freedoms” turned heads worse than wine, the denigration of power, laws, and domestic traditions became a sign of good taste. The division of all phenomena of social life into “progressive” and “reactionary” has been introduced. Moreover, the new, revolutionary, destructive belonged to the “progressive”, read - good. And everything that served to stabilize Russian reality turned out to be “reactionary”.

Parties were not mechanisms of the Russian, but of the western political system. In our country, they arose purely as opposition. And the parliamentary structures themselves, which infiltrated 1905, turned into an opposition tool. The Union of the Russian People, established in December 1905, claimed the role of a monarchist, pro-government party. The following year, it came out on top in terms of size and popularity among political organizations in Russia. But liberalism had already infected the top of the Russian administration, much of the royal dignitaries and church hierarchs. "Soyuz" began to put a spoke in the wheel, provocations began. In 1907-1908, it was able to split it, and it rolled into decline.

In the Duma, monarchists were represented by figures like Purishkevich — more scandals and provocateurs than serious politicians. And the liberals turned the Duma into a powerful legal platform. In the period between revolutions, a massive treatment of the people, the breaking of monarchical foundations, began. The war did not give rise to these processes, but aggravated them. The course of the fighting provided food for various slanders and speculations (moreover, under the “patriotic” sauce). In addition, there were customers willing to pay for subversive work. On the one hand - the opponents, the Germans and the Austrians. On the other - allies. England, France, USA. Of course, they wanted to win. But ... without Russia. Russia was for them the main competitor, economic and political.

In the end, massive propaganda and slander could even distort Russian monarchism! Appeared ordinary people who sincerely consider themselves supporters of the monarchy, but with the "other" king. Or those who built their own models - they are not obliged to unconditionally obey the king, to enter the sovereign according to their wishes ... What is left of monarchism here is difficult to judge, but the stab in the back has become fatal for the empire. At the critical moment the king did not have reliable support.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/voyna_1914/valerij_shambarov_imperiju_udarili_v_spinu_769.htm
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Keeper
    Keeper April 15 2014 16: 25
    +2
    Hit the heart! And every time it hurts and offends!
    Fortunately, Mother Earth itself is the heart of Russia!
  2. omsbon
    omsbon April 15 2014 16: 29
    +5
    In addition, customers appeared willing to pay for subversive work. On the one hand - opponents, Germans and Austrians. On the other, the allies. England, France, USA. Of course, they wanted to win. But ... without Russia. Russia was their main competitor, economic and political.


    Believe the defeatists-liberals, "allied partners, you MUST NOT ever and in anything! Always !!!"
  3. konvalval
    konvalval April 15 2014 16: 32
    0
    I remembered the story. It is a pity that she does not teach anything stubborn.
    1. ArhipenkoAndrey
      ArhipenkoAndrey April 15 2014 18: 39
      +1
      And something that reminds me, the present and future can be seen in the past.
  4. kocclissi
    kocclissi April 15 2014 16: 37
    +1
    To the citizens then, and it was never beneficial for the Russian economy to develop! And the economy was developing, moreover, quickly!
  5. Generalissimus
    Generalissimus April 15 2014 16: 37
    +9
    Again false history .. annoying.

    60% of peasant farms had 3 or more horses.

    yep .. average temperature in the 37 hospital.
    But in the report of the Minister of War to Nicholas II before the war, it was said that more than 80% of draftees from rural areas ate meat for the first time in their lives in the army.

    Pre-war Russia was one of the most advanced and developed powers of that era. Over 50 years, industrial production increased 10-12 times (over 13 pre-war years - three times), and according to some indicators, the increase was simply fabulous. Chemical production increased 48 times, coal production - 700 times, oil - 1500 times. The huge country was covered by a network of railways, coal deposits of Donbass, oil fields of Baku and Grozny were developed. Russia has created the world's largest and best refining industry. 94% of the oil was refined domestically, the products were famous for their quality and low cost.


    yes yes yes .. it remains to recall Shambarov that 75% of the chemical and oil industry was fully owned by Western capital (Baku oil is notorious Nobel), and banks in Russia at 90% belonged to the West, like railways, by the way, which were built in a very peculiar way - according to latitude - for the export of resources.

    Before writing, I should not have read much for Shambarov. Moreover, not journalistic works like him, but directly - documents.

    Another chant of Nicholas. What kind of a historian is he? fool Publicist, writer, monarchist.
    Unfortunately, it’s just an apologist for false stories .. Such books only harm, they don’t teach, but they are misleading
    .
    1. Sour
      Sour April 15 2014 17: 29
      0
      Quote: Generalissimus
      belonged to the west, like the railways, by the way,

      Is it possible to list the railways of Russia that belonged to the West?
      As far as I know, over 2/3 of the railways in the Empire belonged to the state. There were private roads, such as the Vladikavkaz and Olonets, but the share of foreign capital was scanty there.
      By the way, we met the Great Patriotic War mainly with the same network of roads that was before the Revolution. In the 20-30s Turksib was built, the Gorky-Kirov and Petropavlovsk-Karaganda roads. Almost nothing more. The Kotlas-Vorkuta road was built only in 1942, largely through the work of prisoners.
    2. ammunition
      ammunition April 15 2014 17: 39
      +2
      Quote: Generalissimus
      Another chant of Nicholas. What kind of a historian is he? Publicist, writer, monarchist.
      Unfortunately - only an apologist for false stories .. Such books only harm, they do not teach, but they introduce into delusion.


      You are absolutely right!
      A smoothie is more dangerous than a direct hunter. Although also a monarchist, but a direct lie .. juggling .. distortion of facts - cause outrage.
      ------------
      I am only talking about the level of development of the economy (industry and rural)
      The author has bent a lot. Somewhere ten times.
      The impression is that the author wanted to provoke "righteous" anger in the readers.
      And called.
      ----------
      C'mon .. It was and gone. Now we need to think about what we have now.
      And then ... USSR won .. also produced 20% of all world industry. (For comparison! Russia in the 1913 year produced only 4,2% of world production)
      ------------
      Now the former greatness will not help us. Greatness will have to be rebuilt from what is now.
      1. Sour
        Sour April 15 2014 17: 47
        +2
        Quote: ammunition
        For comparison! Russia in 1913 produced only 4,2% of world production)

        The industrial production of Russia in the 1913 year amounted to 12,3% of the world.
        http://old.nasledie.ru/politvne/18_31/kniga2/article.php?art=17
        In the USSR, this share for 1990 was approximately the same - 12,94%.
        About 20% of the USSR was only at the beginning of the 60-s. Then this share fell.
        1. Greyjojo
          Greyjojo April 15 2014 18: 16
          +1
          http://istmat.info/node/181
          does not confirm your data.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. Sour
            Sour April 15 2014 18: 22
            0
            Well, see? With numbers you have to be careful.
            I see no reason to consider your link more authoritative than mine. It's a matter of taste.
        3. ammunition
          ammunition April 15 2014 18: 40
          +1
          Quote: Sour
          The industrial production of Russia in the 1913 year amounted to 12,3% of the world.
          http://old.nasledie.ru/politvne/18_31/kniga2/article.php?art=17
          In the USSR, this share for 1990 was approximately the same - 12,94%.
          About 20% of the USSR was only at the beginning of the 60-s. Then this share fell.


          Followed your link.
          Sad Very sad.
          -----------
          This is how the enemies of truth and humanity rewrite history.
          ------------
          I can’t fight with all the world media. And I will not undertake to prove the truth to you in detail. It is extremely long and difficult.
          I myself use the good old reference books. As well as historical reference facts.
          ----------
          I will draw your attention only to 2 (two) historical facts. But they send to the trash .. the table that you brought.
          -----------
          According to your table, in the 1929 year, the USSR produced 10,19% of world industry.
          And at the same time, Stalin said -
          "We are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We have to cover this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we will be crushed."
          -----------
          Why is there such a panic? With such a significant share?
          ----------
          Further. According to your table, in the 1940 year, the share of the USSR in world industry is 12,65% (by the way .. this figure is close to true)
          So. Added two percent .. This is ran a lag in xnumx years?
          --------------
          The second fact.
          Your table confirms that from the 1960 year to the 1990 year, the share of the USSR in world industry decreased from 19,55% to 10,35% (both numbers are false).
          Then the question. If the USSR for thirty years "rolled into the abyss" .. and catastrophically lagged behind in pace. Why did Thatcher say her famous words ??? These are the words -

          ".." The Soviet Union is a country that posed a serious threat to the Western world. I'm not talking about a military threat. In essence, it was not. Our countries are quite well armed, including with nuclear weapons.

          I mean the economic threat. Thanks to a planned policy and a peculiar combination of moral and material incentives, the Soviet Union managed to achieve high economic indicators. The percentage of growth in the gross national product was about twice as high as in our countries. If we take into account the enormous natural resources of the USSR, then with a rational economy, the Soviet Union had quite real opportunities to oust us from world markets ... ""
          -----------
          These two facts say that "your" table link is LYING .
          Well, think a little yourself.
          ------------
          What are now foul times !!!!
          All around lies and manipulation. They lie as they want. They wanted to convince the Ukrainians that they are not Russian ... Bam! a bunch of hired 3,14 ** owls concocted a whole "science" .. like .. about proto-ukrov.
          ----------
          Around a lie. (((((((((((((((
          1. Sour
            Sour April 15 2014 18: 51
            -1
            Quote: ammunition
            This is how the enemies of truth and humanity rewrite history.

            Let’s without cliches and loud phrases. Who is the enemy of mankind and who is friend, I’ll figure it out myself.
            Quote: ammunition
            As they want - they lie.

            It just concerns you.
            Quote: ammunition
            I mean the economic threat. Thanks to a planned policy and a peculiar combination of moral and material incentives, the Soviet Union managed to achieve high economic indicators. The percentage growth in gross national product was about two times higher than in our countries.

            I don't know who said that, but this is an obvious liar. I remember the scoop perfectly. The country rolled in and eventually rolled in. By the early 70s, all growth opportunities had been exhausted. Saved for the time being only oil exports. But as soon as oil prices fell, the "unbreakable union" fell apart like a rotten tree stump. Tell tales about the flourishing Soviet economy to lop-eared puppies. who do not remember the wasted factories and the crops rotting in the fields. And I saw it all with my own eyes.
            1. ammunition
              ammunition April 15 2014 19: 28
              +1
              Quote: Sour
              I mean the economic threat. Thanks to a planned policy and a peculiar combination of moral and material incentives, the Soviet Union managed to achieve high economic indicators. The percentage growth in gross national product was about two times higher than in our countries.
              \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
              I don't know who said that, but this is an obvious liar. I remember the scoop perfectly. The country rolled in and eventually rolled in. By the early 70s, all growth opportunities had been exhausted. Saved for the time being only oil exports. But as soon as oil prices fell, the "unbreakable union" fell apart like a rotten tree stump. Tell tales about the flourishing Soviet economy to lop-eared puppies. who do not remember the wasted factories and the crops rotting in the fields. And I saw it all with my own eyes.


              That said Margaret Thatcher. As indicated in my comment. You are reading inattentively.
              -----------
              But your fairy tale .. about the "rotten stump", just reveals the customers of such fairy tales.
              Customers - Chubais and company. They want to be respected (((and loved. And to believe that the bourgeoisie and the oligarchs are benefactors .. like.
              ---------
              Although .. since the late seventies .. the USSR has already artificially arranged shortages of some prom and prod. goods.
              But it was already working the fifth column. Betrayal arose even before Gorbachev.
              Alas.
              1. Sour
                Sour April 16 2014 15: 40
                -1
                Quote: ammunition
                That said Margaret Thatcher.

                She never said anything like that. You are lying, Mr. Communist. This has been repeatedly denied.
              2. Sour
                Sour April 16 2014 15: 44
                -1
                Quote: ammunition
                Although .. since the late seventies .. the USSR has already artificially arranged shortages of some prom and prod. goods.

                You obviously did not live in the USSR, you only know about him from dad and mom.
                And the education is clearly 90's striking. There are too many errors in the texts. I, who lived in the USSR, are not interested in the opinion of him who did not live there.
                1. ammunition
                  ammunition April 16 2014 17: 19
                  +1
                  Quote: Sour
                  You obviously did not live in the USSR, you only know about him from dad and mom.
                  And the education is clearly 90's striking. There are too many errors in the texts. I, who lived in the USSR, are not interested in the opinion of him who did not live there.


                  This post of yours characterizes flaws and insights, and intuition.
                  ------------
                  Dad and Mom have been with me for a long time. His kingdom is heaven.
                  Sam graduated with honors from the State Technical University in 1979. Then State University. Present. I drove the country from Sakhalin to the Carpathians. The parties did not consist))))
                  ------------
                  One thing is not clear -
                  How can one not understand that Sovereign Nikolai the second does not need any untruth?
                  Or are you not Orthodox?
                  Or are you just trolling? For what purpose ? .. Just to confound the interlocutor?
                  --------------
                  1. Sour
                    Sour April 16 2014 19: 26
                    -1
                    Quote: ammunition
                    For what purpose ? ..

                    In order to convey my point of view. Hope others are here for the same purpose.
                    Personally, I am already sickened by those who extol the communist regime. I remember him perfectly and I consider anyone who is nostalgic for him to be the enemy of Russia. The most sworn enemy, worse than any external adversary or traitor.
                    I belong to tsarist times without illusions. I did not live then, but the information I have (including from eyewitnesses) is enough to understand the pattern of its collapse.
                    However, I do not consider the October Revolution a progress for Russia and the Russian Nation. Rather, the opposite. The horseradish mode was changed to even more worthless.
                    Here, in a nutshell, are my views. In detail, I can expand them wider, but it's a long time.
                    Quote: ammunition
                    He graduated with honors from the State Technical University in 1979. Then State University.

                    I worked as a tractor driver, then I also graduated from a vocational school (by profession a driver of "VS" categories and a car mechanic, then the army, then a civilian university, then a career in law enforcement agencies. In short, a complicated biography. Now retired, but I continue to work for the good of Russia (at least at least, I think so, because I pay taxes regularly).
                    Quote: ammunition
                    Or are you not Orthodox?

                    I am a non-confessional Christian. I share Christian values, but I do not belong to any church.
                    Just to confound the interlocutor?

                    I have no such goals.
                    How can one not understand that Sovereign Nikolai the second does not need any untruth?

                    And why did you think that I stood up for Nicholas II? I am a convinced anti-communist, they will die and am more than skeptical of any democracy. But I’m never a fan of Nicholas II. Moreover, I consider him the worst ruler in our history, after Nicholas I. Worse than Nicholas I, in my opinion, there was nobody. Even Gorbachev is better.
                    1. ammunition
                      ammunition April 16 2014 20: 03
                      0
                      Quote: Sour
                      Personally, I am already sickened by those who extol the communist regime. I remember him perfectly and I consider anyone who is nostalgic for him to be the enemy of Russia. The most sworn enemy, worse than any external adversary or traitor.


                      Quote: Sour
                      I am a non-confessional Christian. I share Christian values, but I do not belong to any church.


                      A strange combination of worldviews. Do you want to talk on skype?

                      Quote: Sour
                      The horseradish mode was changed to even more worthless.


                      Therefore, you know the best way of life. Most Pious.
                      Tell me. Which one? At least briefly .. in principles.
                    2. rkkasa xnumx
                      rkkasa xnumx April 16 2014 21: 16
                      0
                      Quote: Sour
                      Personally, I am already sickened by those who extol the communist regime. I remember him perfectly and I consider anyone who is nostalgic for him to be the enemy of Russia. The most sworn enemy, worse than any external adversary or traitor.

                      Quote: Sour
                      I do not consider the October Revolution a progress for Russia and the Russian Nation. Rather, the opposite. The horseradish mode was changed to even more worthless.

                      Quote: Sour
                      I'm a staunch anti-communist


                      Quote: Sour
                      career in power structures.


                      How could a convinced anti-communist serve in power structures? Also, probably in the party? Largely thanks to these rat-parasites, the Gorbachev-Yeltsins came to power.


                      Quote: Sour
                      I continue to work for the benefit of Russia


                      For the good of one country, you have already worked. Enough already ? Or the laurels of Kolchak, Vlasov and Kalugin do not give rest?
                    3. Greyjojo
                      Greyjojo April 16 2014 23: 21
                      +1
                      it’s been shitty, it’s been shitty and will be shitty.
                      Apparently, the conclusion follows that we live in such a shitty country.

                      What did the communists do to you?
                    4. Greyjojo
                      Greyjojo April 16 2014 23: 21
                      0
                      it’s been shitty, it’s been shitty and will be shitty.
                      Apparently, the conclusion follows that we live in such a shitty country.

                      What did the communists do to you?
          2. andj61
            andj61 April 15 2014 21: 00
            0
            In fact, it’s right to say that the table presented by the other side of the discussion is false only because of the phrases of a historical figure taken out of context — this is not comme il faut. Stalin needed to mobilize the party for social construction. Thatcher - scare the voters. At the end of the 60's, the Western world was shaken by protests, and the USSR showed success and tremendous growth. In the West, many were afraid of us. But how does falsity of the table follow from this?
            Another question, on the basis of which the table was compiled? on the basis of statistical data that were brought in not a day to a day, but after a long time. Therefore, statistics showed data on the global crisis in other countries, and in the USSR there was growth. So the numbers do not hit. And statistics in the USSR is a crafty thing. Summarize and reward - all is well. It is necessary to solve the problem with the next great construction project - everything is bad, but we will do it to make it good.
            Further, in what currency was the calculation made? Now everyone believes in dollars, so when oil prices fall, production in dollars falls, but it can grow in real terms. And so on. Since the mid-70-ies in the USSR, growth rates have slowed significantly. I remember how plans to increase electricity production, steelmaking, etc. there were only numbers for the five-year period, and after five years they were accountable for the successful implementation of the five-year period, and the numbers were quoted at 8-12% less than what was planned in 5 years ago.
            Therefore, as they say, "it is necessary softer, softer."
            1. ammunition
              ammunition April 15 2014 21: 56
              -1
              Quote: andj61
              In fact, it’s right to say that the table presented by the other side of the discussion is false only because of the phrases of a historical figure taken out of context — this is not comme il faut. Stalin needed to mobilize the party for social construction. Thatcher - scare the voters. At the end of the 60's, the Western world was shaken by protests, and the USSR showed success and tremendous growth. In the West, many were afraid of us. But how does falsity of the table follow from this?


              1) Stalin never said anything for a "catchphrase". Stalin was characterized by the utmost sobriety and accuracy of assessments.
              2) The quoted words of Thatcher are taken from her report in Houston, dated November 1991. Consequently, they cannot be related to intimidation of voters of the 60's.

              Quote: andj61
              Another question, on the basis of which the table was compiled? on the basis of statistical data that were brought in not a day to a day, but after a long time. Therefore, statistics showed data on the global crisis in other countries, and in the USSR there was growth. So the numbers do not hit. And statistics in the USSR is a crafty thing. Summarize and reward - all is well. It is necessary to solve the problem with the next great construction project - everything is bad, but we will do it to make it good.
              Further, in what currency was the calculation made? Now everyone believes in dollars, so when oil prices fall, production in dollars falls, but it can grow in real terms. And so on. Since the mid-70-ies in the USSR, growth rates have slowed significantly. I remember how plans to increase electricity production, steelmaking, etc. there were only numbers for the five-year period, and after five years they were accountable for the successful implementation of the five-year period, and the numbers were quoted at 8-12% less than what was planned in 5 years ago.


              This is already more interesting.
              -------------
              Let's look at a specific example.
              China now produces 800 (eight hundred) million tons of steel per year.
              USA - \ - \ - \ - \ - \ - \ - \ - \ - \ - 75 (seventy-five) - \ - \ - \ - \ - \ - \ - \ - \ - \ - \ - \ -.
              Ten times less.
              And so on almost the entire range of production. With variations, of course. That is, China produces 50 times more consumer electronics. And cars - only one and a half times more.
              ------------
              And yet ... US GDP is more than double the Chinese.))
              How so?
              ------------
              And so it is, because China is embedded in the American financial system. Which redistributes the Chinese product in favor of the United States.
              Dues Tribute.
              ------------
              With the USSR, such twists do not pass. Since the USSR was completely OUT global finance system.
              Only Gorbachev began to embed (seriously).
              Therefore, such curiosities arose. Somehow - In the 1989 year, a five-room apartment in the quiet center of Ufa cost 1500 dollars. Now .. she costs 4 500 000 dollars. (4,5 million). That is - taking into account dollar inflation - one and a half thousand times more expensive.
              ----------------
              So here. A similar bubble of global swindle and robbery ... must burst. Sooner or later.
          3. rkkasa xnumx
            rkkasa xnumx April 15 2014 22: 14
            0
            One can argue for a long time about the percentage of literacy and industrial growth, citing figures and reference data as an example - and all this is correct on the one hand. But there are facts that do not leave stone unturned from all these fables about a great empire that was striving with leaps and bounds into the future, sweeping away everything in its path.
            I mean military force, which indirectly gives an idea of ​​how developed the country was. There can be no strong army without a good education, science, health care, industry. Let me remind you:
            - 1853-56 defeat in the CRIMEAN WAR;
            - 1877-78 with great difficulty, defeated TURKEY, at that time far from the most powerful country;
            - 1904-05 defeat in the RUSSIAN-JAPAN war;
            - 1914-17 being in much better conditions compared to the USSR (for example, the main enemy forces are connected in the WEST, there is no need to keep significant forces in the EAST, etc.) RI nevertheless suffers defeat, retreats and there are no signs that the situation will improve.
            I repeat, these facts are better than any statistics give an idea of ​​what the RUSSIA that we lost was.
            1. ammunition
              ammunition April 15 2014 22: 28
              +1
              Quote: rkkasa 81
              I repeat, these facts are better than any statistics give an idea of ​​what the RUSSIA that we lost was.


              +100500
              How fashionable now))
              You brought reference historical facts. Only an unscrupulous person can argue with them.
              ----------
              But this does not cancel the love of Russia. Though in the form of the Russian Empire. Though in the form of the USSR. Even in its current form. repeat
  6. Cossacks
    Cossacks April 15 2014 16: 41
    +4
    Quote: konvalval
    Kaiser Wilhelm II, while heir to the throne, was in our country, became friends with the future Tsar Nicholas II. In the correspondence, they called each other "cousin Willie" and "cousin Nikki."

    It vividly reminded me of recent affairs about a friend Bill, a friend Kolya - well, continue on yourself.
  7. Energy
    Energy April 15 2014 16: 43
    +1
    Russia has only two allies - the Army and Navy. So it was, is and will be.
  8. Greyjojo
    Greyjojo April 15 2014 17: 12
    +4
    The article has a lot of fraud and inaccuracies.
    Yes, in the Russian Empire there was a high growth rate of industry, but in terms of production volume it lost to England and Germany at 5! time.
    even if the growth rate persisted, the lag would be eliminated in 50 years ... by 1964 ...
    Russia produced about the same amount of grain as Argentina or Canada, with a population 10 times larger. A fact that speaks of the backwardness of agriculture.
    85% of the population were illiterate.
    for 1914 in the country there were 2 for 3 rifles.
    The delay in heavy artillery from Germany was 10! time.
    Own advanced types of weapons were not:
    1) Artillery - replicas of German guns
    2) there were no tanks even prototypes
    3) Machine guns - maxim, American development
    4) Mosinka is relatively a development of its own, but a lot of it was borrowed from the Nagant rifle.
    5) airplanes were made, but pr-in engines (the main hi-tech in those whatnots) produced 3 units ... per month. Let me remind you that there were 4 engines on Ilya Muromets.

    The bottom line was not "Great Russia, which we have lost." It was a developing country with a huge illiterate population, all the main production facilities were concentrated in several cities and belonged to ... French and English capital ...
    Which, by and large, also predetermined Russia's entry into the First World War and its chronic defeats of the 14-15 years, the enrichment of the bourgeois who, in February 17, broke into power, brought down the empire and dumped the country ...
    1. RUSS
      RUSS April 15 2014 17: 34
      +1
      Quote: GreyJoJo
      85% of the population were illiterate.


      In today's Russia, the same situation, if one can say so by the standards of our time, education and literacy are very low, especially among the younger generation, higher education is acquired by buying a diploma or university is visited once a week for a tick, in more or less serious universities, corruption flourishes. There is no secondary technical and vocational education as such, a newly established exam and a new experimental school curriculum, etc.
      1. Greyjojo
        Greyjojo April 15 2014 17: 47
        +2
        Do not compare the ability to read and write and the current problems of education.
        What is happening in our education is a "global" trend. In modern society, intellectuals are not needed, but "consumers" are needed.
        In this our system is no worse and no better than the "American" one.
        Compare with the beginning of the 20th century: more than 80% in Russia can neither read nor write, in Germany since 1871 universal secondary education.
        1. Sour
          Sour April 15 2014 17: 56
          0
          Quote: GreyJoJo
          Compare with the beginning of the 20th century: more than 80% in Russia can neither read nor write

          In 1897, in Russia (without Finland) there were 61% of illiterates (census data). In the future, this percentage declined rapidly. This can be judged by the percentage of illiterate recruits. In 1896 there were 60% of them, in 1913 only 27%.
          You are careful with numbers.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. Sour
              Sour April 15 2014 18: 03
              0
              Nevertheless, the literacy rate at the time of the 1917 revolution was far from so small. At least among men.
              The literacy rate grew fast enough, and the revolution was unlikely to accelerate this process. I have no reason to say so.
              I do not idealize those times. But I see no reason to argue that the revolution has pushed Russia forward. Rather, the opposite.
              1. Greyjojo
                Greyjojo April 15 2014 18: 09
                -1
                I did not say that it was the revolution that gave the impetus (statistics say that the revolution slowed down the development).
                from wiki:
                1917 - 43%
                1920 - 44,1
                1926 - 56,6
                1939 - 87,4
                1959 - 98,5
                substantial growth begins 10 years after the revolution. This is another story.
                I'm just proving the thesis - there was no Russia which "stabbed a knife in the back." The country was quite backward.
              2. Greyjojo
                Greyjojo April 15 2014 18: 09
                0
                I did not say that it was the revolution that gave the impetus (statistics say that the revolution slowed down the development).
                from wiki:
                1917 - 43%
                1920 - 44,1
                1926 - 56,6
                1939 - 87,4
                1959 - 98,5
                substantial growth begins 10 years after the revolution. This is another story.
                I'm just proving the thesis - there was no Russia which "stabbed a knife in the back." The country was quite backward.
                1. Sour
                  Sour April 15 2014 18: 20
                  0
                  Quote: GreyJoJo
                  The country was quite backward.

                  Personally, I do not argue with that.
                  I deny the other - that supposedly the revolution allowed overcoming this backwardness.
                  The growth rate of the post-revolutionary economy as a whole was not higher than the pre-revolutionary ones.
                  Moreover, the country reached the level of 1913 only in 1926 (this is according to the Bolsheviks, but in fact it can be later). Other warring countries of Europe left earlier. England and Italy in 1919, Germany and France in 1920.
                  During the Civil War, the country lost not only some territories, but also approximately 10 million people due to hostilities, terror of both sides, emigration, and mainly from disease and hunger. There were only 2 million emigrants, and these were mostly literate and educated people who were sorely lacking.
                  In short, the country has lost 6-7 years of development and 10 million people, among them the staff very needed by the country. The question is - in the name of what?
                  No answer.
                  1. Greyjojo
                    Greyjojo April 16 2014 17: 39
                    +1
                    And what are the alternatives?
                    by 1917 a great deal of contradictions had accumulated, which no one sought to resolve.
                    The empires of the sample of 14-17 years needed radical changes, but they were not carried out.
                    As a result of the 1917 coup, the bourgeoisie came to power. And she showed that she was not able not only to reform the state, but also to banally manage it efficiently.
                    During the six months of the work of the belt government, the front, the economy and society simply fell apart.
                    In such a situation, the Bolsheviks took power, who believed in the new society and purposefully approached it.
                    I propose to the adepts of the "white" movement to familiarize themselves with the conditions for the purchase of weapons by the white generals from the "allies". Under these agreements, all industry and deposits were either transferred for use for 25-30 years, or simply given to foreigners.

                    I do not think that the finally sold-out empire after the victory of the whites was able to at least get closer to the level of development of the USSR.

                    Moreover, the country that ... waged the First World War, although it entered it at a rather favorable moment (Germany is at war with France and England, there was no lightning attack), I’m afraid to imagine what would happen to Russia in 1941 if she remained a monarchy.
                    1. Sour
                      Sour April 16 2014 18: 27
                      -1
                      Quote: GreyJoJo
                      by 1917 a great deal of contradictions had accumulated, which no one sought to resolve.

                      Just don’t say that they were decided by the Bolsheviks. This is not even funny.
                      Quote: GreyJoJo
                      I suggest that the deputies of the "white" movement familiarize themselves with the conditions for the purchase of weapons by the white generals from the "allies". Under these agreements, all industry and deposits were either transferred for use for 25-30 years, or simply given to foreigners.

                      Let's say. But it would still be less harmful to the development of the Russian nation than the Bolshevik regime. If anything, the Communists left power, having Russia in a debt hole. Will you deny it? It makes no sense.
                      Quote: GreyJoJo
                      I do not think that the finally sold-out empire after the victory of the whites was able to at least get closer to the level of development of the USSR.

                      This is a controversial issue. Your "I don't think" is unsubstantiated.
                      Quote: GreyJoJo
                      what would happen to Russia in 1941 if it remained a monarchy.

                      And Britain was then a monarchy, and Japan. They had quite modern armed forces. But that's not the point. It touches me the most when supporters of the Bolsheviks condemn the monarchy. When they condemn capitalism, I still understand this. But the regime created by the Bolsheviks was a monarchy squared. Or in a cube if you want.
                      And do not blame all the military defeats of Russia on the monarchy. In the Crimean War, we were confronted by monarchies alone - France, England, Turkey, Sardinia. We also lost the Russo-Japanese War not in the republic. And in WWI, our enemies were monarchies, much more absolute than the monarchy of Nicholas II.
                      You do not see the reasons for Russia's failures there. They are not in the form of government. And not in the color of the flag.
                      1. Greyjojo
                        Greyjojo April 16 2014 23: 03
                        0
                        1) The Bolsheviks decided them, by drastic means, but decided:
                        - trained the population and put in place a quality education system;
                        - liquidated the classes of the bourgeoisie and large landowners;
                        - destroyed the village community, moved the population to cities;
                        - conducted industrialization.
                        2) The debt hole was no less in 1917 ... And the Soviet Union gained debts when the authorities were already figures shifters. Yesterday, the secretary of the regional committee, today the liberal market ...
                        And what do you think is good "for the Russian nation"? and where did you put the rest of the "nation"?
                        for me, when the bulk of the population remains illiterate and cultivates the land with a wooden plow, it is difficult to talk about the prosperity of the "Russian nation"
                        3) this is my assessment, I express it.
                        4) Britain then, as now, was formally a monarchy. The armed forces of Japan were created with the serious help of the same Britain.
                        In general, I have nothing against the monarchy. The control system in the USSR was entirely similar.
                        I guess I didn’t put it quite right. It would be more correct to say: “What would have happened to Russia if it had remained a capital country.
                      2. Greyjojo
                        Greyjojo April 16 2014 23: 03
                        0
                        1) The Bolsheviks decided them, by drastic means, but decided:
                        - trained the population and put in place a quality education system;
                        - liquidated the classes of the bourgeoisie and large landowners;
                        - destroyed the village community, moved the population to cities;
                        - conducted industrialization.
                        2) The debt hole was no less in 1917 ... And the Soviet Union gained debts when the authorities were already figures shifters. Yesterday, the secretary of the regional committee, today the liberal market ...
                        And what do you think is good "for the Russian nation"? and where did you put the rest of the "nation"?
                        for me, when the bulk of the population remains illiterate and cultivates the land with a wooden plow, it is difficult to talk about the prosperity of the "Russian nation"
                        3) this is my assessment, I express it.
                        4) Britain then, as now, was formally a monarchy. The armed forces of Japan were created with the serious help of the same Britain.
                        In general, I have nothing against the monarchy. The control system in the USSR was entirely similar.
                        I guess I didn’t put it quite right. It would be more correct to say: “What would have happened to Russia if it had remained a capital country.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
          3. rkkasa xnumx
            rkkasa xnumx April 15 2014 20: 41
            0
            Quote: Sour
            In 1897, in Russia (without Finland) there were 61% of illiterates (census data). In the future, this percentage declined rapidly. This can be judged by the percentage of illiterate recruits. In 1896 there were 60% of them, in 1913 only 27%.
            You are careful with numbers.


            If in 1896-1897 there were 40% literate recruits, then the literacy of the entire population was much lower than the 39% you are talking about.
            Firstly, men from the Caucasus and Central Asia were hardly drafted into the army, where literacy was lower than in the rest of the country;
            secondly - among older people literate was less than among young
            thirdly, there were fewer literate women than men
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Sour
      Sour April 15 2014 17: 44
      0
      Quote: GreyJoJo
      85% of the population were illiterate.

      Where does this data come from?
      There is no data on the literacy rate before the Revolution.
      There is only the data of the War Department on the percentage of literate conscripts. In 1913, it was 73%, illiterate, respectively 27%.
      1. Greyjojo
        Greyjojo April 15 2014 17: 57
        +1
        Of course, there is no exact data.
        the percentage of literate draftees is not an indicator, because the literacy rate of men was several times higher than that of women.
        I confused 85% since 1897. By 1917, literacy assessment ranged from 30-45%.
      2. Greyjojo
        Greyjojo April 15 2014 17: 57
        0
        Of course, there is no exact data.
        the percentage of literate draftees is not an indicator, because the literacy rate of men was several times higher than that of women.
        I confused 85% since 1897. By 1917, literacy assessment ranged from 30-45%.
    3. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru April 15 2014 17: 53
      -1
      Quote: GreyJoJo
      Own advanced types of weapons were not:
      3) Machine guns - maxim, American development
      4) Mosinka is relatively a development of its own, but a lot of it was borrowed from the Nagant rifle.

      The weapons you mentioned were well mastered at the R.I.
      Quote: GreyJoJo
      5) airplanes were made, but pr-in engines (the main hi-tech in those whatnots) produced 3 units ... per month. Let me remind you that there were 4 engines on Ilya Muromets.
      So remember comparable T.T.H. Airplanes at the German block. Remember the Russian chemist N.D. Zelinsky.
      1. Greyjojo
        Greyjojo April 15 2014 18: 04
        +1
        The production of rifles and machine guns was mastered, but the volumes were clearly insufficient.
        Heavy artillery was procured ... in Germany.
        About airplanes - yes they built a big plane, but on the basis of imported engines.
        An analogue from the present - in Russia, a supercomputer based on imported processors is going to. There is a product, but microelectronics - no.
        By the way, I could not find, except for Ilya, a single domestic serial airplane.
      2. Greyjojo
        Greyjojo April 15 2014 18: 04
        0
        The production of rifles and machine guns was mastered, but the volumes were clearly insufficient.
        Heavy artillery was procured ... in Germany.
        About airplanes - yes they built a big plane, but on the basis of imported engines.
        An analogue from the present - in Russia, a supercomputer based on imported processors is going to. There is a product, but microelectronics - no.
        By the way, I could not find, except for Ilya, a single domestic serial airplane.
        1. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru April 16 2014 04: 17
          0
          Quote: GreyJoJo
          but the volumes were clearly insufficient.

          No one had imagined that the war (1st MV) would be of such proportions.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Greyjojo
            Greyjojo April 16 2014 17: 47
            +1
            And who is to blame for this, if not the military, led by the emperor?
            The rottenness of society shows at least the fact of "shell hunger".
            1) Russia entered the war with a supply of shells for several months of the war and had the opportunity to quickly increase output. (compare with the availability of weapons and ammunition during the Second World War)
            2) instead of activating forces to increase the output of military products, the bourgeois twisted extra charges up to 200-300%, but until 1916 they could not block the needs of the army.
            Where is patriotism and diligence for the good of the motherland. Just for the cup in the tavern?
  9. Sour
    Sour April 15 2014 17: 18
    -1
    I largely agree with what Shambarov said. Although far from everything.
    Just don't understand why on earth he is called a "historian"?
    It’s not even that he does not have a historical education. He does not even draw on a self-taught historian. In his works there are no studies, no first published data, no analysis. There are not even original versions. All his writings are fiction, not history. He simply takes fairly well-known historical facts, retells them in a popular and entertaining language, sets it out on paper. He is a typical popularizer of history, somewhere even not bad. He writes interestingly, especially for those for whom this is new information. But he is not a historian. I categorically object to the so-called Shambarov.
    1. RUSS
      RUSS April 15 2014 17: 27
      0
      Quote: Sour
      Just don't understand why on earth he is called a "historian"?


      If the article was about debunking another myth about Stalin, there wouldn’t be such a question.
      1. Sour
        Sour April 15 2014 17: 30
        0
        You did not answer my question.
        1. RUSS
          RUSS April 16 2014 10: 21
          -1
          Quote: Sour
          You did not answer my question.


          Everything is simple, for me Shambarov is a historian, but not for you.
          1. Sour
            Sour April 16 2014 15: 41
            -1
            Quote: RUSS
            Everything is just for me, a Shambarov historian,

            What new has he brought to historical science?
            Shambarov is a compiler, not a historian.
    2. tokens2
      tokens2 April 15 2014 20: 22
      0
      But he is not a historian. I categorically object to the so-called Shambarov.

      But what is his article called then?
      A preface to the sour arguments of Sour? laughing
      The article sets the right emphasis for me personally - Russia's Aspirations and the elite, who are “not catching up” with this aspiration. Who simply could not physically endure the monarchy, in general, has ceased to think clearly and has lost the course of things and the meaning intended for it.
      Technological breakthrough at the beginning of the 20th century. "bought up" all the forces loyal to the monarchs. And the monarchs had nothing to cover this step of progress. Only future military victories left a chance ... - on this all the monarchs of Europe were divorced.
      Now the situation is different: people are somewhat tired of the race of progress, but at the same time they want to return to their roots, an irreversible historical process. And of course the liberal "monarchs" from mega-corporations are against ...
      Nothing new laughing
      So rephrase laughing Who did not wear the crown and the corporation (with debts).
      1. Sour
        Sour April 16 2014 15: 38
        -1
        Quote: Lexi2
        But what is his article called then?

        This is not an article by a historian.
        Shambarov is not a historian. He just has a hold in book publishing. With the same success, anyone can be called a historian.
        I will say more - more than once I was convinced that Shambarov knows the story worse than me. At the same time, I never consider myself a historian.
        Shambarov is simply a businessman from a popular story. But not a historian.
  10. Mihail29
    Mihail29 April 15 2014 17: 19
    +1
    Everything is true in the article, but Nicholas himself needed to create his own support, and not when he was told that there was a riot in St. Petersburg, but he answered, give them bread and continued to shoot at the crows, the tsar as the head of state was weak and behaved criminally, such a tsar needed was to have Russia in calm years, and not at the time of such terrible changes. Peter I, could not be broken not by liberals, not by oligarchs, not by thought, not by foreign agents. A good family man, honest, merciful Nikolai was suitable as a symbol of Russian power, and not as the leader of a great empire. He constantly made weak decisions. He listened very much to his wife’s advice (resemblance to Gorbach), and where the decisions were incorrect, he insisted on the contrary (the resignation of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich from the post of supreme commander in chief and the appointment of himself to this post).
  11. Bezarius
    Bezarius April 15 2014 17: 21
    0
    Good article, thanks.
  12. Giant thought
    Giant thought April 15 2014 17: 23
    0
    All these are the machinations of the Anglo-Saxons. They have always been against a prosperous, strong, free Russia.
  13. parusnik
    parusnik April 15 2014 17: 30
    +2
    But one, with developed own industry, an order for 5 million shells, 1 million rifles, 1 billion rounds of ammunition, 8 million grenades, airplanes, aircraft engines, and guns are not placed abroad ...
  14. Siberian 1975
    Siberian 1975 April 15 2014 17: 46
    0
    Such a power was pissed off, and twice. In 1917 and 1991 years.
  15. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S April 15 2014 18: 51
    0
    People! When are we going to stop believing all this Western bastard? How many more times do you have to deceive us, breed us like the last suckers, so that the Russian people finally take up their minds? What would give up believing the promises of different "well-wishers" who want different benefits of Russia. Who sleep and see Russia humiliated, a beggar who has forgotten its centuries-old history, crawling on its knees in front of them. ENOUGH, let them crawl in front of us, stand up Russia, for its children, do not let them in offense.
  16. barbiturate
    barbiturate April 15 2014 18: 53
    0
    the article is absolute nonsense, the anthem of tsarist Russia, it’s a pity the people who believe it and once again calm down, like everything was fine, but for some reason everything fell apart, the article has so many frank lies and nonsense that you don’t even know what to refute, and then what for? Whoever is used to reading books himself knows the truth, and whoever reads such a creation and calms down, he doesn’t need anything else)
    1. Sour
      Sour April 15 2014 19: 07
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      Like everything was fine, that's just for some reason everything fell apart

      I agree. It would be all right - there would be no collapse.
      All the same must be said about the USSR.
      1. rkkasa xnumx
        rkkasa xnumx April 15 2014 20: 55
        0
        Quote: Sour
        I agree. It would be all right - there would be no collapse.
        All the same must be said about the USSR.


        The article discusses the causes of the defeat and collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia, which is why we are talking about it.
        1. Sour
          Sour April 16 2014 15: 48
          -1
          Quote: rkkasa 81
          The article discusses the causes of the defeat and collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia, which is why we are talking about it.

          Do not want to recognize the regularity of the collapse of the USSR?
          That's noticeable. Good wag booty, get away from answering the question.
          In what communal little party did you learn this?
          1. Greyjojo
            Greyjojo April 16 2014 23: 07
            0
            IMHO, the collapse of the USSR was due to the coming to power of the "cornflap" and the change of course.
            Which revealed the problem of continuity of power and generational change.
            Which, incidentally, is also characteristic of the monarchy: the course of the state and welfare depend on whether you are lucky with the emperor.
          2. Greyjojo
            Greyjojo April 16 2014 23: 07
            0
            IMHO, the collapse of the USSR was due to the coming to power of the "cornflap" and the change of course.
            Which revealed the problem of continuity of power and generational change.
            Which, incidentally, is also characteristic of the monarchy: the course of the state and welfare depend on whether you are lucky with the emperor.
  17. 1812 1945
    1812 1945 April 15 2014 19: 02
    +1
    God forbid, to understand and accept the truth concluded in this article to every Russian! Russia is a Great Power, and the messianic role is determined by the Universal Mind.
  18. Kibl
    Kibl April 15 2014 19: 42
    +2
    The main enemies are liberals and their ideas! Where did this muck come from? Burn this muck !!!
  19. demotivator
    demotivator April 15 2014 20: 10
    +1
    Quote: GreyJoJo
    The article has a lot of fraud and inaccuracies.

    I agree with this statement. I respect Shambarov as one of the most educated and trained historians of our time. But, and sometimes it brings. So in this case, especially when it comes to assessing the real state of affairs in pre-revolutionary Russia. They tell us that Russia was so rich that even exported its own bread abroad! And this is a subject for special pride? Read what Mendeleev wrote about this:
    “Based on this, one of my most cherished thoughts is the consideration that the bread exported by Russia at the present time reduces, does not increase the“ national good ”.

    Even in the famine, Russia exported up to 15% of the bread collected. What is called, undernourished - but exported. (But the bars need something to whip in Paris!) The average income of the peasant in the 1910s did not exceed 49 rubles a year, which made the domestic Russian market weak, hampering the normal development of industry (small solvent demand!) The economy of tsarist Russia was pronounced Colonial-raw nature. So they were finally taken to the popular uprising.
    And another topic of the article is the fate of the Romanovs. These just played out with fire. The royal house, this analogue of the current Saudi dynasty, was fabulously rich. The tsars liked to call themselves the first landowners in the country, then the "masters of the Russian land." Indeed, the Romanovs had their own domain: lands and peasants, not counting real estate and crafts. Personally, the tsar in 1905 owned seven million acres of land, which "pulled" a huge sum of a hundred million rubles at that time. The income of the dynasty was estimated at 24 million gold rubles annually. At current prices, this is about $ 5 billion. The Romanov House exported its money abroad. Like today's oligarchs and officials in the Russian Federation. The "owners of the Russian land" did not invest their annual millions in Russian plants, factories, mines, shipyards and railways. No - the Romanovs deposited money in European banks. That is, they behaved more like a group of colonialists pumping out a captured colony. Even the best of the last Russian monarchs, Alexander the Third, transferred his money to England, under the control of the British branch of the Rothschild Jewish dynasty. From this point of view, the real king and master was Joseph Stalin: he had money invested in his country. But the Romanovs overseas capitalist distilled. And the main investors in Russian industry (and this is no longer a secret) were the capitalists of France, Belgium, England, Germany.
  20. andj61
    andj61 April 15 2014 20: 34
    +1
    The article is very interesting and instructive. The main thing is to avoid cataclysms that came to Russia a century ago.
  21. Sergey S.
    Sergey S. April 16 2014 01: 28
    -1
    The Russian army in 1914 in terms of training significantly surpassed the other powers, and in terms of technical equipment it was second only to the German and Austrian ones - but they were purposefully preparing for war. The weapon was better or, at least, no worse than its foreign counterparts: the Mosin’s three-line rifle, Nagan revolver, Maxim's machine gun, improved by Tula gunsmiths. There were 8 machine guns in a regiment, just like the Germans and French. One of the best in the world was Baranovsky’s quick-firing three-inch (76 mm) guns. There were 48 cannons in the division (the Germans had 72, the French had 36). In total, the Russian army had 7030 guns (of which 240 heavy). For comparison: in Germany - 9398 guns (1300 heavy and 996 siege), in Austria-Hungary 4083 (960 heavy and 338 siege), in France - 4800 (there were no heavy at all).

    The primitive logic of the adherents of the new historical faith is striking.
    Trying to prove that the empire of Nicholas II was a normal progressive country is not disdained by any fraud and unfriendly tricks.
    That is how the quotation should be regarded.
    The author provides a comparison on individual factors that are beneficial to prove his bankrupt idea. Compares the perfection of the army in the production of rifles and field guns. I would also compare the production of broadswords and the peak for equestrians. Already then it would be possible to prove the overwhelming advantage of the Russian army over all the armies of the world. But how to explain the complete failure of military policy? Lenin ruined? From abroad, teleporting discontent over a thousand kilometers?
    All this is nonsense anti-scientific.
    The reality was depressing for the war industry. I am writing from memory, about 1916
    Russia made airplanes per year as much as each of the main howling countries (England, France, Germany) produced per month.
    There is nothing to talk about the production of tanks in Russia - some projects, moreover not adequate, because these projects were not continued.
    The engines for the aircraft were almost completely received from the countries of the Entente - what they would.
    That there motors - the richest country bought abroad 90 percent of bearing alloys (bronzes and babbits) and absolutely all ball bearings.
    And also failures in the creation of diesel engines for submarines, mistakes in booking "the famous battleships of the" Sevastopol "type, disruption of military orders by many factories ...

    So Russia during the First World War is an industrial ruin with a good people.
    To summarize, then after Catherine the Great, the recession of Russia began, which lasted until the 1920s. During this period, we lost the Crimean War, the Japanese War, and fell apart into the imperialist.
    And only by heroic efforts in industrialization, the USSR returned to the number of great powers.
    1. Sour
      Sour April 16 2014 15: 52
      -2
      Quote: Sergey S.
      The primitive logic of the adherents of the new historical faith is striking.

      Your old historical faith is no better.
      For example.
      Quote: Sergey S.
      And only by heroic efforts in industrialization, the USSR returned to the number of great powers.

      Yeah, of course. And the "advanced USSR" collapsed solely because of the intrigues of the CIA agents. Such a mighty power, and on you - collapsed due to the efforts of some agents.
      Your faith is no better than Shambarov’s.
      1. Greyjojo
        Greyjojo April 16 2014 17: 56
        +1
        USSR collapsed because it was an industrial power?
        Faith must be refuted or confirmed by facts.
      2. Greyjojo
        Greyjojo April 16 2014 17: 56
        0
        USSR collapsed because it was an industrial power?
        Faith must be refuted or confirmed by facts.
  22. Sergey S.
    Sergey S. April 16 2014 23: 23
    0
    Quote: Sour
    Quote: Sergey S.
    The primitive logic of the adherents of the new historical faith is striking.

    Your old historical faith is no better.


    You made a completely unfounded conclusion.
    As if they didn’t read the post either. And there are facts in it. killer facts about the state of industry before 1917.
    I can add political firewood.
    It is known that the workers of the Putilov factory were one of the most capable detachments of the Great Socialist October Revolution. So, it was Putilovsky who by this time was not able to report on military orders. The owners pushed the workers to strikes, while they themselves wrote explanatory notes, such as. order disrupted due to strikes ...
    So, in a completely natural way, due to technical backwardness, we gradually reached a revolutionary situation ...
  23. Sergey S.
    Sergey S. April 16 2014 23: 28
    0
    Quote: Sour (1)

    Your old historical faith is no better.
    For example.
    Quote: Sergey S.
    And only by heroic efforts in industrialization, the USSR returned to the number of great powers.

    Yeah, of course. And the "advanced USSR" collapsed solely because of the intrigues of the CIA agents. Such a mighty power, and on you - collapsed due to the efforts of some agents.
    Your faith is no better than Shambarov’s.

    Did I write that?
    Why juggle it?
    As for the collapse of the USSR, there is certainty, but not yet framed in social theory.
    The main thing is the contradiction between the political structure of the USSR relying on the proletariat and the sharp narrowing of the proletariat itself in connection with the development of modern technology.
    so your "Uh-huh" is completely out of place.