"Achieving this goal hardly requires war with Germany ..."

"Achieving this goal hardly requires war with Germany ..."

Opponents of the Entente in Russia on the Eve of the First World War

On the eve of the First World War, anti-German sentiments, as they would say now, were the leading trend of Russian society — criticizing Germany’s foreign policy and the dominance of German goods was considered one of the rules of good taste. However, this does not mean at all that other, alternative points of view, proving the death and uselessness of a military clash with the Germans, did not sound.

They were expressed by representatives of various political and social groups - radical social democrats, some highly respected officers of the General Staff and officials, including the former Minister of the Interior Durnovo, and even fighters against “masons and Jews”. Such a motley choir, however, could not exert any noticeable influence on Russian society and the policy of the Russian empire and prevent a slide to catastrophe.

Geopolitics against the Entente

Among the Russian opponents of the Entente, who tried to express their opinions on the eve of the First World War, historians first of all distinguish a group that can be called “geopolitics” - publicists and analysts who are in no way interconnected, but at the same time study and criticize Russian foreign policy.

Andrei Snesarev in India. 1899 year. Photo: RIA Newsarchive

For example, during the formation of the Anglo-French-Russian alliance against Germany - the Entente (from the French word entente - consent) - some contemporaries believed that Russia did not want to join any of the military blocs and it was more profitable to remain a great neutral power. Thus, the well-known military geographer Andrei Snesarev, then head of the Central Asian department of the General Staff of the Russian Empire, still in 1907, in a specially published brochure, he expressed a negative attitude towards the Anglo-Russian agreement concluded at that time, alienating Russia from Germany, noting its “insincerity”.
Before the First World War, another Russian military and historian, Lieutenant-General Yevgeny Martynov, criticized the current Russian policy in the Balkans, the very policy that would soon become the pretext for world war: “For Catherine, mastering the straits was the goal, and patronizing the Balkan Slavs was a means. To the benefit of national interests, Catherine exploited the sympathies of Christians, and later the policy of sacrificing the blood and money of the Russian people in order to make it more comfortable for the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and others who were supposedly loyal to us and the common religionists. ”
By the way, in 1913, General Martynov was fired with a scandal for criticism in the press of the existing order in the army and current state policy. At the beginning of World War I, he was captured, and upon returning to his homeland, like the above-mentioned Snesarev, he joined the Red Army (both “geopolitics” will not survive 1937 a year).

Another officer of the General Staff of the Russian Empire and military intelligence officer Lieutenant Colonel Alexei Yedrikhin, speaking under the pseudonym Vandam, wrote two voluminous geopolitical writings on the eve of World War I, in which he reflected his alternative foreign policy vision for Russia (“Our position”, St. Petersburg, 1912 G., "The Greatest Art. Review of the current international situation in the light of the highest strategy", St. Petersburg, 1913)

Like most other Russian "geopolitics", the edge of his analysis was directed not against the "German empires", but against British colonial policy. On the eve of the First World War, Lieutenant Colonel Yedrikhin wrote: “It seems to me that it is time for the white peoples who were choking in their concentration camp to understand that the only reasonable balance of power in Europe would be a coalition of land powers against the refined, but more dangerous, than Napoleonic, the despotism of England, and that our desire for “warm water” cruelly ridiculed by the British and now ridiculed by the Germans' desire to have “their place in the sun” do not contain anything unnatural. In any case, appropriating the exclusive right to enjoy all the benefits of the world, the British should and protect it alone with their own forces. ”

Edrikhin more than once repeats the “geopolitical” admonition he likes: “It’s not good to have an Anglo-Saxon enemy, but God forbid to have him as a friend!” However, Vandam-Edrikhin didn’t do without conspiracy and Anglo-American Jewish massassonians: factories, factories, workshops and temples of science, where Karl Marx, long ago ridiculed by the West, is installed on the altars of Russian thought ”.
This is generally a common feature of “geopolitics”, in whom a sober analysis of certain issues often coexists with conspiracy infantilism in understanding other, primarily social, issues.

Lenin and the Black Hundreds - for peace

The fight against "world freemasonry" reflects well the marginality of people who, on the eve of world war, tried to defend before Russian society views alternative to conventional Germanophobia and panslavism. And here the most vivid example will be the activity of such a colorful personality as Svyatoslav Glinka-Yanchevetsky, editor of the far-right, Black-Hundred newspaper Zemshchina.
In October, Gnink's 1912, in a number of his articles on events in the Balkans, where internecine wars of the Slavic states were then going on, considered it necessary “to bow to earth Sazonov, that he did exactly the will of the tsar and did not take into account the stupidity of our chauvinists.” Glinka thanked Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov for not drawing the country into a military conflict with Austria and Germany in the Balkans as early as 1911.

German diplomacy, who "managed to keep its Viennese allies from armed intervention and rendered an invaluable service to Russia", also received grateful words from the intelligent Black Hundreds, while the policy of "rotten" France and "traitorous" England in the Middle East received the most unflattering epithets from Glinka, who considered the "union of autocratic Russia with Masonic powers" an unnatural phenomenon.

Svyatoslav Glinka was an ardent anti-Semite and a close associate of the leader of the Black Hundreds Vladimir Purishkevich. Purishkevich himself described Glinka in this way: “His main attention was directed to the struggle against the dominance of the Jews and to the unmasking of Freemasonry, which set itself the goal of destroying altars and thrones.”

At the same time, Glinka was a talented person with a very outstanding biography. A Polish nobleman by birth, in his youth he served three years in the Peter and Paul Fortress on suspicion of revolutionary activity. There he wrote an article about the meaning of the rifled weapons for the location of fortresses, for which, at the suggestion of the head of the engineering department of the Russian Empire, General Totleben, prisoner Glinka-Yanchevsky, was awarded a prize right in prison. Later, Glinka was successfully engaged in business in the Russian Central Asian colonies, and his theoretical work on fortification enjoyed great respect.

Since the beginning of the Russian-Japanese war, Glinka submitted a note to Interior Minister Plehve, in which he advised, using public sentiment, to convene a Zemsky Sobor (during the pre-parliamentary era, references to Zemsky Sobor of the 16th-17th centuries were the last Russian memory of people's representation in power). The necessity of convening such a "protoparliament" in the form of the Zemsky Sobor Council was argued by Glinka that after the inevitable defeat of Russia in the war with the Japanese, a revolution would lift its head, which would not fail to take advantage of the oppressed state of the people. Minister Plehve did not heed these prophetic advice and, as is well known, finished badly.

Vladimir Purishkevich. Around 1912 of the year. Photo: RIA News archive

After 1905, during the period of revolutionary terror, Glinka publicly and persistently urged the government in response to the terrorist attacks of revolutionaries to introduce the institution of hostage-taking: “If for each killed dignitary a certain number of intelligent Jews are chosen by lot, that is, at the direction of God’s Finger, the property of Kagala will be shot in a certain amount will be confiscated, - the terror itself will cease ".
Since 1909, Glinka edits the Black Hundred newspaper Zemshchina and is one of the leaders of the odious Union of Michael the Archangel. Glinka-Yanchevsky was the author of the idea expressed at the beginning of the world war in the pages of Zemshchina that “not Germany started a war, but the Jews who chose Germany as an instrument of their plans”, allegedly they needed to set off two powers, where the monarchical principle is strongest, to weaken them both in a fierce mutual struggle.

Glinka was a staunch opponent of rapprochement with Great Britain, fearing not only its economic influence, but also pressure in favor of granting equal rights to Jews.
On the pages of Zemshchina he spoke on the Polish issue. Glinka-Janchevsky was not against the re-establishment of the Polish Kingdom, but without war. In his opinion, Poland for Russia is “only a burden. It sucks hundreds of millions of Russian money annually, and has caused enormous expenses with its insurrections. The Polish intelligentsia made its way into all the institutions and influenced the corrupting Russian intelligentsia. ”
Needless to say, Glinka and his ilk, although they had a certain number of supporters in society, remained marginalized. Their foreign policy ideals peppered by frantic anti-Semitism could not be accepted by Russian society, which at that time massively shared liberal views of varying degrees of depth.

It is noteworthy that among the people who clearly understood all the destruction of the war with Germany for monarchical Russia, along with the Black Hundreds was Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the radical Social Democrats. At the height of the second Balkan war, he wrote in Pravda on 23 in May 1913: “The German Chancellor scares the Slavic danger. If you please, the Balkan victories reinforced the "Slavs", which is hostile to the whole "German world". Pan-Slavism, the idea of ​​uniting all Slavs against the Germans — that’s the danger, the chancellor assures and refers to the noisy manifestations of the Pan-Slavs in Petersburg. Beautiful argument! The manufacturers of guns, armor, cannons, gunpowder, and other "cultural" needs want to enrich themselves both in Germany and in Russia, and in order to fool the public, they refer to each other. The Germans are frightened by the Russian chauvinists, the Russians by the Germans ... ”
Lenin was well aware of how much the war in general, and even more so, the war with Germany, the Russian Empire is not needed. And so Lenin ended his thought about the Russian and German chauvinists as follows: "Both those and others play a pitiful role in the hands of the capitalists, who are well aware that it is funny to think about the Russian war against Germany." But personally, Lenin himself, as a radical politician, looked at this question differently from the pages of propaganda newspapers - according to Trotsky’s testimony, he wrote to Maxim Gorky in 1913: “Austria’s war with Russia would be very useful for a revolution, but it’s not very likely that Joseph and Nikolasha brought us this pleasure. ”

It remains to add that in this question Lenin overestimated the mental faculties of both the monarchs and the bourgeoisie.

Bad predictions Durnovo

A brief sketch of marginal points of view on Russian-German relations at the beginning of the twentieth century, different from the popular and dominant anti-Germanism in Russian society, can be completed with the so-called Durnovo Note, a fairly well-known and illustrative document.

Peter Durnovo was the Minister of the Interior of the Russian Empire at the height of the 1905 revolution of the year. In the successful suppression of this revolution for the monarchy, a considerable amount of merit belongs precisely to its determination and cruelty. In 1906, Durnovo became a member of the reformed State Council of the Russian Empire, where, until his death in 1915, he was the informal leader of the “rightists”.
In February, 1914, Peter Durnovo presented to Nicholas II a voluminous, as they would say, analytical note in which he warned the last Russian emperor of drawing Russia into a major European war. “Note Durnovo” really differs deep analysis and confirmed by the time come true predictions, very sad for the Russian monarchy.

Half a year before the start of the First World War, Durnovo gives an analysis of the near world conflict: “The central factor in the period of stories is the rivalry of England and Germany. This rivalry will inevitably lead to an armed struggle between them, the outcome of which is likely to be fatal for the vanquished side ... Undoubtedly, therefore, that England will try to resort more than once with the success of her tried means and decide on an armed demonstration participation in the war on its side strategically stronger powers. And since Germany, in turn, will certainly not be isolated, the future Anglo-German war will turn into an armed clash between two groups of powers that adhere to one Germanic and the other British orientation. ”
Further, Durnovo critically assesses the Russian-English rapprochement: "It is difficult to grasp any real benefits we have gained from rapprochement with England."

Durnovo also reveals that Russia does not have insurmountable contradictions with Germany in Turkey and the Balkans: “The obvious goal pursued by our diplomacy in rapprochement with England is the opening of the Black Sea straits, but it seems that the achievement of this goal hardly requires war with Germany. After all, England, and not Germany at all, closed our way out of the Black Sea ... And there is every reason to expect that the Germans are easier than the British, would go to provide us with straits, in whose fate they have little interest, and at the cost of which our union would willingly buy ... As you know, even Bismarck owned a catch phrase that for Germany the Balkan question is not worth the bones of one Pomeranian grenadier ... "

Durnovo correctly predicts the level of tension of the future war: “The war will not take the enemy by surprise and the degree of its readiness will probably exceed our most exaggerated expectations. It should not be thought that this readiness would stem from the desire of Germany itself for war. She does not need war, since she could have achieved her goal without it - the termination of Britain’s sole dominion over the seas. But since this goal, vital for it, meets with opposition from the coalition, then Germany will not retreat before the war and, of course, will even try to cause it by choosing the most advantageous moment for itself. ”
“The vital interests of Russia and Germany are nowhere to be confronted and provide a complete basis for the peaceful coexistence of these two states,” Durnovo quite rightly asserts. “The future of Germany on the seas, that is, where Russia, essentially the most continental of all the great powers, has no interests.” At the same time, according to Durnovo, “all these factors are hardly taken into due consideration by our diplomacy, whose behavior towards Germany is, to a certain extent, even some aggressiveness that could unduly approximate the moment of an armed conflict with Germany - with our English orientation, in essence the inevitable ... "

Durnovo reasonably doubted the benefits of the war with Germany, even in case of dubious success for Russia: “We do not feel an excess of the population, which requires expansion of the territory, but even from the point of view of new conquests, what can victory give us over Germany? Poznan, East Prussia? But why do we need these areas densely populated by Poles, when we are not so easily controlled with Russian Poles ... Indeed, both territorial and economic acquisitions that are useful for us are available only where our aspirations can be hindered by England, and not by Germany . Persia, the Pamirs, Gulja, Kashgaria, Dzungaria, Mongolia, the Uryanhai Territory are all areas where the interests of Russia and Germany do not collide, and the interests of Russia and England have repeatedly collided ... "

The demonstration of the Union of Michael the Archangel at the Kazan station. St. Petersburg, 1900 year. Photo: RIA News archive

In fact, Durnovo directly suggests Russia to expand its policy from a divided and densely populated Europe to the East, where the Russian Empire has much more military, political and economic chances for a successful expansion. He also unusually correctly and succinctly assessed the economic relations between Russia and Germany six months before the war: “There is no doubt, of course, that the current Russian-German trade agreements are unprofitable for our agriculture and beneficial for Germany, but it is hardly correct to attribute this circumstance to cunning and the unfriendliness of Germany. One should not lose sight of the fact that these contracts, in many of their parts, are beneficial for us ... By virtue of the foregoing, concluding a trade agreement with Germany that is quite acceptable for Russia does not seem to require prior
defeat Germany. I will say more, the defeat of Germany in our bargaining with her would be unprofitable for us ... "

The author of the document mentions the German capital: “... as long as we need them, German capital is more profitable for us than any other.” Further, Durnovo gives a completely accurate economic forecast, which will be confirmed by the very near future: “In any case, if we even recognize the need to eradicate German dominance in our economic life, at least at the price of perfect expulsion of German capital from Russian industry, then appropriate measures can be taken and besides the war with Germany. This war will require such huge expenses, which will many times exceed the more than dubious benefits received by us as a result of getting rid of German domination. Moreover, the consequence of this war will be such an economic situation, before which the oppression of German capital will seem easy ... "

Given the tremendous growth of Russia's foreign debt during the First World War, and remembering that Russia paid its debts to the Paris Club of creditors on loans of that period at the beginning of the 21st century, the words of Durnovo seem quite prophetic.

But, in contrast to the pan-Slavist hype of the liberal-bourgeois newspapers and the vigorous forecasts of the near militarists, the analysis of Durnovo did not have the slightest influence on Russian society and its fate. The official historian of Nicholas II, Professor Oldenburg, later in exile, wrote: “There is no information about how the Sovereign treated this note. Perhaps she was late. "
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avt
    26 July 2014 09: 15
    Such a nice review, and most importantly - an expensive testicle to Christ's Day. By the time of the articlegood It may seem superficial, but it will definitely prompt the thinking reader to delve deeper into the topic - already good. And there you look and begin to compare with our time, well, for example, the geopolitical philosophies of the geo-academics of the Arbat parquet like Ivashov with the same Durnovo and Snesarev. Article plus.
  2. diesel
    26 July 2014 09: 58
    Refrain from military intervention is the right decision, but soon windows will begin to beat us.
  3. +1
    26 July 2014 11: 18
    Durnovo’s analysis did not have the slightest impact on Russian society and its fate.
    Merkel would read this analysis ... That would understand that even now the interests of Germany and Russia do not clash anywhere ..
    1. +2
      26 July 2014 15: 42
      I beg you, Germany-occupied territory, with a certain degree of freedom, like on a leash.
      Of the 800 foreign bases of the United States, 300 in Europe, I am not talking about Germany’s membership in NATO, the legal agreements signed in the 50s and which are successfully operating, about the dark sides, leverage, which we do not know about.
    2. +3
      29 July 2014 15: 14
      Quote: parusnik
      Durnovo’s analysis did not have the slightest impact on Russian society and its fate.
      Merkel would read this analysis ... That would understand that even now the interests of Germany and Russia do not clash anywhere.
      Truly so. And so, it seems, the story repeats exactly the opposite: the USA dependent on Europe is pitted against Russia. And again, not for their own interests. Well, perhaps they were also promised a piece of cake ...
  4. 0
    26 July 2014 13: 24
    The article is not uninteresting. From the category - what would happen if ...
    At the end of the 19th century, when the block architecture of Europe was formed,
    Germany already had an ally - the Austro-Hungarian monarchy (state,
    no less "cunning ... oh" than England, which also had a number of serious
    speech with Russia in the Balkans). The elites of these countries were ethnically close,
    mentally, historically. Therefore, France (the victim, like Russia shortly
    before that, the most humiliating military defeat), was seen as the last naturally
    ally. Moreover, not the last role in the political choice of Russia,
    played a psychological factor, namely fear, as in the days of the Crimean
    war, to remain without any allies.
    Well, with regards to the note Durnovo ... I would like to remind you that in 1939-1941.
    Russia had no closer ally than Germany.
    there was some kind of agreement. And there were no objective contradictions between us either.
    How this idyll ended, I hope, no need to remind. Story
    shows that either the country forms its own policy, or for it
    others will do it. There are no exceptions. This is about the issue of today's politics.
    1. +2
      26 July 2014 15: 55
      The desire of a number of European countries to redraw the borders led to the Crimean one, the situation for the British themselves was unique, so they took advantage, after 15-20 years everything changed dramatically.
      At the beginning of the century, the situation was different, Russia was needed both by France and England, and Germany, do not merge Nikolai Bierk agreement could be neutral, neither one nor the other.

      In the Reich we were an involuntary ally; look at how the English mission was negotiating a possible agreement. There was no contradiction except that Hitler was brought to power and allowed the creation of the Third Reich in exchange for the destruction of the USSR. To avoid war, Hitler needed to abandon his own Anglophilism and cleanse the country's leadership in the spirit of 1937. The gut is thin.
      1. 0
        26 July 2014 16: 51
        Quote: strannik1985
        The desire of a number of European countries to redraw the borders led to the Crimean,

        And how did you manage? :))
        It’s about Russia joining the European
        war (called Crimean), not having a military-political
        ally (a unique case in the then history).
        Let me remind you, of the Great Powers, only Germany was real
        neutral, Austria- armed neutral, the rest
        Great powers came out on the side of Turkey. Obviously
        the Russian elite took into account this bitter experience through
        several decades.
        Quote: strannik1985
        do not merge Nicholas Bierk agreement could be neutral, neither one nor the other.

        You see, a power that calls itself Great is
        , to a certain extent, a hostage to this situation -
        agencies, and when its interests are infringed, it is obliged
        enter the war, or it ceases to be "Great".
        Quote: strannik1985
        , to avoid war, Hitler needs to abandon his own Anglophilism and clean out the country's leadership in the spirit of 1937. The gut is thin.

        Please clarify your point below. You think
        Hitler was a pacifist, and aggression pushed him
        entourage? Did I understand your point correctly?
      2. -1
        26 July 2014 21: 36
        The last great German who advocated an alliance with Russia was Bismarck, for which he was fired from the post of chancellor by Kaiser Wilhelm. Therefore, all the talk about what was necessary to ally with the Germans is pointless, Germany did not want this alliance. And in Central Asia, relations between Russia and the Reich were far from cloudless, you can recall the Berlin-Baghdad railway, and the straits of the Germans after their victory in the European War were unlikely to give Russia. So, by will of Russia, Russia had to unite against the strongest williwnik on the continent, i.e.Germany. This principle is almost absolute and has been valid for several centuries, the strongest maritime power fights the strongest continental power. Now this confrontation passes along the line of the USA-China and the world will share precisely on this watershed, where the place of Rossi is prepared and think for yourself.
        1. 0
          26 July 2014 22: 06
          That is why Wilhelm with the Bierk agreements drove up to Nicholas, so "did not want".
          Germany needed an ally on land against France, keep both at a distance and would not need to be confronted with the war, the same Austria-Hungary can be pulled through Germany through the Balkans.
          Willy-nilly climb into an alliance, and not formally formalized, with the power that only fought against your country with the wrong hands? Isn't that idiocy?
        2. 11111mail.ru
          27 July 2014 15: 29
          Quote: Motors1991
          So, by will, Russia had to unite against the strongest adversary on the continent, i.e. Germany

          This could be done later, having entered the war a year or two later, be Mikola smarter ..
          1. -2
            27 July 2014 16: 39
            Comrade Stalin did just that, entered the war, or rather they entered it, exactly two years later, as a result of which the Soviet Union fought the Germans face to face for two years. In 1914 it would have been even worse if the Germans would have rolled France two months, or maybe faster, England hid again on its island and who would be left all alone on the continent against the Germans - Russia, led by a “smart” Nikolai. The German fleet was weaker than the English, where the Teutons would eventually turn ? The answer is one-- to Russia, with a deliberately disastrous result for the latter. Eiser Germany was much more powerful than Hitler’s, and imperial Russia was weaker than the USSR, because Nicholas had no choice to fight or not fight, only fight and fight as part of the Entente against Germany and its allies. Another thing is that accents were incorrectly placed during the war, .E. Russia had to solve first of all its national tasks, and the main one was to capture the straits and defeat Turkey, as the weakest link in the Fourth Union and withdraw it from the war, while the British would have to swallow this bitter pill silently, and they still couldn’t portray joy on this occasion. There are always options, you just have to think, not shoot a raven, as the autocrat All-Russian Emperor Nikolai did.
            1. 0
              27 July 2014 17: 54
              In fact, Turkey entered the war in 1915, after England confiscated the dreadnought under construction for her without security guarantees. In 15, we had a Great Retreat, and later Bulgaria entered the war and we lost a strategically important port near the strait, then the French persuaded the Romanians to enter the war, and after their defeat, Russia appeared another front 500 km long, then blew up the Empress Mary, and then there were revolutions.

              Let's clarify, Germany declared war in response to the mobilization of Russia, if this mobilization had not been possible there would have been no war. The issue with Serbia could have been resolved through diplomacy, in the extreme case, send "volunteers" and weapons, but not get involved in the war without reform of the SV.
              Yes, at the time of the declaration of war, Russia had no other choice but to fight, and then what was the point of attacking AVI at the same time if the fate of the war was decided in the air forces? Why was it necessary to attack East Prussia (and this was the most fortified and uncomfortable area for b / d), if there was the possibility of attacking Silesia and Poznan?

              And finally, at the time of the signing of the Bierk Agreement, there was still a choice, the Germans still considered us independent, Germany needed us to exclude land war, because with the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany, France would join automatically. Germany needed the colonies, and with them sea communications, that is, they wanted to fight only with England.
              Since 1902, France has had a treaty with England, the British block the German fleet in case of war, and the French Navy guard communications around the world.
              1. -1
                27 July 2014 21: 25
                You were mistaken, Bulgaria entered the war in 1915, and Turkey de facto started military operations on October 29-30, 1914 with the bombing of Odessa and Sevastopol, on November 2, Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire. Russian diplomats could not solve the Serbian issue, since Austria-Hungary presented an ultimatum to Serbia, one of the points of which was the complete disarmament of the Serbian army, the German government supported the Austrians and Russia, just as England was forced to enter the war in 1939, the fact that RI was the first to announce mobilization does not solve anything, after the bombing Belgrade’s rivals couldn’t stop the war. As far as the operation in East Prussia was concerned, the French insisted on this, the Russian General Staff planned the main attack from the Lviv region to Krakow. Actually, the operation of the 1st 2nd Army was planned as a distraction and demonstration, if Samsonov had received an order from the Zhilinsky’s confrontation to retreat, at least passed it to the corps, there would be no disaster, but Samsonov not only didn’t give the order, he ordered the army communications center to be closed, the headquarters ordered to retreat, and he disappeared into a natural direction, after which the defeat, which lost control of the army, was a matter of short time. Rennenkampf did not lose control of the army and managed to take it off having quite comparable losses with the Germans (25 thousand Russians against 20 thousand Germans). But I repeat, each country fought for its own interests, from my point of view, the Masurian swamps did not represent any value for Russia, there are enough of them, but the capture of the Bosphorus is a strategic victory, after which you could only pretend to do what you are fighting, and fight just enough so that the front does not collapse in the West and the task for the Russian army was quite feasible. The Black Sea Fleet dominated the Black Sea, there were no problems with supply, it was only necessary to make the Caucasus Front the main one, transfer a couple of dozen corps to it, because they could find these corps to support Romania , and on the rest of the front, take up strategic defense, look, and there wasn’t such a shell hunger.
                1. 0
                  28 July 2014 07: 34
                  Did the French insist on an offensive on East Prussia or simply on Germany?
                  You can link, I have other information.
                  The difference is not great, the famine of famines is already beginning, in the winter of 1915 the Germans will launch an offensive on the Eastern Front, there is no way for Russia to make the Caucasus Front the main one.
                  War can always be avoided, in extreme cases, military advisers and weapons could be sent as was the case in the 1912 war.
                  At the time of the outbreak of war, the trilateral military treaty Russia-France-England does not exist, there are separate agreements with France and England, if Nicholas was independent he could either seek relations with Germany or require the French and British to sign a single treaty, in this case Germany automatically leaves .
                  1. -1
                    28 July 2014 15: 29
                    the decision to attack East Prussia was made at a meeting of the chiefs of the General Staffs in 1913, I can’t give a link, I need to search) and before that the Russian General Staff had planned its first strike on Austria-Hungary. The keys to the war lay in England’s pocket if Great Britain immediately declared her entry into the war on the side of the Entente, the Germans most likely backed off and didn’t get into a fight, at the same time the Austrians were sober, but the British were dark until the last and surrounded by the Kaiser it was believed that Britain would remain neutral, but England true to its principle: it was not going to sit out on the islands to fight against the strongest enemy on the continent. Another thing is that the war for 9-3 months, as all parties assumed, could not be completed and it turned into a meat grinder that crushed three empires, and the victors were England and France got out of it on bent legs. The only country that won the First World War is the United States.
                    1. 0
                      28 July 2014 15: 46
                      The elite saddled the United States and England by and large are international, maybe there were some differences, but they always come together against a common adversary.
                      England had every opportunity to end Germany in a short time - to mobilize an army, not Kitchener’s volunteers, to guarantee the defense of Turkey (in the realm of RI, the war on two fronts was not needed at all, they tried to negotiate, the Turks were promised Lemnos for neutrality, England refused to guarantee a deal ), coordinate strikes so that the Germans could not maneuver forces.
                      According to my information, the General Staff chose East Prussia because it did not believe that France would stand up and wanted to have the Neman River as a defense line. When approaching Poznan, the Russian armies diverted two German corps, especially for France.
  5. 0
    26 July 2014 15: 35
    After 1905, during the period of revolutionary terror, Glinka publicly and persistently urged the government in response to the terrorist attacks of revolutionaries to introduce the institution of hostage-taking: “If for each killed dignitary a certain number of intelligent Jews are chosen by lot, that is, at the direction of God’s Finger, the property of Kagala will be shot in a certain amount will be confiscated, - the terror itself will cease ".

    Right thought
  6. +1
    26 July 2014 17: 06
    In general, the situation was complicated. On the one hand, allies on the Entente, with their desire to draw Russia into the war. On the other hand, our own national interests, which were contraindicated in the war with Germany, at that moment. But there was also Austria-Hungary, with its aggressive policy towards the Balkans, primarily Serbia. Serbia was waiting and hoping for help from Russia. Austria-Hungary was behind Germany, in general, a whole bunch of contradictions. The emperor understood this well, but he was left with no choice. among other things, the same cousin Vee lly, who, through Austria-Hungary, seized the pretext for war. Of course, there was no need to enter the Entente, he would recover after the Russo-Japanese one, strengthen the economy, as Stolypin wanted to do. Well, and then, the Germans could be fine in the face, war with whom, I think it would be anyway.
    1. 0
      26 July 2014 17: 23
      Quote: Venier
      Well, then, it was possible to give the Germans a good face, a war with which, I think it would still be.

      You think correctly. She (the war) with the Germans was. In 1941.
      And in the face gave.
      1. 0
        26 July 2014 17: 54
        You think correctly. She (the war) with the Germans was. In 1941.
        And in the face gave.
        This, of course, is true, and in the face they gave and won a great victory, but if everything had gone in such a tragic way, we would have defeated the Germans before and lost the empire, and there would have been no tricky civil war. But, as they say: everything was ,as it was.
  7. +1
    26 July 2014 20: 01
    . Obviously
    the Russian elite took into account this bitter experience through
    several decades.

    And now we recall under what circumstances the results of this war were poached. The situation for the WWII was different; we were needed by both Germany and France with England.

    You see, a power that calls itself Great is
    , to a certain extent, a hostage to this situation -
    agencies, and when its interests are infringed, it is obliged
    join the war, or it ceases to be

    If a great power, then why does the emperor of that power refuse a favorable agreement so as not to disappoint representatives of another country? If the ruler is independent, then which child-bearing organ did he enter the war without having a normal tripartite military treaty?

    please ask to clarify your idea. You think
    Hitler was a pacifist, and aggression pushed him
    entourage? I correctly understood your idea? [/ Quote]

    In no case, it was more likely that an agreement was made with him — they bring him to power, pump the country up with loans, technologies, build factories, etc., allow him to maximize his strength — in return, he must destroy the USSR.
    Remember yourself, German generals repeatedly went to the ruling circles of the West with a proposal to eliminate G., WWI witnesses were horrified by the idea of ​​a war with France and England, the result is 0.
  8. Mih
    26 July 2014 23: 35
    Edrikhin wrote: “It seems to me that it would be time for the white nations choking in their concentration camp to understand that the only reasonable balance of power in Europe (the balance of power in Europe) would be a coalition of land powers against the refined, but more dangerous than Napoleonic despotism of England . drinks
    There were people in our time, not that the current tribe !!!! love
  9. 11111mail.ru
    27 July 2014 15: 33
    Vladimir Semenovich would sing about this:
    "We learn a lot from books,
    And truths are transmitted orally:
    "There are no prophets in his own country", -
    And in other countries - not a lot. "

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"