The reason for the defeat of Russia in the First World War was not a military factor

23 July 1914, the Austro-Hungarian Empire put forward an ultimatum to Serbia, which eventually led to the start of a world war. The ultimatum was put forward in connection with the murder of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. This murder was a rather obscure matter, a skillful provocation, the traces of which were hidden in the intricacies of the Masonic lodges and the special services of various European states.

Serbs accepted almost all the conditions, while Serbian Prime Minister Pasic Serbian showed miracles of diplomatic flexibility, accepting all points of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum, except one - the Serbs, instead of allowing the Austrians to investigate the territory of Serbia, offered to transfer the matter to the Hague International Court, promising to accept it decision.

Oddly enough, this war for modern Russia remains largely a “terra incognita”. In Soviet times, this concept was largely inherited and historical school of the Russian Federation, it was believed that this war was lost by the Russian Empire because of its "backwardness." At the same time, the successes of the Russian army on the fronts were covered rather little, and its failures were maximized. So, our troops successfully defeated the Turkish army on the Caucasus front (see the article of the Caucasian Front in the First World War). The Russian Black Sea Fleet successfully operated at its theater of operations, by 1917 completely controlling the situation and preparing the Constantinople landing operation, which could have become a brilliant conclusion to Russian Eastern policy - Tsargrad would become another capital of the Russian Empire, and the Bosporus and Dardanelles would become ours, strengthening our geopolitical position in the world (see the article of the Black Sea Fleet during the First World War). It was during the First World War on the Black Sea navy in fact, carrier-strike groups were created. In this matter, Russia was among the world leaders.

Failures were not only in Russia - all the great powers in this war had failed operations. And Russia was considered a great military power, the main combat force of the Entente. She alone held the front against the three empires (great powers) of the time: German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman. And two of them beat more than once - the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. The Russian army conducted the Galician operation and the famous Brusilovsky breakthrough (perhaps the only operation that was fairly well covered) against Austria-Hungary. Magnificent victories on the Caucasian front were won: Sarykamysh operation (9 (22) December 1914 of the year - 4 (17) of January 1915 of the year), during which the Turkish 3 army was completely defeated, it almost ceased to exist; won in the battle of Van (April-June 1915 of the year); in October-December 1915, the commander of the Caucasian army, General Yudenich carried out a victorious Hamadan operation, this operation prevented Persia from entering the war on the side of the German Empire. In late October, Russian troops landed in the port of Enzeli (Persia) and by the end of December, pro-Turkish armed forces broke up and took control of the entire territory of Northern Persia, thereby ensuring the left flank of the Caucasian army. In 1916, successful Erzerum and Trapezund operations were carried out: the Erzerum fortified area was captured - including the “impregnable” Erzerum, re-defeated, the 3-I Turkish army was actually destroyed; The strategically important port of Trabzon-Trebizond was captured, a base of the Black Sea Fleet and a supply base of the Caucasian Army were created there. The Russian Empire achieved great success in this area after the war, and legally this fact was recognized by other Entente powers, the Russian state would have received the regions of Erzerum, Van, Bitlis, Trabzon, part of Kurdistan.

We should not forget that the Russian army not only smashed the Turkish and Austro-Hungarian troops, but also successfully fought with the first-class German army: it was the elimination of the Svencian breakthrough, the Warsaw-Ivangorod operation and the defeat of the shock group of Scheffer during the Lodz operation.

That is, one should forget about myths like “worthless generals”, “backward country”, “weak economy”; By the way, about the economy: the Russian Empire was the only country where economic growth was going on during this war. It is clear that there were problems, but the main cause of the death of the empire, its official defeat (the Brest peace) was not a military or economic factor, but a political one. Internal and external enemies were able to organize two revolutions, which became the cause of defeat. So, the 1916 campaign of the year was quite successful for our armed forces, the economy was successfully rebuilt on “war rails”, stocks of weapons and ammunition were created, the army was ready to make a turning point in the war in 1917. So, the Entente countries, even without the Russian Empire, won the war, it is clear that with the participation of the Russian army, the victory would have been achieved faster. The reserves created for the 1917 campaign of the year: shells, cartridges, rifles, machine guns, uniforms, then the Red Army sufficed for the entire Civil War (when almost the entire industry, including the defense industry, rose), remained even after it.

But February 1917 of the year happened, and the army, the country were thrown into the chaos of anarchy and powerlessness. The spirit of the army, society was undermined, the front began to fall apart. If Nicholas II, like Stalin in 30-s, had destroyed the fifth column in the country, the alignment on the planet would have been completely different. The author does not deny the shortcomings of the Russian empire, but still it must be remembered that the main reason for the defeat in World War I was not a military or economic factor (although there were many shortcomings there), but a political one.

Poster “The Powerful Work of Kozma Kryuchkov” During the First World War, the name of Kuzma Kryuchkov was known to all of Russia. The brave Cossack flaunted on posters and leaflets, cigarette packs and postcards, his portraits and drawings depicting his feat were printed in newspapers and magazines. A Cossack distinguished himself in the first days of the war in battle with German cavalrymen near the Polish town of Kalwaria. The Cossack sentry guard headed by him joined the battle with a group of German cavalrymen, and, as recorded in the award documents, Kuzma Kryuchkov personally cut himself down with a sword during the cavalry fight and smashed people 11 with a lance.

Sources of:
Utkin A.I. The First World War. M., 2001.
Shabarov V. Ye. For the faith, the king and the Fatherland! M., 2003.
http://topwar.ru/4564-tayna-saraevskih-vystrelov.html
http://topwar.ru/2722-kavkazskij-front-v-pervuyu-mirovuyu-vojnu-chast-1.html
http://topwar.ru/2745-kavkazskij-front-v-pervuyu-mirovuyu-vojnu-chast-2.html
http://topwar.ru/2916-kavkazskij-front-v-pervoj-mirovoj-vojne-chast-3.html
http://topwar.ru/2795-chernomorskij-flot-v-gody-pervoj-mirovoj-vojny.html
http://topwar.ru/2836-chernomorskij-flot-v-gody-pervoj-mirovoj-vojny-chast-2.html
http://topwar.ru/2884-chernomorskij-flot-v-gody-pervoj-mirovoj-vojny-chast-3.html
http://topwar.ru/2892-chernomorskij-flot-v-pervuyu-mirovuyu-vojnu-chast-4.html

Comments

[petor41]

It has long been known to everyone that Lenin was a German agent and for the fact that Germany funded the revolution in Russia in 17, Lenin declared defeat!

[Marat]

Nikolay Starikov talks about this very interestingly "From Decembrists to Mujahideen"
In general, all revolutionaries are paid by the enemy state - in our case, almost always England - now the United States (and anti-Putin protests are also paid of course)

[Uncle Murzik]

petor41 you are not tired of repeating liberal stories!

[datur]

NOW THE SITUATION IS MUCH WORSE THAN THEN.

[Skills]

The old myth - the Bolsheviks and Lenin are to blame for everything. The monarchy was not overthrown and plunged the empire into unrest (Lenin believed that the revolution in Russia would be no earlier than in 50-100 years), they were a small revolutionary detachment. The revolution was staged by quite rich and wealthy people — bourgeois liberals, with the support of the generals and the aristocracy, many of them were also freemasons, plus the work of diplomats and intelligence services of England, France, and financial international.

[Marat]

I totally agree! All these liberals do not change over time - only in form. Correctly said about them Dostoevsky!
In fact, they are to blame for the horrors that happened - Stalin only tried to taxi and save the country first from them - then from the Trotskyists. Well, of course, he had methods that corresponded to time and his opponents (who also had hands to the elbow in the blood)

[Evgan]

Without relieving the "liberals" of responsibility for February 1917 and the turmoil that followed, I disagree with the one-sided imposition of all responsibility for the mess of revolutions on them. The October coup was the work of the Bolsheviks, as well as what happened after.
And "Stalin the Savior" - yes, it's funny. Photos of grandmothers with Christian crosses and portraits of Stalin immediately come to mind :)

[Old Cat Basilio]

The author is right: in Soviet history textbooks, the events of World War I were covered extremely poorly (the defeat of the armies of Samsonov and Rennenkampf in East Prussia, the performance of the sailors of the battleship Gangut and the Brusilov breakthrough, everything else is a black hole). I don't think the situation is much better in modern textbooks. Well, God bless him, in the Internet era, anyone can find any materials on this topic on the network. I am interested in something else - how will the authorities in Russia celebrate 1/01.08.2014/1994? After all, the events of those distant years turned the whole world upside down, and not for the better! Will they be silent again, as it was in 2004 and XNUMX? Bolshevik traditions live and flourish ?!

[His]

Because thanks to the Bolsheviks, we lost the First World War

[Marat]

No no - the February revolution is the revolution of the liberal oligarchs and British agents !! The Bolsheviks then came to the "vacuum"
Well, they also made a "business" - but only later.

[Evgan]

Well, formally, we lost the First World War "thanks to" the Bolsheviks - their representatives signed the Brest Peace. But, of course, both revolutions played a role.

[Glory]

Well, suppose the revolutionaries hesitated a little, and both revolutions would have happened a little later (and they would have taken place, the situation was too hot, both inside and out) and Russia would officially be on the list of winners? So what would change radically? The situation in the country is revolutionary and a victory somewhere far away would not warm the soul of the population much. Territorial increments? And that type of land in Russia was by that time, well, would have included in the Empire a few more "brotherly" Balkan peoples, well, what's the point? Moreover, it would not have been allowed to expand much anyway, the experience of numerous wars with the Turks had repeatedly shown that no matter how much land was reclaimed from them, at peace conferences after the war, the "World Community" (primarily in the face of Britain) creakly recognized our rights to a couple of plots of land watered with Russian blood. The Black Sea straits were all the more not worth counting on. Firstly, it is not a fact that they would have had time to be recaptured from the Turks, and secondly, 100% that no one would have given them to us, especially in the conditions of the revolution in Russia. In the best case, from Turkey they would have passed under the control of the "World Community", i.e. all the same Britain in the first place.
In short, the result of a "victory" in the PM would have been the same - revolution, civil war, intervention. So we can say that Russia lost the war at the moment when it entered it. Accordingly, thanks for this to Tsar Nikolashka (although at least in some way historical justice prevailed, and he was fully rewarded for his crimes against Russia).

[Evgan]

I do not agree in the sense that the defeats in the battles of the First World War partly played into the hands of the Bolsheviks, since they greatly decomposed the fighting spirit of the army and navy. If victory had happened earlier, this could have rallied the empire somewhat, and perhaps avoided revolution — or even one of them.
And as for territorial increments, everything would depend just on the internal situation - if it was calm, maybe the straits would have given up. Although, of course, also not a fact.

[Glory]

As for the negative impact of failures in the war on the army, navy and population, I agree, as well as the fact that it helped in the heating of the situation in the country and the revolutionaries. Only after all, the article discussed that if there had not been a revolution, Russia would have been among the winners. Those. the starting point is the beginning of the revolution.
I proceed from this in my reasoning - for example, the gendarmes would have arrested several key revolutionaries or they themselves held their horses and as a result, the revolution would not have happened before the end of the PM, and it is quite possible that for this reason the won would have ended a little earlier (hardly more than for several months). But as a result, we still have a revolutionary situation in the country, which is unlikely to be greatly cooled by a victory in a foreign war. In addition, external forces would continue to warm up the situation in the country until the end of the war. And after the end too, just the first role in this would have passed from Germany to Britain. For Russia, although it was absolutely obedient in the hands of external manipulators in the war and pre-war years, but you never know, suddenly the next emperor will have an epileptic blow with a snuffbox, and the new tsar will be with the habits of Peter or Catherine. In short, a huge Russian bear with a club, which Europe did not need anywhere to use. And there is no doubt that all the efforts of the winners would be aimed at strengthening the internal problems of Russia and the intensity of the revolutionary situation.
And you don’t need to think about the same straits, the British, a hundred years before, made every effort so that the Russian fleet did not have free access to the Mediterranean Sea, why would they change policies?

[posnevad]

I highly recommend the gentlemen, comrades.
Much becomes clearer.

Utkin Anatoly Ivanovich
Forgotten tragedy. Russia in the first world war


http://www.firstwar.info/books/index.shtml?3

[Alex]

I agree with many things. And the revolution in February is the result of the "brilliant management" of Nicholas II, and it is not a fact that the straits and the Caucasus conquered from Turkey, despite a lot of promises, would have gone to Russia: it is enough to recall the position in which the tsar stood before the Entente, in the Kamasutra you will find.

[Head Physician]

Russia was not defeated in World War I
Invalid send immediately
And - accordingly, the rest of the name