Bosphorus bait for Russia

Counter-battles of the winter-spring 1915 of the year


The commander of the German troops on the Eastern Front, Hindenburg, receiving a fresh 4 corps, decided to use them together with the Austro-Hungarian troops to deliver a crushing blow to Russia, which was supposed to end the war, withdrawing the Russian Empire from the war already in 1915. German troops were to defeat the Russians in Eastern Prussia, directing a strike at Lida - Grodno, and Austrian - at crushing the Russians in Galicia, directing a strike at Tarnopol - Lviv.

Thus, the German command hoped to reach all Russian armies from the Baltic Sea to the Carpathians, defeat the Russian troops, create a huge gap in the Russian front and end the campaign in the East with a separate peace with St. Petersburg. Success in the East should have led to victory in the West.

In the northeastern direction, the Germans planned to make double coverage of the 10 th (Neman) Russian army, which had an open right flank and poorly secured, due to non-concentration of the 12 th army, left flank. However, in order to preserve the effect of surprise, Hindenburg sacrificed the concentration of all forces assigned to the operation and began the operation until the completion of the transfer of all reinforcements. The Germans formed two shock fists: 1) a new 10 army between Tilsit and Insterburg, directing it to the rear of the Russian 10 army to Vladislav - Calvary and further on; 2) The 1½ corps with cavalry were supposed to concentrate south of Lake Shpirding and advance on the Raygorod-Augustow, where it was supposed to close the encirclement with the 10 army. Both strike groups were on the flanks and were supposed to forge the enemy by combat.

However, the February August operation (Death of the 20 Russian Corps) or the Mazury battle ended for the Germans as a strategic failure, although the battle was won by the German army. The plans of the Russian command to invade East Prussia were destroyed. 10-I Russian army was defeated, suffered heavy losses. In strategic terms, the plan of the German command of the Eastern Front, which was part of the plan to create the "strategic Cannes" of the Austro-German High Command, failed. German troops could not carry out a deep coverage of the right wing of the Russian front and, in cooperation with the Carpathian grouping, carry out a common strategic environment for the Russian armies. They could only, at the cost of serious losses, expenditure of the 4 forces of the fresh corps and the loss of the surprise factor, push the main forces of the 10 of the Russian army to the Neman and across the Beaver River. At the same time 10-I Russian was not defeated and retained combat capability. German troops were able to surround and destroy only one army corps - the 20 corps. The Russian command retaliated and stabilized the front.

Bosphorus bait for Russia

Russian soldiers in Osovets

Already 17 February (2 March) The 1-I, 12-I and 10-I Russian armies launched a general offensive in order to push the German troops from the Bobr and Narev lines to East Prussia. The Russian command responded to the blow of the enemy with a counterstrike. The Prasnysh operation began (Battle for Prasnysh). The whole of March was fought in hard battles in the area between the line of the Middle Neman, Beaver and Narev and the East Prussian border. Russian troops pushed the enemy, but did not achieve any serious success. Hindenburg, because of the need to transfer German troops to the Carpathian Front to support the Austrian army and replenish German forces on the Western Front, was forced to go on the defensive on the entire border of East Prussia.

The Prasnysh operation completed the winter fighting on the right wing of the strategic Russian-German front. Their overall result was the disruption of the strategic plan of the German command to reach Russian forces from the north. However, the plan of the Russian command for the deep invasion and defeat of the German forces in East Prussia was destroyed, which in the future allowed returning to the plan of an offensive in the Berlin direction. Russian troops suffered sensitive losses by people and the material part. They were driven out of East Prussia for the third time. The idea of ​​consolidating the right flank of the Russian front by seizing East Prussia and advancing to the Lower Vistula was completely thwarted. East Prussia became a strategic springboard for the German army, with which the Germans can make a deep summer coverage of the year 1915. In addition, the winter battles on the borders of Prussia delayed and weakened the offensive of the Russian army in the Carpathians. Part of the forces that were intended on the South-Western Front, redeployed to the North-Western Front.

In this case, the operations of the Russian army on the Eastern Front favorably affected the position of the French and the British on the Western Front. The attention and forces of the supreme German command were diverted from the West, which created the conditions for the accumulation of human and military material resources.

Large-scale Carpathian operation ("Rubber War" in the Carpathians), which lasted from January to April 1915, also did not reveal the superiority of one of the parties. The Russian offensive with the aim of breaking through into the Hungarian plain and withdrawing Austria-Hungary from the war, on which the command of the South-Western Front had pinned great hopes, was overdue. The Austro-German command managed to transfer large forces to the southern strategic direction, preparing their offensive in order to cover the 8 of the Russian army, breaking through to the Russian rear and the de-blockade of the Przemysl fortress. At the second stage of the operation, the advancing Austro-German troops were to become the southern claw, which, together with the armies that had struck from East Prussia, created a huge “Polish cauldron”.

Therefore, the Russian offensive resulted in a fierce and bloody oncoming battle among the snow-capped mountains. At the same time, at the first stage, the enemy had an advantage in numbers. However, the Russian command deciphered the enemy’s plan and responded with a regrouping of forces, which thwarted the plan of the Austro-German command. Austro-German troops could not defeat Brusilov's 8 army and unlock Przemysl.

In general, the battle ended in favor of the Russian army. But Russian plans to withdraw from the war the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed. The Russian army suffered huge losses - about 1 million people killed, wounded and captured. This number also included casualties during the siege of Przemysl, as well as a huge number of frostbitten and sick. The losses of the Austro-Hungarian troops were slightly lower - about 800 thousand people. The Russian army spent in the Carpathian battle and in operations on the border of East Prussia all the main reserves. As a result, the Russian command refused any offensive actions for a considerable time.



March 22 The Russian army won the last major victory in the 1915 campaign of the year. After the 6 month blockade, Przemysl fell. 3 the day before the Austro-Hungarian garrison surrendered, a decisive sortie was undertaken, the troops were stocked for several days to reach their own. The attack was repelled by the blockade troops of the Russian 11 Army, several thousand Austrians were captured. 9 generals, 2500 officers, 120 thousand soldiers surrendered to Russian troops. Russian trophies were 900 guns (according to other data 1 050).


Brusilov on the ruins of the forts of Przemysl

Diplomacy. The straits

18 March 1915, the United Kingdom and France agreed to resolve the Eastern Question by transferring Constantinople to the Black Sea straits of the Russian Empire. Earlier, England and France invariably impeded the implementation of Russian claims to Constantinople and the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. However, when the Ottoman Empire became the enemy of the Entente, Paris and London could no longer oppose the fair demands of St. Petersburg. Moreover, the British and French needed Russia's help in the fight against the Central Powers and wanted to interest the tsarist government in waging the war to a victorious end. It was a kind of bait for St. Petersburg, so that the Russians did not make a separate peace with the Germans.

In addition, the British wanted to divert Russia from South Persia and access to the Persian Gulf. Obviously, a part of the English elite had an understanding of the fact that the Russian Empire would not survive a world war, so Russia can promise anything. All the same, to give Constantinople and the straits of the Russian Empire will not be necessary. The fact that after the war, England (and France) were not going to give Russia Constantinople and the Bosphorus with the Dardanelles is confirmed by the Dardanelles operation that began in February 1915. Russia's Western allies tried to seize the straits themselves. However, the Turkish troops showed unexpectedness for the British and French combat capability and repelled the blow.

The British began to make promising allusions to acquisitions in Turkey in the 1914 year. 1 September 1914 was announced by the British Foreign Ministry that it "no longer considers it necessary to spare High Port" and that Turkey "can no longer be a guardian of the straits." On September 2, the British embassy in Petrograd, in a memorandum sent to the Russian foreign minister, said: "According to his Majesty's government, Turkey does not deserve to be considered as it has proved itself incorrigible and unbearable." On September 9, the Russian ambassador in London sent E. Gray to the Petrograd already quite clear statement that “if Germany is crushed, the fate of the straits and Constantinople cannot be solved this time otherwise than in accordance with our benefits.”

True, not everyone in England wanted to make concessions to Russia. Thus, Churchill proposed only “expressing sympathy” to Russian wishes and for the time being restrict himself to this. Others were afraid that the excessive strengthening of Russia in the Mediterranean would repel Italy and the Balkan countries from the Entente. So, Bulgaria almost obviously took the side of the German Empire, and Greece, for all the proposals of the Entente, which offered her all sorts of benefits, began to remain silent. However, in the end, the British Cabinet came to the conclusion that the demand for Russia to get the straits should be met. Britain planned to reward itself at the expense of other parts of the Ottoman Empire. Premier Asquith: "We and France in return should receive a significant part of the whole frame of the Turkish Empire."

France did not so willingly meet the wishes of Petrograd. The French big bourgeoisie had a strong financial and economic position in Turkey and regarded the loss of Constantinople as a major loss. Not daring to openly condemn the initiative of London, French diplomacy tried to prove that solving the issue of Constantinople and the straits “according to Russia's desire” does not necessarily mean annexation, trying to find other forms. But in Paris, they also realized the priority of binding Russia to the Entente and their political interests won out. As a result, France supported the position of Britain.

In further negotiations with the tsarist government, Anglo-French diplomacy focused its attention on receiving appropriate compensation from the Russian Empire and on securing the condition that St. Petersburg could receive Constantinople and the Straits only at the cost of participation in the war against Germany to the bitter end.

The memorandum of the Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov addressed to the British and French ambassadors in Petrograd Buchanan and Paleolog from 4 in March 1915 outlined the boundaries of the interests of the Russian Empire: the city of Constantinople, the western coast of the Bosporus, the Sea of ​​Marmara and Dardanelles, South Thrace to the Enos-Medes line, as well as the islands of the Sea of ​​Marmara, the islands of Imbros and Tenedos, and a part of the Asian coast between the Bosphorus, r. Sakarya and the point to be determined on the shores of the Gulf of Izmit.

The memorandum of Sazonov from 22 in March of 1915 of the year contained the consent of Petrograd to provide Britain with a number of compensations. So calling the “neutral zone” in Persia (as Iran was called then), envisaged by the Anglo-Russian agreement 1907 of the year, when the north of the country departed to the interests of the Russian empire, and the south in Britain, and the center remained “no one’s” British Empire. Other compensations provided by Russia to England concerned the freedom of transit of goods through Constantinople and the freedom of merchant shipping in the straits. In addition, Petrograd took London’s view of the future of the Ottoman Empire: the preservation of “independent Muslim rule” in Mecca and Medina (actually under British control), and the separation of the Caliphate from Turkey. Russia pledged to exert all possible influence on Romania and Bulgaria, so that they sided with the Entente. In addition, Britain received a zone of influence in Greece and Asia Minor, and France established Cilicia, Syria and Palestine.

Thus, London and Paris beat Petrograd. The British and French courageously promised Constantinople and the straits, but in reality they were not going to give them away. Constantinople became a lure for the Russian government and the public. At the same time, for the broad strata of the population, peasants and workers who bore the brunt of the war, the Bosphorus meant nothing. The goals of the war were incomprehensible to the people. Russia had to wage war to a victorious end, which excluded the possibility of reaching an agreement with Germany and at the last moment to save the empire, which was rapidly leading (including external forces) to the abyss.

Russia did not need to link the receipt of Constantinople and the straits with the war to the bitter end. Russia could get them rightfully strong, and not from the lordly shoulder of London and Paris.


Royal battleship fleet Irresistible plunges after a mine explosion in the battle of the Dardanelles

Speech of Italy

In the spring of 1915, Italy entered the war (Italian "jackal" enters the war). She has been bargaining with both sides since August 1914. The Germans rated the strike power of Italy very low, considering that its neutrality was more useful for Germany. However, the Italians became impudent and even for neutrality demanded a great deal that Austria-Hungary gave them Trentino and part of Tyrol. The Entente could offer more, so Rome leaned toward France and England.

Russia doubted the great importance of Italy as a military ally. But Britain and France insisted, since Italy could divert from them some of the forces of the Central Powers. In addition, Russia was not attracted to Italy, since Petrograd saw a rival Belgrade in Rome. Rome claimed a large sphere of influence in the Balkans, hitting the interests of Serbia, the traditional ally of Russia. The Treaty of Union of Italy with Britain, France and Russia was signed in London on 26. April 1915. 23. May Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary.

To be continued ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. moskowit 14 July 2015 06: 49 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    The Caucasian front under the command of Yudenich in 1917 brought Turkey to its knees and took it out of the war. Capturing the straits was a matter of time. But then what happened happened and Russia began to deal with internal problems ...
    1. Mahmut 14 July 2015 11: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Russia did not need to request permission from the Allies to capture Constantinople. Militarily, the issue was resolved already at the end of 1916. The only thing that could prevent Russia was a coup d'etat and the loss of legitimate authorities. That is why Ilyich convinced his party members of "delaying death like that." It was necessary to have time to seize power and disperse the constituent assembly.
  2. parusnik 14 July 2015 07: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Earlier, England and France invariably impeded the implementation of Russian claims on Constantinople and the Bosphorus and Dardanelles.... The Angles and Franks could beckon the Bosporus and the Dardanelles to Russia, but they would give ... never ...
    1. sherp2015 14 July 2015 09: 12 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: parusnik
      .To remember the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, the Angles and Franks could Russia, but otdaaaaat ... never .. Russian cannon fodder needed allies



      "Englishwoman craps ..." This Englishwoman crap for more than 300 years and is not going to stop
    2. Sparapet 14 July 2015 10: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: parusnik
      Earlier, England and France invariably impeded the implementation of Russian claims on Constantinople and the Bosphorus and Dardanelles.... The Angles and Franks could beckon the Bosporus and the Dardanelles to Russia, but they would give ... never ...

      England and France entered the First World War, fulfilling their allied obligations to Russia, when Austria-Hungary and Germany declared war on it. No one regarded the Russians as cannon fodder, if the Russians died in the war more often than other nations, then This is not the British and French fault, but the command of the Russian armies, its political leadership. And Turkey itself was the first to attack Russia and the straits would now be Russian if, to my deep regret, the Russians did not break down in this war and did not conclude with Germany and Austria - Hungary is a separate world, it is interesting that forum users would write here if England would do the same with France, leaving Russia alone with Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey? My great-grandfather fought the same on the Turkish front during the first years World War II, was awarded two St. George crosses, after the collapse of the Turkish front and the withdrawal of Russian units from the Caucasus front, he fought in the formed Armenian units against the Turks for more than one and a half years, after the defeat of Germany and the ceasefire, returned to his native village at the end of 1918 with four camels smile , which he recaptured from the Turks, loaded with ammunition and a machine gun. But even at home, the great-grandfather did not know peace - the Georgian government decided to seize the northern Armenian lands, taking advantage of the fact that the main forces of the Armenian army are on the Armenian-Turkish border and the Georgian troops launched an attack on the northern regions of Armenia. They approached the village where my great-grandfather lived with his family. He, as an experienced warrior, organized self-defense, made an ersatz tank from wood and other improvised materials, installed a machine gun on it, painted this << tank >> in military color, in order to deceive the Georgians, one day he organized a psychological attack on the Georgian "comrades" by knocking them out of their native village and driving them back to Georgia. I know from my great-grandfather's stories about my great-grandfather’s actions in defending his native village great-grandfather's actions during the First World War speak of his awards.
      1. Bakht 14 July 2015 11: 16 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        England and France entered World War I, fulfilling their allied obligations to Russia, when Austria-Hungary and Germany declared war on it.


        The first phrase looks unconvincing.

        England entered the war only because of Belgium. The British Empire was not going to fulfill any allied obligations with respect to Russia. France before the war was about to jump off its obligations. Paris even ordered the withdrawal of troops from the border for 10 km.

        And not Turkey declared war with Turkey, but Turkey. And the straits are not related to the cause of the war. The issue of transferring the Straits of Russia arose only by the 15th year. It was necessary to somehow explain the purpose of the war. But then the Dardanelles operation of the "allies" began. At the initiative of Churchill and Fisher (i.e., politicians). Field Marshal Kitchener was against this operation because he was a military man. The purpose of the Dardannel operation was Constantinople. So no one was going to transfer it to Russia.
        1. Sparapet 14 July 2015 11: 38 New
          • -5
          • 0
          -5
          This is just your statement that England entered the war only because of Belgium, and if you think a little deeper, why did Germany need to attack the same Belgium? << France was about to get off its obligations before the war >> - this is just your conjectures, the fact remains that England and France remained faithful to their allied duty and fought to the end, and I’ll say to the minus-minors that Russia had powerful allies at one time and was one step away from victory, just the Russian people could not bear these heavy sacrifices and he gave himself to deceive a handful of charlatans who promised peace, the Armenian people and my great-grandfather personally did not break even after the terrible genocide of 1915 and continued to fight with the Turks, it’s another matter that the Turks had numerical superiority and the Transcaucasian Turks helped them by striking at the back of the warring Armenian army.
          1. Bakht 14 July 2015 12: 00 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            About speculation is interesting of course.

            Let's start with England. The question of England’s entry into the war was decided in Parliament and the French ambassador said, "I will wait for the debate to end to find out whether the word HONOR remains in the English language." It is a fact that the entry into the war of England was conditioned by its obligations towards BELGIUM. Not to Russia.

            France. The order to withdraw French troops from the border for 10 km was issued by French President Poincare. A special warning was sent to Foch's 20th Corps. Given its explosive nature, it was specifically stipulated that "no matter what happens, the French should never be the first to start a war."

            Thanks to William, he kept the word HONOR in the English lexicon and did not allow France to evade the fulfillment of allied obligations.

            Summary - World War I stories you don't know.
            1. Sparapet 14 July 2015 12: 15 New
              • -4
              • 0
              -4
              You write a lot here and in a tedious way that there was a debate in Parliament in England, that the French ambassador stayed to find out if the word "Honor" remained in English, forgetting to say here, and I think, intentionally, that England appeared in those days by the parliamentary republic and such crucial issues without discussion in parliament were not resolved, if England did not want to fulfill her allied duty, she would not enter the war not only because of Belgium, but also because of any other country, declaring that my hut is on the edge and an ally is not an ally wassat .
              1. Bakht 14 July 2015 12: 26 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                I agree that it is boring to read historical research. Do not rave journalists and RESEARCH. Especially for which they gave the Pulitzer Prize.

                France was also a parliamentary country. Although he promised not to eliminate your illiteracy, here you are

                Why go to battle with me,
                Since this fight is not mine at all?
                Clean all Europe map
                And fight in a foreign war -
                That's what the Entente is for,
                And not one, but two at once.

                Different people have different ideas about honor, and Gray knew that before the invasion of Belgium, pacifists could not be persuaded. On the same day, he sent telegrams to the French and German governments asking them to give official confirmation that they would respect the neutrality of Belgium, “unless other powers violate it.” An hour after receiving this telegram — late in the evening of the thirty-first of July — the French sent a positive answer. No reply was received from Germany.

                Find at least a word about allied obligations towards Russia.
                The conditions seemed perfectly certain. But, Izvolsky asked anxiously, would the French parliament recognize them? In Russia, power was absolute, so France “could be confident in us,” however, “in France, a government is powerless without a parliament that is unfamiliar with the text of the 1892 treaty ... What guarantees are there that the parliament will support the government’s initiative?”
                “If Germany attacks”Poincare said back in 1912 that parliament would “undoubtedly” follow the government.
                ----
                the French government was forced to take no action to show England that France will start a war only for self-defense.
                -----
                At the same time, a decision was confirmed on a ten-kilometer withdrawal of troops. Messimi personally telephoned this order to the corps commanders: “By order of the President of the Republic, not a single unit, not a single patrol, not a single unit, not a single soldier should go east of this line. Anyone who violates this order is subject to a military court. ” A special warning was sent to the XX Corps commanded by General Foch.

                find here at least one mention of allied commitments to Russia.
          2. cdrt 14 July 2015 13: 03 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Sparapet
            and if you think a little deeper, then why did Germany need to attack the same Belgium?


            Hmm ... did you hear anything about Schlieffen’s plan?
            About the fact that the general battle was supposed to be held west of Paris?
            About the fact that it was impossible to push through half the German army through only a narrow strip of occupied territory of France?
            But in the end, about the cruise race with Germany in principle for Britain?
            So ... The British entered the war far from allied feelings, but from their purely interests.
            And by the way, and often Britain fought because of the allies? It was at war, and did not declare war, in which it then did not fight.
            By the way, it is much more difficult to discover national interests in the reasons for joining Russia’s WWII.
            That's for sure - they got into death for emotions.

            And yes, about the fact that the people could not stand it and overthrew the monarch in 1917 is ridiculous.
            What did the people have to do with this?
            A complete analogue of dill-maidan 2014.
            The same coup, organized by part of the oligarchy with the support of "Western friends."
            The crowd is just extras.
          3. oldkap22 14 July 2015 13: 45 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            They (your ancestors) "did not break down and continued to fight because they were threatened with genocide ... (it was a kind of" domestic war ") And what was the RUSSIAN WORKER AND PEASANT to fight for ... For the Straits ...!? For conspiracy of the top of England, France and Russia ... (for interests alien to the people ...!? Why ...!?
            1. Sparapet 14 July 2015 15: 14 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In your comment below you called the Serbs Natsik and wrote that because of their exorbitant ambitions, a war broke out, linking the killer of the Archduke with the Serbian intelligence, a connection that has never been proved anywhere, and in this comment you practically consider it right that the Russian troops left the front and rushed to their home, they couldn’t fight for anything! With such a psychology you can even get to the Principality of Moscow, not respected. If the Armenians thought the same way, my great-grandfather could tell his son when he was called to the war in 1941 that << why go to fight for alien (PEOPLE) interests!? >>
              1. Sparapet 14 July 2015 15: 41 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Sparapet
                In your comment below you called the Serbs Natsik and wrote that because of their exorbitant ambitions, a war broke out, linking the killer of the Archduke with the Serbian intelligence, a connection that has never been proved anywhere, and in this comment you practically consider it right that the Russian troops left the front and rushed to their home, they couldn’t fight for anything! With such a psychology you can even get to the Principality of Moscow, not respected. If the Armenians thought the same way, my great-grandfather could tell his son when he was called to the war in 1941 that << why go to fight for alien (PEOPLE) interests!? >>

                Oldkap22, I got a mistake, you didn’t call the Serbs Natsik, this is the work of the user sdrt, I apologize hi but the essence of your comment doesn’t change - if you think so in a small town, not a single Armenian should have participated in the Great Patriotic War, for whose interests it was not our war, let Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians fight with Hitler, son my great-grandfather, my grandfather, according to your logic, wasted blood in vain and was wounded three times in vain, he could just say: << Why go to fight for alien interests!? >>
        2. Aleksandr72 14 July 2015 12: 30 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I agree with you, but not in everything. "England has no permanent allies, but only permanent interests" - this is the cornerstone of British foreign policy for several centuries. And British interests demanded the maintenance of a policy of checks and balances on the European continent and consisted in the fact that not a single European power was strengthened so as to threaten the interests of Britain (at least hypothetically). The Mediterranean Sea and the Balkans with Greece have always been the area of ​​special interests of gentlemen from the Forein Office, so the British would never have allowed Russia to strengthen in the Mediterranean, which would have happened if Russia had managed to capture and hold (which is much more difficult) the Bosphorus and The Dardanelles, having gained free access to the Mediterranean Sea, independent of the whims of Istanbul and those European politicians who at this particular moment determined the foreign policy of Turkey. The capture of the straits was not really the cause of the war. The Russian Empire did not have any comprehensible reasons for participating in the 1st World War, just as the majority of its (war) participants considered the need to help the Balkan peoples moaning under the yoke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as the reason for entering the war - this is at least not serious . Turkey had more significant reasons for joining the war - it was the strengthening of its position in the Caucasus and revenge for the defeat in the war of 1877-78. But the Turkish government did not particularly seek to aggravate relations with Russia, because it was not ready for war. Germany was drawn into this war by Germany.
          However, the Russian rulers set the task of taking the straits under their control long before the start of the Imperialist War. It’s enough to recall that armadillos of the type “Catherine the Great” with their 4 12-inch guns in the nose salvo (two two-gun installations in barbettes in the nose) were intended specifically for fighting in the strait. For this purpose, a Special Reserve was created - large-caliber guns (cannons and mortars) of coastal artillery, intended for installation on coastal batteries, which were supposed to be created after the capture of the Bosphorus. For the same purpose S.O. Makarov, the future famous admiral, conducted research on currents in the Bosphorus, while compiling maps of future mine productions.
          Another thing is that by the beginning of World War I, Russia was completely unprepared for the capture and retention of the straits, as well as for the war itself. In the absence of clear and understandable goals for the people in this largely unnecessary war, the tsarist government had to declare the straits one of the goals of the war and begin preparations for their capture. Whether this capture would have taken place or not with another development of the historical process is not known. But the fact that our “allies” in the Entente would not have allowed Russia to take advantage of the fruits of their victories would have happened anyway.
          I have the honor.
          1. Bakht 14 July 2015 12: 46 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            In the same way, I agree with you in many ways. But not in everything. :-)
            Russia did not need this war sideways. And she acted perpendicularly. If straits were needed, then the main actions took place not in the south but in the west. At the direction of the French General Staff. Turkey also had no reason. But Germany had. And so does England. In principle, Germany was the main enemy of England. Its growing economic power. And for this it was not a pity to fight until the last Russian or French soldier.

            The interests of the Slavs in the Balkans - it was a publicized topic for drawing Russia into the war and forcing psychosis in the country. The same Serbia wanted to spit on the opinion of Russia.

            The situation before the First World War and allied relations - I personally am interested in only one reason. They perfectly illustrate and explain the actions of Stalin in 1939. And they explain why the Moscow Treaty of 1939 (Molotov-Ribbentrop) was concluded. Just Stalin knew the story well.
        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. parusnik 14 July 2015 12: 22 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        No one treated Russians like cannon fodder... If you hadn’t been like that ... you wouldn’t have drawn it on your side .. Even England .. made concessions to Russia .. in Eastern matters .. on Iran, Central Asia .. if only Russia had fought on the side of the Entente. .Germany, Russia couldn’t offer anything substantial .. You and many won’t understand it, the First World War was started .. to eliminate and weaken European empires .. German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian .. Ottoman ... Which, in principle, occurred..
        1. Bakht 14 July 2015 12: 33 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          That's right. With the news of the February Revolution and the fall of the monarchy in Russia, Wilson declared in Parliament "ONE of the goals of the war achieved". And this was said by the British Prime Minister. Not a bum from the street. And not a journalist :-)

          This must be remembered by those who firmly believe in allied relations :-)
          1. cdrt 14 July 2015 13: 07 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Bakht
            With the news of the February Revolution and the fall of the monarchy in Russia, Wilson declared in parliament "ONE of the goals of the war has been achieved." And this was said by the British Prime Minister. Do not bum from the street. And not a journalist :-)


            Oh, I see a connoisseur of the history of WWI ...
            Wilson - the Prime Minister of Great Britain - is stronger than Faust Goethe (s) laughing
            "... But in the main he is right ..." laughing
            1. Bakht 14 July 2015 13: 15 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              To blame. Hurried up. I admit my mistake. The phrase is owned by British Prime Minister Lloyd George.
        2. Sparapet 14 July 2015 12: 35 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: parusnik
          No one treated Russians like cannon fodder... If you hadn’t been like that ... you wouldn’t have drawn it on your side .. Even England .. made concessions to Russia .. in Eastern matters .. on Iran, Central Asia .. if only Russia had fought on the side of the Entente. .Germany, Russia couldn’t offer anything substantial .. You and many won’t understand it, the First World War was started .. to eliminate and weaken European empires .. German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian .. Ottoman ... Which, in principle, occurred..

          Nobody pulled Russia into World War I, it was Russia that sided with Serbia, when Austria-Hungary presented to it previously unattainable requirements in connection with the murder of the Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo, if Russia had not stood up for Serbia and left this country to be torn apart, then no one in the world, Russia would no longer take Russia seriously and it would have no more allies, as happened with the same Serbia in the late 20th century, when it was torn into parts of the NATO country. And Russia's defeat was not predetermined, in 1913 Russia represented a powerful, dynamically developing country, respected Napoleon, and Russia was defeated as a result of internal squabbles and sores.
          1. cdrt 14 July 2015 13: 11 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Sparapet
            if Russia had not stood up for Serbia and left this country to be torn apart, then no one in the world would have taken Russia seriously anymore and it would have no more allies


            Cool ...
            Those. if you didn’t support the arrogant political murder committed by local ultra-nationalists with the support of Serbian intelligence, no one would take seriously ????
            Why is this ???
            In fact, Karl was terrified by Slavic nationalists precisely because he pursued and supported a wise policy of eliminating the segregation of Slavs in Austria-Hungary and, thus, could save the state. What did not suit the Serbian Nazis who wanted to subjugate all the Slavs of the Balkans.
            So ... Russia was involved in the WWI only Pan-Slavic trouble.
            1. Sparapet 14 July 2015 13: 35 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: cdrt
              Quote: Sparapet
              if Russia had not stood up for Serbia and left this country to be torn apart, then no one in the world would have taken Russia seriously anymore and it would have no more allies


              Cool ...
              Those. if you didn’t support the arrogant political murder committed by local ultra-nationalists with the support of Serbian intelligence, no one would take seriously ????
              Why is this ???
              In fact, Karl was terrified by Slavic nationalists precisely because he pursued and supported a wise policy of eliminating the segregation of Slavs in Austria-Hungary and, thus, could save the state. What did not suit the Serbian Nazis who wanted to subjugate all the Slavs of the Balkans.
              So ... Russia was involved in the WWI only Pan-Slavic trouble.

              Austria-Hungary put forward such demands to Serbia that their fulfillment led to the loss of sovereignty, and Gavrila Principe’s belonging to the Serbian intelligence has not been proven anywhere, this is just one of the versions that you clung to and advanced as the main one. characterizes a person without special comments.
              1. parusnik 14 July 2015 19: 03 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                According to the Treaty of Versailles .. Serbia received Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzogovina, Montenegro ... although Montenegro was an independent state before the WWI .. Croatian deputies ... asked the Entente powers to support the independence of Croatia .. what was said coldly to them, that Croatia can exist only in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes .. Not the generosity of Western countries .. have taken care of the creation of the state of the Slavs .. smile And I suppose everything was pure from the heart ... and not for 5 bullets in Sarajevo ... Almost every servant of Serbia knew about the murder in Sarajevo, that the Archduke would be killed, I exaggerate of course, but many knew ... Nobody in Europe I doubted that Russia would necessarily stand up for Serbia .. The killing in Sarajevo is a political provocation to involve Russia in the WWII ..
  3. ivanovbg 14 July 2015 08: 19 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Earlier, England and France invariably impeded the implementation of Russian claims on Constantinople and the Bosphorus and Dardanelles.


    And so they continue to this day. But the Bulgarians and Greeks so want to have normal neighbors from the southeast.
    1. Altar 14 July 2015 09: 49 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Yeah ?!

      And in modern times, when the era of imperial-colonialism went into oblivion 70 years ago, there are people with imperial colonial inclinations. Which, on the one hand, yell that Russia was never colonial, and at the same time worry about new colonial possessions not acquired at the time.

      The author of the article distorted all historical events to cry for the lost, which did not belong to Russia.
      Until 1 MV, the colonial powers, as they could, restrained each other's claims to acquire new colonies, and this is natural. That is why neither France nor England wanted to see the Bosphorus as Russian. And Russia did not want to see the Middle East as Anglo-French. All these territories belonged to the Ottoman Empire.

      But then there was a strengthening of Germany, late for the colonial section, but wanting its part of the pie. The Triple Alliance was created - Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy. The old colonial powers, of course, were against these attempts and created the Entente - Russia, England, France.

      When the war began, Turkey sided with Germany. An agreement was reached in the Entente - War to a victorious end and the subsequent division of the colonial territories of the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary. In the Ottoman Empire - the Bosphorus and Dardanelles of Russia, the Turkish Middle East of England and France.

      The Dardanelles operation of England did not in the least violate the basic agreements. This is a large-scale military operation launched during the First World War at the initiative of Winston Churchill [1] Entente countries (i.e. Russia), mainly by the British Empire, with the aim of the capture of Constantinople, the withdrawal of Turkey from the war and the opening of the sea route to Russia.

      The operation began on March 18, 1915, and ... On January 2, 1915, the Russian Commander-in-Chief asked the Allies to hold a demonstration that could divert part of the Turkish forces from the Caucasus Front. The next day, Kitchener held a meeting with Churchill, at which a decision was made to provide assistance to Russia. The Allied squadron was to force the Dardanelles and break through to Constantinople.

      Refrain komentov - Like Russia still would not have received the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. So she did not receive them because she did not fulfill the Entente-War agreements to a victorious end. The Bolsheviks who came to power concluded a separate peace with Germany (the Brest Peace) and thereby excluded themselves from the list of winners who were entitled to the award. And England and France, by the Entente agreement, received the colonial lands of Turkey in the Middle East.

      The agreement is signed by the first persons of the state, but on behalf of the state. And no matter how power changes, states remain successors. I am sure that if the Bolshevik government did not sign Brest with Germany, then the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus would be Russian now.
      1. Bakht 14 July 2015 11: 22 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        I am sure that if the Bolshevik government did not sign Brest with Germany, then the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus would be Russian now.


        This is your personal opinion. You have the right. But I have the right to my opinion. Russia would never have received straits. Under no circumstances.

        As the 19th-century English politicians said, "we are not so much concerned that the Russians are in Warsaw, but that they are in Asia Minor." And this is long before the First World War.
        1. Sparapet 14 July 2015 11: 59 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Bakht
          I am sure that if the Bolshevik government did not sign Brest with Germany, then the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus would be Russian now.


          This is your personal opinion. You have the right. But I have the right to my opinion. Russia would never have received straits. Under no circumstances.

          As the 19th-century English politicians said, "we are not so much concerned that the Russians are in Warsaw, but that they are in Asia Minor." And this is long before the First World War.

          Well, of course, Russia would not have received these straits, it would be beneficial for you, the Transcaucasian Turks, to represent the matter as if Russia was a small child and it would have been thrown all the same. if there were horns and legs left and there was no need to sow seeds of doubt, the straits would be Russian, the battle-worthy army of Russia would have survived by November 1918, and Russia would not get out of the war by signing a separate peace.
          1. Bakht 14 July 2015 12: 06 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Can't you move away from your long-suffering topic? Do you have a fad? We are talking about war. First World War. If you do not own the material, you can eat rumors. I'm not going to do your educational program. You do not own the material.

            I wrote that you have the right to your opinion. It is not supported by anything and is wrong. But stay with him. Myths are easier to live than to delve into the historiography.
            1. Sparapet 14 July 2015 12: 43 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Bakht
              Can't you move away from your long-suffering topic? Do you have a fad? We are talking about war. First World War. If you do not own the material, you can eat rumors. I'm not going to do your educational program. You do not own the material.

              I wrote that you have the right to your opinion. It is not supported by anything and is wrong. But stay with him. Myths are easier to live than to delve into the historiography.

              What is this long-suffering topic? If Russia had not succumbed to the provocation of the Bolsheviks and the Caucasian front had not collapsed, your patrons would not only have horns and legs, but also the tip of a tail wassat and freedom-loving and sunny smile Azerbaijan would not exist at all as the same Turkish project.
              1. Bakht 14 July 2015 12: 53 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                The disease is not treated. Likewise, there would have been no free sunny Armenia.

                But the question is touched on by Intersen. So Russia has before the First World Allies. Let's start with France.

                Poor Sazonov was forced to tell the Paleologist that he would no longer raise the question of Poland. That is, one of the "allies" (France) demanded that Russia surrender its territories and create a Russophobic Polish state. Good ally.

                If you believe the memoirs of the same Sazonov, then England wanted to create an independent Armenian state from the territories of eastern vilayats of Turkey and some regions of the Russian Empire. That is, the second "ally" also wanted to tear off part of the territories from Russia.

                Involuntarily, you will think about the mental abilities of Nicholas II.
                1. Sparapet 14 July 2015 13: 09 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  The Russian government itself demanded that the Ottoman Empire grant autonomy to the Armenians, as provided for by the Berlin Congress of 1878, on the territory of the six vilayets of the Ottoman Empire, where the majority were Armenians.
                  Quote: Bakht
                  The disease is not treated. Likewise, there would have been no free sunny Armenia.

                  But the question is touched on by Intersen. So Russia has before the First World Allies. Let's start with France.

                  Poor Sazonov was forced to tell the Paleologist that he would no longer raise the question of Poland. That is, one of the "allies" (France) demanded that Russia surrender its territories and create a Russophobic Polish state. Good ally.

                  If you believe the memoirs of the same Sazonov, then England wanted to create an independent Armenian state from the territories of eastern vilayats of Turkey and some regions of the Russian Empire. That is, the second "ally" also wanted to tear off part of the territories from Russia.

                  Involuntarily, you will think about the mental abilities of Nicholas II.
          2. Alexey RA 14 July 2015 12: 49 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Sparapet
            the straits would be Russian, if the combat-ready army had survived by November 1918, and Russia didn’t get out of the war by signing a separate peace.

            That is, the Straits would never be Russian.
            For combat ready army on hungry food, weapons and shell rations can not exist. And the railways of Russia at the beginning of 1917, even under the Empire, were in a state of collapse, having only 50% of locomotives and 30% of freight wagons of the minimum required number operational. Actually, all stockpiles of weapons in areas far from the front, so useful in the Civil War, appeared precisely because the railway was unable to deliver them to the front. Arkhangelsk warehouses are an example of this - no matter how much the Allies send weapons, they mostly settled in warehouses.
            1. cdrt 14 July 2015 13: 17 New
              • -2
              • 0
              -2
              Quote: Alexey RA
              For a battle-worthy army cannot exist on a hungry food, weapon and shell ration


              And can you prove the presence of weapons, food and smart hunger in early 1917 in Russia? laughing
              1. Alexey RA 14 July 2015 14: 14 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                We open Barsukov:
                Provision of 122 mm field howitzers with shots in 1914 - 1915 it was almost in the same unsatisfactory position as the provision of 76 mm field guns, and therefore all considerations expressed in relation to field guns can be fully attributed to 122 mm howitzers; but the provision of these howitzers with shots remained unsatisfactory in 1916-1917.
                The provision of 152 mm field heavy howitzers was even worse; for example, by 1915 they only had 30% of the set of shots, while 122 mm howitzers had a margin of up to 72%.
                As for the state of the combat set of 107-mm quick-firing guns, then by 1915 it was unconditionally critical, and in 1916 - 1917. slightly improved (by the spring of 1916, the stock of shots for a 107 mm gun increased to 2, since at that time there were very few 000 mm guns at the front, when the guns at the front were received, the number of shots per gun immediately significantly decreased - by January 107, by half).
                Schneider's siege 152-mm guns were provided with shots very weakly. For example, in August 1916, newly formed lithium batteries. "A" (armed with the indicated guns) came forward to the front, secured with only 300 rounds per gun.
                The supply of large-caliber guns was completely unsatisfactory; these guns received in general only one tenth of what they really needed. And if it weren’t for some supplies of suitable shells for coastal fortresses (especially Vladivostok, from where shells had to be transported several thousand kilometers along the Siberian Railway single track), as well as some help from the maritime department (supplying 305 mm howitzers with the Obukhov plant) then the Russian heavy heavy artillery would be doomed to almost complete silence at the front.

                By guns (Bloodless):
                In 1916, the Headquarters determined the general need for 14 guns. Of these, 440 - 11200-mm guns, 76 - 2160-mm howitzers and 122 guns - 1080-mm and 107-mm. In factories, 152 pieces were manufactured. 4087 mm, 76 - 721 mm howitzers and 122 mm guns.

                For food:
                Disruptions in supplies led to the fact that the supply of food in the army began to decline sharply. If in 1915 it ranged from 18 to 30-day needs, then already in 1916 it decreased to 12-16 days, and in 1917 to 6-10 days. There were days when a two-day supply remained on separate fronts. In 1917, the troops switched to the 800-gram norm of bread, and then to the 400-gram norm. There were reports to Petersburg that the situation with the supply of troops with bread was close to a disaster.
          3. parusnik 14 July 2015 19: 16 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            If it weren’t for the collapse of the army, organized by the "Bolsheviks".. The Bolsheviks received a ruined army, which the liberal liberals successfully ruined .. Let me remind you that February, before October was .. Famous order No. 1 was issued under the Provisional Government, the Petrograd Menshevik Council .. Moreover, Russia could possibly hold out until 1918 .. if gentlemen liberals did not arrange the Maidan breads in February 1917 in the capitals .. but they would have managed the Maidans if the gentlemen generals were not forced to abdicate the king .. and I’ll also remind you ... Lenin and Trotsky did not accept the king’s abdication ..
        2. cdrt 14 July 2015 13: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Bakht
          This is your personal opinion. You have the right. But I have the right to my opinion. Russia would never have received straits. Under no circumstances.

          As the 19th-century English politicians said, "we are not so much concerned that the Russians are in Warsaw, but that they are in Asia Minor." And this is long before the First World War.


          Well, given that the landing operation for Constantinople was being prepared for August 1917, and it was being prepared unlike the more thoroughly allied adventure in Gallipoli, there is every reason to believe that it would have received by force during the war, and not thanks to gifts after.

          And yes, the Gallipoli operation did begin in order to supply arms to Russia, which at that time also experienced severe hunger for weapons and ammunition, and suffered crushing defeats at the fronts.
          1. Bakht 14 July 2015 13: 28 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            All right. Could and get by force. But would allies remain? As for the landing operation in patients. And what sanctions would apply then? 90 years earlier. the strengthening of Russia was by no means in the interests of the "allies."

            But .. it's all subject to victory in the war. But it did not happen. The question is different - was it worth it to get involved in a war with insincere allies? Even in the 45th year, the "allies" planned the operation "unthinkable".
    2. cdrt 14 July 2015 13: 12 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: ivanovbg
      And so they continue to this day. But the Bulgarians and Greeks so want to have normal neighbors from the southeast.


      The Bulgarians even showed this in two world wars. And now they show it quite clearly.
  4. Mostovik 14 July 2015 09: 19 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    Why did Russia even need the Bosphorus and Dardanelles?
    1. Barboskin 14 July 2015 09: 24 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      I agree, why? It was necessary to build a railway from St. Petersburg to Murmansk not in 1916 a year, but earlier before the war. After all, except for the export of wheat, there was no benefit from the straits, everything else can be conveniently transported through the north.
      1. Alexey RA 14 July 2015 12: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Barboskin
        I agree, why? It was necessary to build a railway from St. Petersburg to Murmansk not in 1916, but before the war. After all, except for the export of wheat, there was no benefit from the straits

        That rest? For Russia, grain export was of paramount importance - and for this, ports were needed located near the main areas of its production. The same Novorossiysk grew on grain.

        If you carry goods through Murmansk - they will be gold.
        1. Barboskin 15 July 2015 04: 44 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          But imagine the war, the Black Sea straits are blocked, the Baltic too. Full isolation. To deliver through Vladivostok, so long as they reach the western front, not like gold, I don’t know what they will be. With underdeveloped industry, this economic blockade is one of the reasons for the collapse of the Russian Empire and its failures in the war.
          In short, remember the land lease.
  5. Aleksander 14 July 2015 09: 36 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The author’s strange logic. One side
    However, in the end, the British cabinet came to the conclusion that Russia's demand for straits should be to satisfy. As a result, France supported the Britain's position.

    On the other hand:
    Thus, London and Paris outplayed Petrograd
    belay
    And how did the Allies outplay Petrograd, promising the Bosphorus of Russia, what's wrong? They gathered, were not going to really observe, no one knows, and the author, including, most likely it would depend on the strength of Russia at the end of the war and the positions it held. After the Second World War, by the way, the West fulfilled what was agreed in Yalta. Only it was necessary to sign the Compiegne Agreement, not the Brest Agreement.
    Russia had to wage war to a victorious end, which excluded the possibility of reaching an agreement with Germany

    And to what end should a war be waged in which Russia defended itself against aggressors? Really before defeatist belay the end? And how does the author seem to “agree” with Germany? How the Bolsheviks- Brest shame? Give a third of the population and countries to the aggressors, how did they do it? But a normal government cannot do this by definition and seeks to take maximum compensation from the aggressor
    At the same time, for the general population, peasants and workers who bore the brunt of the war, the Bosporus did not mean anything

    Inept agitation. The people fought for their country and freedom against the invaders-and he knew that very well. And if for his suffering and victory the country would also receive the Bosphorus, it would be an honor and praise to the leadership of the country.
    According to the logic of the author, Koenigsberg and all of East Prussia in the Second World War"for the general population, peasants and workers, who bore the brunt of the war, meant nothing." yes
  6. Dimon-chik-79 14 July 2015 09: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    So Russia fell for this bait. And they themselves could capture the straits while England and France thrashed with Germashka. And there is already a familiar beaten track in the Balkans.
    Eh Nikola Nicola which country ruined and his family
    1. dmit-xnumx 14 July 2015 14: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      - Not on Senka was a hat (Monomakh), alas.
  7. Mostovik 14 July 2015 09: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Aleksander
    And if for his suffering and victory the country would also receive the Bosphorus, it would be an honor and praise to the leadership of the country.

    In the event of victory, the Russian Empire would have received 33 billion rubles (as of January 1, 1917) of the state debt, with a budget of 3.5 billion rubles. For an incomplete year of its existence at the end of 1917, the interim government borrowed up to 60 billion rubles.
    1. Aleksander 14 July 2015 10: 30 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Bridge
      In case of victory, the Russian Empire would also receive 33 billion rubles (at 1 January 1917) of public debt, with a budget of 3.5 billion rubles


      Yes, yes, but the defeat in the war brought a lot of advantages.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  8. Vladimir1960 14 July 2015 10: 35 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    We are now the same, the states, are trying to instill the idea that we should get involved in a war with ISIS and the Taliban.
  9. Dimon-chik-79 14 July 2015 10: 53 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Vladimir1960
    We are now the same, the states, are trying to instill the idea that we should get involved in a war with ISIS and the Taliban.

    And so stubbornly, as if this organization was created for this. And it looks very strange that a whole line of people gathered to bring down Gaddafi from those who wish, and here it’s hard to get anyone further than slogans. Moreover, a scheme is being implemented similar to the one that was implemented in the first world and the second - the absorption of countries and resources by the chosen aggressor. Then a deadly battle, Europe, part of Asia and Africa in ruins, millions of victims and hands over the ocean again rubbing.
  10. Serg65 14 July 2015 11: 25 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Events in the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia at that time were twisted into an interesting plot. The Entente promises the Straits of Russia and itself begins at first glance the worthless Dardanelles operation. At the same time, the pro-German “Committee of National Independence” was formed in Persia, under the command of this committee there were 5 thousand nomads, Persian gendarmes and German and Austrian prisoners of war who had fled from Turkestan. In September 1915, a Turkish-German expedition led by Niedermeier arrived in the Afghan city of Herat. Afghanistan at that time was under the protectorate of England. The British turned a blind eye to the actions of the Germans and Turks in northern Afghanistan. The appearance of hundreds of the 1 Uman Regiment of the Kuban Cossack Army 90 miles from Baghdad accelerated the military-political processes in this region. On the 4 of July 1916, an uprising began in Turkestan and in the Seven Rivers. Here is such an intrigue. And you...
    Quote: Bridge
    So Russia fell for this bait. And they themselves could capture the straits while England and France thrashed with Germashka. And there is already a familiar beaten track in the Balkans.
    Eh Nikola Nicola which country ruined and his family

    Quote: Barboskin
    I agree, why? It was necessary to build a railway from St. Petersburg to Murmansk not in 1916 a year, but earlier before the war. After all, except for the export of wheat, there was no benefit from the straits, everything else can be conveniently transported through the north.

    Quote: Bridge
    Why did Russia even need the Bosphorus and Dardanelles?

    Not so simple in the Danish kingdom !!!!
    1. Bakht 14 July 2015 11: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Is that all? Does it all come down to wheat? Do not know why Russia needs the Black Sea now? Everything can be exported through the North or the Far East.

      For those who see only one facet of the glass. The war began in 1914. And exactly 10 years before that, in 1904, the fairly well-trained Black Sea Fleet, consisting of 5-6 armadillos with well-trained teams, could not go to the Far East. The straits were closed by Turkey. With the support of England. What do you think 5-6 armadillos and six months earlier could change the situation in the Far East. Given that they would be in time in PortArthur and there would be no need to pass by Tsushima?

      Once again the question: why were the straits needed?
      1. cdrt 14 July 2015 13: 22 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Quote: Bakht
        What do you think 5-6 armadillos and six months earlier could change the situation in the Far East


        No, they could not. Just would get two Tsushima, not one. Without its developed shipbuilding and ship repair base (and neither Vladik nor Port Arthur were such), a war at sea is an entertainment similar to a dice game, where Japan wins with any number except 6, and RI only if six falls out.
        1. Bakht 14 July 2015 13: 31 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          This is from the realm of "alternative history." Good or bad, but the base in the Far East was. Another thing is that the Russo-Japanese War was also an adventure. But the blockade of PortArthur might not have happened. In the end, Japan crawled to the final gong half-bent. And several armadillos could break the ridge of a camel.
  11. Heimdall48 14 July 2015 11: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The Bosphorus did not mean anything. The goals of the war were incomprehensible to the people.

    This phrase is absurdity. The people must silently fulfill their duty. You never know who does not understand what - the patient does not fully understand the actions of the surgeon, the soldiers do not understand the intent of the marshal and so on.
    Well, it turns out that during the Napoleonic wars, the people understood, during the Northern War, understood, but did not understand during the First World War. Communist nonsense.
    1. cdrt 14 July 2015 13: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Heimdall48
      This phrase is absurdity. The people must silently fulfill their duty. You never know who does not understand what - the patient does not fully understand the actions of the surgeon, the soldiers do not understand the intent of the marshal and so on.
      Well, it turns out that during the Napoleonic wars, the people understood, during the Northern War, understood, but did not understand during the First World War. Communist nonsense.


      I completely agree. The people, in general, performed their civic duty.
      Yes, misunderstanding of the goals led to an extremely high number of prisoners, but in general, the country coped well. But the authorities and oligarchic groups - not really. When one group decided to change the regime in February 1917, it only got worse.
    2. alovrov 14 July 2015 13: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Not only that - all the people understood. And about Tsar-grad and about Hagia Sophia. This did not have to be explained then. And now it is necessary, including due to cheap stuffing similar to this article.
  12. Robert Nevsky 14 July 2015 12: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The Bosphorus must be Russian !!
    1. cdrt 14 July 2015 13: 25 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Quote: Robert Nevsky
      The Bosphorus must be Russian !!


      So for the sake of this, now the world needs to arrange a nuclear apocalypse ...
      And after it, why should it be in place of Russia that will remain in the place of Constantinople?
      1. alovrov 14 July 2015 13: 30 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Nothing of the kind is needed. If you think that the political map of the world is unshakable - look at the political map from 1991 of the year.
      2. alovrov 14 July 2015 13: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Nothing of the kind is needed. If you think that the political map of the world is unshakable - look at the political map from 1991 of the year.
        1. cdrt 14 July 2015 13: 43 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          Quote: alovrov
          If you think that the political map of the world is unshakable - look at the political map from 1991.


          and many of the key territories for the whole of Europe (such as straits) have changed owners?
  13. alovrov 14 July 2015 13: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The article is illiterate. Apparently, the author doesn’t know at all that Turkey, firstly, could, and secondly, closed the straits at the behest of Germany, thereby paralyzing all trade in the south of Russia. RI could not put up with this. Russian society took the announcement of Tsar-grad as a legitimate goal in the war with enthusiasm, and this was part of the patriotic upsurge of 1914 of the year. The fact that this rise was pissed off is questions to the fifth column and the intelligence services of the Republic of Ingushetia.
    To connect the conduct of the Dardanelles operation with the fact that the British did not want to give the straits to the Russians is an idiocy of a higher test, which is not based on anything at all.
    Conclusion - the text is cheap stuffing, the author is an ignoramus.
    1. Pissarro 14 July 2015 16: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      and what was the meaning of the previously failed Dardanelles operation? There was no military sense, the military were against. The meaning was only political.
    2. Alibekulu 14 July 2015 17: 10 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -4
      Quote: alovrov
      Apparently, the author doesn’t know at all that Turkey, firstly, could, and secondly, closed the straits at the behest of Germany, thereby paralyzing all trade in the south of Russia. RI could not put up with this. Russian society took the announcement of Tsar-grad as a legitimate target in the war with enthusiasm, and this was part of the patriotic upsurge of 1914
      You probably don’t know, but you, apparently, are not getting along with logic ..
      Turkey closed the straits, because one of the main "legitimate" goals of the Republic of Ingushetia in the 1st MV was to capture the straits and, accordingly, Istanbul. And Turkey could not put up with this. And do not understand this - THIS IS IDIOTISM OF THE HIGHEST TEST.
      1. alovrov 14 July 2015 17: 54 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Google to help you. First, look how many times before WWII, Turkey closed the straits. Secondly, when exactly did the hostilities in Batumi begin, and thirdly, when exactly did Turkey block the straits.
        Then apologize.
        1. Alibekulu 14 July 2015 19: 09 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          Quote: alovrov
          Google to help you
          Without Google, you’re unreasonable ..?! repeat
          Quote: alovrov
          Then apologize.
          "Boy, can you get the keys to the apartment where the money is .." (c)
          Quote: alovrov
          First, look how many times before WWII, Turkey closed the straits.
          Firstly, how many times before the WWII were the Russian-Turkish wars ?!
          And for Turkey, it was not a big secret that since ancient times, the capture of Istanbul, was the sacred dream of the Russian tsars ..
          Well, the Turks canceled the "radish", which they desperately resisted entom .. am
          1. alovrov 15 July 2015 12: 21 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            No, I will not reason. Admonition is a paid service, so - myself, myself. As a hint - the closure of the straits and the Russo-Turkish wars are NOT ONE AND ALSO.

            As for Tsar-grad and Hagia Sophia, this is a dream of the Orthodox world in general, and not of kings at all. And of course it will come true. Because everything including and the Turks understand that they occupy a place that is not quite appropriate for them.
          2. alovrov 15 July 2015 12: 21 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            No, I will not reason. Admonition is a paid service, so - myself, myself. As a hint - the closure of the straits and the Russo-Turkish wars are NOT ONE AND ALSO.

            As for Tsar-grad and Hagia Sophia, this is a dream of the Orthodox world in general, and not of kings at all. And of course it will come true. Because everything including and the Turks understand that they occupy a place that is not quite appropriate for them.
            1. Alibekulu 15 July 2015 17: 12 New
              • -2
              • 0
              -2
              Quote: alovrov
              this service is paid
              So you from "these" repeat Hourly work .. negative
              Quote: alovrov
              this is a dream of the whole Orthodox world
              PGM "Orthodoxy of the brain" .. laughing
              Quote: alovrov
              Because all, incl. and the Turks, understand that they are not quite appropriate place
              Well, there is an opinion that the Russians also occupy a place that does not quite correspond to them ..
              Quote: Madeleine Albright (former US Secretary of State) - “Where is justice here, if only one country owns such a land as Siberia?”;
              Quote: Condoleezza Rice (former US Secretary of State) - “Siberia is too big to belong to one state”
              Quote: Mao Zedong“The Soviet Union occupied too many territories: about a hundred and a few years ago, they cut off the entire region east of Lake Baikal with Boli (Khabarovsk) and Hayshenwei (Vladivostok) and the Kamchatka Peninsula. This account is not so easy to write off. For this we are with them not yet settled. "
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. pytar 14 July 2015 19: 43 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: cdrt
    Quote: ivanovbg
    And so they continue to this day. But the Bulgarians and Greeks so want to have normal neighbors from the southeast.


    The Bulgarians even showed this in two world wars. And now they show it quite clearly.

    Russia fought on the wrong side. It really happened that the Russian people shed an ocean of blood for the interests of the British Empire and France, the worst enemies of Russia itself. And the Bulgarians are not to blame for you, who did not want to fight for the same Britain and France.
    1. Pissarro 14 July 2015 19: 52 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Indeed, fighting for the interests of the Turks, Germans and Hungarians is much more patriotic for the Bulgarians than for the Russians. laughing
    2. alovrov 15 July 2015 12: 26 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      But what a perverted mind, ah, well, just wonder how damn it is ... That is Bulgarians in the Second Balkan War unleashed by German Ferdinand are finally not to blame. The fact that they tried to defeat the Serbs is certainly not their fault, a pure demon got the whole story in Germany's sixes to run the whole story.
      Former brothers already celebrate the liberation from the Turkish yoke with the Turks, they don’t call Russians, because Americans forbid. Soon they will call the invaders, and the Turks the legitimate authority.
      1. Pissarro 15 July 2015 15: 09 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Somehow one Bulgarian wrote to me that we didn’t ask us to be freed from under the Turks and that we don’t need to build liberators from ourselves. Like the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 40 years and we would have become free without your participation.
        In general, I later realized that it’s hardly worth it to really liberate a people unworthy of freedom. But he will not thank you for this, but will go to look for a new master, as it actually happened. To fight against fraternal Orthodox Slavic countries on the side the former Turkish master, then flee under the Reich, after seeing our strength in the Warsaw Pact, then in NATO. Often the Bulgarians counterargument, well, we are a small country, we can’t do it differently. But for some reason the Serbs can, they are always on our side in any swara were and never in the camp of the enemy
  16. todaygoodday 30 July 2015 09: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: moskowit
    The Caucasian front under the command of Yudenich in 1917 brought Turkey to its knees and took it out of the war. Capturing the straits was a matter of time. But then what happened happened and Russia began to deal with internal problems ...

    Yes, indeed, to 1917 Osm. the empire was almost routed on the Caucasian front (Erzurum offensive operation).
    Moreover, the revolution was originally planned for March-April, but was forced to accelerate and organized in February.
  17. Basil_3 10 August 2015 22: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If it weren’t for the revolution, it’s not known who would beat anyone !!!!
    Preparing an operation to occupy the straits .....
    And England had a formal consent, though formal ...