Military Review

Pax Britannica. Revolution

Pax Britannica. Revolution

“For most of my life, I worked hard for the benefit of society and, I hope, not in vain.”
James Watt

“I looked up to the sky and lowered them to the ground. And he said to himself: both must become British. ”
Cecile John Rhodes

In Russia, it is customary to speak of this country, as a rule, negatively. In principle, this is completely understandable: for many generations, the British Empire was the main enemy of the Russian Empire first, and then the USSR. Two world wars have changed little here. In principle, they don't like British people, they reciprocate us, but we shouldn’t splash out a baby with milk. So, we will talk about the British Empire. Of course, in brief and, of course, about one, the most important period in her stories, namely the end of 18-th - the end of 19-th centuries.

Again and again: we do not like Britain, and there is nothing to love for. Practically since the end of the Napoleonic wars, the British were actively engaged in subversive activities against Russia. It is no accident that London has already served as a gathering point for the Russian opposition for a century and a half. But what bastards, how they work! One and a half hundred years they lead a war against us! What consistency in pursuing a goal! The British have always wanted to destroy our state and were sometimes quite close to their goal, but today I am not talking about that. I have the courage to say that Britain has given an incredible amount to this planet. They did a lot of bad, but a lot of good. The world that we see around us is in many ways the fruit of their efforts.

To understand this, it is necessary to return there, at the end of the eighteenth century, in its last two decades. So, the world was then completely different. As a matter of fact, that world had much more with the Middle Ages than with the present. Almost no cars. No them from the word at all. Nowhere: neither on land, nor at sea, nor in industry. Yes, there are some funny samples of the piece. But this does not change the situation. No Sources of energy were poultry animals, flowing water, wind, and - naturally and inevitably - the muscular energy of man. Eco-friendly time was! Neither oil prices nor global warming!

Speaking seriously, then it was very difficult to live, it was necessary to work a lot and die early. Just a person who plows like a horse cannot be completely human. Such a funny paradox: labor created man from a monkey, but he is also able to turn him into an animal. But there was one magical island on which the massive use of steam engines for pumping water from deep mines began in the 18 century. The first experimental machine by Thomas Severi was patented in 1698. In Russia, this is the year of the Great Embassy in Europe. By the way, they could call in, inspect the "demonic thing." This is me to the fact that Peter appeared very, very timely, and could be late.

A more advanced machine, Thomas Newcomen, was created in 1712 year. In the same year, Peter created the first Russian Military Engineering School and transferred the capital to St. Petersburg.

1778 year: a significantly more sophisticated James Watt steam engine. Power increased 5 times, and it became possible to convert the translational motion of the piston into a rotational one. It was here that everything began to turn ... In the literal and figurative sense. The world has changed forever. We, pampered by the universal automobilization and flat-panelization of the Internet, are hard to understand what those first, primitive and cumbersome machines meant to humanity.

It was an endless source of movement. Coal, burning, allowed to do the very work that was previously done was either difficult or impossible. We have somehow got used to it (since Soviet times) that you can get to any point of the country by public transport. And it could afford any (up to 1991 year). The brilliant economic reforms somewhat changed this situation, but what happened was (thanks to comrade Brezhnev for our happy childhood). In the largest country in the world, almost any adult citizen had the opportunity to cross the whole country "back and forth" - like a hobbit. But this was not always the case: for most of the history, traveling over long distances was the lot of a few, very few, frankly, the elect. Nine-tenths of the population never left farther than the nearest fair. So, it was the British who changed the situation: the creation of mass railway transport made it possible to travel hundreds of miles - quickly, comfortably and cheaply. We got used to the fact that going to Moscow by a compartment car from Yekaterinburg in twenty-eight hours is, on the one hand, corny, on the other hand, long.

However, at one time it was more difficult and more expensive to go to Moscow from the Urals than to get a diploma of higher education today. The world has changed thanks to the British, and we have changed with it. The same can be said about cheap and massive sea travel. They became possible in the second half of the 19 century, and only thanks to the industrial revolution. Everyone who watched the unforgettable Titanic will confirm this. In the era of the settlement of the New World, the voyage from Europe was so expensive that many potential “green card holders” sold themselves into slavery (temporary, and there the card would fall). People literally deprived themselves of freedom to get it. So the very first slaves in the United States were completely white (slightly dirty after a transatlantic voyage) skin color.

So the Kenyan half-blood prince is not unique in its shameful past, the blood of slaves flows in the veins of many completely white Americans. Hard to believe? But it was just like that! At the same time, the Titanic of the era of the victorious industrial revolution took hundreds and hundreds of poor Irish people in their womb, who nevertheless did not sell themselves into slavery in order to get a ticket to the new world. Yes, in the 19 century, the world has irreversibly changed: the level of “options” available to the common man has grown rapidly. By the way, it was in London in 1837 that the commercial exploitation of the telegraph apparatus began. A kind of Internet 19 century ... How long has it been! Before the introduction of the telegraph information was available only locally. After its introduction, the British lords could directly lead the Crimean campaign (which, by the way, was not always good).

The lathes were known for a long time, even Peter the Great was not only a ship's carpenter (with a diploma), but also a notable turner, but it was in Britain in 1800 that Henry Maudsley developed the first industrial cutting machine to standardize the thread. And the same Maudsley invented a micrometer with an accuracy of ten thousandth of an inch (3 μm). And this is the beginning of the 19 century! It was during these one hundred years (the end of 18 - the end of the 19 of the century) that humanity rushed forward rapidly. And it happened primarily in Britain. The eighteenth century, with all its achievements, is one thing, and the nineteenth is something completely different. It was in the 19 century that human development accelerated rapidly, and, oddly enough, it was impossible to imagine without Britain.

Other European and then non-European countries were forced to follow the same road. Mass production of steel and cast iron, as well as their processing on machine tools with a mechanical drive - this is a sign of the 19-th century. Thickly smoking chimneys of workshops - this is also the 19-th one. By the way, for some reason, an undeservedly forgotten century, because apart from the Napoleonic era, everything else is somehow not deposited in the minds of the general reader. But this particular century was truly a turning point. A typical Briton of the 18 century is a poor tenant, a typical Briton of the beginning of the 20 century is an industrial worker or a miner.

Now I would like to talk about the main thing: the value of the very industrial revolution. As you know, everything in this imperfect world has its price. As everyone remembers, our industrialization was carried out under Stalin in a very short time, and the price was very high. For this Stalin decided to criticize, and very hard. It can be assumed that in democratic Britain everything was completely different. Well, could not there be such ugliness on free British land? Of course not. Everything was much worse and much longer (this is not a figure of speech).

It is difficult to find a forumchanin who would not come across the term “poplane”, i.e. a person who finds himself in a distant or not very past and is actively engaged in cultural triger with a varying degree of success. Frequent and "industrial revolution", artificially created, for example, in medieval Japan. I would not have minded and would have spent the Internet to the emperor Augustus ... But seriously, how much was the industrial revolution possible somewhere else and in another time?

Most likely no. The reason, as already mentioned, is the cost. The cost of the industrial revolution, as we well know from our own sad experience, is transcendent. Alas, this is not changing anything here. The tragedy is that we are building an industrial future, relying on the resources of the previous, agricultural era with very different financial opportunities. And the creation of one-two and even ten exemplary factories cannot solve the problem. Not enough of this. They will not create those exemplary plants, mines and shipyards of the necessary economic effect. It will wither away all this in a couple of decades or in a couple of generations. It is necessary to create a “self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction” by the hands of half-naked slaves ... Or, seriously, the creation of a national industrial complex by the hands of yesterday’s peasants, and at their own expense.

The road to a bright future is quite expensive and is paved with the bones of those who did not reach there. In Britain, it was just that. The Stalin era simply compressed a long British experience in one generation, which is why it looks so awful. But even in Britain, in order to make the first transition in the world to the industrial age, they had to break the backbone of their own people. Who in the first place? Peasantry, of course. We all heard about the very "enclosures" from the course of school history, of course. It doesn't sound very scary - well, they put up a fence, what is so terrible here? So, it was a real genocide of the British people. Before robbing the half-planets Earth, the British lords robbed and destroyed the British peasantry.

If Stalin's collectivization is called by some "the second serfdom", then in Britain everything was much worse and much longer. Sheep grazing turned out to be more profitable than traditional farming, and there is very little land in democratic Britain. There are many people, but there is no land. The solution was found both simple and ingenious. People began to be driven from the lands where their ancestors lived for centuries. Yes, a civilized British landowner - this is not Sobakevich or Plushkin. The British peasants became redundant, and they began to get rid of, so to speak, dispose of unnecessary biomass. Those who like to play strategy will easily understand the situation - the limit of the population has been reached. It is necessary to circle the extra peasants frame and press Del. Yes, sadly (I myself wept sobbing when my guinea pig died), but progress requires sacrifice.

The owner of the land, a noble landlord, invited soldiers to the crown, and they drove the peasants out of the village, and their houses were burned. Run the sheep! So Shaun the lamb was a nightmare for millions of Britons. This impudently grinning ram was perhaps more terrible than Adolf Hitler for the Jews. And this process was going on for two and a half centuries. By the end of the eighteenth century, it was successfully completed. There remained large commodity farms and powerless laborers (tenants). What is characteristic is that simultaneously and simultaneously in the cities, manufactories and work houses grew. The peasant driven from the land automatically turned into a criminal. Being a bum in blessed England, Scotland and Ireland was a crime. He could be pursued and poisoned "like a wild beast." Even in the 18 century - the century of freedom and enlightenment. The one who reached the tramp could get it into the property (sounds tempting?). Consequently, manufactories received a lot of powerless labor and, of course, very cheap labor. Here is another one of the origins and foundations of the industrial revolution in Britain. A lot of beggars, hungry, destitute people who are ready to work for a couple of coppers. But even for these two coppers there was fierce competition. Losers got into "work houses" - for details on Dickens. More big losers ended their worthless lives on the gallows. Some of the waste biomass was shipped in shackles to Australia, where it was used as slaves. White-skinned slaves - this is a feature of the British Empire, its birthmark.

How is Nekrasov? "Straight track: narrow mounds, / Bollards, rails, bridges. / And on the sides, all the bones are Russian ... / How many of them! ”Here in Britain there were no less“ bones ”, it was literally strewn with them (the country is smaller, there are more people running around). But for some reason, speaking of this wonderful country, everyone remembers Chelsea and the Charter of Freedoms. But, of course, even this was not enough for the industrial revolution. The transition to a new stage of development was expensive, very expensive. So I had to rob India. Before the arrival of civilized Europeans, China was the largest market on the planet (all of a sudden!), The second largest in India. India was a very rich country, fabulously rich. Largely due to the plundering of India, the world's first industrial revolution was carried out.

Then there was China and the "opium wars" - an incredibly interesting topic! It's no joke, “opium wars”, romance! The heroic Britons of all of China got hooked on drugs in order to finance the very revolution ... Can anyone today do this? Become a wholesale drug dealer for the whole of China? And you say: Stalin, Beria, Belomorkanal ... There are more terrible things.

What we see in contemporary India is the consequences of the colonial era. The consequences of prolonged robbery and slavery. All complex structures and production were destroyed. British factory production did not want to endure competitors. At the same time, tens of millions of Indians died from hunger, poverty and disease, but who would have thought them? In general, trying to return to the past and repeat the industrial revolution is meaningless and useless, too monstrous price had to be paid in the current reality. And it was precisely the British Empire, which controls world trade and world finances, to turn this whole undertaking in a short period of time. It was the huge market of the British Empire that provided the sales of products of new factories and plants. Indian weavers died of starvation, but British factory-made fabrics found a huge new market. The British essentially forbade the development of industry in the colonies, it was this that gave the load to British factories. The British fleet (commercial and military) - the largest, most powerful and modern in the world - provided loading to British shipyards, which in turn gave orders to metallurgical, steel-rolling and metal-working enterprises. And all this was collected on one small island.

In fact, for this very “phase transition” it was necessary to concentrate the resources of a significant part of the planet in one place. And this was done not voluntarily, but at the barrel of British guns and guns. Perhaps, without the British Empire, the age of "coal and steel" could stretch several times and generally remain unfinished. The fact is that the introduction of certain technical innovations, such as new methods of steelmaking, did not give one or another power a decisive advantage, and it was very expensive. By the way, it was in the British Empire that the most important book of the Western world was written - “Capital”. Karl Marx, being in the very center of events, was so shocked by the terrible miracles that were unfolding before his eyes that he created this most immortal work (this is not irony). We are accustomed to the industrial wonders of the twentieth century, but we must not forget that the nineteenth century has its own achievements, such as the Great Eastern, a transatlantic steamer.

It still seems to me that in the 19 century technical development went even faster than today. The world of 1800 and the world of 1850 are two completely different worlds. And, oddly enough, after the defeat of Napoleon, there were no longer any large, protracted wars (unlike the century of 20). But they say that war is the engine of progress. The creation of the industrial world meant the creation of a new habitat. Close quarters of overcrowded working-class districts, permanent smog (from coal!), Minimal sanitary facilities or lack thereof. The nineteenth century even in London (and especially in London!) Was not a heavenly time. The mortality rate was very high, the crime of the beyond, the prison terrible. And yet, from this very world came the modern industrial civilization. By the end of the 19 century, the German Empire and the United States began to press Britain in the field of industry. The advances in chemistry and electrical engineering are no longer entirely British. But, before retiring to second positions, Britain created the last masterpiece, her “thesis” before eternity: Dreadnought (all big gun).

31 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 7 November 2015 08: 11
    Most of all, in all this technical "progress" of the 19th century, for some reason, I was amazed not by the achievements of technology and science, but by the average life expectancy of weavers and workers in factories and docks in London - 36 years ...
    1. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 7 November 2015 12: 11
      Before the era of antibiotics, everyone lived like this for 35-40 years. There were, of course, individual instances, but the average duration was just that. The discovery of antiseptics and antibiotics is believed to increase life expectancy by about 30 years. Well and vaccinations of course. Inoculation only began in the last century. Plus open source quality medicine. The topic is broad in general, there is also food storage in the refrigerators - healthy eating and lack of hunger, discovery of vitamins, sophisticated devices for diagnosing and treating previously incurable diseases, promoting a healthy lifestyle, in general, a lot of things. In general, we live on human beings somewhere from the 60s of the last century, i.e. for about 50 years, but for some reason the people think that it has always been so. Moreover, in Africa there are many places where people now live like a hundred years ago.
      1. Olezhek
        7 November 2015 13: 30
        In general, we live humanly somewhere from the 60s of the last century, i.e. about 50 years, but for some reason people think that this has always been the case.

        Something like that, but 19 century is also the century of revolution in medicine ...
        It did not immediately reach wide sections of the population. And yet...
        By the way, as far as I know, in the 19th century, "civilized Europe" caught up with Rome in hygiene
        (plumbing + sewage!)
        And yes, the population of cities grew only at the expense of visitors - the conditions were terrible ...
      2. Secta haki
        Secta haki 7 November 2015 18: 55
        But what about the Caucasian and any other centenarians?
      3. Logos
        Logos 7 November 2015 22: 03
        You, like many, were deceived by the twists of statistics) People in the 19th century, and before, quite themselves lived up to 70-80 years, as now. 36 years is the average statistical life expectancy. Where does it come from? It is taken from a very high infant mortality rate in the pre-industrial era: every second infant did not live up to his first birthday. But every first one had quite a good chance of surviving to 70 years. A (70 + 1) /2=35.5 - and gives us an average life expectancy
        1. Monster_Fat
          Monster_Fat 8 November 2015 05: 57
          Not true. The data were for the “working population,” and not generally for the “population.” Weavers “babies” are something new ...
          1. Vend
            Vend 8 November 2015 11: 05
            We don’t like the British, in principle, they reciprocate with us,
            Well, everything is exactly the opposite. It is the British who dislike Russians, and we reciprocate them.
        2. Secta haki
          Secta haki 10 November 2015 08: 06
          And this "pre-industrial era" must have been very badly monitored for ecology and environmental protection! In the villages, children have always been healthier than city children.
    2. Akuzenka
      Akuzenka 14 November 2015 01: 43
      I didn't understand Afftor. You never know what Britain "gave"! And how much she took away, the author did not count. Minus. Another attempt to "ennoble the devil.
      1. Olezhek
        14 November 2015 14: 29
        We must carefully and carefully approach the assessment of historical phenomena.
        Weigh all the pros and cons.
        Just compare Britain and Ukraine.
  2. c3r
    c3r 7 November 2015 08: 19
    A good article, but in terms of the "thesis" I think that it was "the ASP project (the United States of America) in the aftermath of the United States. It was to them that the reins of government of the material robbery of the world were handed over. ...
    1. Olezhek
      7 November 2015 13: 09
      it was the "project ASP (United American states) in consequence of the United States. It was he who planned

      There was a fight - during WWII and Churchill predictably lost it.
      There was no "planned transfer", the power is not given away
      1. c3r
        c3r 7 November 2015 16: 05
        It was whom Britain fought at the beginning of WWII so that in mid-1941 they had to exchange 50 obsolete destroyers and 10 PLO boats in the USA in exchange for a 99-year lease of bases in the West Indies and Bermuda, and this is a great sea power ? And subsequent deliveries under Lend-Lease fell to the Angles at 31 billion dollars, which is 3 times more than the cost of deliveries to the USSR. So it seems to me that all the financial centers of the planned moved to the United States between 1 and 2 MB, there it was saved further from the powder barrels of Europe. The swan song of Britain was an attempt to set Germany against the USSR, which ultimately turned into a problem for Britain itself and revealed its weakness in the political as well as in the military and financial sphere. hi
        1. Olezhek
          7 November 2015 16: 45
          Who was fighting then? Britain at the beginning of WWII

          Think about an alternative world where Britain is not actively fighting in WWII ...
          1. Akuzenka
            Akuzenka 14 November 2015 01: 46
            We are waiting for an alternative from you.
      2. Logos
        Logos 7 November 2015 22: 11
        By the way, yes. Following the results of WWI, the United States needed new markets for its grown economy and therefore was preparing to personally fight against Britain ("Red Plan") in order to squeeze out world sales markets. But in the end they acted smarter: they lent to Hitler and industrialized Stalin in order to rake in the heat with the wrong hands
      3. Akuzenka
        Akuzenka 14 November 2015 01: 45
        Not programmed, but simply agreed. Ghoul ghoul will not drink blood.
  3. Camel
    Camel 7 November 2015 08: 27
    The article is interesting, but I cannot agree with the author. All described "achievements" of small-breeds are based on robbery, first of their own people, then of the rest of the world. It is quite possible that the gradual development, the so-called. "evolution", would not give the worst effect, but with fewer sacrifices. But capital needs "right now" !! Well, the comparison I.V. Stalin and his industrialization are not entirely appropriate here - our country was modernized in response to the military strengthening of the countries that surrounded us and openly striving to destroy Russia as a state. But the Britons were striving to get all the money and resources of the world - not the worst desire, but they shouldn't be ascribed a "civilizing" role, they already ascribed it to themselves ... "White man's burden" (c) R. Kipling (who is still a racist )
    1. Olezhek
      7 November 2015 12: 46
      All the described "achievements" of small-breeds are based on robbery, first of their own people, then of the rest of the world

      What actually makes up the second part of the article.

      It is quite possible that the gradual development, the so-called. "evolution", would not give the worst effect, but with fewer sacrifices.

      Are there any examples in the current history?

      our country has been modernized in response to the military strengthening of the countries around us and openly seeking to destroy

      I just made a parallel between British and Soviet industrialization. And quite intentionally - analogies are viewed ...
  4. Secta haki
    Secta haki 7 November 2015 08: 46
    We went to Moscow even from Siberia. Not only merchants. Europe has changed thanks to the Dutch, before the Italians, then the Austrians and Russians.
    The steam engine was invented in Russia, manufactured in Russia, and used in Russia, in the Urals, from there Watt took it, and as usual it was assigned to it as the Nobel Peace Prize for the American president ...

    There is nothing to praise this Britain, in which the sheep ate the peasants, and Peter the peasant enslaved. They were lucky to sit on the island, behind the strait protecting from invasions, in the territory where coal and iron ore deposits were close - coal is needed for smelting iron, all other countries were not lucky with this. Modern sciences did not exist then, and there was nothing to adopt, and then there was Lomonosov.
    1. Olezhek
      7 November 2015 13: 04
      We went to Moscow, even from Siberia. Not only merchants

      What is the percentage of the population?
      How difficult was it, expensive and accessible to the masses?

      Europe has changed thanks to the Dutch, before the Italians, after that the Austrians and the Russians.

      As well as thanks to the Venetians and the Turks ... But the leap from the 18 century (which, according to technology, was not much ahead of China’s best achievements (in China’s best time) to the level of the end of the 19 century, is Britain.

      The steam engine was invented in Russia, made in Russia,

      So it was also ...

      1. Secta haki
        Secta haki 7 November 2015 20: 51
        As much as needed, and sleighs were available in winter and carts in summer. Like arba, horses and camels from other settled or nomadic peoples. Venetians are Italians too. The Turks themselves in the sciences, like the Romans, were not strong. Subjugated peoples did everything for them. The changes of the 19th century are primarily Austrians and Russians.

        Scientific and industrial development should be separated.
        Britain then rose industrially, because no one had ruined it by wars on its own territory (like the Spaniards Holland or the Tatars and French of Russia), and because of the conveniently located cluster of iron ore deposits that were not in the colonies at all. Busted and constantly dirty on all continents, including the European, on the contrary, it is mainly. At the same time, she was sitting behind the English Channel.
        In Russia, which is open to all invasions, coal for steelmaking, on the contrary, has to be transported through half the country. For the same reason, even the French with their compact territory lagged behind the Germans in the industrial development after the unification of Germany, in which the Ruhr coal basins are not far from the Iron Ore Mountains. In England, all this is still much closer and more reachable, not thousands of kilometers from each other as in Russia.

        Due to the combination of convenience and industrial power on this Island, Freemasonry made its main nest, and it began to be controlled to destroy unwanted races all over the world (that is, everyone else, the yellow race, like most of the white, they do not consider people in general, mixed races, Indians and most of the blacks are considered inferior and therefore have limited rights to life only in the form of their individual representatives). Then it moved its center to the even more defensible at that time and wider USA, and the essence of their policy did not change after that. On the contrary, at this point American "isolationism" was discarded.

        They tried to hide what is shown in the first picture for a long time, then pass it off as an attraction, although it powered many automatic machines, and not only temple ones. What is on the second is drawn with errors.

        The technique and science of antiquity is much more developed than all the same Masons are constantly trying to convince everyone.
    2. Olezhek
      7 November 2015 13: 05

      was no longer ...
      1. Secta haki
        Secta haki 7 November 2015 19: 01
        It wasn’t like that yet ... Archimedes made many cars, all kinds of different ones. Astronomical and navigation mechanisms find and cannot understand for a hundred years what it is.
  5. parusnik
    parusnik 7 November 2015 11: 01
    Part of the unnecessary biomass was sent in shackles to Australia, where it was used as slaves. White-skinned slaves are a feature of the British Empire, its birthmark...Not only to Australia .. to the American colonies too ..
    1. Olezhek
      7 November 2015 14: 13
      In the era of the settlement of the New World, the voyage from Europe was so expensive that many potential “green card holders” sold themselves into slavery

      Well, yes it was ...
      Meet the descendants of the Irish in New York - be sure to ask what class their great-grandfather and great-grandmother came from ...
      it is possible that in the status of slaves ...
      You are nonsense, and a person will be pleased ...
  6. Basil50
    Basil50 7 November 2015 12: 14
    The author described historical moments as generally accepted, and has the right to such a view. Here are just a discord in the assessments of the history of RUSSIA AND THE SOVIET UNION and the same Europe by the public of the West is striking. They demand from the RUSSIANS just the same angel-like lifestyle and there is no forgiveness for everything that does not fit into their own representations of the interests of RUSSIA, and this is typical for all countries and citizens of Europe, but any meanness and bestiality are forgiven themselves. Always justified by any circumstances * irresistible force *. The attitude of their own fellow citizens as cattle over the centuries, and even more brutal attitude to everyone else, the British did not require any excuses or mental discomfort. In England there is no and cannot be any condemnation of their own history, they always have everything right and * perfect *, well, there are individual rough edges or separate * not gentlemen *, and so everything is very correct and ideal.
    Here's more about democracy mantras annoy. In England, the queen is not elected, appoints the prime minister, is the head of the church (local * pope *).
    They do not dissociate themselves in any way from the slave trade or from the genocide of peoples on different continents. England flourished on the slave trade and robbery. And today, pride in their country does not allow the British to take a look at their own country and themselves, as heirs to robbers and thieves. They still have a Drake hero, like Churchill, and other similar historical characters.
    1. Olezhek
      7 November 2015 13: 11
      That is why it is necessary to study their history in detail.
      A useful thing, although many ignore. Propaganda is one thing - the reality is always much more interesting. yes
      1. Basil50
        Basil50 7 November 2015 15: 35
        What do you mean by the term propaganda? That for me there is no holiness in English democracy?
    2. c3r
      c3r 7 November 2015 16: 22
      This is because in Russia there will always be noblemen willing to tarnish their history and who, as they say, stand for historical truth, but in fact water their country with feces for money. And the Russians have such a masochistic inclination to read these "feces" and really, not knowing their own, and even more so of someone else's history, take them at face value. I don't like Kurginyan, but they were told the correct phrase that until our liberals become patriots and will not expel out of our ranks the "handshake mass" of the Arbatovs, Venediktovs and the like, we will not have a healthy opposition criticizing the authorities and describing events in the country from an adequate point of view. But this aerobatics will not give money without a scandal, and writing about good is not profitable.
  7. dvg79
    dvg79 7 November 2015 12: 25
    The country has risen on piracy, the slave trade, the robbery of colonies, the slave trade and the merciless exploitation of its own people, the beacon of freedom and democracy. My attitude to it is censored.
  8. Pushkar
    Pushkar 7 November 2015 12: 35
    History needs to be known and remembered, and the opponent (not the enemy, but the opponent) must be evaluated realistically. Thank the author for the objective article.
  9. traveler
    traveler 7 November 2015 14: 01
    I remember a class in the eighth in geography, it was necessary to write an essay about a country. I wrote about Britain. it certainly was a child’s work, but my conclusions were the same - we owe the British modern civilization. In addition, as a teenager, carried away by rock music, in my essay I wrote that modern mass culture is largely made in the UK. Now I would say that in the United States.
    I, a man brought up on J.London, K. Vonnegut, A. Clark, on pink Floyd and Black Sabbath, on Star Wars and Terminator, it is always very strange to see this hatred of the Anglo-Saxons, which we already have one of the main signs patriotism.
    1. Olezhek
      7 November 2015 14: 24
      "... And the elves? Yes, they dance in the moonlight, sing songs in general, funny, cute creatures & But will you be glad when they return? ...
      ... People remember how beautiful the elven songs are, but few remember what they sang about ... "

      Terry Pratchett "Ladies and Gentlemen"

      I strongly recommend to all anglophiles.
      1. Basil50
        Basil50 7 November 2015 15: 28
        Now, it is precisely such conclusions from the smoothed and ennobled * history * that are being made. Often, even the chronology is not paid attention. It’s rare that anyone reads documents or other sources, because everything in the textbook is laid out on shelves and diagrams for clarity, only ideas advertise which were ordered, and often foreign or lackey customers work out the content. The most striking example of how Americans are introducing the idea of ​​primacy in space. And there are those who believe in the American version. Look and the essay will write about it.
    2. Pissarro
      Pissarro 7 November 2015 20: 08
      it is always very strange, on the contrary, to desire love for the Anglo-Saxons. The author, touching upon the expulsion of peasants from the land, followed by hanging for vagrancy, looting India with millions of victims and the gigantic drug trade at the level of the state monopoly imposed by the Anglo-Saxons on China, touched only a small part of the topic. The topic of legalized piracy under the patronage of the head of state personally, the monopoly on the trade of African slaves throughout the entire American continent, the total genocide of Indians and Australians, the legitimized race MA and racial segregation, the establishment of the first concentration camps in South Africa for the Boers, the invitation of thieves and terrorists from around the world with the patronage of theft and terrorism, and much more. Whether you are a Chechen or Syrian terrorist, a fugitive Russian thief-oligarch or just moral, insulting the feelings of entire nations, it’s always well on the island.
      1. traveler
        traveler 7 November 2015 20: 25
        Quote: Pissarro
        it’s always very strange on the contrary to wish love for the Anglo-Saxons

        I didn’t seem to talk about love, but they cause me much more respect than many others.
        I don’t understand the hatred that, for example, readers in the United States and England have. bearded jokes about the strait between canada and mexico, etc. it’s very popular here.
        Well, now let's imagine that there really is a strait, and in place of a British island, waves are splashing. and there is nothing that the British and Americans have given us.
        would you really want to live in such a world? only without bravado, but honestly.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Secta haki
          Secta haki 8 November 2015 02: 31
          To be honest, what did they give?

  10. MAKK75
    MAKK75 7 November 2015 15: 47
    The really correct phrase is that progress occurs during large, protracted wars. Compare yourself the T-26 of the beginning of the Second World War and, for example, T-10, IS-2.
  11. Hitrovan07
    Hitrovan07 7 November 2015 18: 28
    The author delightfully describes "the achievements of the Anglo-Saxon civilization" - while apparently not realizing that he himself is from "another camp". He himself is "second class" like all of us.
  12. Ivan_Anatolich
    Ivan_Anatolich 7 November 2015 20: 03
    Something "true patriots" do not show their activity. Where are the many cons of the article, where are the patriotic comments?
  13. unknown
    unknown 7 November 2015 21: 16
    We do not like Britain.
    And there is a reason.
    Britain has always sought to control Russia.
    From the point of view of astrology, everything is logical: Russia is under the sign of Horses, Britain-Rats.
    Vector Couple: Host Rat, Horse Servant. But the master cannot always subordinate the servant, and the servant does not always want to obey. In general, from love to hate ...

    Britain is a former Empire, Russia is real.
    Britain has created a modern world, Russia will write an instruction manual for it.
    After the year 2025.
  14. moskovitt
    moskovitt 8 November 2015 10: 56
    Again, the oaths / impudence are to blame for all Russian disasters)))) Just like in Ukraine - the oaths are always to blame for everything))))
  15. palm
    palm 13 November 2015 12: 44
    We don't like Britain. More precisely, they do not like it. Britain has never been shy in demonizing sarcasm towards Russia. Russia has always been on the catch-up position. Leskov and his "Lefty" UNDERLINE the reasons.