France and England were going to "fight to the last Russian soldier"


In the first two campaigns, the operations of the Entente armies were not adequately coordinated. The overall strategic plan of the coalition was missing. Coordinated and one-time attacks on the Central Powers failed. Most often, the cooperation was that Russia responded to requests for support, delaying the troops of Germany and Austria-Hungary. In general, the Entente powers fought against the common enemy more or less separately. In contrast to the Entente, the actions of the German bloc were in the nature of deeply thought-out enterprises of a general nature.

The military leaders of the Allied Powers were aware of all the weakness of this disunity. Therefore, they wanted to correct this mistake, to develop a unified strategic plan. The first inter-allied conference was held on June 24 (July 7) 1915. Representatives of the main commands of the Entente countries agreed that assistance should be rendered to the allied army that would be attacked by the armed forces of the Central Powers. However, this principle was not implemented. In the summer and autumn of 1915, the Russian army alone resisted the onslaught of the main Austro-German forces, the Anglo-French troops did not provide it with real support. In the autumn, the Serbian army was defeated, and the Anglo-French command spent more time in disputes than taking steps to rescue an ally.

Chantilly Conference

23-26 November (6-9 December) 1915 was the second inter-allied conference held in Chantilly. This conference has been prepared more carefully. At the beginning of October, the French General Staff informed the Russian Supreme Commander a program for its implementation. The proposals of the French were presented in two documents: "Note for the conference" and "Action Plan proposed by the French coalition." The essence of the proposals of the French command was as follows: 1) to continue the struggle to deplete Germany, leading it with high intensity; 2) this task must be accomplished by those armies that have excessive human resources (England and Italy) or unlimited (Russia); 3) The French army remains in strategic reserve for a future decisive offensive.

Thus, the French, as well as the Germans, offered to fight to deplete enemy resources. The emphasis was on human resources. It was believed that Russia has "unlimited" human resources (the allies were going to "fight to the last Russian soldier"). It was also proposed to use the armies of England and Italy.

Russian Stake in November 1915 sent a draft joint action plan to the Allies. The author of the plan was General Alekseev. The Russian command offered to deliver a powerful triple blow to the Central Powers: the Russian army struck from the South-Western front, the Anglo-French army from the Salonika front, the Italian army from the Isonzo region. The general offensive was developed in the direction of Budapest. Thus, Russia offered to disable the “weak links” of the German bloc - Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria. In addition, on the side of the Entente in this case would have to act Greece and Romania. It was possible to restore the Serbian front. As a result, it was possible to proceed to the gradual encirclement of the German Empire. The Russian command also offered to deliver a concentric blow to Mosul by the forces of the Caucasian army and British troops in order to defeat the Turkish army and reliably provide the Suez Canal and India from sabotage of Ottoman troops.

Thus, the Russian command offered one joint strategic operation to deal with Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, and another operation with the Ottoman Empire. Russian project was very reasonable. Indeed, the allies of Germany were weak, and they could be “knocked out”, and then collapse with all their might on the Second Reich.

At the first meeting of the November 23 conference (December 6), General Zhilinsky, on behalf of Stavka, put forward two proposals: 1) to launch the offensive of the Allied armies simultaneously to ensure consistency of actions; 2) if one of the allied armies is attacked by the enemy, the other armies, even if they are not fully prepared, should immediately go on the offensive in order to prevent its defeat.

However, these proposals were strongly opposed. The French representative, General Joffre, said that the preparation of an offensive in the Western European theater would require a long time, so it was impossible to establish a single start date for the operations of all the allied armies. The Italian representative, General Porro, supported Joffra, saying that the Italian army by the spring of 1916 would not be ready to conduct active offensive actions.

Thus, it became clear that the Western powers want the brunt of the new military campaign to be placed on the Russian army, as in 1915. This was noted by the Russian representative. “It’s probably not important: you can’t rely on Italy as an active factor in a war,” wrote Zhilinsky. “But the main thing is that in Joffre himself I noticed a desire that next spring Russia will be the first to launch an offensive, and I’m afraid that he would not wait then, so that if he was slow, he would not stretch the gap between armies. You can always find a lot of pretexts for a delay. ”

As a result, the Allies could not come to a single point of view. They all pulled the blanket over themselves. General Joffre declared that France had already suffered heavy losses, it lacked manpower, so it should avoid serious losses and conduct only defensive actions, thereby diverting German divisions from other fronts. In his opinion, Russia, Britain and Italy were to wage an active struggle against the German bloc. However, England itself has always sought to fight with someone else’s hands and was not going to intensify the fight against Germany. Italy’s military capabilities were limited. It turned out that the Russian Empire had to pay for everything.

The conference made only general decisions. The need was recognized to begin preparations for the concerted offensive of all the allied armies in the three main theaters: French, Russian and Italian. Before the start of the decisive offensive, it was proposed to intensively carry out the exhaustion of forces by opponents by those powers that still had “excess” human resources. The Allies agreed to provide all-round assistance to the power to be attacked. Balkan theater recognized as secondary. The expeditionary corps in Gallipoli decided to evacuate immediately. Anglo-French troops in Thessaloniki remained.

The Chantilly Conference was a step forward in developing a common strategy. However, a single strategic plan could not be adopted. It was obvious that the Western allies wanted to entrust Russia with the mission of fighting the main forces of the Austro-German army. The plan of the Russian Bet was practically not considered. Britain and France did not want to strengthen Russia's geopolitical and military positions in the Balkans and in the Middle East. In addition, the French and the British considered the French front to be the main one and did not want to weaken it in the interests of other directions.

18 (31) January 1916 Mr. Alekseev wrote to Zhilinsky in a letter: “The conclusion that France, which has 2,2 million fighters, must be passive, and England, Italy and Russia must“ exhaust ”Germany - biased and does not fit with the rude opinion of Joffre that one France is fighting. I think that a calm but impressive remarks, decisive in tone, on all such antics and absurdities are strategically absolutely necessary. But they really need us - in words they can brave, but in fact they will not decide on such behavior. For everything we get, they will take off our last shirt. This is not a service, but a very good deal. But the benefits should be at least slightly reciprocal, not one-sided. ”

Petersburg continued its efforts to achieve coordination of the strategic efforts of the Entente powers. In particular, the Russian Stavka insisted on the implementation of the French proposal to establish a permanent or temporary council to coordinate the plans of the Entente powers. The problem of the Entente was the lack of deeply thought-out enterprises of general importance, all operations of the Allies were in the nature of private strikes, unrelated commonality of design, or the time when some attacked, others were inactive. The idea of ​​creating a single supreme council was correct. However, it could not be implemented. England and Italy categorically refused to participate in such a council.

Second conference

The next conference was planned for February 20 (March 1) 1916 in Chantilly. Prior to its commencement, a memorandum of the French General Staff was sent out. The French offered to launch a general concentric offensive on all fronts no later than 1 in July of 1916. Anglo-French troops, who had strong means to destroy the fortifications of the enemy, were to play a decisive role in this offensive. Therefore, it was proposed to start the advance of the armies of Italy and Russia earlier than the advance of the armies of England and France, in order to cause the transfer of free reserves of Germany to the Eastern Front.

Thus, France offered to strike a joint blow not at the weak, but at the strongest link of the enemy, at Germany. The allies themselves were going to launch an offensive allegedly in early July, while Russia and Italy were offered to launch an offensive earlier by about two weeks in order to draw off enemy reserves. In England and France, the Germans were confident that the Germans would move east again. So let them go deeper and get stuck in the huge Russian empire and with its “unlimited” human resources.

It is clear that the proposals of the French command met with objections from the Russian Headquarters. She rightly believed that the German army, much earlier than the Allies, would go on the offensive and thwart all their plans. You can not give the initiative to the enemy, who is the first to go on the offensive and destroy all the plans of the allies. 9 (22) February 1916 Mr. Alekseev telegraphed to Zhilinsky: “The enemy will not cope with Joffre, whether he finished training or not, he attacks himself as soon as the climatic conditions and the condition of the roads allow it.”

The Russian command believed that the interests of the Eastern Front insistently demanded a transition to the offensive as soon as possible. “We will go on the offensive,” wrote Alekseev to Zhilinsky 9 (22) of February, “as soon as the condition of the roads allows, for only by this way can the disorder be brought into the thoughts of the Germans. With the front in 1200 versts, the poverty of heavy artillery, it’s easy to find vulnerabilities in us - the passive seat should always end unprofitable for us. ”

The opinion of the Russian command was soon confirmed. The Germans were already prepared for the battle of Verdun. 8 (21) February 1916. German troops, after long artillery preparation, launched an offensive. At the same time, the Austro-Hungarian troops attacked the Italians in Trentino. The Allies again found themselves in a difficult situation and began to ask for help from Russia.

February 19 (March 3) the French handed Alekseev a lengthy letter in which they expressed their opinion on the role of Russia in the current situation. The French believed that the Verdun operation was the beginning of Germany’s decisive offensive on the Western Front. Russia was offered to shackle the enemy with his active actions, depriving him of his freedom of maneuver. Joffre asked, "so that the Russian army immediately began preparing the offensive ...".

In addition, France wanted to speed up the performance of Romania on the side of the Entente, which was to divert the forces of the German bloc from the Western Front. In this matter, special hopes were also pinned on Russia. According to the French plan, supported by Bucharest, Russia was to concentrate 250-thousand in Bessarabia. army, which would serve as a guarantee of the security of Romania in its performance against the Central Powers. Then the Russian army was to move to Dobrudja and from there attack the German-Bulgarian troops. In Paris, it was believed that this would reliably provide the southern border of Romania, would allow to direct all the efforts of the Romanian army in the direction of Transylvania and Bucovina (which they dreamed of in Bucharest) and at the same time facilitate the transition to active actions of the Thessaloniki Front.

Russian Stake actively objected. Alekseev considered the French plan an adventure. In a difficult situation, Russia offered to single out 250 thousand soldiers (a noticeable part of the army) and add 1200 to the 600 versts of the front. Alekseev wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Sazonov: “Our allies are persistently pursuing the idea for themselves - and they realize that only success at the main theater, that is, on its French front, gives victory, and therefore there, on 700 kilometers, have about 2 million The French and 40 divisions of the Belgians and the British; they are stingy with all sorts of selections for secondary theaters. We are warmly advised to loosen our Western Front on 6-7 corps — the ways to Petrograd, Moscow and Kiev — and take upon our shoulders a new, complex operation on the Balkans before weakening the Germans and Austrians and before the conviction that the allies will be able to start any serious actions from Thessaloniki, for which there is no hope. ”

It turned out that the Anglo-French allies proposed that the Russian Stavka weaken the main line on the 6-7 cases and send them to a separate, remote and complex theater of operations. In Romania, the problems of supplying the army increased sharply. At the same time, success on the Romanian front could not lead to a radical turn during the war. Russia was deprived of the opportunity to gather at the front against Germany and Austria-Hungary the necessary forces to repel a possible enemy strike on key sectors (Petrograd, Moscow and Kiev) or the decisive offensive of the Russian army in the spring and summer of 1916. Moreover, it was doubtful that the Romanian army could divert significant forces of the Austro-German army and facilitate the future offensive of the South-Western Front of the Russian army.

The French were told that Russia would not be distracted by a secondary theater and disperse forces. At the same time, the Headquarters, going to meet the Allies, decided to help and begin a separate offensive operation in March before the start of a general decisive offensive, which was scheduled for May. The aim of the operation was to divert the Germans from Verdun and thereby alleviate the situation of the French army. 11 (24) February, a meeting was held at GHQ, at which they decided to launch a decisive offensive, gathering large forces at the point of impact. 3 (15) of March Alekseev issued a directive on which the front commanders were to complete preparations for the offensive of 5 (18) of March. The Western Front was to launch the 5 (18) march in March, the Northern - 6 (19) in March 1916.

5 (18) March, the Naroch operation began, but it did not lead to success. Deficiencies in the management of troops, the lack of heavy artillery and ammunition, the thaw that had begun thwarted the offensive. However, the operation had benefits for the Allies. The German command was forced to redeploy more 4 divisions from the Western Front. “... The last Russian offensive,” General Joffre noted, “forced the Germans, who had only minor general reserves, to bring in all these reserves and, in addition, to attract patrol troops and redeploy whole divisions taken from other sectors.” This was a significant help to France. Germany was forced to temporarily suspend their stubborn attacks.

The fighting at Verdun forced the Allies to postpone the conference from February 20 to February 28 (March 12) 1916. The Allies offered: 1) the French army had to defend its territory by any means so that the German offensive would break up into an organized defense; 2) England had to concentrate most of its forces on the French front and for this purpose transfer all divisions to France as soon as possible, except for those that had to be left on the British Isles and other theaters; 3) Russia was offered to exert strong pressure on the enemy in order to prevent him from transferring troops from the Eastern Front to the Western Front, to fetter him, and also to prepare for a decisive offensive; 4) Italy had to demonstratively prepare for an offensive, not allowing the enemy to withdraw troops from its front; prepare a real offensive operation, starting it as the climatic conditions will allow; to be active in the Balkans (in Albania) to keep Austro-Hungarian troops there.

The February 28 military meeting was held as planned. The general offensive was postponed to May 1916. It was decided that the Russian army would begin in late April - the first half of May, and in two weeks - the rest of the Entente armies. Given that the Russian army planned to conduct a separate operation in March to support the allies, Zhilinsky insisted that if it developed into a decisive offensive and caused a large influx of enemy troops, the allies would speed up their entry not to leave the Russians alone, like This happened in 1915. After the controversy, the Allies agreed.

Thus, it was possible to achieve a decision on the start of a general offensive on the main fronts. However, it was not possible to achieve full unity of views. The French, under the pressure of circumstances (the Battle of Verdun) were much kinder. The British did not directly refuse the general offensive in May, but spoke about it with restraint. Italy was even colder and set conditions. In particular, the Italians requested heavy artillery.

14-15 (27-28) March March 1916 was held in Paris, the military-political conference of the Entente powers. The conference confirmed the decisions made at Chantilly. Much attention has been paid to economic issues. In particular, a number of decisions were made on mutual assistance. weapons, food and economic blockade of Germany.

Thus, the winter 1915-1916's. Allies spent on it to agree on a plan for the upcoming campaign. Time spent a lot, but the goal is not fully achieved. The decision was too general. France and Britain continued to pursue the narrow goals of creating a more favorable situation on the Western Front, to the detriment of their common and personal gain. They wanted to put the burden of war on Russia, hoping for its “unlimited” human resources and huge spaces where the Germans would be stuck. As a result, Germany retained a strategic initiative and was the first to deal a decisive blow to France. The Allies again asked Russia for help.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    18 January 2016 07: 13
    It turned out that the Russian Empire was supposed to pay for everything

    So in the end it happened: having entered into an alliance with France and then with England in the Entente bloc, all but Russia were beneficiaries of this war in Entente + USA. The fact that Alexander III in principle did not allow a close rapprochement with the French, Nicholas II underestimated and entered the war in alliance with the countries that ultimately defeated our country at that time, using only control over the Dardanelles as a marking. Now the question is: how to ensure that such mistakes of our leadership are no longer repeated?
    1. +3
      18 January 2016 07: 50
      Quote: venaya
      Nicholas II misunderstood

      Could this idiot have realized something? For 11 years to do nothing. But okay, let's put the inside kitchen, he didn’t eat and the foreign parmesans served him current ... But who put the sticks in the wheels and who helped it was easy to track (Where and who refueled the 2nd Pacific Squadron).
      And in the end the betrayal for which in any country in wartime they put up against the wall. No, what is it, the height of the war, and he "I'm tired, I'm leaving." He agreed with Wilhelm and Bismarck (they would only be glad to have peace with the Russian Empire), removed some of the troops from the front and arranged bloodletting for the revolutionaries as Nicholas I did in his time.
      If it is smart, then explain in what place?

      Quote: venaya
      Now the question is: how to ensure that such mistakes of our leadership are no longer repeated?

      Complicated. Rake, alas, always. At least in World War II and WWII, we were for ourselves.
      1. +4
        18 January 2016 09: 08
        Quote: ShadowCat
        Agreed with Wilhelm and Bismarck (they would only be glad to be at peace with the Russian Empire), withdrew part of the troops from the front

        Bismarck DIED: July 30 1898 g., Friedrichsru, Germany.
        1. +2
          18 January 2016 10: 44
          Sorry to ask. However, he, as a state official, would only be glad to such a turn.
    2. +3
      18 January 2016 09: 16
      Quote: venaya
      Now the question is: how to ensure that such mistakes of our leadership are no longer repeated?

      Nehru never, under any circumstances, to help the arrogant Saxons: England, the Americans ...
      1. 0
        18 January 2016 21: 35
        Quote: sherp2015
        Nehru never, under any circumstances, to help the arrogant Saxons: England, the Americans ...

        Do not accept Lend-Lease and other handouts of the imperialist offspring ...
  2. +5
    18 January 2016 07: 48
    Thanks to the author for articles about the Great War in Europe, the role of Russia is underestimated, if not slandered by previous rulers, creating a negative perception of that war in the minds of many generations. It even comes to the point that Russia opposed only a small number of German and Austrian divisions (and this with 9 million soldiers and officers in the Russian army), and its role is insignificant in this war, the main contribution was made by the allies - this nonsense should certainly be eliminated.
  3. +3
    18 January 2016 07: 52
    However, these proposals met with strong opposition.... Not really, and I wanted to .. allies .. Plans, they had completely different plans ... What actually. then it was confirmed in February 1917 and in subsequent years, civil war and intervention ... allies ..
  4. -1
    18 January 2016 08: 55
    How many Russian lives were laid for other people's interests. The main thing in Russia today is not even natural resources, but people. If the state invests in the "quality" of people, there will be Russia.
    1. +3
      18 January 2016 09: 19
      Quote: vladimirvn
      If the state invests in the "quality" of people, there will be Russia as well.

      how it invests in people we already see.

      the industry urgently needs to be restored and developed, otherwise we have gone through Mamai
  5. -8
    18 January 2016 09: 29
    As a result, the Allies could not come to a common point of view. Everyone pulled the blanket over themselves

    The key phrase of the article is everyone wanted benefits for themselves and this is natural. The main thing was that the Allies TOGETHER beat the enemy and his defeat therefore- was inevitable. In 2MB events developed much more tragically.
    In 1940, the situation was repeated almost one-on-one, like 1MB. But this time Russia did not intervene in the defeat of France and, naturally, received a year later tremendous punch almost the entire army (about 90% of the composition) of Germany and almost the entire captured Europe, which repeatedly strengthened Germany with resources and people. In the 1MB, from the 40 to 50% of the armies of the central powers fought on the front against Russia, and this is the outstanding success of Russian diplomacy and the Emperor himself. The results of the alternative policies during the 2MB years were horrific, half a country in ruins, 26,6 million killed.
    In 1917, the war did not reach indigenous Russia and Little Russia at all, and the losses were the LEAST of all the participating countries. Russian losses in WWI were 5-9% from global losses of the parties, in 2MB-52%(!) From the world (without China).
    So the policy of the leadership of the Russian Empire in the war was generally competent, balanced and reasonableby preventing what happened in 2MB.
    1. +2
      18 January 2016 10: 59
      What is she literate about ???? Why did Russia even fight against Germany ?? After all, Germany proposed an alliance of Russia against England, the "wise politician" first signed a secret treaty with Wilhelm, and then refused to sign ... He chickened out ... and what were we going to fight with Germany? That's all the wisdom of This, forgive the Lord the King.
      1. 0
        18 January 2016 21: 08
        Quote: VladimirRG
        Why Russia generally fought against Germany ??

        Not Russia fought against Germany, but Germany vs. Russia. Schlieffen’s plan - to help, at the same time take an interest in Germany’s plans for Russia -they were the same as in WWII,
        1. -1
          20 January 2016 08: 31
          Schlieffen’s plan, well, yes, yes, but it’s just a military plan, a completely normal reaction of the state to basically the same plans of the Entente. and not a guide to strategic action, but the Bierks Treaty is a reality ... which Nikolai the second profiled. If Russia were to implement this agreement there would be no Schlieffen plan.
    2. +1
      18 January 2016 11: 35
      Quote: Aleksander
      But this time, Russia did not intervene in the defeat of France and, of course, received a blow of enormous strength in a year

      Nda? Read the story. With the partition of Czechoslovakia, which actually gave the Nazis an increase of 75% of GDP (Silesia produced almost all weapons in Europe), I.V. Stalin suggests Czechoslovakia to agree that our military contingent defend the country and break the latter under aggression from Germany. Poland said - Russians are not allowed.
      It’s the same with Poland - again, the pans began to get married sensing the support of the British and French, as a result I.V. Stalin spat and concluded an agreement with Germany with the aim of postponing hostilities until 1942-1943, just in time for the rearmament of the Red Army.

      You can say about the winter war, they say there was no new equipment there, but new equipment was tested there, for example, the KV-1 tank.

      Yes, by the way, another moment - Has anyone from the Entente proposed an alliance against Germany until 1942?
    3. +1
      18 January 2016 11: 49
      Quote: Aleksander
      the outstanding success of Russian diplomacy and personally of the Emperor

      What is this ?! O_o Tell us about this miracle!

      Quote: Aleksander
      The results of the alternative policies in the years of WWII were horrific, half the country in ruins, 2 million killed.

      * facespalm * Firstly, the strategies of the war and its canons have changed. If the Germans did not cut out settlements in WWII and treated prisoners of war relatively normally, then there were already different principles in WWII.
      And about half the country ... There, with the king-rag, the whole country was in such a hole, and then plunged into an even larger one, so it should be said that as a result of the WWII, more than 80% of the densely populated territories of the Russian Empire were destroyed.
      Yes, yes - I enter here and the Civil War which was caused by the crisis caused just by the WWII. Already on the eve of her there were too acute problems that to enter it was that in the basin of the Black Sea to cross. It may turn out, but the probability of a positive outcome is too low.
      1. -2
        18 January 2016 21: 18
        Quote: ShadowCat
        ... There, under the king-rag, the whole country was in such a hole, and after that it plunged into an even larger one, so it should be said that as a result of the WWII, more than 80% of the densely populated territories of the Russian Empire were destroyed

        what a real "hole" is, as you put it, the country learned after the thief.
        1. 0
          19 January 2016 03: 44
          They jumped beautifully, but we are talking about a different historical period.
      2. -1
        18 January 2016 21: 31
        Quote: ShadowCat
        the outstanding success of Russian diplomacy and of the Emperor personally. What is this ?! O_o Tell us about this miracle!

        Again : "In WW1, at the front against Russia, only 40 to 50% of the armies of the central powers ". In the second, up to 90% of the Nazi armies are against Russia. Therefore, the policy of Russia in the person of the Emperor is an outstanding success, which ensured fewer enemies.
        Again: Russia's losses in WWI were 5-9% of global losses of the parties in 2MB-52% (!) Of the world losses (without China). Among allies and opponentsLOWEST losses in Russia :
        - for every thousand men aged 15-49 years, Russia has lost 45 people Germany - 125, Austria - 90, France - 133, England - 62;
        And this, too, is the success of Russia.
        1. -1
          19 January 2016 03: 15
          Quote: Aleksander
          In WW1, only 40 to 50% of the armies of the central powers fought on the front against Russia. ”In the second, up to 90% of the Nazi armies fought against Russia.

          ONCE AGAIN: What is the merit of the rag-king? So in small print - Russian-Frankish soy was established in 1891, under Alexander the 3rd. But in 1904/1907 England fit in there. By the way, do you want to remind whose ears stuck out because of the throne of the rising sun?

          The success of imperial politics, you say? Let's look at what happened and wai took such relationships these 40-50% of the powers you declared in WWI. First, take a look at the map and tell me who was there? I’ll call it straight away — Portugal, Spain, France, England, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire. About the rest of the little thing you can not remember. No weather from them.
          What did we have at WWII? Portugal, Spain, France, England, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, again a trifle, Turkey and the USSR.
          And now, having layouts, let's go into details:
          In 1914, France could still represent something of itself in the political and military-moral sense. Lead your policy. But since 1937 she’s been in the elbow-elbow (Yes, de Gaulle tried to make France Great again, but alas, the people did not want to). Merging pacifying Hitler (Peace Policy) his Ruhr pool for example.
          And about the military operations of France-England, which had the most modern and strongest army in 1940 against the Reich, it is simply ridiculous to say. But the attitude towards prisoners of war and the population in the Western European territories of the Reich should be noted separately.
          Regarding the current policy of the USSR - remembering Spain, the Republicans did not fight like spiders in a bank of lyuli could give out to nationalists (I recall the USSR supported the Republic). I have already spoken about Czechoslovakia and Poland and the position of the USSR. Yes, tell me whose ears there stuck at these two points?
          The result of the policy of the Entente’s remnants was the conclusion of a non-aggression treaty between the USSR and Germany in 1939 and the partition of Poland (we move the border from the central regions of the country) and the Winter War (we move the border from Leningrad).
          But this is a foreign policy in which the USSR was very isolated and had no weight like RI.

          Now it’s internal - We don’t have to talk about who produced most of the military products in the Republic of Ingushetia and what prices they set at the beginning of hostilities, too. How many vehicles were there (yes, there were already cars in the WWI), oil (machines were not lubricated with coconut oil), and the development of chemistry. Education was mostly elitist.
          At the same time, the USSR bought whole plants from America and created educational potential. Subsequently, created their own cars, created their own tank school, the best and unique tanks in the world (at that time) - T-34, KV. Aircraft are also recognized as one of the best in the war (even the British flew on the Yaks). Created by the State Reserve. And how many railways and steam train built ....
          In my opinion, this speaks of the excellent internal policy of the USSR over RI
        2. -1
          19 January 2016 03: 35
          Quote: Aleksander
          Russia's losses in WWI were 5–9% of the global losses of the parties

          How beautifully you replaced concepts using interest. But let's see the table.
          Russian Empire - Mob. 15 - 378 were killed - 000 were wounded - 1 prisoners - peaceful losses 670
          France - 6 800 000 - 1 293 464 - 2 800 000 - 506 000 - 160 000.
          so for fun: Romania - 1 - 234 - 000 - 219 - 800 (That's right about the Russian imperial generals talking about Romania. It’s necessary to kill a quarter, injure a quarter, capture a quarter)
          those. ~ 400 thousand current killed on the side of the Republic of Ingushetia was more relative to the largest European power, which displayed a smaller number of soldiers due to the shorter front and greater concentration of allied forces.

          WWII in which the Germans acted on the officially signed Ost plan, rather than tea conversations. At least I didn’t see this at WWI (If you bring the document, I’ll be happy to read it. I skimmed the Ost plan superficially in Russian, English, and even with my lousiest knowledge of German, German).
          Human losses of the USSR - 6,9 million military personnel killed and died from wounds, 555 thousand died from illnesses who died as a result of incidents condemned to be shot (according to reports of troops, medical institutions, military tribunals) and 4,5 million who fell into captured and missing
          The casualties of Nazi Germany - 6,5 million soldiers who died, died from wounds, disappeared (including 442,1 thousand dead in captivity), another 910,4 thousand people returned from captivity after the war (excluding prisoners of war from Soviet citizens who served in the Wehrmacht)
          The human losses of Nazi Germany's allies are 945 thousand soldiers killed (including 137,8 thousand killed in captivity), another 662,2 thousand people returned from captivity after the war.
          those. correlating these data, it can be said that again the USSR, even despite the first, most difficult two years of the war against the best army of united Europe, kept up pretty well.
          And yes, I hope we are talking about military personnel, not the general civilian population?
          1. +1
            19 January 2016 10: 02
            Quote: ShadowCat
            How beautifully you replaced concepts using interest. But let's see the table.

            What concepts have I replaced? belay Interest is very clear and you are not able to challenge them. Russia in WWII suffered the LEAST casualties in WWII from the Entente, while WWII was the BIGGEST, and many times over.
            The figure in 1 670 000 of the dead Russian soldiers -long disproved- it was calculated purely theoretically based on the fact that the losses of Russia were the same as the Entente in the West, i.e. 1,5 more than the Germans. But the Russians fought more successful than France and England. Even the Soviet TsSU of the USSR gave the figure 855 thousand of dead soldiers, and the General Staff of the Russian Army-755 thousand
            More interesting figures: for every thousand mobilized from Russia, there were killed and dead 115, while Germany - 154, Austria - 122, France - 168, England - 125. Those. losses among those who went to war in France and Germany are one and a half times higher than in Russia. And what are you arguing with?
            1. -1
              19 January 2016 11: 41
              What are you reading holy hedgehogs ?! or do you have a different number system ?!

              Quote: Aleksander
              Interest is very clear and you are not able to challenge them.

              I dispute the numbers.

              Данные предоставленные Википедией (




              Looking at the above table, it can be noted with an unarmed glance that more than the Russian Empire suffered losses only the German Empire fighting on two fronts, Austria-Hungary and the fourth France took the third place in terms of losses.
              By the way, how did you get your 5%?

              Quote: Aleksander
              But the Russians fought more successfully than France and England.
              But for some reason they lost. Explain to me how you can fight successfully and lose?

              Quote: Aleksander
              The figure of 1 dead Russian soldiers has long been refuted

              And I refute the rotation of the earth in a clockwise direction. I’ll ask you for links to facts and documents in the studio, otherwise I will continue to operate on what is.
    4. -1
      18 January 2016 20: 54
      And you studied the German plan of war on the eastern front, which was initially secondary, in the 14th year? So there was a goal to occupy the border areas and restrain the Russian army, the Germans did not plan to move deeper into Russia due to the poor infrastructure of the Russian territory, so they did not need Petrograd. The best parts of Germany attacked Paris. As a result, the Germans seized the territory even more than originally planned.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        18 January 2016 22: 07
        Quote: Rastas
        And you studied the German plan of war on the eastern front, which was initially secondary, in the 14 year?

        Schlieffen Plan -
        After a quick victory over France, Germany intended to concentrate her forces on the Eastern Front. The plan was to leave 9% of the army in France, and send the remaining 91% against the Russian Empire. Kaiser Wilhelm II put it this way:

        We will have lunch in Paris, and dinner in St. Petersburg.

        "Drang nach Osten".
        "The German population is slowly outgrowing the productive capacity of the land at the disposal of Germany." Therefore, the memorandum concludes, "the expansion of the borders of German territory is certainly necessary to ensure the future of the German people. The land to be acquired should serve to expand the agricultural basis of our economy, as well as for colonization; in its quantity, it should satisfy the needs of colonization not only of today , but to be sufficient for a long series of generations ... To obtain such land, first of all, it rises question about the east... The Polish border regions, the Russian-Lithuanian provinces, the Baltic provinces, both in terms of their weak population and the agrarian character of the country and the ability of the soil to cultivate, are a colonization area with a rich future. "

        The Pan-German Union memorandum does not exclude annexations in the West, but gives them a secondary role. In the meaning of the memorandum, the seizure of territories in the west should serve only to ensure the rear, to strengthen one of Germany’s threatened flanks with unhindered advancement on the other flank, that is, in the east.
        1. -1
          18 January 2016 22: 34
          And here are propaganda slogans and speeches and real plans for war? The Germans did not have a plan to seize Petrograd, and the point. Read military experts better.
          1. 0
            19 January 2016 09: 15
            Quote: Rastas
            And here are propaganda slogans and speeches and real plans for war? The Germans did not have a plan to seize Petrograd, and the point. Read military experts better.

            Schlieffen's plan is basis of real action German army, not a slogan.
            Annexation Plans in the East (1914) -realized reality (see Brest Peace 1918).
            The German historian Sebastian Haffner about the realized plans of Gemania in Russia: “It was that Eastern Empire, the creation of which was sought later Hitlerand she was once within reach of the Germans". Racist selection of the population in the occupied territories by orders of Ludendorffrealized reality.
            PS. Yes, and what does Petrograd have to do with it ?!
    5. 0
      18 January 2016 21: 49
      Quote: Aleksander
      So the policy of the leadership of the Russian Empire in the war was generally competent, balanced and reasonable, preventing what happened in WW2.

      What kind of wind blows these "clever thoughts" into your head? In WW I, the imperialist powers England / France / USA made their "gesheft" by playing off the Russian Empire and the Second Reich. During the Second World War, the imperialist powers England / USA made their gesheft at the expense of inciting Europe under the leadership of the Third Reich against the USSR. In WW2, something happened that in no way could have been accomplished thirty-five years earlier, namely: the USSR (Russia) broke the backbone of Nazi Germany and militarist Japan. which I have no doubt in. By the way, what is your attitude to alcohol?
      1. -1
        18 January 2016 22: 29
        Quote: V.ic
        In the First World War II, the imperialist powers England / France / USA made their "deals" at the expense of bleeding Russian Empire and the Second Reich. In World War II, the imperialist powers of England / USA made their gesheft at the expense of inciting Europe under the leadership of the Third Reich against the USSR. In 2MB, just what happened could in no way be accomplished thirty-five years earlier, namely: the USSR (Russia) broke (a) ridge fascist Germany and militaristic Japan

        Terms like "pitting", inciting "," broke the spine ", chopped off the tail" - leave it for the political information of the 70s and 80s and the state exam on scientific communism, where, alas, you are stuck forever, old man. request
        In fact, apart from dull sovagitki, you can’t say anything.

        Quote: V.ic
        By the way, what is your attitude to alcohol?

        A bottle on the head of pompous boorish ignoramuses-senile-would be nice, but- "not our method" ...
  6. 0
    18 January 2016 10: 40
    Nikolai did not listen to his predecessor, but he said that "Russia has only two allies: the army and the navy." It is clear that you will not fight alone, but you will rely on your allies and, at their every request, start an unprepared offensive ... The phrase about endless human resources warped am Would send these "exceptional" to Osovets am
  7. +2
    18 January 2016 12: 14
    It is a pity that the Russian Empire made an alliance with the Anglo-Saxons. All the same, a lot connected us with Germany. Economic, political and even family ties were very strong. If Nicholas II entered into an alliance with Germany, then there would be no first or second world wars. One mistake (and somewhere the betrayal of top officials and advisers) cost enormous human sacrifices. The Anglo-Saxons have always considered us second-class people. Didn't Nicholas II really know that ?! And about the revolution and the civil war. These events would not have happened if the Emperor had not abdicated the throne. His weakness cost the Russian people dearly. Had he refused to abdicate the throne, he might have been killed, but in the eyes of the people he would have become a martyr. The army would take power into its own hands, executing the rioters .... But these thoughts of mine from the category of "IF" ... History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. We must remember the lessons of history and not make mistakes in the future.
  8. 0
    18 January 2016 13: 38
    Yes, an interesting article. It was even more interesting to look at the parallels. In World War II, the same allies, always not ready for army battles. At the expense of Russian (Soviet) soldiers to drag the whole war on themselves. Watch from afar whether Russia will fall or not and join the winners almost at the end. There you have two world wars. In other wars, Russia, if not an ally, is an adversary of England and France. You don’t even have to think about the topic of what all this is being and is being done. But for now, at the cost of inhuman efforts, we are holding on.
  9. +1
    18 January 2016 14: 35
    Quote: Obolensky
    In World War II, the same allies, always not ready for army battles. At the expense of Russian (Soviet) soldiers to drag the whole war on themselves. Watch from afar whether Russia will fall or not and join the winners almost at the end.

    So the same strategy was used, for example, by Britain for about 500 years ... It’s called in general terms Pitt’s strategy ... First, taking advantage of European contradictions, using Europe to bribe some continental states of Europe against others and then, in the final, join the winning side ... A win-win strategy ... France strengthened - as many as 7 coalitions were organized against it, Germany intensified - two world wars, Russia intensified - revolution, intervention, sanctions, blockades, cold wars ... The tools are very wide ...

    Joseph Vissarionovich at one time correctly pointed out the "Achilles heel" of the West - these are their colonies ... In the 40s-60s, the USSR helped half of the world to throw off the yoke of colonialism ... And as a result, the collapse of the British, Dutch, French, Belgian and other colonial empires ...
  10. 0
    18 January 2016 14: 37
    The Second World War - all these fucking allies, their asshole, started their stinking operation when the Red Army had already consumed the Nazis, and now it’s the same crap - in Syria, they’re yelling that they defeated ISIS. The most heinous nation is the Mericosa Glicens. And the paddlers generally do not understand how they got into the winners in the Second World War. For almost 5 years, the Nazis ass licked - and you winners dug burrs. Creatures, to demolish them from the face of the Earth and there will be no problems ....
    1. 0
      18 January 2016 21: 54
      Quote: Prop
      to take them off the face of the earth and there will be no problems ....

      Well, yes, Reims Cathedral, Notre Dame de Paris, the Louvre ... What problems, what bazaar?
  11. +3
    18 January 2016 15: 52
    By the way, Emperor Wilhelm himself drove himself in the ass, deciding that with Russia Germany was not on the way to breaking the alliance of the three emperors and pushed Russia into a French embrace. A trade war with Russia led Russia to increase French investment in the Russian economy and, consequently, increase French influence on Russia. The Russia-France Treaty of 1882. Entente.
  12. 0
    18 January 2016 17: 23
    Russia had great reasons for waging war with Germany.
    If the Germans defeated France, Russia would be left alone against Germany.
    1. 0
      18 January 2016 20: 56
      And after the defeat of Germany would have remained face to face with France and Great Britain. Radish horseradish is not sweeter.
  13. +1
    18 January 2016 19: 29
    Quote: Mixweb
    It is a pity that the Russian Empire entered into an alliance with the Anglo-Saxons. All the same, a lot of things connected us with Germany. Economic, political, and even family ties were very strong.

    Nikolai, was a cousin to both William and George, so ...)))
    Economic and political ties were strong with France.
  14. +1
    19 January 2016 07: 55
    Quote: V.ic
    Quote: sherp2015
    Nehru never, under any circumstances, to help the arrogant Saxons: England, the Americans ...

    Do not accept Lend-Lease and other handouts of the imperialist offspring ...

    Well, of course. A couple more million casualties are better than a land lease. So what?
  15. 0
    19 January 2016 14: 20
    Quote: infantryman2020
    Well, of course. A couple more million casualties are better than a land lease. So what?

    Lend-lease can hardly be called help - it is rather a profitable use of the situation ... Just as during the war, the USSR already bought modern technologies, materials and equipment abroad in the 20s and 30s ... And for this they all paid in gold, bread ... For example, many valuables from the Hermitage were sold abroad .. . It was a fee for the restoration of the country and industrialization ... And during the war they paid for everything with gold ... NOBODY SIMPLY THERE SO THE USSR gave! The alliance for this help was then calculated until the mid-60s ... The Union, being in an extremely difficult situation in the 41st 42nd years, agreed to the Great Britain agreements and thereby recognized the international priority of the dollar system !!! By the end of the 2nd World, the USA made an industrial breakthrough - they left the Great Depression, became the first nuclear power and possessed 75% of the world's gold reserves !!! And the USSR lay all in ruins and debts !!!
    Here is such help - to whom the war is and to whom the mother is native !!!