Military Review

Russian stolen victory

287
Russian stolen victory



The ideas of revanchism are very fashionable now. They say that everything in Tsarist Russia was excellent - there was no famine, there was a high birth rate and an increase in production, etc. And if you add that in Russia in 1917, a bunch of villains stole the victory, then you can earn big political dividends.

Why doesn’t elementary logic occur to anyone? In 1904–1905, Russian generals and officers miserably lost the war to the Japanese, in 1914–1917 they retreated monthly and lost the war to the Germans, in 1918–1920 they completely lost the war to their own people, despite the thousands of guns, tanks and Entente airplanes. Finally, once in exile, tens of thousands of officers climbed the world in ever-greater fights - in Finland, Albania, Spain, South America, China, etc. Yes, thousands of them showed courage and were awarded. But who was given command not just a division, but at least a regiment? Or were the Bolshevik villains interfering there too?

But in stories Western Europe, almost a quarter of the famous commanders were immigrants. And in Russia, about half of field marshals were emigrants, we recall at least Minikh, Barclay de Tolly and others.

NO WEAPONS, NO BREAD, BUT ON GOLD TRADE

What was the morale of the soldiers? They just had nothing to fight for! The king and even more so the queen are ethnic Germans. For 20 in recent years, they have spent a total of at least two years in Germany with relatives. The brother of the Empress, General Ernst of Hesse, is one of the leaders of the German General Staff.

Russian people are responsive to the pain of others, and the propaganda of helping the Slav brothers in the first weeks of the war was a success. But in October 1915, Bulgaria declared war on Russia, more precisely, the Rasputin clique.

The Russian soldiers understood perfectly well that Wilhelm II did not intend to seize Ryazan and Vologda, and the fate of suburbs such as Finland or Poland cared little for workers and peasants. But what about the peasants, if the king himself and his ministers did not know what to do with Poland and Galicia, even if the war ended successfully.

German airplanes threw flyers with caricatures onto Russian trenches — the Kaiser measures an enormous 800-kilogram projectile with a centimeter, while Nicholas II measures a member of Rasputin in the same posture. The whole army knew about the adventures of the "old man." And if the Germans used 42-centimeter mortars only on the most important sectors of the front, then almost all of our soldiers saw the craters from the 21-centimeter.

The wounded, who returned to the ranks, the Zemgusars and nurses told the soldiers how the gentlemen walked to the fullest in restaurants in Moscow and Petrograd.

In all the books of the heads of the State Agrarian University Manikovsky and Barsukov, the famous gunsmith Fedorov, it was recognized that at the cost of high-explosive shells and shrapnel of the same caliber, produced by private and public factories, differed one and a half or two times.

The average profit of private industrial enterprises in 1915 year increased by 1913% in comparison with 88 year, and in 1916 year - by 197%, that is, almost three times.

However, industrial production, including defense plants, began to fall in 1916. For the first 7 months of 1916, the carriage of goods by rail amounted to 48,1% of the required.

In 1915 – 1916 years, the issue of food has sharply escalated. Before 1914, Russia was the second largest grain exporter after the USA, and Germany was the world's main importer of food. But until November 1918, the German “Michel” regularly fed the army and the country, often giving up 90% of the agricultural output. A Russian man did not want. Already in 1915, due to the inflation of the ruble and the narrowing of the flow of goods from the city, the peasants began to hide the grain “until better times.” Indeed, what’s the point of giving grain at strictly fixed prices for “wooden” rubles (during the First World War, the ruble lost its gold content), for which there was practically nothing to buy? Meanwhile, if the grain is skillfully stored, its economic value is preserved for 6 years, and technological - 10 – 20 and more years, that is, for 6 years most of the sown grain will germinate, and it can be eaten in 20 years .

Finally, the grain can be put on moonshine or feed for livestock and poultry. On the other hand, without bread, neither the army, nor industry, nor the population of large cities can exist. As a result of how local historians point out that “about a billion poods of grain stocks could not be transferred to consumption areas,” Rittih’s Minister of Agriculture, 1916, “decided to take an extreme measure in the autumn of the year: he announced a forced bread distribution.” However, by 1917, only 4 million poods were practically developed. For comparison, the Bolsheviks under the surplus were collected in the year 160 – 180 million pounds.

Mikhail Pokrovsky in the collection of articles “The Imperialist War”, published in 1934, cited the following data: “In the winter season, Moscow needs 475 thousand pounds of firewood, 100 thousand pounds of coal, 100 thousand pounds of oil residues and 15 thousand pounds of oil every day peat Meanwhile, in January, before the start of frosts, the average 430 thousand tons of firewood, 60 thousand tons of coal and 75 thousand tons of oil were brought to Moscow every day, so the amount of 220 thousand tons of oil was less than the amount of firewood; From January 17, the arrival of firewood in Moscow fell to 300 – 400 wagons per day, that is, to half the norm set by the district committee, while oil and hard coal did not arrive at all. The fuel reserves for winter in the factories and plants in Moscow were procured for about a month's 2-month requirement, but as a result of the short supply that began in November, these reserves were reduced to nothing. Due to the lack of fuel, many enterprises, even those working for defense, have already stopped or will soon stop. The houses with central heating have fuel in the amount of just 50%, and the wood storages are empty ... the gas lighting of the streets has completely stopped. "

But what is indicated in the multi-volume “History of the Civil War in the USSR”, published in 1930-ies: “Two years after the start of the war, coal mining in the Donbass was difficult to maintain at the pre-war level, despite the increase in workers from 168 thousand in 1913 to 235 thousand in 1916 year. Before the war, the monthly production per worker in the Donbass was 12,2 tons, in 1915 / 16, 11,3, and in winter, 1916, 9,26, in tons. ”

Since the beginning of the war, Russian military agents (as they used to be called military attaches), generals and admirals rushed to buy around the world weapon. Of the purchased equipment, about 70% of artillery systems were outdated and were good only for museums, but only England and Japan Russia paid 505,3 tons of gold for this trash, that is, about 646 million rubles. In total, gold was exported to 1051 million gold rubles. After the February Revolution, the Provisional Government also contributed to the export of gold: literally on the eve of the October Revolution, it sent a shipment of gold to Sweden to buy weapons worth 4,85 million gold rubles, that is, about 3,8 tons of metal.

DISPUTE ABOUT WINNERS

Could Russia have won the war in such a state? Let's fantasize and remove the freemasons, liberals and bolsheviks from the political scene. So what would happen to Russia in 1917 – 1918? Instead of a Masonic coup in 1917 or 1918, there would have been a terrible Russian revolt (which we will talk about later).

Oh, this is the author's assumptions! So let's look at the data on the armament of Russia, Germany and France at the end of 1917-th - the beginning of 1918 year:

- the divisional guns of the French were 10 thousand, the Germans had 15 thousand, and Russia had a total of 7265 units;

- shells of large and special power corps, respectively - 7,5 thousand, 10 thousand and 2560 units;

- tanks - 4 thousand from France, around 100 from Germany and none from Russia;

- trucks - about 80 thousand from the French, 55 thousand - from the Germans, 7 thousand - from the Russians;

- combat aircraft - 7 thousand from France, 14 thousand from Germany and just a thousand from Russia.

Considerable importance in the 1914 – 1918 positional warfare was played by heavy artillery. Here is a brief introduction on the presence of Russian heavy artillery on the front of 15 June 1917.

Long-Range Cannons: Cane 152-mm Systems - 31, Schneider 152-mm Systems - 24 X-VUMkers 120-mm Systems, 67. Attack Attacks 203-mm howitzers of the Vickers system - 24, 280-mm mortars of the Schneider system - 16, 305-mm howitzers mod. 1915, Obukhovsky Plant - 12. The Russian army possessed two 254-mm rail installations, but they were out of order, and after 1917, the guns on both transporters were replaced with 203-mm ship guns.

Now compare these data with the artillery of the French large artillery and special power of the main artillery reserve: 10 regiments 155-mm cannons C. main artillery reserve of three divisions of three batteries and one platoon of vehicles (total 360 guns) and 5 regiments 105-mm guns the main artillery reserve of three battalions of three batteries and one automotive ammunition platoon (180 guns).

Heavy tractor artillery was in a period of reorganization (the shelves from the 6 two-battery divisions were reduced to the shelves from the 4 three-battery divisions). This artillery included: 10 cannon regiments (480 guns), 10 howitzer regiments (480 guns), and 10 mouth tracked tractors. Each regiment had two platoons of ammunition transport.

The structure of heavy artillery of high power included 8 regiments of different composition:

- one working regiment and a park for the construction of a normal gauge railway (CVN) of 34 batteries;

- One regiment of 240-mm guns (75 guns);

- one regiment of mortars and howitzers (88 guns);

- One regiment of heavy railway artillery with circular shelling guns (42 guns);

- Four regiments of heavy railway artillery with guns firing from arc branches (506 guns).

In total, 711 guns were part of heavy artillery.

The naval artillery (ship and coastal installations occupied on the land front. - A.Sh.) consisted of four divisions of mobile 16-cm guns for 4 two-gun batteries in each, two separate batteries and one division for river monitors (1 – 24-cm and 2 - 19-cm guns). Total 39 guns.

By February 1917, the front line ran from Riga along the Northern Dvina to Dvinsk (now Daugavpils), then 80 km west of Minsk and then to Kamenetz Podolsky. The rhetorical question: how could the Russian army in this state of artillery, aviation and vehicles reach Berlin? Recall that in 1944–1945 the Red Army, having superiority two, three or more times over the Germans in personnel, artillery, tanks, aircraft, having thousands of M-13, M-30 multiple-launch rocket launchers, etc., lost several million dead before reaching Berlin.

KICKBACK BUT BUT NOT


Having left the Crimea, the Russian fleet for many years was locked up in Bizerte. 1921 Photo of the Year

It is curious that the overwhelming majority of the German population believed in the theory of “stolen victory” and “stab in the back of the army” in 1920 – 1930's. I note that the Germans just had grounds for such theories. Judge for yourself.

In the summer of 1918, American units arrive on the Western Front, and the Allies are launching an offensive. In September, the Entente troops in the Western European theater had 211 infantry and 10 cavalry divisions against 190 German infantry divisions. By the end of August, the number of US troops in France was about 1,5 million people, and by the beginning of November it exceeded 2 million people.

At the cost of enormous losses, the Allied forces in three months were able to advance on a front about 275 km wide to a depth from 50 to 80 km. By 1 November 1918, the front line began on the North Sea coast, a few kilometers west of Antwerp, then went through Mons, Sedan and further to the Swiss border, that is, the war until the last day was exclusively in the Belgian and French territories.

During the Allied offensive in July – November 1918, the Germans lost thousands of people killed, wounded and captured, the French 785,7 thousand people, the British 531 thousand people, and the Americans lost 414 thousand people. Thus, the losses of the Allies exceeded the losses of the Germans in 148 times. So in order to reach Berlin, the Allies would lose all their land forces, including the Americans.

In 1915 – 1916, the Germans did not have tanks, but then the German command prepared a big tank pogrom at the end of 1918 and the beginning of 1919. In 1918, the German industry manufactured 800 tanks, but most of them did not reach the front. Anti-tank guns and large-caliber machine guns began to enter the army, and they easily penetrated the armor of British and French tanks. Mass production of 37-mm anti-tank guns was launched.

During the First World War, not a single German dreadnought died (the newest type battleship). In November, 1918 of the year was inferior to England in England by 1,7 by the number of dreadnoughts and battle cruisers, but German battleships were superior to allied artillery, fire control systems, ships unsinkable, etc. All this is well demonstrated in the famous Yutland battle of 31 May - 1 June 1916 of the year. Let me remind you that the fight had a draw, but the losses of the British were significantly superior to the Germans.

In 1917, the Germans built 87 submarines, and excluded from the lists (due to losses, for technical reasons, due to navigation accidents, etc.) 72 submarines. In 1918, 86 boats were built, and excluded from 81 listings. The 141 boat was in service. At the time of the signing of the surrender was built 64 boats.

Why did the German command ask the allies for a truce, and in fact agreed to surrender? Germany ruined a stab in the back. The essence of the incident was expressed by Vladimir Mayakovsky in one phrase: “... and if I knew then Hohenzollern that this was a bomb in their empire”. Yes, indeed, the German government transferred quite large sums to the revolutionary parties of Russia, including the Bolsheviks. However, the October Revolution led to the gradual demoralization of the German army.

LOST CHANCE

So, the Russian Empire had no chance of winning the war in 1917 – 1918. I repeat once again, without the Masonic revolution in February 1917 of the year in Russia, a general spontaneous rebellion would break out in 6 – 12 months. However, I will console our “leavened patriots” with the fact that Russia could twice become the winner in the Great War - at the beginning and at the end.

In the first version, Nicholas II was only required to follow the strategy of his great-grandfather, grandfather and father. Nicholas I and both Alexander built three lines of the best fortresses in the world on the western border of Russia. “The best in the world” is not my assessment, but Friedrich Engels, a good specialist in military strategy and a great Russophobe.

However, by decree from Paris, Nicholas II and his generals were preparing for a field war - a march to Berlin. 20 years on the teachings of the Russian army raced horse lava in the composition of several cavalry divisions, dense orders attacked infantry corps. Russian generals took seriously the French "misinformation" - the theory of the triunity. Like, the war can be won with the help of only field guns, only one caliber - 76 mm, and only one projectile - shrapnel. Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich, who was in charge of Russian artillery, in 1911, in general, abolished heavy (siege) artillery and promised the king to recreate it after 1917. The prince planned to re-equip the fortress artillery from 1867 and 1877 systems to modern ones by ... 1930!

Western fortresses were abandoned. During the reign of Nicholas II, not a single modern large and medium-caliber guns were made for land fortresses. Moreover, the old 1838, 1867 and 1877 model implements were removed from the forts and placed in the center of the citadel in open positions.

In 1894 – 1914, Russia was able to re-equip the western fortresses with modern implements installed in concrete casemates and armored towers. And in the intervals between the fortresses to build solid fortified areas. I note that the lines of the URs on the western border (the Stalin line and the Molotov line) were created only under Soviet rule. Moreover, in the Soviet era, no new technologies were used, compared to the beginning of the twentieth century, unless, of course, we consider chemical protection. Yes, and a significant part of the guns in the URs was royal time.

And this is not my fantasy. Already from the beginning of the 19th century, 80, many Russian generals and officers raised the issue of building fortifications on the western border. Viktor Yakovlev in his work “The History of Fortresses”, published in 2000, indicates that in 1887, “there was an old question that had arisen as early as 1873 about creating a Warsaw fortified area, which Warsaw had to enter as a stronghold; two other strongholds should be the Forge Novogeorgievsk, expanded by that time, and the small Zegrzh fortress, which was again proposed for construction (instead of Serock, which was meant in 1873,). ” And in 1892, the war minister, General Kuropatkin, proposed the creation of a large fortified area in the Privislensk region, the rear of which would extend to Brest. According to the highest approved order to create a fortified area in 1902, the allocation of 4,2 million rubles was provided. (It’s curious where this money went.) Needless to say, the construction of fortified areas was not started until August 1914 ...

The most interesting thing is that the guns for fortresses and fortified areas in 1906 – 1914 were immersion! It is here that the reader will be indignant, they say, the author has long and tediously argued that there were no tools for the fortresses, but now he says that they were before ... Everything is correct. In the land fortresses they were not enough, but there were many thousands of guns in the coastal fortresses, on ships and warehouses of the Navy Department. And the guns that were absolutely not needed there.

So, by July 1, 1914 of the year in Kronstadt consisted of absolutely useless for fighting Kaiser dreadnoughts, cruisers, and even destroyers: 11-inch guns arr. 1877 of the year - 41, 11-inch guns arr. 1867 of the year - 54, 9-inch guns arr. 1877 of the year - 8, 9-inch guns arr. 1867 of the year - 18, 6-inch guns in 190 pounds - 38, 3-inch guns arr. 1900 of the year - 82, 11-inch mortars arr. 1877 of the year - 18, 9-inch mortars arr. 1877 of the year - 32.

I note that the German admirals did not even plan a breakthrough into the Gulf of Finland either before 1914 – 1914. And our wise generals began to take out the old guns from Kronstadt only after the start of the war.

In Vladivostok, by December there were 1907 guns: 11-inch arr. 1867 of the year - 10, 10 / 45-inch - 10, 9-inch arr. 1867 of the year - 15, 6 / 45-inch - 40, 6-inch in 190 pounds - 37, 6-inch in 120 pounds - 96, 42-linear obr. 1877 of the year - 46; mortars: 11-inch arr. 1877 of the year - 8, 9-inch arr. 1877 of the year - 20, 9-inch arr. 1867 of the year - 16, 6-inch serfs - 20, 6-inch field - 18. Beyond the state: 8-inch light mortars - 8, 120-mm Vickers guns - 16.

Japan’s attack on Russia after the 1907 of the year, that is, after the conclusion of an alliance with England, was excluded, and there was no particular need for these weapons in Vladivostok. It was possible to leave two dozen 10-inch and 6 / 45-inch guns, and take the rest to the West. By the way, this was done, but only in 1915 – 1916. Everything was cleaned out of Vladivostok, but only after all the western Russian fortresses fell.

Finally, in 1906 – 1914, several Russian coastal fortresses — Libau, Kerch, Batum, Ochakov — were abolished and disarmed. In December alone, by December 1907 there were guns: 11-inch - 19, 10-inch - 10, 9-inch arr. 1867 of the year - 14, 6 / 45-inch - 30, 6-inch in 190 pounds - 24, 6-inch in 120 pounds - 34, 42-linear obr. 1877 of the year - 11; mortars: 11-inch - 20, 9-inch - 30, 8-inch arr. 1867 of the year - 24, 6-inch serfs - 22, 6-inch field - 18. Add to this the arsenals of Kerch, Batum and Ochakov. All the guns taken there were somewhere in the rear warehouses and coastal fortresses, but until 1 August 1914, none of them fell into the western fortresses.

Once again, I note that all these ship and coastal guns are hopelessly outdated to combat fleet, but they could become formidable weapons of fortresses and fortified areas. The same French set up several hundred large-caliber coastal and naval guns, manufactured from 1874 to 1904, in their fortresses and fortified areas (some of them were installed on railway platforms). The result is obvious: by 1917, when the Germans stood on the Riga – Dvinsk – Baranovichi – Pinsk line, they never went deeper into French territory for more than 150 km.

The same famous French fortress Verdun defended the entire war, being less than 50 km from the German border. South of Verdun, up to the Swiss border, to the 1917, the year passed approximately along the Franco-German border. Although, of course, the fate of Verdun was decided not so much by the power of French artillery as the presence of fortified areas to the right and left of it, thanks to which the Germans failed to surround the fortress.

BEFORE THE LAST RUSSIAN SOLDIER

The pre-war plans of the German General Staff did not include an offensive inland. On the contrary, the main blow was inflicted in Belgium and France. And on the Russian front there were parts of the cover.

Any cabinet theorist would be indignant - Germany, having defeated France, would have struck Russia! Sorry, in the 1914 year, the Germans, unlike the 1940 of the year, did not have tanks or motorized divisions. One way or another, the battles for Verdun and other French fortresses would drag on for long weeks, if not months. Needless to say that the Anglo-Saxons under no circumstances would not have allowed the capture of France by the Kaiser. There would have been a total mobilization in England. From the French and English colonies, 20 – 40 “colored” divisions would be sent. The United States would have entered the war not in 1917, but in 1914, etc. In any case, the war on the Western Front would have continued for several years.

But Russia would be in the position of a monkey sitting on a mountain and observing the tigers' fight in the valley with interest. After the exhaustion of both sides on the Western Front, the Russian government could dictate its terms of peace and even become an arbitrator. Naturally, for the fee in the form of the Black Sea straits, the return of the original Armenian territories in Asia Minor, etc. Unfortunately, everything happened exactly the opposite. The French sat out in Verdun and other fortresses and were ready to fight to the last soldier, of course, German and Russian.

Well, a second chance to become a winner in the Great War was missed by Russia ... in the summer of 1920. And again, due to the fault of the Russian generals.

At dawn on 25 on April 1920, Polish troops launched a decisive offensive on the whole front, from Pripyat to the Dnieper. Two weeks later, the Poles took Kiev. General Alexei Brusilov, who was living in Moscow at that time, wrote: “It was incomprehensible to me how the Russian, white generals lead their troops alongside the Poles, as they did not understand that the Poles, having taken possession of our western gubernias, would not give them back without a new war and bloodshed. [...] I thought that while the Bolsheviks were guarding our former borders, while the Red Army did not allow the Poles into the former Russia, I was with them along the way. They will disappear, and Russia will remain. I thought they would understand me there, in the south. But no, they did not understand! .. ”

5 May 1920 The Pravda newspaper published an appeal by Brusilov to the officers of the former tsarist army calling for support of the Red Army in the fight against the Poles: “At this critical historical moment, we, your senior comrades, appeal to your feelings of love and devotion to the Motherland and appeal to urge you to forget all the wrongs, no matter where and against them, and voluntarily go with complete selflessness and hunting to the Red Army, to the front or to the rear, wherever the government of Soviet Workers' and Peasants Russia may appoint you, and serve t We are not for fear, but for conscience, so that with our honest service, not sparing our lives, to defend Russia dear to us at all costs and not to allow her to be plundered, for in the latter case it can be lost forever, and then our descendants will be justly blame and blame for the fact that we, because of the egoistic feelings of the class struggle, did not use our combat knowledge and experience, forgot our native Russian people and ruined our mother Russia. ”

I note that in Moscow nobody pressed Brusilov, and he acted solely by conviction. Well, in distant Paris, Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich had the same feelings for the Poles: “When in the early spring of 1920 I saw the headlines of French newspapers announcing the triumphal march of Pilsudski on the wheat fields of Little Russia, something inside me could not stand, and I forgot about the fact that a year has not passed since the day my brothers were shot. I only thought: “The Poles are about to take Kiev! The eternal enemies of Russia are about to cut off the empire from its western frontiers! ” I did not dare to speak openly, but, listening to the absurd chatter of the refugees and looking into their faces, I wished with all my heart the Red Army's victory. ”

Could Wrangel in May 1920 of the year at least conclude a truce with Soviet Russia? Of course, he could. Recall how, at the end of 1919, the Bolsheviks made peace with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The Red Army could easily occupy their territory. But Moscow needed a break in the war and a “window to Europe”. As a result, the peace was concluded on the terms of the Baltic nationalists, and after a couple of weeks dozens of trains with goods from Russia went to Riga and Revel.

But instead, Wrangel escaped from the Crimea and started a war on the territory of Soviet Russia. Further well known.

And suppose that in the Crimea there would be a coup. To power would come, for example, Lieutenant-General Yakov Slaschov. By the way, in the spring of 1920, he proposed peace plans with the Bolsheviks. In this case, units of the Red Army would have been removed from the Southern Front and sent to beat the lords.

Immediately after the attack of Pilsudski’s army on Soviet Russia, left-wing deputies of the Reichstag and a number of generals led by the Commander-in-Chief of the Reichswehr, Colonel-General Hans von Sect, demanded a defensive-offensive alliance with Soviet Russia. The purpose of such a union was the elimination of the shameful articles of the Versailles Treaty and the restoration of the common border of Germany and Russia "for as long as possible" (quoted from the statement of Von Sect).

After the capture of Warsaw by the Red Army, the German troops were to occupy Pomerania and Upper Silesia. In addition to the German troops, the army of Prince Avalov (Bermont) was to take part in the attack on the Poles. This army consisted of Russian and Baltic Germans and in the year 1919 led intensive fighting against Latvian nationalists. Despite the insistent demands of General Yudenich to join his troops, who were advancing on Petrograd, Avalov, in principle, refused to fight against the Bolsheviks. At the end of 1919, at the request of the Entente, the Avalov army was withdrawn from the Baltic States and redeployed to Germany. But she was not dismissed, but kept under arms "just in case."

As you know, in the 1920, the Red Army was a bit short of power to take Warsaw. The 80 of thousands of bayonets and sabers of the Southern Front could become this "slightly", especially if Slaschev strengthened them with British tanks and high-speed bombers "De Hevilland."

The "ugly offspring of the Versailles Pact" (Molotov's phrase, said in the 1939 year) would have been ended by 19 years earlier. The boundaries of 1914 of the year would be restored, and Soviet Russia would become the winner in the Great War.

Alas, the coup in the Crimea did not happen, and the white baron, who was obsessed with the maniacal idea to enter Moscow on a white horse, arranged a massacre in Northern Tavria, then fled to the Crimea, and from there to Constantinople. During the massacre in Northern Tavria in May – December, 1920 of the year paid with their lives at least 70 thousand white officers, and Russia lost Western Ukraine and Western Belarus.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/history/2016-03-25/1_victory.html
287 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. egor670
    egor670 27 March 2016 06: 35
    -20%
    I have always been of the same opinion. Even the kings called the great (Peter, Catherine) were the most terrible murderers for their own people
    1. USSR 1971
      USSR 1971 27 March 2016 07: 04
      +39
      At the expense of some postulates of the article, I agree. However, the fact is that after the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the fleet was seriously engaged in it, in particular, its technical re-equipment. Domestic destroyers and submarines were no worse than analogues of foreign countries, all this was designed and built in Russia. The army did not immediately become liberal and drunk as the director of the film Battalion, and in the state itself there were politicians who were trying to carry out competent reforms.
      It’s another matter that they always tried to overthrow Russia from the inside, partly succeeded, but in the place of the Russian Empire a state of the USSR, which has no analogues in the world, appeared, the legacy of which we use in many respects. So the USSR was built, including by the military and politicians of the former Russian Empire.
      And about the fact that we are all bad at the genetic level, I'm tired of reading in a liberal Persian.
      1. Stena
        Stena 27 March 2016 10: 30
        +14
        An article - trash - a bunch of liberal myths and speculation. About the Russo-Japanese war has already been repeatedly written, including in the Military District, that the defeat was largely political, and not military. Recently, there were articles on the fleet and the Tsushima battle at VO - where on the basis of facts it was proved that the cause of the defeat was a small amount of explosive in the shells.
        Such scribblers as the author of this opus are simply outraged.
        Quote: USSR 1971
        It’s another matter that they always tried to overthrow Russia from the inside, partly succeeded, but in the place of the Russian Empire a state of the USSR, which has no analogues in the world, appeared, the legacy of which we use in many respects. So the USSR was built, including by the military and politicians of the former Russian Empire.
        I did not read further - the author of the article is a liar and a slanderer.
        And about the fact that we are all bad at the genetic level, I'm tired of reading in a liberal Persian.

        Totally agree.
        They got us guilty to do and tell us that we don’t know how to fight - the descendants of the people who defeated almost all the wars in which they participated. We are still alive, but for now, we will resist attempts to denigrate our history!
        1. Your friend
          Your friend 27 March 2016 11: 37
          +9
          Quote: Stena
          . Recently, there were articles on the fleet and the Tsushima battle at VO - where on the basis of facts it was proved that the cause of the defeat was a small amount of explosive in the shells.

          I knew that the shells were to blame !!! Kindergarten.(((
          1. gorefest7777
            gorefest7777 27 March 2016 22: 25
            +3
            And also our shells were piercing through the Japanese ships, but they didn’t detonate ..... yes there really was such a moment. But in general, the article is strange, foggy, and, frankly, some kind of fake.
          2. Mikado
            Mikado 28 March 2016 00: 04
            +1
            Quote: Your friend
            Quote: Stena
            . Recently, there were articles on the fleet and the Tsushima battle at VO - where on the basis of facts it was proved that the cause of the defeat was a small amount of explosive in the shells.

            I knew that the shells were to blame !!! Kindergarten.(((


            Yeah! And the phrase about the author of the opus. Alexander Borisovich is the largest artillery historian in our country. As M. Svirin (the kingdom to him be heaven) was the largest tank historian, and M. Kolomiyets is the most serious connoisseur of armored cars and armored trains, it is better to A.B. Shirokorada no one knows artillery. Of course, there are controversial issues, but the general condition of the Russian armed forces is given correctly. And the fact that the Russian soldier did his job with dignity, but with enormous blood. The article is interesting to read.

            The same discussion took place on the forum after the article about Kirpichnikov, "the first soldier of the revolution," the day before yesterday. Now monarchists and hurray-patriots cast aside minuses. wassat
            Thank you so much for the article! I wish Alexander Borisovich success in further creative work! hi
        2. Monge
          Monge 27 March 2016 12: 02
          +7
          An article - trash - a bunch of liberal myths and speculation.
          Such scribblers as the author of this opus are simply outraged.

          You in the search engine enter the author’s name, read, or else the author’s work quickly look through. Maybe ashamed of his comments will be.
          1. Stena
            Stena 27 March 2016 12: 11
            +2
            Quote: Monge
            You in the search engine enter the author’s name, read, or else the author’s work quickly look through. Maybe ashamed of his comments will be.

            A specific article is discussed here, not all articles by an author. So this article is complete rubbish, because "I twist it wherever I want." There are conclusions in advance, but the facts need to be adjusted to fit them. And not vice versa, as it would be true.
          2. AK64
            AK64 27 March 2016 13: 49
            +11
            You in the search engine enter the author’s name, read, or else the author’s work quickly look through. Maybe ashamed of his comments will be.



            Have you read his books? You read.
            While Alexander TTX guns quoted --- like a man. But as soon as he tries to say something from himself, then such a wild snowstorm begins ...
            If it’s simpler: Alexander does not even understand engineering, which is what he’s written about guns (about guns - not history) and can be seen right away.

            So stop bowing. It’s normal as a reference, but ridiculous as a thinker
            1. sibiryouk
              sibiryouk 28 March 2016 18: 49
              0
              He is just a journalist, what else do you want from him, after all, not A.S. Pushkin!
          3. sibiryouk
            sibiryouk 28 March 2016 18: 47
            0
            It’s strange to look for something else if people don’t know such a well-known journalist as A. Shirokorad! For about 50 years he has been writing for various scientific and technical journals, and in recent years he has also begun to write books!
        3. EvilLion
          EvilLion 27 March 2016 16: 10
          +1
          Who cares, why the war about ....? The main thing is that about ...., and excuses do not play a role here.
        4. jktu66
          jktu66 28 March 2016 21: 17
          0
          The article is tin and an undisguised lie! I did not read to the end. In 2014, a monument to the fallen heroes of 1mV, soldiers and officers of the Russian imperial army was unveiled in Kaliningrad. Thank God such articles are powerless in front of human memory
      2. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 27 March 2016 10: 59
        +9
        Quote: USSR 1971
        Domestic destroyers and submarines were no worse than analogues of foreign countries,

        And many cruisers were built abroad.
      3. MrK
        MrK 27 March 2016 12: 57
        +1
        Quote: USSR 1971
        However, the fact is that after the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the fleet was seriously engaged in it, in particular, its technical re-equipment.


        For the monarchist patriots who could not save Nikolashka. Jo ... I don’t want to tear off the warm sofa, but I’m chatting ...
        From the book of Alexander Kurlandchik on Proza.ru:
        Russia rushed into the Great War, being completely unprepared for it.
        It makes sense to invite General Denikin as a witness: “The situation of the Russian army and navy after the Japanese war, which had depleted material resources, and discovered flaws in organization, training and management, was truly threatening. According to the recognition of military authorities, the army generally remained helpless in the full sense of the word until 1910.
        Only in the very last years before the war (1910-1914) did the work on the restoration and reorganization of the Russian armed forces raise them significantly, but in technical and material terms it was completely insufficient.
        The law on the construction of the fleet passed only in 1912 (before that, the grand dukes stubbornly plundered huge money from fleet sums.).
        The so-called "Big Program", which was supposed to significantly strengthen the army, was approved only in March 1914. So it was not possible to implement anything substantial from this program: the corps went to war, having from 102 to 110 guns against the German 160 and almost no heavy artillery and stock of guns. ”
        There wasn’t enough artillery due to the venality of the other great princes mentioned above, who tied Russian artillery to French factories for good bribes, although it was possible to arm the army with a lot of much better German guns. There weren’t enough shells - in many memoirs of the times of the First World War this dreary horror is described when the Teuton bombards our positions with a shower of shells, mowing companies and battalions, and we have a couple of shells on the gun.
        There weren’t enough machine guns - because the Russian military theorist General Dragomirov was their categorical adversary, believing that such a squandering of cartridges was useless, a heroic Russian soldier with a gun from the time of the Russian-Turkish war would defeat all the adversaries and so overcome the butt and bayonet-well done.
        And the Germans by that time machine guns began to arrive in the troops.
        When, after the first successes, a general retreat of the fifteenth year struck, Minister of War General Polivanov answered direct questions of what he now intends to do, answered (his true words!): “I hope in impassable spaces, impassable dirt and the mercy of the saint Nikolai of Myra, the patron saint of Holy Russia.” However, the dirt did not always happen, and the adversary went forward - General Kornilov, for example, surrendered Riga to the Germans in the most mediocre way. And nothing - he didn’t shoot himself, he wandered with a red bow during the time of February 1917.
        General Ruzsky admitted to cabinet members: “The modern requirements of military equipment, gentlemen, are beyond our strength. In any case, we cannot keep up with the Germans. ” Similar reviews are darkness at all levels.
        About successful 1916 a little lower.
        1. MrK
          MrK 27 March 2016 13: 02
          +1
          Read more.
          100 years ago, in March of 1916, the Naroch operation began - the offensive of Russian troops in the north-west of Belarus. The operation is named for the largest lake in the region - Naroch, although hostilities were fought both south and north of this lake.

          On March 3 (16), Chief of Staff of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, General Mikhail Alekseev, gave a directive on the beginning of the offensive of Russian troops in the area of ​​Lake Naroch.
          The results of the operation for the Russian army were deplorable. During the Naroch operation, Russian troops captured 1200-1800 prisoners, 15 machine guns, several hundred rifles, and released 10 square kilometers of Belarus.
          On 8 (21) on March the city of Pastavy was liberated (again captured by the Germans on 15 on April 1916). At the same time, German troops in another section launched a counterattack and occupied 70 square kilometers, which they left behind.
          And this is with very heavy losses, when our troops literally drowned in blood trying to break through the powerful deeply layered line of German defense. Losses in the Naroch operation, even by the standards of the First World War, where bloody battles were not uncommon, were very significant. The main reason for the defeat was the numerous mistakes made by the Russian command in the planning and implementation of the operation.
          And so in everything that concerns the worthlessness of Nikolashka and most of his generals.
          No wonder they slapped him. By the way - not the Bolsheviks, but ssers.
          And RI could not win that predatory war. It’s like today's Russia to win the World Cup.
          1. Cap.Morgan
            Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 16: 40
            +3
            For the Allies, things were not going well either.
            As a result, the famous attack at Cambrai ended in nothing.
            What about Verdun? A meat grinder that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.
            Consequently, both German and French generals did not shine with talent either.
          2. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 27 March 2016 16: 56
            +3
            Quote: mrark
            No wonder they slapped him. By the way - not the Bolsheviks, but ssers.

            So the Social Revolutionaries?
            Quote: mrark
            And RI could not win that predatory war.
            Your posts are interesting, the logic is sensible, but you initially use a very narrow range of source information. Russia was dragged into the war, and the retraction was planned EXACTLY TO THE EXTENT READINESS OF SOCIETY AND THE ARMY FOR WAR! First, the people were inflamed with patriotic slogans, then the harsh reality put everything in its place, and then there was an explosion of the revolution (prepared in advance!). Now we see a similar scenario in Ukraine - patriotism was rocked (urya!), And to the point of the first yushka.
            Quote: mrark
            The main reason for the defeat was the numerous mistakes made by the Russian command in the planning and implementation of the operation.
            What about the mistakes of the French command? Or were the British wrong? And ours in the 41st? wink
            Quote: mrark
            There weren’t enough machine guns - because the Russian military theorist General Dragomirov was their categorical opponent
            K. Voroshilov was also an opponent of automatic weapons. And for some reason he was not shot in the 37th. It's a pity.

            PS
            most of his generals
            How do you assess our generals (most of them serve), who managed the first Chechen? (I'm not talking about Rokhlin).
          3. gorefest7777
            gorefest7777 27 March 2016 22: 31
            +2
            Well, our marshal of victory, too, did not differ much love spares soldiers' lives .... Stop quilting already about where they themselves were not and did not see that time ....
        2. nedgen
          nedgen 27 March 2016 19: 03
          +3
          Well, about the machines - they appeared much later. Perhaps the first submachine gun is a Fedorov submachine gun, and in the German army, if I am not mistaken, the first submachine guns were MP-18 Bergmann. By the number it can be seen that he was adopted only in 18.
      4. revnagan
        revnagan 27 March 2016 15: 48
        +5
        Quote: USSR 1971
        However, the fact is that after the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the fleet was seriously engaged in it, in particular, its technical re-equipment.

        Are you serious? After Tsushima, the financing of the fleet went very tight. At the top there was an opinion that the fleet was not worth the money invested: millions were thrown in (and a battleship of the Borodino class cost about 10 million rubles at that time!), And with one blow - Not profitable. So money for the fleet was knocked out of the treasury with great difficulty. Domestic destroyers of the "Novik" type were built ... in Germany! Domestic battleships were outdated even on the stocks (again, due to scarce funding). The industry did not keep pace to satisfy the demands of the military, and the bankers were in no hurry to finance them. Russia did not produce any aircraft engines - EVERYTHING. They practically did not produce internal combustion engines. And what can we talk about, if they even could not produce ball bearings. There was practically no optics of its own. So Russia had no chance of victory. The Germans were doomed not to be defeated on the side of the Entente after the entry into the war of the USA, the Germans were doomed not to be defeated. There was a lack of resources. The allies responded to eachThe worn-out barrel of the German artillery had several new weapons of the Allies. Germany was reeling from hunger, interrupted by margarine, beet marmalade and bran bread. Every paper bandage, every aspirin tablet was worth its weight in gold. And after the Verdun meat grinder, Germany's manpower was also exhausted. that "the victory was stolen from Germany, they stabbed in the back" the author is absolutely wrong. Germany had no chance. The industry and economy of the Entente, and first of all America, won the war.
        1. gorefest7777
          gorefest7777 27 March 2016 22: 37
          +1
          Wherever, wherever you throw everywhere, the Russians didn’t have anything ... ball bearings even ..... but it’s interesting what was used in industry such as weaving where the machines were domestic
      5. Dimon-chik-79
        Dimon-chik-79 27 March 2016 17: 20
        -1
        There were no destroyers at that time, there were destroyers. And the Japanese were superior to the Russian fleet both qualitatively and quantitatively. So the "liberal elite of that time", headed by "Nicholas of St. Petersburg", was not worried about the fleet, but about their festivities and their welfare in general.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 27 March 2016 17: 40
          +6
          Quote: Dimon-chik-79
          There were no destroyers at that time, there were destroyers.

          The destroyer is an abbreviation for the destroyer. And they were. wink
        2. AK64
          AK64 27 March 2016 17: 46
          +3
          There were no destroyers at that time, there were destroyers.

          You just don’t know: they’ll probably talk in the next class.

          And the Japanese surpassed the Russian fleet both qualitatively and quantitatively.

          Yes: he was on the Black and Baltic Seas in the Russian fleet. And in the Pacific, only a squadron. But the Japanese certainly surpassed everything - that was exactly how it was.

          So the "liberal elite of that time", headed by "Nicholas of St. Petersburg", was not worried about the fleet, but about their festivities and their welfare in general.

          But it’s true, after all, it seems like a day of dancing in the garden near the winter palace: well, my grandmother told me - she said it used to go past you from work, and they all dance, they all dance, oohlniki. Well, they called her understandably, but she firmly refused: "I, she tells them, is not a girl like that, I go to a Marxist circle!"

          Only Carla Marx and the singing of the international and fought back from the cursed ...
        3. The comment was deleted.
      6. xan
        xan 27 March 2016 20: 17
        0
        Quote: USSR 1971
        At the expense of some postulates of the article, I agree. However, the fact is that after the defeat in the Russian-Japanese war, they were seriously involved

        All numbers are bullshit. And not one thing - the empire had to die for fairly simple reasons: the lack of faith in the Russian people, admiration for foreigners, the lack of a development strategy for Russia, the ruling class that could not set global tasks, rotted the unreformed bureaucratic apparatus, including the military. The Moor has done his job (the territory and the outstanding military history of Russia is the merit of the Empire), the Moor must die.
    2. sergeybulkin
      sergeybulkin 27 March 2016 07: 12
      -9
      Even the kings called the great (Peter, Catherine) were the most terrible murderers

      Under Peter 1, which our historians praise so much, there were no men left in the villages, they plowed - sowed - they shook women, and Peter, in between drunken orgies, chased men to war, where ours died tens of thousands before they even reached the front ...
      1. venaya
        venaya 27 March 2016 07: 30
        -12%
        Quote: sergeybulkin
        there were no men left in the villages, they plowed - sowed - they pressed women ... our people died in tens of thousands before they even reached the front ...

        This moment of our history is hushed up very carefully. After all, no one wants to know that at this time in Russia there was a terrible tragedy - a coordinated change of religious faith. There was a complete transition from traditional dual faith (Vedic + Abrahamic) to total monoistic Christianity. How many people were destroyed as a result of the rejection of the native faith (Rodnoverie) it is now reliably hard to even imagine, although the figure is often called that at that time up to 1/3 of the country's population was lost in Russia.
        1. 97110
          97110 27 March 2016 12: 42
          +7
          Quote: venaya
          coordination shift

          Will you specify a coordinate system? For a cardinal change? Will you give a reference to 1/3? Or the "direct knowledge" method? Learn Russian before writing with such arrogant stupidity.
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 27 March 2016 17: 00
            +2
            Quote: 97110
            Will you indicate a coordinate system?

            Dom2 in which coordinate system fits? And the reform of the Russian language, carried out by the half-Jew Lunacharsky?
            1. Wheel
              Wheel 27 March 2016 19: 31
              +1
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              And the reform of the Russian language, carried out by the half-Jew Lunacharsky?

              Well, where the hell is without Jews? laughing
              Russian Jewish nobleman - everyone can smoke on the sidelines!

              However, the realities of this reform are as follows:

              In 1904, the Spelling Commission was created at the Department of the Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, which was tasked with simplifying Russian writing (primarily in the interests of the school). The commission was headed by the outstanding Russian linguist Philip Fedorovich Fortunatov, and it included the largest scientists of that time - A. A. Shakhmatov (who headed the commission in 1914, after the death of F. F. Fortunatov), ​​I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, P. N. Sakulin and others.

              The results of the further work of linguists were already assessed by the Provisional Government. On May 11 (May 24, according to the new style), 1917, a meeting was held with the participation of members of the Orthographic Commission of the Academy of Sciences, linguists, and school teachers, at which it was decided to soften some provisions of the 1912 project (for example, members of the commission agreed with A. A. Shakhmatov’s proposal to keep soft sign at the end of words after hissing). The result of the discussion was the “Resolution of the meeting on the simplification of Russian spelling”, which was approved by the Academy of Sciences.

              The new spelling was introduced by two decrees: after the first decree signed by the People's Commissar of Education A.V. Lunacharsky and published on December 23, 1917 (January 5, 1918), the second decree of October 10, 1918 was signed by the Deputy People's Commissar M.N. Pokrovsky and the managing director of the Council of People's Commissars V. D. Bonch-Bruevich.
      2. Dart2027
        Dart2027 27 March 2016 09: 58
        +8
        Quote: sergeybulkin
        Under Peter 1, which our historians praise so much, there were no men left in the villages

        Can the source be?
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 27 March 2016 17: 02
          +2
          Quote: Dart2027
          Can the source be?

          Even Ekatirinen historians (Germans) admit that men were driven into the villages by soldiers.
    3. CALL.
      CALL. 27 March 2016 08: 49
      +16
      in 1918-1920, they completely lost the war to their own people, despite the thousands of guns, tanks and airplanes of the Entente.

      Well, firstly, the Entente helped for money, and still in the banks of a number of countries of the world lie the money of Russia, for undelivered weapons, and secondly, they didn’t really try. They only helped the Russians to kill the Russians more. The West does not need a strong Russia.
      1. nils
        nils 27 March 2016 09: 22
        0
        Quote: Z.O.V.
        The West does not need a strong Russia.


        The article is a fantastic distortion of reality.

        By August 1915, the situation at the front reached a dangerous point, the troops were forced to leave Warsaw, the threat of surrender of Riga arose ... On August 21, Nicholas II decided to become the supreme commander in chief, the Tsar made a firm decision to be with the army and share the burdens of war with it. On August 23, he arrived at the Headquarters, which was located in Mogilev, and immediately visited the troops at the front along with Tsarevich Alexei, which inspired the troops. The presence of the Emperor, his composure reassured all members of the headquarters, had a positive effect on the work of the Headquarters. The front stabilized, and in 1916, the successes of the Russian army led the course of the war in favor of Russia. In the Caucasus front, troops led by N.N. Yudenich inflicted a crushing defeat on the larger Turkish army and reached practically Istanbul and stopped literally one step away from the straits. (And try to object!). And as a result of the crushing offensive of the troops of the South-Western Front (Brusilovsky breakthrough), the Austrian troops were practically defeated, the intervention of the German army, which also suffered heavy losses, did not help (And try to object!).
        Shortcomings in the supply of the first years of the war were overcome, the Russian troops had everything necessary for victory. Germany was put on the brink of defeat: human and material resources were exhausted, catastrophically seized ammunition, including shells.
        With such a development of events, the war could have ended already in the first half of the 1917 year. It was assumed that the Russian army would enter Berlin by June 1917. Such was the assessment of the situation by the German General Staff.

        On the night of July 17, the new style of 1918 was RITUALLY killed the royal family (And try to object!), was killed the Russian Tsar Nicholas II, restraining evil, Empress Alexandra Fedorovna and their innocent children, and faithful servants. Russia was plunged into a bloody civil war, as a result, it lost about twenty million people (from 1917 to 1923), more than two million people emigrated (Russian elite). The progressive movement of Russian civilization was interrupted.
        1. Darkness
          Darkness 27 March 2016 09: 35
          -5
          You at least change manuals. Already not even funny.
          1. nils
            nils 27 March 2016 09: 50
            +2
            Quote: Darkness
            You at least change manuals. Already not even funny.


            Did you want to laugh? Gloomy you are ours!

            And I do not recommend studying history by the methodology of the People’s Commissariat, Livanov’s department - Fursenko or articles of this type.
            Read better those who lived in that era - Robert Wilton, General Diterichs, Bunin, the memories of Prince Zhevakhov.
            1. Darkness
              Darkness 27 March 2016 10: 18
              -1
              These will not lie. Pure truth has been plucked.
          2. activator
            activator 27 March 2016 10: 05
            +6
            The author claims that RI could not win the war, but in 1812, when Napoleon was in Moscow, many probably also thought that everyone ... At 41 near Mosuva they also broke, although many also believed that the khan ... And during the WWII, things were the front were not so critical, but sabotage and caring propaganda about the fact that it is worth overthrowing the tsar as soon as the workers and peasants of the opposing sides immediately overthrow their oppressors and the proletarians of all countries will heal in peace and friendship.

            So, the Russian Empire had no chance of winning the war in 1917 – 1918. I repeat once again, without the Masonic revolution in February 1917 of the year in Russia, a general spontaneous rebellion would break out in 6 – 12 months. However, I will console our “leavened patriots” with the fact that Russia could twice become the winner in the Great War - at the beginning and at the end.
            But it’s generally a pearl to assert that the Masonic revolution was a blessing for Russia, despite the fact that this organization is just setting out for its purpose the destruction of Russia. Although some of the kings were Masons, but here you can’t win, lead.
            1. Your friend
              Your friend 27 March 2016 11: 42
              +7
              Quote: activator
              And during the WWII, things at the front were not so critical, but sabotage and careful propaganda that it was worth overthrowing the tsar, as soon as the workers and peasants of the warring parties would overthrow their oppressors, and the proletarians of all countries would live in peace and friendship. .

              Are you alright? The emperor was overthrown by the capitalists and landlords, the workers and peasants were out of work.)))
              1. activator
                activator 27 March 2016 12: 05
                +1
                Quote: Your friend
                Are you alright? The emperor was overthrown by the capitalists and landlords, the workers and peasants were out of work.)))

                I agree. Accept the temporary and immediately peace and friendship ... And this is an excerpt from the wiki
                The democratization of the army in Russia in 1917 is a process that was widely unfolded in the former Russian imperial army (renamed the “Revolutionary Army of Free Russia” in February 1917) immediately after the February Revolution. Officially, these changes were intended to equalize the rights of soldiers with the civilian population; the Bolshevik party, however, set the task of the complete destruction of the army of the Russian state [2] [3].

                During the revolution, the Petrosoviet issued Order No. 1, which was originally intended only for the rebel soldiers of the Petrograd garrison, but spontaneously [4] spread throughout the army. The actual abolition of one-man management in the army (“democratization of the army") led instead of the part expected by some liberals and socialists to increase its combat readiness to increase anarchy in the form of soldiers refusing to go on the offensive and lynching officers; in addition, there has been a tremendous increase in desertion. To counteract the collapse of the army, from April 1917 a movement of “shock units” (also called “revolutionary”, “assault”, “death units”) began. In parallel with the soldiers, officer organizations began to form.
                1. Your friend
                  Your friend 27 March 2016 12: 16
                  +2
                  Quote: activator
                  I agree. Accept the temporary and immediately peace and friendship ... And this is an excerpt from the wiki

                  No no. Friendship is everything after the World Revolution. There is no world revolution - there is no peace friendship. It's just that everyone is tired of the war, to put it mildly, the Germans and the French too. Read about fraternizing at the front. The Frenchmen shot their brothers a bit. (
                  1. activator
                    activator 27 March 2016 12: 36
                    +1
                    Quote: Your friend
                    No no. Friendship is everything after the World Revolution. There is no world revolution - there is no peace friendship. It's just that everyone is tired of the war, to put it mildly, the Germans and the French too. Read about fraternizing at the front. The Frenchmen shot their brothers a bit. (

                    And who was to carry out this very world revolution? Just the workers and peasants after they see how everything will heal freely in Russia. It just didn’t work out and these very oppressed under the leadership of the oppressors came to pacify the rebellious.
                    1. Your friend
                      Your friend 27 March 2016 12: 46
                      -3
                      Quote: activator
                      Quote: Your friend
                      No no. Friendship is everything after the World Revolution. There is no world revolution - there is no peace friendship. It's just that everyone is tired of the war, to put it mildly, the Germans and the French too. Read about fraternizing at the front. The Frenchmen shot their brothers a bit. (

                      And who was to carry out this very world revolution? Just the workers and peasants after they see how everything will heal freely in Russia. It just didn’t work out and these very oppressed under the leadership of the oppressors came to pacify the rebellious.

                      No no. You argued that the tsar should be overthrown by the workers and peasants. I wrote to you that this is not so, others overthrew it.)
                      And by the way, in the Entente countries there were quite numerous rallies and strikes against intervention in Soviet Russia.)
                      1. activator
                        activator 27 March 2016 13: 10
                        0
                        Quote: Your friend
                        No no. You argued that the tsar should be overthrown by the workers and peasants. I wrote to you that this is not so, others overthrew it.)

                        Any revolution relies on workers and peasants, that is, the people of February are no exception. Only those who supported the February people believed that they could throw off the tsar and get a manufactory or land allotment and, accordingly, would gain freedom. by lynching and other nonsense, for which you brought an excerpt from the wiki above.
                        Quote: Your friend
                        others overthrew.)
                        And these were killed in the course of those affairs.
                        Quote: Your friend
                        And by the way, in the Entente countries there were quite numerous rallies and strikes against intervention in Soviet Russia.)

                        Where's the revolution?
                      2. Your friend
                        Your friend 27 March 2016 13: 36
                        +3
                        Quote: activator
                        Any revolution is based on workers and peasants, that is, the people of February are no exception. Only those who supported the February people believed that they could throw off the tsar to get a manufactory or land allotment and, accordingly, gain freedom.

                        Are you serious? Does the term "bourgeois revolution" mean anything to you? And a bunch of revolutions all over the world, relying only on the army?
                        Quote: activator
                        This is evidenced by the processes that took place in the army with the election of commanders, soldier councils, lynching, and other nonsense, for which I brought you an excerpt from the wiki above.

                        This all happened AFTER the February Revolution.
                        Quote: activator
                        And these were killed in the course of those affairs.

                        Cheat?
                        Quote: activator
                        Where's the revolution?

                        I promised you a revolution?) I kind of wrote to you in Russian that the World Revolution did not happen.
                      3. activator
                        activator 27 March 2016 14: 04
                        -2
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Are you serious? The term "bourgeois revolution" is nothing to you

                        That is, you think that such a revolution can happen without popular approval?
                        Quote: Your friend
                        A bunch of revolutions around the world, relying only on the army?

                        I only congratulate you that it seems that the new term was introduced, either the army or the military revolution, before you called this a military coup.
                        Quote: Your friend
                        This all happened AFTER the February Revolution.

                        So what am I talking about? All the tsar has no democracy elections.
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Cheat?

                        I wrote below I repeat that the capitalists overthrew, the Communists killed, that is, the Bolsheviks.
                        Quote: Your friend

                        I promised you a revolution?) I kind of wrote to you in Russian that the World Revolution did not happen.
                        But everyone really hoped.
                      4. Your friend
                        Your friend 27 March 2016 14: 09
                        -1
                        Quote: activator
                        That is, you think that such a revolution can happen without popular approval?

                        Easily. Do you seriously think that people asked someone in the 17th century, when the Ang. bourgeois revolution?
                        Quote: activator
                        I only congratulate you that it seems that the new term was introduced, either the army or the military revolution, before you called this a military coup.

                        You’ll decide which term I introduced, otherwise you congratulated yourself and didn’t understand what.)
                        Quote: activator
                        So what am I talking about? All the tsar has no democracy elections.

                        Well?
                        Quote: activator
                        I wrote below I repeat that the capitalists overthrew, the communists killed that is, the Bolsheviks

                        The bourgeoisie and landowners overthrew Tsar Romanov, the communists killed the citizen Romanov.
                        Quote: activator
                        But everyone really hoped.

                        They hoped. So where did I promise you a revolution?
                      5. activator
                        activator 27 March 2016 14: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Easily. Do you seriously think that people asked someone in the 17th century, when the Ang. bourgeois revolution?

                        And in October 17, then they asked?
                        Quote: Your friend
                        You’ll decide which term I introduced, otherwise you congratulated yourself and didn’t understand what.)

                        It is at your discretion as an author. yes
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Well?
                        The people were not against it.
                        Quote: Your friend
                        The bourgeoisie and landowners overthrew Tsar Romanov, the communists killed the citizen Romanov.

                        And what did citizen Romanov do to the Communists?
                        Quote: Your friend
                        They hoped. So where did I promise you a revolution?
                        yes, spokuha is not about you
                      6. Your friend
                        Your friend 27 March 2016 15: 09
                        -1
                        Quote: activator
                        And in October 17, then they asked?

                        Are you asking me? This is your thesis that revolutions are not made without workers and peasants. You are confused. (
                        Quote: activator
                        It is at your discretion as an author.

                        So I didn’t come up with anything. You invent it, you are the author.)
                        Quote: activator
                        And what did citizen Romanov do to the Communists?

                        Who cares, he was no longer a king.) But it was not the workers and peasants who overthrew him, but the bourgeois.)
                        Quote: activator
                        yes, spokuha is not about you

                        As you wish.
                      7. activator
                        activator 27 March 2016 17: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Are you asking me? This is your thesis that revolutions are not made without workers and peasants. You are confused. (

                        You did not answer, asked whether or not, or according to your worker, the peasant happened without these workers and peasants? The definition of revolution from the same wiki, pay attention to the term revolutionary mobilization
                        Problems in the economic and fiscal sphere. Reduced cash flows to the state treasury and into the hands of elites usually result in higher taxes or loans, often in an unfair way. Why the ability to pay salaries to officials and the military is reduced, which leads to increased discontent and unrest. [4]
                        Alienation and resistance of the elites. In the elite, everyone fights for power and management. In this struggle, some elites may come to the conclusion that there is a narrow circle of members of an ethnic or regional group, which includes a ruler and has unjustly more powers than others. Why dissatisfied elites can take advantage of popular indignation and cause mobilization.
                        Revolutionary mobilization. Widespread popular outrage, backed by the support of the elites, develops into a rebellion, which may not be caused by poverty or inequality, but by a feeling of loss of position in society for reasons that are inevitable and in which there is no public guilt.
                        Ideology. It is a convincing and shared by most of the narratives of the struggle, uniting the demands of the population and elites. It can take many forms: religious movement, national liberation, and so on. But all these forms have one key point: a focus on resistance against inequality and injustice generated in the current regime, from which mobilization is repelled and which consolidates all members of the resistance.
                        Favorable international environment. The success of a revolution often depended on foreign support in the form of a refusal to support government policies or consent to cooperate with an opposition camp. As well as the intervention of a foreign power by an intervention aimed at strengthening the counter-revolution, many revolutionary rebellions collapsed.
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Who cares, he was no longer a king.

                        That is, for no reason, that just to get a fair trial.
                  2. Rastas
                    Rastas 27 March 2016 16: 05
                    0
                    Read the book of Berg, who was the driving force of the English Revolution to write such nonsense. And that the Puritan movement came from the people, and Cromwell’s army was formed from the masses. You do not understand in terms of what a bourgeois revolution is. This is a revolution that solves the tasks of the country's capitalist development, replacing feudal relations. The same French revolution. There that the rich Bastille stormed? Or did they smash the intervention in the battles of Valmie, Genappe, Fleurus?
                2. Cap.Morgan
                  Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 22: 09
                  +2
                  We see the city of Petrograd
                  In the seventeenth year:
                  A sailor is running, a soldier is running,
                  Shoot on the go.

                  Work drags a machine gun.
                  Now he will join the battle ...

                  TYPICAL MILITARY COUPLING.
        2. Rastas
          Rastas 27 March 2016 16: 00
          +1
          You forget that after the revolution in Russia, the same revolutions broke out in Germany, Austria-Hungary, the unrest of dockers in England, soldier riots in France, as a result of which a full-scale intervention against Sobetskaya Russia was disrupted. The Bavarian, Bremen Soviet Republics, the Soviet Republic in Hungary, which were sunk in blood, were formed. Why did not happen in France and England a full-scale revolution - there was no driving force. Opponents of the war were removed, and sometimes (like Jean Jaurès) killed, and the socialists, frightened, called for the participation of their countries in the war.
          1. Cap.Morgan
            Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 22: 13
            0
            Wasn't that the driving force in France? Homeland of socialism?
            There simply were Senegalese with machine guns and after the shooting of several rioters everything fell into place
  2. Rastas
    Rastas 27 March 2016 15: 53
    0
    The moving masses of the revolution were the workers and peasants, as well as the soldiers who joined them, who formed the Soviets, came to the Duma and handed over power to the Duma members, hoping that they would do something. One moment, how these capitalists and landowners behaved. V. Nabokov watched the events of February 17 from the window, as he says, he did not understand what was happening. And in the summer a little man approached him, extended his hand and exclaimed: "Thank you for our freedom." As Nabokov himself recalled, it was curious to hear this, because I myself did not participate in the events. Here we must see the difference between the development of capitalism in Europe and ours. In Europe, capitalism came as a result of revolutions and wars, from below. And in Russia he was imposed by power from above, therefore he depended on the power and did not seek to overthrow the monarchy. Moreover, the common people were rejected for the same reason.
    1. Rivares
      Rivares 27 March 2016 22: 13
      +1
      Quote: Rastas
      The moving masses of the revolution were the workers and peasants, as well as the soldiers who joined them

      The driving force of the herd is the Shepherd. But in the herd, they think that the driving force is those animals that go first ....
  3. nikowolf
    nikowolf 28 March 2016 11: 28
    0
    If you look at the results of the revolution, then it’s not noticeable that the peasants and workers have all changed for the better (please do not confuse the changes in the country, in the process of Stalin’s reforms).
    Based on this, we can understand that they were only a tool to achieve the goal, the landowners and the elite did not agree with the tsarist regime.
  • Alex
    Alex 27 March 2016 11: 18
    +2
    Quote: nils
    On the night of July 17, according to the new style of 1918, the royal family was ritually killed (And try to object!)
    What was ritual in a banal slaughter in the basement of a merchant's house? Or was there a stone altar, near which stood black-clad adepts with black candles in their hands, and in the corner was a potion brewing on the fat of a black cat, slaughtered at midnight by twelve strokes of a magic dagger? I exaggerate, of course, but I don’t see the ritualism in crime. I do not idealize the last Russian tsar, just as I don’t understand the motives of the desire for canonization, but I also consider immorality to arrange speculation and dancing on coffins.
    1. nils
      nils 27 March 2016 15: 10
      +5
      Quote: Alex
      What was ritual in a banal slaughter in the basement of a merchant's house? ... I do not understand the motives for the desire for canonization


      Such things cannot be explained in 2 words. If interested I recommend the following sources: R. Wilton, M.K.Diterichs, P.V. Multatulli, Metropolitan John (Snychev), V.Korn (And there was an inscription of His guilt: "Tsar ...").
      And about the misunderstanding of canonization - this is natural.
      “Atheism swallows the state and sovereigns, faith, law and mores. See the hell over which madness reigns even stronger at the end of the century. ”- A.V.Suvorov.
      1. Alex
        Alex 27 March 2016 19: 41
        +1
        Quote: nils
        If interested, I recommend the following sources: R. Wilton, M.K. Diterikhs, P.V. Multatulli, Metropolitan John (Snychev), V. Korn
        Thank you for the links, at your leisure I read.

        And there was an inscription of His guilt: "King ..."
        It turns out that any murder of a king / king is ritual? And what about the execution of Charles I, Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, Mary Stuart, Jane Dudley (Gray)? .. And how did the murder of Tsar Nicholas II differ from the murders of Peter III, John VI, Paul I? Only by keeping families untouched. And about the succession of crowned persons secretly poisoned and sent to the other world in other "difficult Italian ways", I am generally silent. So the substantiation of your thesis about the ritual of murder is very weak.

        And about the misunderstanding of canonization - it’s natural. “Atheism absorbs states and sovereigns, faith, law and mores. See the hell over which madness reigns even stronger at the end of the century. ”- A.V.Suvorov.
        Why this quote from the great Russian commander - I can’t understand even from the third reading. We are talking exclusively about the RELIGIOUS context of the event under discussion, and not at all about its socio-political significance. The problem is that from the point of view of the Orthodox canon there is no reason for this. But for trolling it will do.
  • Your friend
    Your friend 27 March 2016 11: 40
    +2
    Quote: nils
    RITUALLY killed the royal family

    Seriously? And I probably believe you, you can’t lie. (
  • PPD
    PPD 27 March 2016 11: 46
    -1
    Quote: nils

    On the night of July 17, the new style of 1918 was RITUALLY killed the royal family (And try to object!),

    Yes Easy! Earlier, Nicholas abdicated and at that time was just a citizen Romanov no better and no worse than the rest. And the crown has always been lost! Ha try to object!
    1. nils
      nils 27 March 2016 14: 45
      +1
      The question is about the RITUAL murder of the last Russian Tsar.
      Study the topic first, and then engage in controversy.
      By the way, as a source of information for the Mlechins, Radzikhovsky, Radzinsky, Svanidze and other kagalnyh lads I do not recommend.
  • 97110
    97110 27 March 2016 12: 47
    -4
    Quote: nils
    almost reached Istanbul and stopped literally a step away from the straits. (And try to object!)

    And I will not try. It is useless to argue with you. You’re not looking at the map
    Quote: nils
    The sovereign made a firm decision in difficult times to be with the army
    and it brought you victory.
  • Forest
    Forest 27 March 2016 13: 53
    -9
    Nikolai came to the front to thump, and he could only inspire his drinking companions. The front was stabilized not because of someone's leadership, but because the Germans ran out of reserves of the offensive. This is not the 41, when tanks could travel hundreds of kilometers in a day after breaking through a defense, and stomp their feet on infantry and drag weapons on horse-drawn trails. In the south, the Turks did not have an army of strengths, but other directions besides the Caucasus took a lot of strength. The Brusilovsky breakthrough was generally launched against the instructions from the headquarters, which, of course, is in all sources except the monarchist ones. By the 17 year, our industry still couldn’t make up for losses in the most important directions (instead of high-explosive bombs for the guns, blanks were produced, only 80 anti-aircraft guns were fired, although hundreds were required). There was simply no one to attack in 17 - even the counterattack did not have enough resources. Stop hovering in the monarchical clouds, but go down to the ground and face the facts - in WWI, the RI army was inferior in all respects to other armies of large countries and the only thing that Nikolashka did at the front was to interfere with the work of the headquarters.
  • Litsvin
    Litsvin 27 March 2016 21: 56
    +5
    Dear egor670, do not replicate "nonsense on the air". The most terrible murderers in the history of Russia for our Slavic, i.e. a foreign "for them" people-ethnos were zhydomason, "entrenched" first in London, and then "moved to parasitize" in the USA. And, accordingly, their proteges in the USSR.
    Let me give you one historical example - in the Russian Empire in the 19th century (over 100 years !!!), ONLY 19 criminals were sentenced to "watchtower" and executed. The Criminal Code of the Russian Empire had only 2 articles providing for execution. Only military courts conducted legal proceedings against them, regardless of the status and social position of the accused.
    Under the "Bolsheviks" - in just one week of 1935 in the Omsk OGPU 369 death sentences were passed. This was even before the cleaning of the "organs" from the Yezhov-Jewish gang, when the Great Stalin finally cleaned out the "organs" from the "undercut Trotskyists." It got to the point that in many regional departments of the OGPU the number of "bloomkins, rosenblums, felmans, aarons" who signed sentences to the Russian people reached 80% or more. Then, after the "Great Purge," these names began to flicker less and less frequently. And then, at the time of the exposure of the "cult of Stalin's personality", when it became fashionable to hang all the dogs on Stalin, these half-cut Jews from the OGPU / NKVD or their relatives became so insolent that they wrote petitions to rehabilitate themselves or their repressed relatives, who had no hands. shoulders in the blood of Russian people.
    But this system of destruction of the Slavic ethnos was not invented by Stalin, but by Bronstein / Trotsky and Sverdlov back in 1918, at the same time the first "camp" was built in the Orenburg region.
    Also about the "gas chambers" with which the Soviet propaganda branded the German "Nazis". Guys, Slavs, wake up !!! Mobile "gas chambers" on the basis of cars for the destruction of Russian people were invented by an employee of the Moscow UNKVD Isay Davidovich Berg (the name speaks for itself). Only 4 years later this invention was borrowed from us by the Germans, who slightly modified it - they installed a regulator valve on the exhaust pipe, which diverted only 25-30% of the exhaust gases into the "will" to humanize the process of extermination of people.
    What kind of "Russian-tsars bloodsuckers" are there - they are just small children in comparison with the Trotskyists who came to power in Russia in 1917.

    Russia did not lose the Russo-Japanese War, but made an unprofitable peace. Russia didn’t even carry out mass mobilization in the RJV. Regular units fought in the Far East and Korea. If Russia had at least partially mobilized, raised the Cossacks, transported a larger number of combat units from the European part of Russia to the Far East, then these Japanese macaques would have been dumped into the sea in a week. Even without a fleet, Russia would have won the Russo-Japanese War, since the fleet was only one of the instruments of the war, but far from the most important.

    During the Great Patriotic War (yes, yes, that is what our people called the First World War), both our enemies and our "sworn friends" stole the victory from Russia. Neither France, nor England, and even more so the Zhydomason USA, did not want to see Russia among the winners. Much has been written about this. If you are too lazy to read, watch the movie "The Great and Forgotten".

    I have the honor !!! (Former Navy of the USSR Navy)
  • apro
    apro 27 March 2016 06: 38
    +12
    The debate about the victory in the First World War does not subside, but the question must be posed: was Russia needed? Was this massacre necessary? Or, as always, did the Russians pour blood for the interests of others? Today’s heroization of this criminal massacre is designed to legalize the 1991 coup, to justify today's the dominance of the liberals of the democrats and their masters of capitalists to the detriment of the people of our country.
    1. venaya
      venaya 27 March 2016 06: 53
      +8
      I think that the question of the victory itself is not entirely legitimate. This whole war was organized not at all in the name of the interests of Russia itself, but with the aim of obtaining benefits for overseas financial structures. They set the goal of the war for themselves correctly, for which they received a huge financial income both from the war and from subsequent revolutions. "Who calls the tune ...".
      Russia did not need this whole game in any situation, we just lost from it, it’s good that at least not everything.
    2. AK64
      AK64 28 March 2016 08: 32
      +1
      The debate about the victory in the First World War does not subside, but the question must be posed: was Russia needed? Was this massacre necessary? Or, as always, did the Russians pour blood for the interests of others? Today’s heroization of this criminal massacre is designed to legalize the 1991 coup, to justify today's the dominance of the liberals of the democrats and their masters of capitalists to the detriment of the people of our country.


      Was the Great Patriotic War "needed"? "But was this (WWII) slaughter necessary? or as always, for the company for the interests of others, did the Russians pour blood?"
      And what kind of coup is intended to legalize its heroization?

      But by the way, I'm not talking about that. Let's immediately talk about the main thing: you are not Russian, are you? What is your nationality?

      This is the point.
  • mitya1941
    mitya1941 27 March 2016 06: 41
    +2
    I also fully support. The spring was compressed from 1825 and straightened in 1917, the people yearned for liberation, there was the agony of the tsarist regime, a revolution was inevitable, they say the king showed gentleness and resigned, and if he hadn’t left, there would have been even more blood.
    1. Stena
      Stena 27 March 2016 10: 37
      +4
      Quote: mitya1941
      I also fully support. The spring was compressed from 1825 and straightened in 1917, the people yearned for liberation, there was the agony of the tsarist regime, a revolution was inevitable, they say the king showed gentleness and resigned, and if he hadn’t left, there would have been even more blood.

      What are you talking about? what people are you talking about? At first there was a revolution organized by representatives of the bourgeoisie, and not of the people. They organized an interim government. So the people rebelled against him. And not against the King. Look at the history already - at least Soviet textbooks - there, although with the right sauce, but the sequence of actions - all are given one thing ...
      You decide to argue - first give a chronology of those events, at least from Soviet textbooks. And then turn on the brain and think a little ...
      1. Rastas
        Rastas 27 March 2016 16: 30
        -4
        No. The February revolution was won by the Soviets, they were the main driving force, and the Duma only asked the tsar to abdicate, frightened by the events. After which the Soviets handed over power to the Duma, which organized the Provisional Government. Only now she did not begin to solve urgent tasks, everything remained as if the monarchy had not been overthrown, only peasant unrest took place in places. In the end, the same Kornilov rebellion was sponsored by bourgeois circles in fear of losing their capital (recall the summer events of the 17th and the workers' uprising in Petrograd). The bourgeoisie needed a dictator who would pacify the people and protect the property of the capitalists. It was after the failure of the rebellion that October became inevitable, because no affairs on the reorganization of the country, which the Soviets demanded, were carried out.
  • Dart2027
    Dart2027 27 March 2016 06: 56
    +13
    The author of the article slightly forgets the fact that the Republic of Ingushetia, at the time of the February revolution, had practically taken out Austria and Turkey, and as the conspirators themselves admitted a little more, and the impending offensive would have led to the victory over Germany.
    The stories about how cannons and shells didn’t get to the troops relate to the activities of high-ranking traitors. I do not know if they were all Freemasons or not, but the generals betrayed power in full force.
    About Wrangel is also original - the author believes that it would be better if Crimea became an independent state like Estonia? Comments are redundant.
    1. apro
      apro 27 March 2016 07: 08
      +6
      By the time of the February coup, the main opponents of Russia were on Russian territory, as Shirokorad indicates, the shock capabilities of the German army during the war grew much stronger than the Russian army, only the Austrians were at the same level, the Ottomans with low qualities were able to withstand the Russians in the Transcaucasian theater. talking about betrayal is about the betrayal of the allies, who were more concerned about their own problems than joint action against Germany.
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 27 March 2016 08: 27
        +6
        I wonder why, with the increased opportunities for the 17th year, the Germans planned a deaf defense?
      2. Stena
        Stena 27 March 2016 10: 43
        +12
        Quote: apro
        , the Ottomans at low qualities were able to resist the Russians in the Transcaucasian theater

        At what low qualities? The same Ottomans defeated the French and the British under the Dardanelles, and there they were of very high quality. But when transferred to another part of the Ottoman Empire, they suddenly ran out of steam and their quality deteriorated? Alas and ah! Does not stand up to any criticism. But to admit that Yudenich was an outstanding military leader is not fate? And the fact that our ancestors actually defeated the Turks, who were inserted by the vaunted English with the French?
        1. Alex
          Alex 27 March 2016 11: 28
          +4
          Quote: Stena
          The same Ottomans defeated the French and the British under the Dardanelles, and there they were of very high quality.

          Well, the Dardanelles operation was riding stupidity. Breaking through the long and narrow gut of the strait, stuffed with coastal batteries and under strikes from land - this is only such a naval genius as Churchill could guess. So here it’s rather not the Turks who are good, but the British who are bad.
          1. Stena
            Stena 27 March 2016 11: 40
            +5
            Quote: Alex
            Well, the Dardanelles operation was riding stupidity. Breaking through the long and narrow gut of the strait, stuffed with coastal batteries and under strikes from land - this is only such a naval genius as Churchill could guess. So here it’s rather not the Turks who are good, but the British who are bad.

            These are their problems - at all levels of command. But this did not make the Turks weaker.
            You need to respect your ancestors and appreciate their victory!
            1. Alex
              Alex 27 March 2016 11: 48
              +4
              Quote: Stena
              These are their problems - at all levels of command. But this did not make the Turks weaker. You need to respect your ancestors and appreciate their victory!

              Yes, I respect them, calm down. Just do not need the stupidity of some (English) to pass off as the wisdom of others (Turks). This is the same as saying that the three-year-old is at the level of an excellent student only because he is slightly better than the two-man.
              1. Stena
                Stena 27 March 2016 12: 00
                +1
                Quote: Alex
                Yes, I respect them, calm down. Just do not need the stupidity of some (English) to pass off as the wisdom of others (Turks). This is the same as saying that the three-year-old is at the level of an excellent student only because he is slightly better than the two-man.

                Where exactly did I write about the wisdom of the Turks or the stupidity of the British? Links, pliz.
                If not, it means that you are talking to yourself ...
                1. Alex
                  Alex 27 March 2016 12: 44
                  +1
                  Actually, I wrote a specific comment on a specific comment (this is about the Dardanelles operation). You did something to theorize about respect / disrespect for my ancestors (my great-grandfather went missing in WWII, so I don’t need to agitate). And the complete collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the war does not at all speak of some great Turkish talents. By and large, if not for Kemal, today we would know Turkey only from students of history.

                  To further discuss with you I became bored.
                  1. Stena
                    Stena 27 March 2016 14: 22
                    +4
                    Quote: Alex
                    To further discuss with you I became bored.

                    Was it fun before that?
                    So I asked you a specific question - the answer is no.
                    You ask some Lithuanian or Estonian about the great victories of their nations. They will remember some scanty battle from the point of view of the final result right there. And they will talk about it with pride. Ask the British, the Americans - the same picture. Full respect and honor.
                    And you say so lightly that the British are weak, and not the Turks are good. The question is not who is good and who is bad. The question is that our ancestors beat them - what is good, what is bad. And this deserves the deepest respect, both from the marshals and the authors of the articles.
                    And when Yudenich’s troops in a snowstorm on a chest in the snow advanced in the Erzurum operation, is it so simple and does not deserve the slightest attention? It’s easier to say - why are the Turks there - nonsense, wimps ...
        2. Forest
          Forest 27 March 2016 14: 07
          0
          Firstly, the Turks fought with the Allies was a pyrrhic victory - they lost the most combat-ready troops, spent a lot of ammunition. Yudenich was waiting for a convenient moment and struck when the Ottomans were the least combat-ready.
          1. V.ic
            V.ic 27 March 2016 14: 38
            +4
            Quote: Forest
            the Turks fought with the Allies was a pyrrhic victory - the most combat-ready troops lost,

            If you mean the Gallipoli operation of the Entente?
            Quote: Forest
            Yudenich was waiting for a convenient moment and struck when the Ottomans were the least combat-ready.

            The Sarikamysh operation took place earlier than the Dardanelles / Gallipoli operation. "Soyunichki" banally wanted to steal the Dardanelles from the Russians, but they ran into the askers of Colonel Mustafa Kemal.
            1. Forest
              Forest 27 March 2016 14: 43
              0
              He did not quite correctly formulate the sequence - the Turks were preparing for battles in the west and completely scored a bolt in the Caucasus. Well, those parts that could inflict a counterattack were stuck in battle with the British. Time to transfer everything did not allow the complete backwardness of the rear parts of the Ottomans.
              1. V.ic
                V.ic 27 March 2016 21: 19
                0
                Quote: Forest
                Time to transfer everything did not allow the complete backwardness of the rear parts of the Ottomans.

                ... mainly the Russian Imperial Fleet, which slapped the Goeben in the battle at Cape Sarych in November 1914.
                1. Alexey T. (Oper)
                  Alexey T. (Oper) 27 March 2016 22: 03
                  -3
                  Quote: V.ic
                  ... mainly the Russian Imperial Fleet, which slapped the Goeben in the battle at Cape Sarych in November 1914.

                  In the breakthrough from the breakthrough.

                  An entire fleet of four battleships (we will not even mention the cruisers and destroyers) against one light cruiser. Urya-Urya, Kolchak the great naval commander ....
                  1. V.ic
                    V.ic 28 March 2016 06: 32
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                    Kolchak the great naval commander ....

                    For some reason, Eberhard was called "Gebengard" behind his back, but Alexander Vasilyevich, being an expert in mine warfare, managed to drive a rat into a hole, which his predecessor failed to do.
                  2. Trapperxnumx
                    Trapperxnumx 28 March 2016 11: 36
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                    Quote: V.ic
                    ... mainly the Russian Imperial Fleet, which slapped the Goeben in the battle at Cape Sarych in November 1914.

                    In the breakthrough from the breakthrough.

                    An entire fleet of four battleships (we will not even mention the cruisers and destroyers) against one light cruiser. Urya-Urya, Kolchak the great naval commander ....

                    I'm sorry, what? Have you read at least something about this battle? Or so, I heard a ringing without knowing where he is?
                    Four super formidable Russian battleships and one small light German cruiser !!! Go crazy with your knowledge! I usually write more restrained, but here I'm sorry.
                    So, Geben is a battle cruiser, one of the best in its class at the time of the 1914 of the year, weapons - 10 of heavy guns, armor 270 mm. To confront him, Britain kept three of her battle cruisers in the Mediterranean. Similar German cruisers in the battle of Jutland fought including superlinkers such as Queen Elizabeth, destroyed three British battlecruisers, losing only one of their own.
                    Russian "battleships" - battleships of the times of the Russo-Japanese War, with all that it implies.
                    And it was Goeben, and Eberhard, who hastened to leave the scene of the battle. Although our admiral, too, was not particularly eager for battle.
                    And in the battle at the Bosphorus, a year later, there are generally only two Russian battleships (not dreadnought), forced Goeben to retreat.
                    1. V.ic
                      V.ic 28 March 2016 19: 22
                      0
                      Quote: Trapper7
                      one small light german cruiser!

                      Then "Breslau" was just a boat if the "Yavuz Sultan Selim" was a "light cruiser".
                      Quote: Trapper7
                      And it was Goeben, and Eberhard, who hastened to leave the scene of the battle.

                      "Goeben, and Eberhard." So read it better: http://ymorno.ru/index.php?showtopic=69264, mb. the migraine will pass and the brain will begin to clear up.
                  3. The comment was deleted.
                2. Forest
                  Forest 28 March 2016 13: 56
                  0
                  How can a fleet prevent the transfer of troops on land tens of kilometers from the sea?
      3. AK64
        AK64 27 March 2016 14: 18
        +8
        By the time of the February coup, the main opponents of Russia were on Russian territory,

        So what? The Anglo-French never entered German territory - so maybe Germany won the war, huh?

        Understand at last that to win the war it is not at all necessary to take someone else's capital! Well, Napoleon took the second capital in 1812 - and a couple of months later his army left horns and legs.


        as Shirokorad indicates, the shock capabilities of the German army during the war grew much stronger than the Russian army,

        This is a fantasy. In fact, the relative (namely relative) strength of the German army was maximum in 1914 - it was then that it was a perfectly prepared mechanism. Already in 1915, the Germans were unable to achieve any of their goals — in essence, this meant that they had lost the war, and all further actions were only an attempt to obtain better peace conditions.

        only the Austrians were on the same level

        A very interesting statement ...
        At least one defeat inflicted by the Russian Austrians?

        , the Ottomans at low qualities were able to withstand the Russians in the Transcaucasian theater.

        Uh-huh: "resisted" from defeat to defeat, and the Russians were planning a landing on Basfor.


        If we talk about betrayal, then about the betrayal of the allies, who were more concerned about their own problems than joint actions against Germany.


        Finally, at least something reasonable sounded ....
        Exactly so: when the war dawned on an obvious end --- "sworn allies" thought about the future world. And they decided that it would be good without Russia, so as not to get up twice. See the Pico Sykes Agreement - it's instructive.
    2. ALEA IACTA EST
      ALEA IACTA EST 27 March 2016 08: 17
      -1
      You can’t just take and defeat the Reichsheer ...
      1. 97110
        97110 27 March 2016 12: 56
        0
        Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
        Reichsheer ...

        He raised his hand to put a plus ... The eye caught hold of a word. Who is this?
        1. Forest
          Forest 27 March 2016 14: 08
          +1
          German Ground Forces in WWI.
    3. Rastas
      Rastas 27 March 2016 16: 34
      0
      Yes, do you seriously think that a victory was stolen from us? But under Hitler in Germany, the same stories were told that if it were not for a stab in the back, Germany would have won all.
  • V.ic
    V.ic 27 March 2016 07: 16
    0
    Alas, the coup in the Crimea did not happen, but white the baron, obsessed with the manic idea of ​​entering Moscow on a white horse, staged a massacre in Northern Tavria, then fled to the Crimea, and from there to Constantinople.

    "White Army, Black Baron"
    Music: Samuel Pokrass Lyrics: P. Grigoriev

    "White army,the black baron
    The royal throne is being prepared for us again, "
    1. Captain nemo
      Captain nemo 27 March 2016 12: 54
      +1
      Quote: V.ic
      "White Army, Black Baron"

      A little off-topic lyrics.
      When I was in school, then by May 9 in our school there was a combat drill with songs. We began to learn songs for marching somewhere after the May Day holidays. Our whole class learned the song at the desks, and began to go on the march of the song by typing a step. And it was necessary for this to happen one fine sunny day, after a U-turn, we sang with the whole class:
      Red army, black baron.
      They are preparing the royal throne for us again.
      For everyone, it dawned on us that even though the cool teacher had been acting out to our words, we were singing something wrong.
      After the word "throne", everyone fell silent without a command. It seems that they began to whisper - what did we sing, and I so expected that for such anti-Sovietism (the song was sung by the whole class at the top of his voice), our whole class would be slapped with an "outfit" - cleaning the territory, washing floors, etc. But it cost us nothing for it was not.
    2. V.ic
      V.ic 27 March 2016 13: 18
      +1
      Quote: V.ic
      "White Army, Black Baron"

      Gentlemen minusyars, at least argued for the minus, here they would grind the question and everyone was fine, but here they are not clear. Well, Pyotr Andreevich was never in the memory of his colleagues and enemies a "white" baron, as the author of the article blurted out in a political frenzy. Type in the search bar of your browser "Black Baron Wrangel" and read the contents. Personally, for those who minus me for my comment, I will name two more "colored barons": Ungern von Sternberg and Ludwig Bartini. Dig into I-nete for the characters I specified. Very interesting people!
  • Igor39
    Igor39 27 March 2016 07: 20
    +3
    "German airplanes dropped leaflets with caricatures on the Russian trenches - the Kaiser measures a huge 800-kilogram shell with a centimeter, and Nicholas II in the same position measures Rasputin's penis."

    This is level 80 trolling !!!!! laughing laughing laughing What will be the arguments of the supporters of the monarchy?
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 27 March 2016 10: 00
      +3
      Quote: Igor39
      What will be the arguments of the supporters of the monarchy?

      Hitler also dropped leaflets - do you propose judging the USSR by what was written in them?
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 27 March 2016 10: 33
        0
        Well, do you think that the Germans made a mistake with the picture on the leaflet?
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 27 March 2016 11: 32
          +1
          Quote: Igor39
          Germans made a mistake with the picture on the leaflet

          Well, give some evidence that Nicholas II was in some kind of relationship with Rasputin.
          1. Your friend
            Your friend 27 March 2016 12: 07
            +1
            Quote: Dart2027
            Quote: Igor39
            Germans made a mistake with the picture on the leaflet

            Well, give some evidence that Nicholas II was in some kind of relationship with Rasputin.

            Are you serious? Nicholas 2 had no relationship with Rasputin ????
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 27 March 2016 12: 17
              0
              Quote: Your friend
              Nicholas 2 had no relationship with Rasputin

              Quote: Igor39
              Nicholas II in the same position measures a member of Rasputin

              Will there be evidence? Or do you propose to judge the story by the agitation of the enemy?
              1. Your friend
                Your friend 27 March 2016 12: 22
                +1
                Quote: Dart2027
                Quote: Your friend
                Nicholas 2 had no relationship with Rasputin

                Quote: Igor39
                Nicholas II in the same position measures a member of Rasputin

                Will there be evidence? Or do you propose to judge the story by the agitation of the enemy?

                Evidence of what? Obvious that Rasputin was a member of the royal family? Do you like the evidence to send a parcel or pigeons?
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 27 March 2016 12: 58
                  +2
                  Quote: Your friend
                  Evidence of what? Obvious that Rasputin was a member of the royal family?

                  Many were included in the royal family. Like the Kaiser family. Here you pull out some nasty libel and position it as some kind of evidence.
                  Quote: Igor39
                  What will be the arguments

                  Is there evidence of abominations involving Nicholas II and Rasputin or not?
                  1. Your friend
                    Your friend 27 March 2016 13: 13
                    -1
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    Many were included in the royal family. Like the Kaiser family. Here you pull out some nasty libel and position it as some kind of evidence.

                    What kind of libel have I pulled out and am positioning it as evidence? Give me a quote, please? Otherwise, you are just another yap.)
                    So much has been written about Rasputin that people like you are simply surprising. From Radzinsky to Secretary Aranovich, from the archives of surveillance of gendarmes and the Ministry of Internal Affairs for Rasputin to Yusupov's memoirs.
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 27 March 2016 14: 22
                      0
                      Quote: Your friend
                      What kind of libel have I pulled out and am positioning it as evidence? Give me a quote, please?
                      Do not you remember what you write?
                      Quote: Igor39
                      "German airplanes dropped leaflets with caricatures on the Russian trenches - the Kaiser measures a huge 800-kilogram shell with a centimeter, and Nicholas II in the same position measures Rasputin's penis."

                      Quote: Your friend
                      So much has been written about Rasputin

                      For example, this:
                      "If it were not for Rasputin, the opponents of the Tsar's family and those who prepared the revolution would have created him with their conversations from Vyrubova, if it had not been for Vyrubova - from whoever you want from me."
                      (tsarist doctor ES Botkin according to the memoirs of his daughter "Memories of the tsar's family and her life before and after the revolution").
                      What is typical after the February coup, the EP tried to find evidence of Rasputin’s numerous crimes. Only nothing was found and the matter was hushed up.
                      1. Your friend
                        Your friend 27 March 2016 14: 35
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Do not you remember what you write?

                        Are you delusional? Igor39 wrote to you about the cartoon, why am I responsible for his posts? Those. bring my "libel, you could not" - you just yap.)
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        For example, this:
                        "If it were not for Rasputin, the opponents of the Tsar's family and those who prepared the revolution would have created him with their conversations from Vyrubova, if it had not been for Vyrubova - from whoever you want from me."
                        (tsarist doctor ES Botkin according to the memoirs of his daughter "Memories of the tsar's family and her life before and after the revolution").

                        It's funny that you pulled out a quote from the text And you set yourself up, because if you take and find this text completely and read it (it's easy to do on the Internet), then Botkin's daughter spoke very impartially about Rasputin, For example, "dishonest, cunning and dissolute man ".)))
                      2. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 27 March 2016 15: 51
                        0
                        Quote: Your friend
                        then there Botkin’s daughter very expressingly spoke about Rasputin

                        Botkin himself was also not his fan. And that is why his statement about how a scarecrow was made from Rasputin can with high probability be considered objective.
                        By the way, Rasputin begged the king not to get involved in the war.
                        Quote: Your friend
                        Are you raving?

                        Not just by "you" I meant the two of you (Igor39 dragged in this dirt and not only it, you began to defend his position), and then got distracted and it turned out inaccurate.
          2. AK64
            AK64 27 March 2016 13: 56
            +1
            Are you serious? Nicholas 2 had no relationship with Rasputin ????


            Is there any evidence that they were?

            You take any photo where Rasputin is with other people (no matter who these people are), and make sure that all such photos are of terrible quality Photoshop. The eye cuts the rudeness of a fake.
            You see, all group photos.

            Already in the 21st century, knowing about photoshop, one would have to look everywhere for traces of fakes.
            1. Your friend
              Your friend 27 March 2016 14: 00
              0
              Quote: AK64
              Are you serious? Nicholas 2 had no relationship with Rasputin ????


              Is there any evidence that they were?

              You take any photo where Rasputin is with other people (no matter who these people are), and make sure that all such photos are of terrible quality Photoshop. The eye cuts the rudeness of a fake.
              You see, all group photos.

              Already in the 21st century, knowing about photoshop, one would have to look everywhere for traces of fakes.

              Around the plot, around Photoshop, as you only live in this world of fakes !!! You are a brave man !! 1)
              1. AK64
                AK64 27 March 2016 14: 02
                0
                Brought the user "Your friend" in emergency situations: it is banal to talk to him - it seems that he will bite you.
                1. Wheel
                  Wheel 27 March 2016 15: 53
                  +1
                  Quote: AK64
                  Introduced the user "Your friend" in emergency situations: it's trivial to talk to him

                  Emergency - a terrible weapon when there are not enough arguments! laughing
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 27 March 2016 16: 45
                    0
                    What "arguments" can be against "hi hi ha ha"?"Hi hi ha ha"this is the scrap of acceptance against which there is no.

                    But in general, emergency is trivial hygiene and saving time: is it worth spending time on "hee hee ha ha"?
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. Your friend
                Your friend 27 March 2016 14: 48
                +1
                AK64 !!!!!!!!
                Why are you blacklisting me ??? For whatooooooo !!!! Ahahahaha ....
        2. Igor39
          Igor39 27 March 2016 12: 24
          0
          "Yesenin sang ditties on" an incredibly fashionable then theme: "Grigory Rasputin and the Tsarina": "I'll heat the bathhouse, buy yellow soap, I will wash Grishka's stomach, let it be stronger than me ..." "

          This is the Russian people composed smile , but you can’t deceive him.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 27 March 2016 13: 00
            +2
            Quote: Igor39
            It was the Russian people who composed smile, but you can’t deceive him.

            The people composed a lot of things and not always smart.
          2. AK64
            AK64 27 March 2016 14: 07
            +2
            It was the Russian people who composed smile, but you can’t deceive him.


            1. Yesenin is not a people.
            2. The people did not compose this.
            3. It is not difficult to deceive the people - we have seen the facts of deceiving the people over the past 25 years many times.

            As for Rasputin: he was invented in the years 1916-17, the putschists. And later the Bolsheviks picked up.

            Why am I saying that Rasputin was invented? And you will do it simply: look on the web ALL photos of Rasputin where he is with other people carefully - rough and primitive "photoshop" is visible everywhere.

            That is, people with such a surname were .... somewhere. But his "role" is a complete fabrication (Temporary)
    2. Your friend
      Your friend 27 March 2016 11: 46
      0
      Quote: Dart2027
      Quote: Igor39
      What will be the arguments of the supporters of the monarchy?

      Hitler also dropped leaflets - do you propose judging the USSR by what was written in them?

      Cousin Willie offended cousin Nicky. Do you think Rasputin was a holy old man?
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 27 March 2016 12: 15
        +1
        I don’t know about holiness, but the stories of his profligacy look a lot like ordinary black PR.
        1. Your friend
          Your friend 27 March 2016 12: 20
          +3
          Quote: Dart2027
          I don’t know about holiness, but the stories of his profligacy look a lot like ordinary black PR.

          Believe, Prince Yusupov, Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich, member of the state. Duma, monarchist, Black Hundred Purishkevich - all of them killed Rasputin because of black PR, and not because he disgraced the royal family? Wow, you opened my eyes. (
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 27 March 2016 14: 32
            0
            Quote: Your friend
            they all killed Rasputin because of black PR, and not because he disgraced the royal family

            Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich - because of Rasputin could not marry VK Olga.
            Prince Yusupov - was a representative of non-traditional orientation and Rasputin tried to treat him at the request of his father.
            By the way, they and VK VK were very close friends.
            I can't say anything about Purishkevich, perhaps he thought that it would be better, according to the principle "no man, no problem."
            1. Your friend
              Your friend 27 March 2016 14: 42
              0
              Quote: Dart2027
              Prince Yusupov - was a representative of non-traditional orientation and Rasputin tried to treat him at the request of his father ..

              I knew that all about Rasputin is black PR. That Yusupov is a homosexual is the true truth. You are well done.)
              Quote: Dart2027
              By the way, they and VK VK were very close friends.

              This certainly proves a lot. But Rasputin whipped vodka with all of them. Do you think that also proves a lot?
              Quote: Dart2027
              I can't say anything about Purishkevich, perhaps he thought that it would be better, according to the principle "no man, no problem."

              Fine. You don’t know anything about a person, but you attribute some principles to him. Horror.)
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 27 March 2016 07: 25
    +3
    Shirokorad has good articles, sometimes a bit controversial, but always certainly interesting.
  • Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 27 March 2016 07: 30
    -4
    The author of the article presents the material under the impression of the history of Russia written by those who overthrew power in 1917.
    The authority given by the Lord.
    Rulers are also people with their own shortcomings.
    But is it worth repeating the bullshit of our enemies !?
    1. apro
      apro 27 March 2016 07: 32
      0
      Which one is Vladimir? More specifically possible?
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 27 March 2016 07: 41
        +2
        Specify what kind of Lord gave power in Russia?
    2. Wheel
      Wheel 27 March 2016 08: 26
      -2
      Quote: Pvi1206
      The authority given by the Lord.

      “Let every soul be submissive to the highest authorities, for there is no authority not from God; the existing authorities from God are established. Therefore, those who oppose power oppose God's establishment. But those who are opposing themselves will bring judgment upon themselves ”(Rom. 13: 1, 2).
      “You would not have any power over Me if it had not been given to you from above” (John 19: 10-11)
      “In the days of well-being, enjoy the good, and in the days of adversity, think: God did both so that man could not say anything against Him” (Eccl. 7:14).
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 27 March 2016 08: 46
        -1
        Do you believe the inscriptions in a book copied by Jews from other books 2000 years ago? Then I understand you of course.
      2. Darkness
        Darkness 27 March 2016 08: 55
        -3
        Soon they will add to the Constitution. A separate article.
      3. avt
        avt 27 March 2016 09: 51
        -1
        Quote: Wheel
        “Let every soul be submissive to the highest authorities, for there is no authority not from God; the existing authorities from God are established. Therefore, those who oppose power oppose God's establishment. And those who are opposing themselves will bring judgment upon themselves ”(
        I am addressing Aspad the dreaming new "Orthodox Tsar".
        How did the founder say there? “I came not to change, but to supplement” Well, we open the Book of Kings No. 1, ch.8 - “And the Lord said to Samuel: listen to the voices of the people in everything, for they did not reject you, but rejected Me, so that I would not reign over them ..... so listen to their voices; just introduce them and explain to them the rights of the king who will rule over them. And Samuel recounted all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. " Read the list, it is interesting there, especially the ending - ... and then you will rise from your king, whom you have chosen for yourself and the Lord will not answer you then. "So I can only advise - it is easier with requests to the Lord, otherwise you will get it prayer, he can fulfill your wishes for your misfortune. What then say? There is no God, because if he was, then he would not allow such an outrage? wassat laughing Nekrasov must have been drunk and put it more harshly - "People of a servile rank are real dogs sometimes, the harder the punishment, the dearer they are to the Lord." request neither reduce nor add.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 27 March 2016 10: 21
          0
          avt: What do you say then?

          ..... Belsatzar ward in selbiger Nacht
          Von seinen knechten umgebracht
          1. avt
            avt 27 March 2016 14: 23
            0
            Quote: bober1982
            . Belsatzar ward in selbiger nacht
            Von seinen knechten umgebracht

            Your will, but somehow formulate the question more clearly, otherwise the Mavo has a much more average mind to understand the topics of interest to you from the link about someone who killed Baltasar at night
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 27 March 2016 16: 58
              0
              So this is the answer to your question, I do not know what exactly I should formulate.
        2. Stena
          Stena 27 March 2016 10: 49
          0
          Quote: avt
          How did the founder say there?

          And why are you quoting the Old Testament? This is characteristic of the Jews - they live on it.
          But for Christians - the foundation is the New Testament.
          You have very interesting comments. But religious disputes are for specialists of other competencies.
          1. avt
            avt 27 March 2016 14: 20
            -1
            Quote: Stena
            But for Christians - the foundation is the New Testament.

            Have you actually read it yourself? Or having dropped in for a minute into the temple from the priest, heard this wisdom about the rejection of the Old? Why am I asking this - I happened to meet such an illiterate priest in a church preaching in the 90s.
            Quote: avt
            ,, I have come not to change, but to supplement "

            Maybe a specific link from all the evangelists can be found in which it is clearly indicated by Christ - hammer in the Old Testament.
            Quote: Stena
            But religious disputes are for specialists of other competencies.

            Both on ! Yes, you’re just like a Roman Catholic! laughing These are all their services in Latin, a dead language and a flock for the most part not understood, and generally as was customary among the papists in the Middle Ages so that the laity did not read the Scriptures, in general, neither New nor Old. Thank God the Orthodox tradition, Despite all the reformation, including the frankly Protestant Beijing No. 1, the other is not forbidden to use sources. so do not justify your own laziness
            Quote: Stena
            But religious disputes are for specialists of other competencies.

            It’s enough that we have liberalizing intellectuals, carriers, don’t understand what values ​​are on every corner like houndless dogs. Everyone strives to teach life.
            1. Stena
              Stena 27 March 2016 15: 35
              0
              Quote: avt
              Can a specific link from all the evangelists lead

              Sure. Here is the Gospel of Matthew 5: starting from point 17. "Do not think that I came to break the law or the prophets: I did not come to break the law, but to fulfill it." And then the changes in paragraphs from 18-48 are given (that is, until the beginning of 6).
              Quote: avt
              It’s enough that we have liberalizing intellectuals, carriers, don’t understand what values ​​are on every corner like houndless dogs. Everyone strives to teach life.

              Yes, not a shit =).
              1. avt
                avt 27 March 2016 15: 59
                0
                Quote: Stena
                Sure. Here is the Gospel of Matthew 5: starting from point 17. "Do not think that I came to break the law or the prophets: I did not come to break the law, but to fulfill it." And then the changes in paragraphs from 18-48 are given (that is, until the beginning of 6).

                The thought from what was read did not crept into the brain that everything that the prophets gave to the mountain was written in the Old Testament? Part of which
                Quote: Stena
                This is characteristic of the Jews - they live on it.

                they call the Torah, but they don’t live by it, the set of rules of their life is spelled out by other normative acts published in another book. They have different names for parts of the Old Testament. It seemed to Ordynka and its second subordinate church on Rusakovskaya embankment of Yauza.
                1. Stena
                  Stena 27 March 2016 16: 11
                  +1
                  Quote: avt
                  The thought from what was read did not crept into the brain that everything that the prophets gave to the mountain was written in the Old Testament? Part of which

                  Unfortunately no. Not all.
                  Quote: avt
                  they call the Torah, but they don’t live by it, the set of rules of their life is spelled out by other normative acts published in another book. They have different names for parts of the Old Testament. It seemed to Ordynka and its second subordinate church on Rusakovskaya embankment of Yauza.

                  Yes. It's like that. You're right. Thanks for the link. If possible, I will definitely visit ...
          2. atalef
            atalef 27 March 2016 16: 08
            0
            Quote: Stena
            And why are you quoting the Old Testament? This is characteristic of the Jews - they live on it.

            This is a letter to the Romans of the Apostle Paul. how does he relate to the Old Testament? fool
      4. Wheel
        Wheel 27 March 2016 15: 58
        +2
        Hmm, the strange Orthodox people in our country have gone - the Holy Scriptures are being blamed. laughing
        1. avt
          avt 27 March 2016 16: 05
          0
          Quote: Wheel
          Hmm, the strange Orthodox people in our country have gone - the Holy Scriptures are being blamed.

          request Well, those who are enlightened "by this, like him ... egalite, liberte, fgontolite. laughing
    3. Darkness
      Darkness 27 March 2016 08: 28
      +1
      And who exactly overthrew the power in 1917?
      1. Wheel
        Wheel 27 March 2016 08: 50
        +8
        Quote: Darkness
        And who exactly overthrew the power in 1917?

        This is usually modestly silent.
        1. Darkness
          Darkness 27 March 2016 08: 57
          +2
          Duc, on the contrary. "The Bolsheviks overthrew the tsar-breadwinner, the drinker, on the pipe of the gamer" !!!! "Forgive us, sir," etc.
          1. activator
            activator 27 March 2016 11: 30
            0
            Quote: Darkness
            Duc, on the contrary. "The Bolsheviks overthrew the tsar-breadwinner, the drinker, on the pipe of the gamer" !!!! "Forgive us, sir," etc.

            The capitalists overthrew, the communists killed. winked
    4. avt
      avt 27 March 2016 09: 34
      +4
      Quote: Pvi1206
      The author of the article presents the material under the impression of the history of Russia written by those who overthrew power in 1917.
      The authority given by the Lord.

      what Yeah !? But do not tell me - when did the Lord descend to the Romanovs to give them power? wassat A-a-a-a! Remembered! Borya No. 1 Godunov tonsured boyar Romanov into a monk, and then False Dmitry / Zarutsky, nicknamed "Tushinsky thief", appointed him patriarch with him, well, when he handed out to all his brothers new, ancient aristocratic titles, and then the cunning patriarch "threw the benefactor, after all, to betray on time, not to betray, but to foresee and with the thieves' Cossacks Tushinsky's accomplice Trubetskoy put his son Misha on the kingdom. Here the Tushino lads shouted, and the thieves 'Tushinsky patriarch began to be a son and anointed him for the kingdom. Again Fedya, well, the great-grandson of the thieves' Tushino patriarch, Tsar Fedya, burned the fucking category books and all the thieves of Tushino have definitely become ancient ... from God, aristocrats.
    5. Your friend
      Your friend 27 March 2016 11: 53
      +6
      Quote: Pvi1206
      The author of the article presents the material under the impression of the history of Russia written by those who overthrew power in 1917.
      The authority given by the Lord

      You think that when Elizabeth 1 was enthroned by the Menshikov guards, was it the Lord?
      Or when Anna Ioannovna tore the condition - was it also the Lord?
      Or when Elizabeth Petrovna overthrew John Antonovich (who was killed under Catherine 2) - the same Lord?
      Or when Peter 3 was stabbed to death - similarly did the Lord give power to Catherine 2?
      Or did Paul 1 get a snuffbox from the Lord?
      Or when Alexander 2 was blown up on a bomb, did the Lord transfer power to Alexander 3?
      1. 97110
        97110 27 March 2016 13: 02
        -1
        Quote: Your friend
        Or did Paul 1 get a snuffbox from the Lord?

        Blaspheme? In Great Lent! Horror!
        1. KakoVedi
          KakoVedi 27 March 2016 14: 56
          +1
          Anathema! Or wasn’t there a snuffbox ?!
      2. Igor39
        Igor39 27 March 2016 15: 10
        0
        Well argued, waiting for a response from the opposite side smile
      3. Rastas
        Rastas 27 March 2016 18: 21
        +1
        The apologists for the autocracy will answer you that there those who must overthrow and whom they can overthrow. White bone, blue blood.
  • mitya1941
    mitya1941 27 March 2016 07: 43
    +7
    The Lord gave - the Lord took.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 27 March 2016 07: 51
    +9
    - combat aircraft - 7 thousand from France, 14 thousand from Germany and just a thousand from Russia.... I would add for the period from 1914-1917 5 thousand aviation engines were produced, more than just in Austria-Hungary .. Yes, and that was the assembly of imported ones .. Russia, they dragged into the war .. Among the winners, its allies did not want to see ... I would have to share the straits, the possessions of Turkey .. In addition, for about 100 years, France stood for the independence of Poland .. And the Allies did this, oh, how I didn’t want to .. They needed Russia’s participation in the war, to weaken it ...
    1. Igor39
      Igor39 27 March 2016 08: 06
      +2
      .Russia, dragged into the war .. Drew Nikolai 2, as I understand it, or who else? Maybe peasants and workers wanted war?
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 27 March 2016 08: 19
        +3
        Russia, dragged into the war ....Five shots in Sarajevo .. These shots were aimed towards Russia .. Do not stand up for Serbia, Russia could not .. This was understood by those who wanted a war .. WWII did not start with the murder, say a German diplomat in Paris or London. .
        1. Igor39
          Igor39 27 March 2016 08: 24
          +1
          Gavrila Principle Serbian nationalist killed Ferdinand, Serbia dragged Russia into the war?
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 27 March 2016 10: 03
            +1
            Are you sure everything is so simple?
            First, the driver of the car turned off the route while driving and drove just to the place where the terrorist stood.
            The second - the guard who was supposed to cover up the Archduke left his post.
            Interesting coincidences.
            1. V.ic
              V.ic 27 March 2016 12: 30
              +1
              Quote: Dart2027
              Interesting matches

              There is not quite reliable information that on the day of the terrorist attack in Sarajevo, a certain L.D. Bronstein deigned to drink coffee on a neighboring street. Also a coincidence ...
            2. Rastas
              Rastas 27 March 2016 18: 28
              +1
              Coincidences. The principle, Gabrinovich, Hrabec did not hide the fact that they committed the murder on the order of Belgrade. In addition, during searches in Sarajevo after the murder, bombs were found in the apartments where the killers lived, which had the stigma of the Serbian state warehouse in Kragujevac. Principle, Gabrinovich and Hrabec were trained in shooting in the royal park Topchider near Belgrade under the control of Major Tankosic and official of the Serbian railways Tsiganovich. Another thing is that for the Austrian military there was an occasion to start a war that would start in any case, the only question was the timing.
          2. parusnik
            parusnik 27 March 2016 10: 38
            +3
            And you will familiarize yourself with the materials .. The European countries, members of the Entente, the Triple Alliance, carefully avoided any conflicts among themselves .. On the eve of the war, a friendly visit of the British fleet to Germany was made .. The English and German officers drank to friendship between peoples. There was such an incident that Russia would definitely intervene in it ... And if you read the memories of Serbian officials at the time, you get the impression that almost all Serbia knew about the impending assassination attempt in Sarajevo ... and the murdered himself .. Everybody wanted war .. After the murder in Sarajevo .. The opponents did not sit down at the negotiating table, but announced mobilization .. If we also consider that the murder of the Archduke took place on the territory of Austria-Hungary and Gabriel. Principle was an Austro-Hungarian subject , i.e. as it were an internal matter ... And the organization "Mlada Bosna" carried out its activities on the territory of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy ...
            1. AK64
              AK64 27 March 2016 18: 05
              0
              .It was necessary such an incident that Russia would necessarily intervene in it ..


              By the way, I would like to once again draw the community's attention to the fact that Britain's entry into the war greatly surprised Wilhelm. Even the slogan "God punish England!" Even years later, some strange reasons (like Belgium) are found for England's entry into the war.

              What's so strange here? And it’s strange here that Britain had a treaty against Germany, with France and with Russia. And it seems that William could not know about it --- but he is not a blind man!

              That is Wilhelm for some reason had reasons to believe that England would not intervene.
              Understands no?
              William was somehow convinced of this - and he believed, contrary to the obvious.
              How and who could convince such strange Wilhelm's things (which was not a fool at all)?

              Well then .....
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Your friend
          Your friend 27 March 2016 11: 55
          +2
          Quote: parusnik
          Russia, dragged into the war ....Five shots in Sarajevo .. These shots were aimed towards Russia .. Do not stand up for Serbia, Russia could not .. This was understood by those who wanted a war .. WWII did not start with the murder, say a German diplomat in Paris or London. .

          Why should Russia stand up for Serbia? Ah, oh yeah bros zhezh, why not shed the blood of several million Russians for little brothers. (((
  • semirek
    semirek 27 March 2016 07: 52
    +2
    Yes, spring. Comrades have aggravation, nostalgia, where can you cry on a waistcoat --- around are portraits of Nicholas, the emblems of the king restored, monuments to the fallen heroes of the Great War are set up, how to live with it?
    T. Lenin, with Comrade Trotsky and Comrade Stalin left you a prosperous country - and after 70 years you managed to scrub it, and at the same time flush the events a hundred years ago. Although the White people did not win, they tried to fight, but you stayed in the huts in 91 - what kind of communists are you after that? so one slush.
    About the article, just like I read in the 8th grade in the Soviet history textbook, nothing has changed, the author, at least you would rummage through the archives, at least cite citations, for example, Brusilov, here is a serious audience, among other things competent, who can distinguish nonsense from the truth.
    1. Igor39
      Igor39 27 March 2016 08: 09
      +5
      What nonsense then specify?
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 27 March 2016 10: 04
      +1
      Quote: semirek
      T. Lenin with Comrade Trotsky and Comrade Stalin left you a prosperous country

      You are not even aware of the struggle of Stalin with Trotskyism?
    3. parusnik
      parusnik 27 March 2016 10: 44
      +4
      .The whites, although they did not win, but tried to fight, you stayed in the huts at 91 — what kind of communists are you after that?... And why in February 1917 the emperor was not saved .. the people did not rise up at the demonstrations all over the country with the slogan "No to the rejection of the emperor!", "Let the war continue to the victorious end!" "Tsar-Emperor, our honor and conscience!"? ... And also, Lavr Georgievich Kornilov, in his "Bykhov" memorandum did not say a word about the tsar, the empire, more and more about democracy and the Constituent Assembly ..
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 March 2016 14: 10
        -1
        you stayed in huts at 91 - what kind of communists are you after that? so one slush ..


        In-in; that in the 91st, that in the 93rd.
        Already after the betrayal of the 93rd, these citizens should simply be bashfully silent.
    4. Your friend
      Your friend 27 March 2016 12: 04
      +4
      Quote: semirek
      White, although they did not win, but tried to fight,

      Only they did not fight for the tsar, because "whites" emerged only after the October Revolution, and not after the February Revolution. Among the whites, the microscopic part was monarchists, if Th. Those who overthrew the tsar fought in the ranks of the whites.
      Quote: semirek
      you stayed in huts at 91 - what kind of communists are you after that? so one slush.

      Do you think it was necessary to arrange another massacre, so millions for ten people? You are our humane.)
  • Papapg
    Papapg 27 March 2016 08: 03
    0
    Quote: mitya1941
    I also fully support. The spring was compressed from 1825 and straightened in 1917, the people yearned for liberation, there was the agony of the tsarist regime, a revolution was inevitable, they say the king showed gentleness and resigned, and if he hadn’t left, there would have been even more blood.

    And now the spring is compressing again. But now is the century of new technologies and materials, even if the spring is compressed to a critical level, it is easy to let go, heat it up and it will calm down. There is no unity anywhere, there are groups with different interests and opportunities, nothing personal, business.
    1. Darkness
      Darkness 27 March 2016 08: 30
      +5
      There is unity in one thing - 99% of Russians consider officials to be a thief.
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 27 March 2016 08: 47
        +4
        100 percent think
        1. Darkness
          Darkness 27 March 2016 08: 58
          +1
          No, 1% are just officials)))
          1. t7310
            t7310 27 March 2016 09: 23
            +1
            not 1% are those who do not know how to count,
  • 31rus2
    31rus2 27 March 2016 08: 11
    +1
    Dear, the article is good, but to evaluate actions or without actions from the point of view of our time, when the result, the balance of power is known, is not so much correct, that I want to notice that "stab in the back" sounds again, I think there is no need to pretend to be victims, your mistakes and mistakes need to be analyzed and not repeated, only in this way history and mistakes will serve us today for the good
  • baudolino
    baudolino 27 March 2016 08: 20
    +3
    The article recalls the works of Rezun. Almost true, fitted to ready-made conclusions.
  • Cartalon
    Cartalon 27 March 2016 08: 24
    -4
    Vile libel
  • Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 27 March 2016 08: 25
    0
    Many thanks to the author. The article helped to think out and understand a lot.

    "The other is seen at a distance" In the historical process, events can take place slowly and imperceptibly, incomprehensible to contemporaries. Information is often hidden from contemporaries.
    Since we live now, we evaluate it from the perspective of today!
  • ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 27 March 2016 08: 25
    +4
    Germany was too strong, Russia was too unprepared, and the allies were too mean.
  • bober1982
    bober1982 27 March 2016 08: 41
    +7
    It is hard to imagine a more tongue-tied and ridiculous article.
    .... Let's fantasize and remove from the political scene Masons, liberals and Bolsheviks
    .... Nicholas II was only required to follow the strategy of his great-grandfather, grandfather and father ..
    .... the king and queen are ethnic Germans ...
    You can continue to infinity the imagination and inference of the author of the article, it will be tiring. The article is written in the form of a proclamation or agitation.
    As for ethnic Germans (to familiarize the author), the mother of the last Russian tsar was the Danish princess (later the Russian empress), and the last Russian queen was the niece of Queen Victoria of England.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 27 March 2016 09: 37
      +3
      the last Russian queen was the granddaughter of Queen Victoria, made a typo.
    2. creak
      creak 27 March 2016 09: 50
      +2
      Thus, Shirokorad’s creations have always been distinguished by the categorical and free interpretation of historical facts ...
      And why should he, indeed, not be denied - this is a flight of fantasy ...
      1. KakoVedi
        KakoVedi 27 March 2016 15: 01
        0
        The phrase illustrates this well, where tryndit for how General Slashchev could help with English tanks and planes! And then the Poles were armed with other British ...
  • Nikita Gromov
    Nikita Gromov 27 March 2016 08: 45
    +3
    The author is a post-Soviet opportunist. The Russian Empire was created for centuries, and the USSR existed for seventy years. And if the Russian Empire fought against the Jewish Bolshevik plague and died in battle, in the crucible of the Civil War, then the USSR, with all its international-Marxist ideology of "working people", collapsed overnight, not supported by either the people or its "leaders" and did not provide the slightest resistance. Liberators (all former communists), by order of the Jewish world religious and financial kagal, simply dismantled this system, as it was unnecessary for them. And now, under the post-Soviet-liberal, absolutely anti-Russian system, we sip all the delights of its essentially anti-state rule.
    1. Darkness
      Darkness 27 March 2016 09: 01
      +3
      RI, well, which was created over the centuries - also collapsed overnight, not supported by the people.
      And thanks to the USSR, you, an anti-Soviet and a lover of "Jewish" conspiracies, can read and write.
      1. Stena
        Stena 27 March 2016 10: 54
        +1
        Quote: Darkness
        RI, well, which was created over the centuries - also collapsed overnight, not supported by the people.

        What is your evidence? Proceedings of the 23rd party congress do not count toward offset =).
        Quote: Darkness
        can read and write

        He can read and write. has the ability to do this, and not thanks to the "Land of the Soviets".
      2. AK64
        AK64 27 March 2016 13: 44
        0
        RI, well, which was created over the centuries - also collapsed overnight, not supported by the people.
        And thanks to the USSR, you, an anti-Soviet and a lover of "Jewish" conspiracies, can read and write.


        Yep ...

        The USSR collapsed overnight, not supported by the people.
        And thanks to the great Putin-Yeltsin you You, a hamovy gopnik, have the Internet where you merge your nasty things
    2. activator
      activator 27 March 2016 11: 24
      -1
      Quote: Nikita Gromov
      The author is a post-Soviet opportunist. The Russian Empire was created for centuries, and the USSR existed for seventy years. And if the Russian Empire fought the Jewish-Bolshevik plague and died in battle, in the crucible of the Civil War, then the USSR, with all its international-Marxist ideology of "working people", collapsed overnight, supported neither by the people nor by its "leaders" and

      This is precisely the controversial Nikon reform of the church that took place during the Romanovs, because of which only the name was left from the glory and became more adapted to Christianity. The Germans carefully rewrote the history under the same Romanovs.
    3. Rastas
      Rastas 27 March 2016 18: 47
      0
      How you and your Empire are sick of it. Let me remind you that in the Empire everything belongs to the emperor and especially close ones. Now there is almost an Empire in Russia - there is a tsar and officials (St. Petersburg), they have muddied the Olympics, they defeated the World Cup, Crimea was annexed, they bombed Syria, Obama was named. What else does? Or do you associate yourself in the Empire with counts and nobles? So that the serf girls can be rumpled, and the peasants should be hunted for tinsel? And at the machine 12 hours to work, or to a little crooked arable land, for the sake of the Empire? Or in Tmutarakan new territories with automatic weapons at the ready to conquer shelling? No?
  • samarin1969
    samarin1969 27 March 2016 08: 57
    +4
    The king really turned out to be a criminally infantile ruler. But the outskirts of the Empire occupied by the German army are no reason to ruin the state. The price of the Civil War is terrible: 10 million of the best people on both sides of the front, the collapse of the Empire, and then the Union. If not for Stalin, the Bolsheviks would go down in history only as destroyers.
    1. Darkness
      Darkness 27 March 2016 09: 18
      -2
      If it were not for the white traitors, whom our foreign "partners" - civilian, bought with giblets, there would not have been at all.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 27 March 2016 12: 39
        +2
        Quote: Darkness
        If it were not for the white traitors whom our foreign "partners" bought with giblets - civilian, there wouldn’t be at all.

        Reread A. Blok's "Twelve":
        "We are on the mountain to all bourgeois
        The global fire inflate
        ,
        World fire in the blood -
        God bless! "
        It is necessary to read the classics, dear ... Note Red Guards = We. The poet sensitively highlighted the red thread of the development process.
    2. Stena
      Stena 27 March 2016 10: 55
      +1
      Quote: samarin1969
      The king really turned out to be a criminally infantile ruler.

      How do you prove it?
      1. samarin1969
        samarin1969 27 March 2016 13: 10
        +3
        The king criminally lost power at a crucial moment.
        Ignored the growing revolution.
        Engaged in an absolutely unnecessary war.
        January 9 inadequately cruelly (suddenly) dispersed the march of workers.
        There were too many crooks around him, but few like Stolypin.

        Neither rigidity in politics, nor associates.
        A good father, a loving husband, a crowsman and a lover of English walking ... this is not an autocrat like Alexander III was.
        1. Stena
          Stena 27 March 2016 14: 52
          +1
          Quote: samarin1969
          The king criminally lost power at a crucial moment.
          Ignored the growing revolution.
          Engaged in an absolutely unnecessary war.
          January 9 inadequately cruelly (suddenly) dispersed the march of workers.
          There were too many crooks around him, but few like Stolypin.

          Neither rigidity in politics, nor associates.
          A good father, a loving husband, a crowsman and a lover of English walking ... this is not an autocrat like Alexander III was.

          This, unfortunately, cannot be evidence - this is only an opinion. It is very controversial. There are many publications confirmed by figures and documents that refute such an opinion.
          Quote: samarin1969
          The king criminally lost power at a crucial moment.

          In the sense? But now we are still talking about the article - and in it we are talking about the Great War. In 1915, during the great retreat, he took command of the fronts. He stopped the retreat, prepared a bridgehead for the transfer of strategic initiative into the hands of the Russian troops. What is bad then?
          Quote: samarin1969
          Ignored the growing revolution.

          Again not clear. The king was at the front, what he was informed from the gendarmerie was based on. And there was no catastrophic situation. In St. Petersburg, why did the unrest begin? Because interruptions in the supply of bread began. At the same time, this bread quite quietly accumulated under Peter. The fact that this is a betrayal is a completely obvious fact. But to whom it was beneficial - it is described in the literature.
          Quote: samarin1969
          Engaged in an absolutely unnecessary war.

          I mean 1 World? The big question. After all, Europe was preparing for war. In fact, the only country that did not want war and made numerous attempts at its non-occurrence was RI. And if the war began, then be nice. Unfortunately, there were catastrophically few options to avoid war.
          Well, etc.
          All this is an opinion, but my opinion is confirmed by documents and figures.
          Therefore, it looks more believable than that which they have not confirmed.
  • winRAR
    winRAR 27 March 2016 09: 22
    0
    And let's compare the leisurely retreat from Poland to World War I and the defeat in 1941 when, having multiple times more tanks, they surrendered 4 France in half a year?
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 27 March 2016 12: 57
      +1
      Quote: winrar
      compare the leisurely retreat from Poland to World War I and the defeat in 1941

      Was there a Second Front in 1941 in the west of the Third Reich? Was Warsaw occupied by Russian troops at that moment? Romania did not hold neutrality, its troops fought against us in the 2nd MV. Add to the "great army No. 2" of the Italians, the so-called. The IRGC, about 20 Finnish divisions. In addition, in August-September, parts of the spacecraft were introduced into northern Iran. So it is inappropriate to compare what your dad did to you with a finger.
    2. Your friend
      Your friend 27 March 2016 13: 18
      -1
      Quote: winrar
      And let's compare the leisurely retreat from Poland to World War I and the defeat in 1941 when, having multiple times more tanks, they surrendered 4 France in half a year?

      And let's compare.
      Where did tsarist Russia end the war? And where did the USSR end the war, which "surrendered 4 France in half a year"?
      About tanks - is Rezun climbing again? It would seem that all rezunoids have already died out, but look, one more is alive.)))
    3. Forest
      Forest 27 March 2016 14: 16
      0
      But in the 1914-1915, did the Germans have large mechanized formations capable of breaking through the front and continuing to develop a breakthrough on the same day? Now, in general, a brigade on infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers can do up to five hundred kilometers a day, so generally all have forgotten how to fight without a king?
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 March 2016 14: 19
        0
        Napoleon sends you greetings
        1. Forest
          Forest 27 March 2016 14: 50
          0
          Only then no one organized a front with trenches, machine guns and barbed wire.
          1. AK64
            AK64 27 March 2016 15: 16
            0
            So you start to guess that you don’t know something?
            It is commendable.

            In fact, the point is not at all in the "machine gun trenches": a maneuverable war can be with "machine gun trenches".
            As mobile compounds can be used, for example, cavalry.

            And it’s not at all in the occupied territory: I remind you that in 1918 the Entente did not enter Germany, but nevertheless they won the war.
            1. Forest
              Forest 27 March 2016 19: 38
              0
              Cavalry in the presence of a pair of machine guns becomes just a target, especially in the wooded areas of Poland and the Baltic states. In the Second World War, the cavalry units were introduced only after annihilation of all defense lines and the battle was fought on foot. If you came across serious resistance - without tanks in any way. Moreover, the Germans with cavalry was tight.
              1. AK64
                AK64 27 March 2016 20: 50
                +1
                Cavalry in the presence of a pair of machine guns becomes just a target,

                Nevertheless, it was used, and not without success, even in the Second World War.

                especially in the wooded areas of Poland and the Baltic states.

                Just "wooded and mountainous" for the cavalry is only better. This is confirmed by the experience of the Second World War as well. (On pure aviation)

                In the Second World War, the cavalry units were introduced only after annihilation of all defense lines and the battle was fought on foot.

                When a connection is introduced into a breakthrough - and after all, this is what was originally meant - what kind of "battle" are we talking about? Their task is to capture the lines deep in the enemy's defense.
                And on the attack ... well, on foot, why not?

                Although there were examples of equestrian attacks: in 1917, the Autralian brigade attacked the Turkish position in the equestrian system. Prior to this, the infantry fussed for a day without result - and the Australians took on horseback.

                This is of course not a regular example, but just a special case. Nevertheless, they show the possibilities.

                If you came across serious resistance - without tanks in any way.

                Tanks of TOGO time, due to their mechanical unreliability, were suitable only for a breakthrough near the railway stations - and that’s it. Therefore, on the Russian front, they are not critical.
                And the Germans were completely at war without tanks.

                Moreover, the Germans with cavalry was tight.

                Come on: everything was fine with cavalry.
                Not Russia, of course, but there was quite cavalry in commodity quantities.
                1. Forest
                  Forest 28 March 2016 14: 04
                  0
                  Used only in conjunction with motorized units, without them - very light infantry. In the forests, cavalry cannot deliver a quick strike, because there is not enough room for maneuver, and even one machine gun can shut up the only path for attack, which was the 44 in Belarus. WWII tanks were already quite reliable, with the exception of mastodons such as T-35 and the Royal Tiger. Guderian made an 100 km throw to Orel, Kleist in the Kuban almost 150, our corps fought a hundred kilometers in the 45 in the Vistula-Oder operation and in Manchuria. The Germans, although there was cavalry, but replenishment after the losses was very difficult, not to mention Russia.
  • Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 27 March 2016 09: 49
    0
    Vomiting article ...
  • Aleksander
    Aleksander 27 March 2016 10: 30
    +1
    With its dull primitive kommagitkoy The author is late for 40.

    Mind on lie the author is pointless, he himself knows (I hope) and about starved 768 000 Germans in 1917-18 (there was no famine in Russia), the same Avtrians, about Schlieffen’s plan, about Germany’s plans to colonize Russian lands (the same as in WWII), embodied in Brest shame that Germany had ALREADY tailed to 17 and so on. But he has his own alternative story and a common view. And here at least the count on the head is comic.

    Russia won the WWII, lost the war-soviet, it also laid the foundation of WWII by Brest shame.

    Russophobian pack of apfelbaums, forms, zalkinda destroyed the Russian state, tearing his body into a multitude of national "states", which she also created. Only in "Ukraine" 60% of purely Russian territories were included against the will of their Russian residents, and their forced Ukrainization was carried out. The remainder of historical Russia (RSFSR) was turned into endless donor nats of the outskirts, social "allies" and stupid avantyur komm-leadership to support the "brothers" of Africa and Asia, robbing the owner and producer of these riches, the Russian people.

    In just 70 years of communist power, the Russian people, one of the fastest growing nations in the world, have already died out, the country has collapsed, this is the terrible result of its reign. Russia resisted the 4 of the year to the communist beasts, while the commissariat quietly died out and didn’t one commgnida did not come to her defense, not one! The entire 17-million-strong detachment of "forward and guiding force" quickly fled like cockroaches with the lights on. lol
    Bolshevism disappeared, like a short nightmare, like a black shadow in the thousand-year history of Russia.
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 27 March 2016 11: 01
      +3
      But it doesn’t bother you that it was under the communists that the country became a superpower, the first to go into space, give out 20% of world GDP, the victorious country of WWII.Huge territories beyond the Urals were mastered, to which the tsars had simply sent exiled to exile. % literacy, free education and medicine, utility bills did not bite at all. Stable ruble, no unemployment. Continue?
      1. Cap.Morgan
        Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 13: 05
        +3
        Quote: Dimon19661
        But it doesn’t bother you that it was under the communists that the country became a superpower, the first to go into space, give out 20% of world GDP, the victorious country of WWII.Huge territories beyond the Urals were mastered, to which the tsars had simply sent exiled to exile. % literacy, free education and medicine, utility bills did not bite at all. Stable ruble, no unemployment. Continue?

        Under tsars, Russian territory increased from a specific Moscow principality to an empire from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. Russian researchers reached Antarctica.

        The development of the Urals was begun. Siberia is also attached to the kings, as are the Caucasus and Central Asia. Continue?

        What was attached to the Soviets? It’s easier to list what they handed over.

        Science flourished. Mendeleev, Popov, the first strategic plane Ilya Muromets, the largest percentage of ships in the world ....
        Under the kings, the ruble was golden, under the Soviets - wooden. That is, no.

        The losses in WWII were such that they did not celebrate the Victory. The victory began to be celebrated only in the 55th. Losses are estimated at 20 million people and more. Material losses in modern prices are estimated at $ 15 trillion. This is a consequence of the "outstanding" leadership of the Communist Party. Continue?
        1. Dimon19661
          Dimon19661 27 March 2016 13: 47
          0
          And what are the losses in the 1st MV, do not tell ??? And under the Soviets, they returned the Kuril Islands, half of Sakhalin (who were your kings), the Kaliningrad region, Western Ukraine., Science prospered unambiguously, ILYA MUROMETS was never a strategic bomber, the first we had a serial strategist DB-3 (IL-4). About the debts of Tsarist Russia, what do not you remember?
          1. AK64
            AK64 27 March 2016 14: 31
            +5
            And what are the losses in the 1st MV, can you tell me ???

            You do not know how to use Google? 560 thousand killed, and about 2 million prisoners.
            True, before the February 1917 change, of course: many prisoners were obtained as a result of events.


            And under the Soviets, they returned the Kuril Islands, half of Sakhalin (which your kings had profiled), Kaliningrad Oblast, Western Ukraine.,

            Let's not ask about the price. Just note that in the 20th century, "under the king," Manchuria was quietly annexed (in the form of a protectorate).

            But with the Bolsheviks ... With the Bolsheviks, we are sitting within the borders of the 17th century --- that is the result.


            science flourished uniquely

            Yeah --- Lysenko, for example, flourished.


            ILYA MUROMETS was never a strategic bomber,

            In WWI there were no strategists at all, as a class.


            Our first serial strategist was DB-3 (IL-4).

            Not true - he was distant. Only

            What about the debts of tsarist Russia that you do not remember?

            What about debts? Won how many debts the Russian Federation had as a result of the rule of "friends of the people". And nothing - somehow alive like? No?
          2. Cap.Morgan
            Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 21: 59
            +3
            Quote: Dimon19661
            And what are the losses in the 1st MV, do not tell ??? And under the Soviets, they returned the Kuril Islands, half of Sakhalin (who were your kings), the Kaliningrad region, Western Ukraine., Science prospered unambiguously, ILYA MUROMETS was never a strategic bomber, the first we had a serial strategist DB-3 (IL-4). About the debts of Tsarist Russia, what do not you remember?

            Muromets can still be called a strategist. Although not fast, he could take half a ton of bombs over 500 km, and that was in 1914.
            Losses in the First World War were 10 times less than in the Second, where only front-line irreparable losses can be estimated at 10-12 million.
            Plus the same as a result of managing the invaders in the territories abandoned by the commissars.
        2. avt
          avt 27 March 2016 15: 17
          -1
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          What was attached to the Soviets? It’s easier to list what they handed over.

          Well, it's easier to say that only thanks to the Soviets and the Bolshevik / Communist Party, headed by Stalin, do you have the opportunity to knock on the clave following the results of World War II, in which they fought with all of Europe minus the Greatbrits and Yugoslavia. Than the brilliant generals headed by Nikolashka Was the First World War celebrated? That's right - they pissed away the authorities and the country, the whole, without a trace, and many of them by their very lives. What is called - feel the difference.
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          Science flourished. Mendeleev, Popov, the first strategic plane Ilya Muromets, the largest percentage of ships in the world ....

          laughing Did the nuclear project under the leadership of Beria also be launched by Mendeleev?
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          Under the kings, the ruble was golden, under the Soviets - wooden. That is, no.

          Nikolashka No. 2 SOLD GOLD RESERVE IN RETAIL by issuing gold money in circulation, only because he could not cope with the financial scam of Odessa Gelfand / Parvus, which foreign bankers gladly picked up. After the war, Stalin refused to sign up for the Brighton Woods agreement on the terms of the US Federal Reserve, clearly kept the weight value of the ruble until its hunchback finished it off and Pavlov counted it into reform with the erasure of certain signs from banknotes Which? I already wrote - look and find. So, Again
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          . Continue?

          laughing Well, when will you begin to teach the materiel, and not the slogans of the liberal monarchism painted to throw in? And then that's all - "again I hit by .."
          1. Cap.Morgan
            Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 21: 45
            +3
            I can knock on the clave not because of, but in spite of.
            Despite all the foolishness of the commissars, Russia nevertheless resisted.

            How did Stalin find himself face to face with Hitler without allies and support?
            Nikolai had allies in England, France, Japan, Italy, Romania, with the ability to place orders at American plants. And from the first day. Feel the difference.

            After all military spending, Nikal still had about 17 tons of gold by the 1000th year. Despite the invented scam.
            The USSR was already unable to pay by the 42nd.
          2. Aleksander
            Aleksander 27 March 2016 22: 37
            +1
            Quote: avt
            Ну easier to say that only thanks to the Soviets and the Bolshevik / Communist Party headed by Stalin do you have the opportunity to knock on the keyboard

            "Other simplicity is worse than stealing." But what about other countries dodging and "knocking on the keyboard": without blanks-zalkind-shvilay, eh?belay Accident, go.
            Quote: avt
            fought with all of Europe


            It was necessary to learn the art of politics and diplomacy from "Nikolashka", who managed to make it so that only 40% of the armies of the Central Powers fought against Russia, and not as a luzeroshvili, failed no x..a- and fought with 90% of the axis armies, putting 27 млн person (52% world losses in the war without China). “Nikolashka” is again more capable - only 9% of the global losses.
            Quote: avt
            What did the "brilliant generals", led by Nikolashka, celebrate the First World War? That's right - they pissed away the power and the country, the whole, without a trace, and many of their lives

            They are PMV won, council of deputies her-shit. As prosrail country, power, party, people, army, property, etc. - that is ALL that is possible and impossible, and just for 70 years. Once again- NONE COMMGNID not defended her, not like ordinary people. The rotten, stinking Sovdepi died out with a general sigh of relief:

            Sigh and think to yourself:
            When the hell takes you! ”
      2. Aleksander
        Aleksander 27 March 2016 13: 08
        +1
        Quote: Dimon19661
        Continue?

        Yes, go on! yes
        Yes, and it doesn’t bother you that other famous countries have become powers WITHOUT communists? What in hundreds of wins won by Russia, it also cost WITHOUT them? What in Russia was science advanced in the world WITHOUT them? What in the surrounding countries 100% literacy and excellent education and medicine turned out WITHOUT them?
        And these countries cost WITHOUT 14 Million Starving (almost 10% of the country's population, 20 century!), without Brest shamewithout 10 million civilian casualtiesstarted by the Bolsheviks without xnumx of millions of exiled peasants (half died) without millions of gulag victimswithout 3,5 million "disenfranchised"?
        As for these- TENS OF MILLION CITIZENS OF RUSSIA-from "100% literacy, free education and medicine, tariffs for housing and communal services", and?
        1. avt
          avt 27 March 2016 15: 54
          -1
          Quote: Aleksander
          Yes, and it doesn’t bother you that other famous countries have become powers WITHOUT communists?

          Here again the question - "What kind of armed eye" look? You yourself can answer the question of how social policy has changed in the same European countries, when the "specter of communism" loomed no longer wandering around Europe according to the Communist Party Manifesto, with which, Well, so that he does not move from Europe to the USA, Hoover just understood - he quietly shot, but quite himself, the socialist camp of a number of countries. Who said that they are all recklessly greedy fools? They competently worked with the theme of a society of general and all kinds of consumption in three throats and also raised the dough on this, well, if for a short time, of course you have to pay for it with peaks of depression, but they also found a way out - they write off the war.
          Quote: Aleksander
          without Brest shame, without 10 million victims of the civil massacre begun by the Bolsheviks,

          Do you propose as a true Socialist Revolutionary and a member of the Provisional Government - "War to the bitter end"? Like until the last soldier, regardless of the result - go ahead with machine guns? Well, history has shown that the demon of snot and sugary speeches Lenin was right and his party, according to played to win according to his rules.
          Quote: Aleksander
          , without 2,5 million peasants who were exiled unreasonably (half died)

          7 million capitalist farmers driven from the land and brought to such a state that the great ukry passed off their photos as the Bolshevik "Holodomor", do not knock on your brain? Well, to cause embarrassment - how so? Without the Bolsheviks, without the bloodthirsty tyrant Stalin, and in the completely untouched on its territory of the First World War, which did not pass into the Civil War? And how many of them were bent on public works in the labor camps of Democrat Roosevelt with a salary of $ 25 a month, it seems, from which $ 20 was deducted for their maintenance to the state? Gulag does not remind? No ?
          Quote: Aleksander
          without millions of gulag victims, b

          But this is generally the "swan song" of liberoids - the main thing is to fart with more numbers, and there who will check it. Although the GULAG archive is OPEN! And no "Memorial" has to grumble for a grant in compiling a list of victims since the 90s. But the question is - what then to get money for? If you can just go and get data, and socialism is control and accounting, on very specific repressed for political reasons and outright criminals, and even find out how many of those and others have gone? For this dough does not raise a dime.
          Quote: Aleksander
          As for these TEN MILLION CITIZENS of Russia with "100% literacy, free education and medicine, tariffs for housing and communal services", eh?

          B. This passage about which housing and communal services? Soviet times? So I do not rub about housing and communal services and free housing, as well as medicine and education. I then can quite distinguish myself, who was born in the USSR.
          1. Aleksander
            Aleksander 27 March 2016 23: 36
            +3
            The numbers of those killed by the communist beast of bullet and hunger, tortured, deported, deprived, robbed TENS of MILLIONS OF innocent RUSSIAN CITIZENS to challenge NOT you can. The power that allowed this isCRIMINAL.
  • Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 27 March 2016 10: 51
    0
    For the first time, you have to read such articles.
    All similar articles that are propaganda, that anti- have the same trouble.
    Or dignity, someone like ... - no halftones. Not at all.
    Either black or white. Or red, or yellow-black.
    Or a 40-caliber gun or a member of Rasputin.
    ...
    And, errors in this - "... the front passed from Riga along the Northern Dvina ...."
    Uh-uh, dear friend, if you don’t rummage in geography, then how can I believe that you rummage in economics and military art?
    ...
    But in general .... well, the theft of officials does not surprise me.
    That under Tsar Gorokh, that under Nicholas the Ain-Tsvai ... that under the Alexandra, that under Leonid Ilyich, that under Mishka, that under Putin.
    We are such a people. The country is Russia.
    The country of "greedy children".
    If I already reached the feeding trough, then it will die near it. Yes, and heapes around himself blindfolds, also torn to the trough.
    ...
    One was the king ... who severely shortened such pigs. And there is no sense in calling it, and so everyone knows.
    ...
    Well, we have to live here.
    Fate
    1. 97110
      97110 27 March 2016 13: 13
      0
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      Or a 40-caliber gun

      Do you mean 0,4 inches? This is how the 45 caliber of Colts is measured. Or 400 mm. Somehow decide what you are writing about. Not a correspondent, hopefully with 122 mm mortars.
      1. Bashibuzuk
        Bashibuzuk 27 March 2016 17: 53
        +1
        If I wanted academically for sure ... in my remark ... to mark the calibers of the German guns of the First World War, then that is exactly what I would have done.
        But ... I notice ... a colleague.
        We are not calibers of guns here ... or the sizes of pisyuns ... we are discussing.
        And the general focus of the article.
        ...
        I would ask you very much - "How do you decide what you are writing about. Not a correspondent, I hope ..."
        ...
        Or do you oppose me on VAK?
  • Xent
    Xent 27 March 2016 11: 12
    +1
    Well, I don’t even know ... it's all in Europe, well, the same army, the same support and the same time defeated the Turkish army, which was bigger and armed, was also no worse than the German one, and even the terrain for the offensive was not very good ... so I think it is necessary to find something else, as the author’s thoughts are not clear to me ... I repeat again - same army, same support and same time in one front defeat in another victory.
    1. Pissarro
      Pissarro 27 March 2016 23: 51
      0
      The enemy is different. The industrially developed educated German is very different from the "sick man of Europe" Turkey. And it's not even about weapons, the level of the German and Turkish General Staffs is like a difference between a kindergarten and a university
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 28 March 2016 11: 51
        +1
        Nevertheless, the Turks fought very successfully against the British, and not only in the Dardanelles. So here, apparently, all the same, the matter is a little different.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 27 March 2016 11: 22
    +3
    I read the article for a long time, but in the end I decided to put a minus.

    So far, without discussing the article itself, I will briefly answer a number of comments.

    Quote: parusnik
    Do not stand up for Serbia, Russia could not .. This was understood by those who wanted a war.
    Truth ? Actually, I could! But soon would intercede! and it KNEW those who organized the war. By the way, there was also a telegram from Wilhelm to Nikolai with a request to stop the mobilization and to prevent war ...

    Quote: Igor39
    Gavrila Principle Serbian nationalist killed Ferdinand, Serbia dragged Russia into the war?
    Yes exactly. Serbia is far from a white and fluffy sheep, there all the Balkan peoples stand each other.

    Quote: Dart2027
    Are you sure everything is so simple?
    First, the driver of the car turned off the route while driving and drove just to the place where the terrorist stood.
    The second - the guard who was supposed to cover up the Archduke left his post.
    Exactly. And one more thing - the organization "Black Hand" is a certain LOW-KNOWN FORCE, clearly located OUTSIDE THE SEA - ie. some force in England or in the USA (which THE AUSTRIAN INVESTIGATORS WERE ALWAYS NOT ACCESS) financed and directed their actions from abroad.

    Quote: sergeybulkin
    Under Peter 1, which our historians praise so much, there were no men left in the villages, they plowed - sowed - they shook women, and Peter, in between drunken orgies, chased men to war, where ours died tens of thousands before they even reached the front ...

    This is yes, a fact which is greatly ignored by the praisers of Peter. SUCH non-combat losses our people NEVER BORNED before Peter I, everyone was terrified of this.

    Quote: Igor39
    Well, do you think that the Germans made a mistake with the picture on the leaflet?
    For example, I think that yes, they were very mistaken, taking rumors and delirium for the truth. Well, the war is going on, it is necessary to defile the leader of the hostile country in every possible way.

    Quote: avt
    How did the founder say there? ,, I didn’t change, but complement
    Sorry, but you probably don't know the subject well. "Not upset I came but to perform"This is a slightly different understanding. That is, to finish what was begun and planned, for the coming of the Messiah-Savior was predicted.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 27 March 2016 11: 42
      +3
      Quote: Warrior2015
      on which the Austrian investigators could not even get out

      Did I write that I could not get out? The victim was an opponent of war and a supporter of reforms in Austria-Hungary, and as a result, a bone in the throat of those who dreamed of war, including the emperor.
      Quote: Warrior2015
      SUCH non-combat losses, our people have never suffered before Peter I

      There were no losses. Tales of the dying Russia were born after the census, which turned out that the number of yards that were a unit of taxation was reduced in the country. But as it turned out, this was due to the fact that in order not to pay taxes, the peasants, with the knowledge, and sometimes by order of the landlords, united several yards into one. After there was a repeated census, and people were already counted on their heads.
    2. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 12: 47
      0
      Quote: Warrior2015
      I read the article for a long time, but in the end I decided to put a minus.

      So far, without discussing the article itself, I will briefly answer a number of comments.

      Quote: parusnik
      Do not stand up for Serbia, Russia could not .. This was understood by those who wanted a war.
      Truth ? Actually, I could! But soon would intercede! and it KNEW those who organized the war. By the way, there was also a telegram from Wilhelm to Nikolai with a request to stop the mobilization and to prevent war ...


      If Russia had remained aloof from the war, France would have been knocked out immediately and then Russia would have been left face to face with Germany.
      And so it happened in World War II.
      There was no exit.
      1. Your friend
        Your friend 27 March 2016 13: 26
        -1
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        Quote: Warrior2015
        I read the article for a long time, but in the end I decided to put a minus.

        So far, without discussing the article itself, I will briefly answer a number of comments.

        Quote: parusnik
        Do not stand up for Serbia, Russia could not .. This was understood by those who wanted a war.
        Truth ? Actually, I could! But soon would intercede! and it KNEW those who organized the war. By the way, there was also a telegram from Wilhelm to Nikolai with a request to stop the mobilization and to prevent war ...


        If Russia had remained aloof from the war, France would have been knocked out immediately and then Russia would have been left face to face with Germany.
        And so it happened in World War II.
        There was no exit.

        How is your story? France could not stay alone with Germany and be knocked out immediately, because Germany declared war on Russia on August 1, and France only on August 3, as an ally of Russia.
        1. Cap.Morgan
          Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 20: 14
          +3




          But Russia could remain in its position without invading the borders of Prussia, observing how France was dying, just as a quarter of a century later France had seen Poland dying.
    3. AK64
      AK64 27 March 2016 13: 35
      +3
      Truth ? Actually, I could! But soon would intercede! and it KNEW those who organized the war. By the way, there was also a telegram from Wilhelm to Nikolai with a request to stop the mobilization and to prevent war ...


      Forget about this "Serbia" - this is nothing more than an excuse.

      In reality, the war was fought between Germany and Great Britain: it was between them that the main conflict of interests was.
      Why did the war begin in 1914? Yes, because Russia carried out military reform, modernized the army, and by 1917 (completion of modernization) Germany would have been simply unable to fight with it at all.

      Quite a lot of documents of the German General Staff on this issue have been published: "We must now - then we will not be able "(see / for example Utkin, a good historian, albeit slightly limited. However, like all historians, historians are limited because they are used to working with documents: that is, for them, if there is no document, then there is no fact)

      Well, the British slegonets deceived the Germans, hinting to them that they might not go to war: hence the notorious "God punish England" (although if you think about it, you have to be so stupid to believe in such a primitive divorce?)
      1. Your friend
        Your friend 27 March 2016 13: 58
        -3
        Quote: AK64
        (see / for example with Utkin, a good historian, although slightly limited. However, like all historians, historians are limited because they are used to working with documents: that is, for them if there is no document, then there is no fact)

        Are you serious??? Ahahahahahha .... Well, then you are not limited by facts and documents.))))
        Quote: AK64
        Well, the British slegonets deceived the Germans, hinting to them that they might not go to war: hence the notorious "God punish England" (although if you think about it, you have to be so stupid to believe in such a primitive divorce?)

        Do you think the rulers in the German empire were so much so that they believed that their main economic competitor in Europe - England, would not enter the war on the side of their ally France? Well stupid ...)))
        Quote: AK64
        Yes, because Russia carried out military reform, modernized the army, and by 1917 (completion of modernization) Germany would have been simply unable to fight with it at all.

        Come on, just the same "not capable at all"? It happens zhezh.)
        1. AK64
          AK64 27 March 2016 14: 01
          +4
          Are you serious??? Ahahahahahha .... Well, then you are not limited by facts and documents.))))


          It seems to me or do you really have problems with, let’s say, perception of reality?

          I’ll probably bring you into an emergency: talking to a person who is "hee-hee-ha-ha" is not only not interesting to me, but also directly ... scary.
    4. Alexey T. (Oper)
      Alexey T. (Oper) 27 March 2016 22: 00
      -4
      Quote: Warrior2015
      Truth ? Actually, I could! But soon would intercede! and it KNEW those who organized the war.

      In the course that Nikolai the Bloody back in 1908 wanted to declare war on Austria-Hungary? And what did Stolypin barely dissuade from this step?
      So do not try to portray this crowned mediocrity as a sort of dove of peace. He was not like that.

      Quote: Warrior2015
      Yes exactly. Serbia is far from a white and fluffy sheep, there all the Balkan peoples stand each other.
      And tied u
      that knot is none other than Alexander II the Liberator. According to the results of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Balkans became the powder keg of Europe.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 27 March 2016 11: 33
    +3
    The Russian contribution to the world economy in 1914 was somewhere around 5%, naturally this did not allow equipping the army at the modern level. It is also clear that the absolute monarchy could not provide adequate governance, the modernization of power, apparently, was late, which ultimately led to revolutions.
    If it had been possible to prevent the Bolsheviks and others like them from coming to power, Russia could end the First World War together with the winners and even as a winner. Perhaps with territorial increases. And most importantly - it would be possible to engage in reforms / industrialization without super-shocks, without super-losses, without restructuring the socio-economic system to a non-viable type.
    1. Your friend
      Your friend 27 March 2016 12: 12
      0
      Quote: sevtrash
      If it had been possible to prevent the Bolsheviks and others like them from coming to power, Russia could end the First World War together with the winners and even as a winner. Perhaps with territorial increases.

      Yeah, there was still not enough increase, with Poland, Finland falling off.
      Quote: sevtrash
      And most importantly - it would be possible to engage in reforms / industrialization without super-shocks, without super-losses, without restructuring the socio-economic system to a non-viable type.

      Ah, how would we heal !!! Finally, you swing ...) Oh wait, what prevented RI from doing this all in advance, before the war?
      1. Cap.Morgan
        Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 12: 41
        +4
        Industrialization was in full swing.
        1913 - the year of the highest rise in the industry of Russia.
        1. Your friend
          Your friend 27 March 2016 12: 54
          -2
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          Industrialization was in full swing.
          1913 - the year of the highest rise in the industry of Russia.

          AND? Why did you write this? And what about the second part of the sevtresh's statement about "overshocks, without overloads"?
    2. AK64
      AK64 27 March 2016 13: 03
      +6
      The Russian contribution to the world economy in 1914 was somewhere around 5%, naturally this did not allow equipping the army at the modern level.

      Sucked from a finger?
      Then there were eight powers.
      First tier is Britain / Germany / USA / France
      The second tier is Russia / A-Hungary / Italy / Japan

      There were simply no other powers

      So in the second tier, Russia was completely in the lead, in everything.

      And the cannon shells in 1916 did so much that they fought the whole civilian and still fired in 1941. (About the howitzers of the tsar-father, with whom they fought the whole WWII war, I am silent)

      It’s also clear that an absolute monarchy could not provide adequate governance,


      Especially in wartime? Oh well...
      1. Forest
        Forest 27 March 2016 14: 22
        0
        If interested, look at the number of guns in the ranks of white and red in the Civil War - it will be at the loss of some partisan units during the Second World War. In 30, 15 million shells remained in the warehouses, but almost all of the French production were delivered by the Entente. What howitzers fought in World War II from the king? M-30 1938 year? Or ML-20 1937 year?
        1. AK64
          AK64 27 March 2016 14: 49
          +3
          You are just terribly not in the know ...

          In 1941, after the summer defeat, 3 "mod 1902 fought. And not even modernized in the 28th, in the original version. By the spring they were certainly knocked out and confiscated - but there are photos of the winter of 1941.
          Howitzers 122mm (arr 1910) and 152mm (arr 1909 and 1910) completely fought until the end of the war. (There are photos, and testimonies - at least read Astafbev.)
          I’m already silent about the 305mm howitzer mod 1915, which Köninsberg carried - it’s clear that such a caliber guns have long served.

          You live in a fantasy world ....
          1. Forest
            Forest 27 March 2016 14: 56
            0
            There were so many of them that during the years of the Second World War more than a month was produced than the old guns fought at the beginning of the war. A couple of hundred guns against tens of thousands is no merit of the tsarist period. The 1909 and 1910 guns were modernized and produced from scratch from the 30's to the 41, and their total number was inferior to the release of the same M-30.
            1. AK64
              AK64 27 March 2016 21: 44
              +4
              There were so many of them that during the years of the Second World War more than a month was produced than the old guns fought at the beginning of the war.


              This is unlikely.

              A couple of hundred guns against tens of thousands is no merit of the tsarist period.

              It's not about "merit", but about the fact that in the 16th there was no longer a cannon or shell hunger - they overcame it.
              And we are talking about a few thousand guns, not hundreds.

              The guns of 1909 and 1910 were modernized and produced from scratch from the 30s to the 41st, and their total number was inferior to the release of the same M-30.

              However, shot to the end of the war.
              Of course, they are not shown in the chronicles in order not to be "disgraced", but there were a lot of them.

              Well, of course, you "did not notice" 305mm ... Tsarskie, Obukhovsky plant, arr 1915, in the war produced howitzers crumbled Kenegsberg and Breslau. (In the USSR, they were modestly silent about this, but nevertheless it is a fact.)

              PS: by the way, since we are talking about production, we would have to take into account the imperial production of weapons in service with Poland, Finland, Romania .... In general, several hundred more will be typed.
              1. Forest
                Forest 28 March 2016 14: 12
                -1
                Even in 16 there was both shell and cannon hunger. Our army was inferior to the Allies and the Germans almost 2 times in equipping divisions. The shells stood out as a sawn-off shot, and the bulk were shrapnel, completely useless against defensive structures. Many guns were lost during the Civil War, they spent a lot of resources in the 20 years, and a lot of re-melting took. 122 mm and 152 mm arr. 1909 / 30 and 1910 / 30 were not produced from the 41, a huge amount was lost in Belarus during the seizure of warehouses, so by the 42 it is unlikely that more than 3 thousand remained operational, and this number was constantly decreasing. In the chronicle they are found, as was said about the 12-inches, and it is found everywhere. 12 inches destroyed targets far less than aviation, so there’s no point in talking about some great contribution to their victory.
      2. sevtrash
        sevtrash 27 March 2016 15: 52
        -2
        Quote: AK64
        Sucked from a finger?

        Is Vicki hard to open? In the Russian Empire? At the same time, rank the countries by their share of the world's economy. True, a little different. First, the United States 35%, then Germany, Britain, France. And Russia. And in terms of GDP, Russia was the lowest in Europe except Portugal, at the level of Japan and Latin America.
        Quote: AK64
        Especially in wartime? Oh well...

        Do you seriously consider a model?
        1. AK64
          AK64 27 March 2016 16: 58
          +3
          Is Vicki hard to open? In the Russian Empire? At the same time, rank the countries by their share of the world's economy. True, a little different. First, the United States 35%, then Germany, Britain, France. And Russia. And in terms of GDP, Russia was the lowest in Europe except Portugal, at the level of Japan and Latin America.


          You are an amazing person.
          Just amazing ....

          But tell me, but you are not surprised that the numbers are given on .... 1907?
          Notice, not 1913, but namely 1907? That is, the lowest year when the military economic downturn (REW) was also accompanied by strikes and revolutions?

          Does this bother you at all?
          Apparently not. But in vain ...

          And one more thing about Wiki, and this is exactly the article: Russia was a country agrarian-industrial. So: find in this article the data on agriculture.

          Did not find? In and I did not find ... How so, huh?
          Well, of course, this does not surprise you at all - but I was a little surprised (although it would be time to get used to it too).

          So: find the data for the 1913th. And then understand that about the United States there is not quite a calico (dubious figures, if simpler): Germany and Britain were quite close to themselves

          But note: no one gives Russia away as a world leader. Yes, no one. But Russia was quite ahead of Italy and Austria-Hungary (although TOTAL was not a soul. Although it was not a catastrophe at all, considering that Russia was developing very quickly before the war, and that there was still a reserve for industrialization)

          Do you seriously consider a model?


          There are no samples at all. There is no perfect gas in the real world. But more than adequate -- it is a fact. Better than the French. Worse than Wilhelm - but it is Wilhelm, it’s the wise guy Wilhelm who kraz and scared to start a war!

          So there are no "samples"
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 27 March 2016 18: 05
            0
            Quote: AK64
            You are an amazing person.
            Just amazing ....

            How do you like this phrase? Option of proof or type "hello"?
            But in general - what do you want to prove? Do you remember what it was about?
            Let me remind you - I gave the figure of 5% - the share of the Russian economy in the world economy, in Wiki this figure is indicated for 1907 and 1913, there is more than enough about agriculture, up to the yield and gross grain harvest.
            If you have any doubts - "... sucked out of your finger ..." - well, give other data with links. There is no point in discussing your personal surprises that something is missing somewhere.
            1. AK64
              AK64 27 March 2016 18: 21
              +3
              Let me remind you - I gave the figure of 5% - the share of the Russian economy in the global economy, in Wiki this figure for 1907 and 1913 is indicated,

              But you brought exactly the figure for 1907!
              Why didn’t you give the figures for 1913?
              And you are amazing because here is such a strange table, with data for the lowest year for RussiaYou are not at all alert.

              By the way, the numbers about the USA there too ... are amazing: as I said the great powers were 8. There are only 6 in the table, there is no A-Hungary and Italy. And the total percentage is already 88%. And in general it is strange to consider production as shares of the world. In such cases, give absolute numbers. And if such strange things are given, they are trying to convince them of something.

              there is more than enough about agriculture, up to the yield and gross grain harvest.

              Of course, of course: there is a whole separate article about corruption (in the article about the economy, this is absolutely necessary, isn't it?), There is another article about financial policy. and even about the situation of workers in a separate article. But about agriculture, which in Russia 80% of the economy is "more than enough", but there is no article. Well, since sevtrash is satisfied, then what ... It means everything is a bunch.


              If you have any doubts - "... sucked out of your finger ..." - well, give other data with links. There is no point in discussing your personal surprises that there is no point somewhere.

              I will not.
              Actually, I have already said everything above: in absolute production (not per capita, but total), Russia has already surpassed France. And France was a member of the "first echelon of Powers." At the same time, Russia developed faster than the United States.
              And there is no reason to believe that weapons were no longer in 1916: shell hunger is the situation of 1915.

              There were no tanks? So the Germans did not have them either. And in the conditions of the Eastern Front, tanks of that quality were a waste of money, and nothing more.

              In fact, without emotion, by the end of 1916 the army was adequately pumped up with material resources. They even built specialized landing ships (ramps, or something) for landing in the Bosphorus area.
              (These dinghy, if I call it right, were used in WWII at the Black Sea Fleet!)
              1. sevtrash
                sevtrash 27 March 2016 21: 14
                -1
                It is not clear what you are arguing with. The fact that the economy of the Russian Empire lagged behind the leading powers by 1914 is not in doubt. The dependence of the equipment of the army on the state of the economy is undeniable.
                If it were not for these revolutions, and even earlier for the socio-economic conditions that had not developed for them, the Russian Empire could well stand in the front ranks of economically developed countries.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 27 March 2016 21: 36
                  +3
                  It is not clear what you are arguing with.


                  Your thesis that "5% of world industrial production was not enough to ..." seems to me to contain mistakes.
                  Moreover, he himself is ridiculous: you need to look not at the fraction, but at what was necessary and what was missing.

                  The fact that the economy of the Russian Empire lagged behind the leading powers by 1914 is not in doubt.

                  And what, in 1941, the USSR entered the club of world manufacturers? Or maybe today? Really more than 5%?
                  In reality, in 1913, Russia was already ahead of France in industrial gross production (not per capita!).

                  If it were not for these revolutions, and even earlier for the socio-economic conditions that had not developed for them, the Russian Empire could well stand in the front ranks of economically developed countries.

                  Let's then start from Adam: geographical location (extremely unfavorable), climate (terrible), useful resources (virtually nonexistent), historical conditions (300 years of continuous daily war), and so on ....

                  Russia solved political problems and settled in more or less secure borders only at the end of the 18th century. England by that time had already completed industrialization.

                  So what to compare with? This is a comparison of a teenager and an adult inflated man
            2. The comment was deleted.
    3. V.ic
      V.ic 27 March 2016 13: 07
      +1
      Quote: sevtrash
      without restructuring the socio-economic system to a non-viable type.

      And who swept the united fascist regimes of Europe off the face of the earth? Who fed the countries of the socialist "camp" and the non-aligned movement? Your expression "not viable" should be attributed to the leading stratum / laying of the USSR, but not to the public ownership of the means of production.
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 27 March 2016 16: 02
        +1
        Quote: V.ic
        Your expression "not viable" should be attributed to the leading stratum / laying of the USSR, but not to the public ownership of the means of production.

        Well, what time already! Look at the result of the introduction of the imperative of public property, an oxymoron of proclaiming the priority of the public over the personal. What did it lead to? The Russian state, which was built by the life and then of millions, by the efforts of the Bolsheviks, eventually lost its territories and stood on the brink of collapse. At the heart of the insolvency of the economy, the principle of the priority of the public worked only in conditions of emergency control and shooting. And it was this system that brought such "personalities" as Gorbachev and Yeltsin to power.
        1. V.ic
          V.ic 27 March 2016 21: 07
          -1
          Quote: sevtrash
          And it was this system that brought such "personalities" as Gorbachev and Yeltsin to power.

          Dear, while the obvious and implicit opponents of the course of building socialism in a single country were shot, and the "muddy" ones were isolated for long periods, society developed: the European Union troops were defeated under the leadership of A. Schicklgruber, "A" was created - bomb, rocket and space industry , with the word "EVERYTHING WAS GOOD, I KNOW IT" / may Danilko forgive me for plagiarism! /. When the Trotskyists of the Khrushchev-Gorbachev type came to power, the development of socialist society was banally shoved (well, you know where).
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 27 March 2016 21: 19
            +1
            Quote: V.ic
            with the word "EVERYTHING WAS WELL, I KNOW IT" / When Trotskyists like Khrushchev-Gorbachev came to power, the development of socialist society was banal (well, you know where).

            If everything was so good, it would not end so badly.
            Read about economic development during the thaw, by the way. May be surprised.
  • Bakht
    Bakht 27 March 2016 12: 01
    +6
    Shirokorad certainly authority. But the whole article is from a series of alternative stories. One or even for objectivity takes several parameters and displays the result. And the totality of events remains behind the scenes.

    Suppose in a hundred years another historian will write. The Russian Federation had every opportunity to reach the English Channel in 2016 with one blow. And what? Everything says it. Armaments? The Syrian campaign has shown that they are. Mood in Europe? All got migrants. The Russian army will be met as liberators. The gold reserve is huge. Ships and planes are being built at an accelerated pace. A new generation of combat vehicles - Armata and Boomerangs.

    In reality - all this is nonsense and fantasy.

    An alternative story is good because you can imagine yourself as Napoleon and move the figures on the globe.
  • Lord blacwood
    Lord blacwood 27 March 2016 12: 03
    0
    The trouble with Russia was that the emperor was weak. As his contemporaries said, the emperor's decision depended on the minister who spoke to him last. In the Russian Empire, monstrous corruption reigned in the rear, the council of ministers was popularly called the "somersault collegium", since only four people were in the post of prime ministers during the war years. Meanwhile, at the front, the generals did not interact with each other. For example, during the famous Brusilov breakthrough, the Russian troops stopped due to the fact that other generals did not start an offensive. With such disorganization, it is difficult to talk about victory.
    1. AK64
      AK64 27 March 2016 12: 51
      +2
      The trouble of Russia was that the emperor was weak.


      It is not true. These are "urban legends" that traitors, like Alekseev or those who hung out around Nikolai-Nikolaevich, told about Nikolai in hindsight.

      Yes, and about the Brusilovsky breakthrough, you are very mistaken: would you at least have something that there is a sabzh on the resource
  • Avantageur
    Avantageur 27 March 2016 12: 09
    +1
    Russian stolen victory

    They scream, they threaten: “Here we will press the Slavs!”
    Well, how could they not break off / In their fervent onslaught! ..


  • Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 12: 39
    +5
    Shirokorad campaign went nuts.
    The Russian Empire fought not alone. She had powerful and wealthy allies who entered the war from the first day. In the 16th year, the retreat ended. And it can not be compared with a retreat in the 41st. Nowhere was the front broken through.
    Even after Russia emerged from the war, Germany lasted only a year, transferring all forces to the West and pumping out millions of pounds of bread from Russia.
    With Russia, victory would have come six months earlier. This is not even an iterator. This is math.
    1. AK64
      AK64 27 March 2016 12: 57
      +5
      Shirokorad campaign went nuts.


      And not yesterday: from time to time he finds that he begins such a nonsense that he only shakes his head readably ....

      It has long been noticed about him ...

      With Russia, victory would have come six months earlier. This is not even an iterator. This is math.


      Nah: the mustache was calculated, the end would have been in the summer and fall of 1917.
      That’s why the Anglo-Franks thought, thought, and decided that Russia also needed to do something.

      And the reason is in Turkey. I recommend taking a look at the Sykes-Picot agreement, the history of the conclusion. If Sazonov (he was, I must say) then kept silent or would begin to weave something like "yes we are without annexations and contributors" - well, maybe it would have worked. But he demanded the straits .... So Russia was sentenced - because it was impossible to give Russia the straits to the Angles and Franks.

      PS: Sazonov there not only requested the straits but also Kurdistan - also not from a great mind, I must say. Such desires need to conceal - and especially from "sworn friends"
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 March 2016 13: 39
        +1
        If Sazonov (..... he was, I must say) then said nothing


        Here stood the characteristic of Sazonov’s intellect.

        Sazonov was ... incompetent. The reason for his appointment: he was the brother-in-law of Stolypin, and P.A. shoved it by hook or by crook to have an additional vote in the Council of Ministers.

        Immediately remove Sazonov after P.A. did not have time - and had time to incompetent ... to break firewood
    2. Your friend
      Your friend 27 March 2016 13: 04
      -5
      Quote: Cap.Morgan
      Even after Russia emerged from the war, Germany lasted only a year, transferring all forces to the West and pumping out millions of pounds of bread from Russia.

      Germany lost the war because the United States entered the war in 1917. From that moment on, the situation in Germany became hopeless. This is the math.
      For Germany, the eastern front was a secondary front.
      1. AK64
        AK64 27 March 2016 13: 26
        +4
        Germany lost the war because the United States entered the war in 1917. From that moment on, the situation in Germany became hopeless. This is the math.


        Germany lost the war in 1914 when it failed to crush France into one company. After that, all their hopes were only to make peace "with their own", or with minimal losses

        For Germany, the eastern front was a secondary front.


        Yes, yes, in Texas there was a main front, we know.
        And WWII at Midway won.
        1. Your friend
          Your friend 27 March 2016 13: 43
          -3
          Quote: AK64
          Germany lost the war in 1914 when it failed to crush France into one company. After that, all their hopes were only to make peace "with their own", or with minimal losses

          Wahahaha ....
          Yes, Germany lost the war as soon as it was formed in 1871, we know.
          And WWII won at Midway - well, if only you think so, then yes.)))
          1. AK64
            AK64 27 March 2016 13: 58
            +3
            Wahahaha ....
            Yes, Germany lost the war as soon as it was formed in 1871, we know.


            That is, you don’t understand why Germany lost the war in 1914, but are embarrassed to ask? Well...

            And WWII won at Midway - well, if only you think so, then yes.)))

            It is written in the same textbooks that you quote here
            1. Your friend
              Your friend 27 March 2016 14: 03
              -3
              Quote: AK64
              That is, you don’t understand why Germany lost the war in 1914, but are embarrassed to ask? Well...

              Asking the rationale for stupidity is even more stupid)))
              Quote: AK64
              It is written in the same textbooks that you quote here

              I am waiting for a link to the textbook that I quoted, indicating the paragraph of my quote. Otherwise, you're just an empty talker.)
          2. Cap.Morgan
            Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 17: 50
            +5
            The resources of England, France and Russia exceeded the resources of Germany by many times. In the war of attrition, namely, the First World War, Germany had no chance.
    3. Forest
      Forest 27 March 2016 14: 23
      -1
      The front broke through in the WWII. Only tanks were not there to develop a breakthrough.
  • AK64
    AK64 27 March 2016 12: 49
    +5
    Why doesn’t elementary logic occur to anyone? In 1904–1905, Russian generals and officers miserably lost the war to the Japanese, in 1914–1917 they retreated monthly and lost the war to the Germans,


    Alexander Shirokorada sometimes wants to take and knock on the head a bit --- so that the brains fall into place.

    At times, Alexander seems to look like a good specialist - but ... but at times he gives out such tricks that at least stop falling ..

    For example, according to the highlighted text: contrary to the opinion of Mr. Shirokorad, "Russian generals and officers" did win both the war with Japan and WWI.

    Yes, yes, it was not "generals and officers" who lost both wars, but ... the state as a whole: in the first case (RYAV), the victory of the Russians in the war was so obvious that the British had to save Japan, through their agents, "Koenta". Well, they saved, and even then literally a little ...
    In the second case, it would have been the end of Germany in the summer of 1917 - but London and Paris decided that killing two birds with one stone (Germany and Russia) with one stone would be better than one - and again "took action."

    I will not develop the topic - for (1) laziness, and (2) everything has long been obvious to those who are serious, or otya sales and superficially - but studied question.

    You can minus.

    Well, Shirokorada .... I want to take his book, of those that are thicker - but on the head, on the head: do not write nonsense, do not write!
    1. Your friend
      Your friend 27 March 2016 14: 04
      -1
      Quote: AK64
      I will not develop the topic - for (1) laziness, and (2) everything has long been obvious to those who are serious, or otya sales and superficially - but studied the issue.

      You can minus.

      Well, Shirokorada .... I want to take his book, of those that are thicker - but on the head, on the head: do not write nonsense, do not write!

      What a serious person you can see right away.)
    2. Stena
      Stena 27 March 2016 15: 00
      +3
      Quote: AK64
      Well, Shirokorada .... I want to take his book, of those that are thicker - but on the head, on the head: do not write nonsense, do not write!

      This is a very competent remark! +1!
  • bandabas
    bandabas 27 March 2016 13: 02
    +5
    Not an article, but a continuous vinaigrette. All that is possible and unnecessary is mixed up.
  • 97110
    97110 27 March 2016 13: 27
    -3
    from Riga along the Northern Dvina to Dvinsk
    Delivered a plus article. I am absolutely sure of the complete decomposition of the RI management system. Doword given in the comments and about and enough. I am about the geographical literacy of the conference rooms. That step from Kars to the Bosphorus is okay, it’s overseas there, the Turks have one word. But the Small Northern Dvina is formed at the confluence of the Sukhona and South Rivers, the Big at the confluence of the Small and Vychegda. What is the front there? To confuse the Western Dvina with the Northern, this is a blatant disrespect for the memory of Comrade. Lenin, who organized the victory of the young Soviet Republic over the bloodthirsty invaders and the undeveloped White Guards precisely on the Big Northern Dvina. In memory of which there is an English tank in Arkhangelsk. And inside that tank the sticks are scattered and ... It’s indecent, in a word. Maybe it’s already tidied up - painted, I don’t know. He looked inside during the Soviet period. Geography must be tightened, dear. Which tie actions to the area, look at the map.
  • cosmos-PS
    cosmos-PS 27 March 2016 14: 04
    +4
    Something provocative. The author looks at historical events superficially.
  • iouris
    iouris 27 March 2016 14: 06
    +3
    An objective author would bother to convey to his readers his version of the goals of the imperialist war, for which the working people of the European states (Nerossia) fought and what was the situation behind the opponents and allies.
    In Germany they ate rutabaga; in France the situation was not much better. In Russia, there was no famine except that the main blow of the enemy was directed at Russia.
    Nonsense about the Germans and support for the fabrications of German propaganda regarding Rasputin and the royal family completely betray the ideological tendentiousness of this opus. The author is unable to understand that Essen, Rannenkampf, Diterikhs, Manneheim, Khan Nakhichevan, etc. considered and considered themselves Russian.
    There is nothing to comment on: Russophobic propaganda.
    1. Your friend
      Your friend 27 March 2016 14: 17
      +1
      Quote: iouris
      pr that the main blow of the enemy was directed precisely at Russia.

      Nothing to comment: nonsense.)
  • Captain nemo
    Captain nemo 27 March 2016 14: 10
    +2
    The rhetorical question: how could the Russian army in Berlin with such a state of artillery, aviation and vehicles? Recall that in 1944–1945 the Red Army, having superiority two, three or more times over the Germans in personnel, artillery, tanks, aircraft, having thousands of M-13, M-30 multiple-launch rocket launchers, etc., lost several million dead before reaching Berlin.

    What kind of heresy lives in the heads of our generals of the General Staff Shoigu?
    Once the Russian Army did not set itself the task of reaching Ankara in the 18th century, and for this it received the entire Black Sea coast with Crimea until 1991. Poland in 1919 did not set itself the task of reaching Moscow, and for this it received Western Ukraine and Belarus.
    You reached Paris in order to get Eastern Poland with Warsaw. And then you went to Berlin twice, and where is that flag of the "victors" over the Reichstag now?
    But these campaigns did not manage without the killed and maimed. Who do you want to surprise with these fruitless and harmful "heroic battles"?
    Yes, God bless him with a flag, and where are your historical territories in Podlasie, Kholmshchina, Bialystok, Augustow?
    Ah Avgustov in 1939 the Germans were taken from the Poles, and they didn’t give us to take it for themselves - it means he’s not ours, but Poland, and for this good uncle-disciples threw Kinegsberg to us.
    And after all, look where it came to - God forbid, someone dares to condemn the winners of the United States and England, and doubts the "victory" of the USSR, which made every effort to turn aggressive Poland before World War II into "legally" owning "territorial integrity" of Poland at the expense of solving the "Polish question" not in favor of the USSR (Belarus, Ukraine, Russia).
    Oh yes, to push such to the nail, because this is immediately a war with NATO without discussion with NATO.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 27 March 2016 15: 05
    +2
    Quote: Dart2027
    Did I write that I could not get out? The victim was an opponent of war and a supporter of reforms in Austria-Hungary, and as a result, a bone in the throat of those who dreamed of war, including the emperor.

    Well, the emperor only dreamed of a victorious war against Serbia, no more. In general, if you DETAILS consider how the web of the First World intertwined - just music. And if there is music, then there is a conductor ...

    Quote: Dart2027
    There were no losses. Tales of the dying Russia were born after the census, which turned out that the number of yards in the country was reduced
    Kamarad, I will tell you for sure - there were. Believe me, I don’t say stupid words and am familiar with people who have worked very well on this period. To simple serfs it was precisely in the terrible era of the 1st third of the 18th century that Russia treated almost worse than cattle - horses were really more expensive and valued higher.

    Quote: AK64
    Why did the war begin in 1914? Yes, because Russia carried out military reform, modernized the army, and by 1917 (completion of modernization) Germany would have been simply unable to fight with it at all.
    Exactly ! Therefore, that was the decision - we are, as it were, against the war, we would have to cope with France, but if Russia is needed then really, and not later!

    Quote: AK64
    Well, the British slegonets deceived the Germans, hinting to them that they might not go to war: hence the notorious "God punish England" (although if you think about it, you have to be so stupid to believe in such a primitive divorce?)

    Yes, they have always been masters of diplomacy. By the way, and in World War II as well. Hitler was bred as a fool.

    Quote: Your friend
    Yeah, there was still not enough increase, with Poland, Finland falling off.
    We beat off the dump in Poland, suppressing 1 rebellion in the 18th century and 2 in the 19th century. In the beginning of the 20th century, everything was more than quiet there.

    In Finland, yes, there was a surge in nationalism, largely due to a somewhat inept Russification policy, but again there was nothing closely resembling an uprising with weapons in hand.
    1. Your friend
      Your friend 27 March 2016 15: 17
      -1
      Quote: Warrior2015
      We beat off the dump in Poland, suppressing 1 rebellion in the 18th century and 2 in the 19th century. In the beginning of the 20th century, everything was more than quiet there.

      In Finland, yes, there was a surge in nationalism, largely due to a somewhat inept Russification policy, but again there was nothing closely resembling an uprising with weapons in hand.

      What dump was beaten off? This is the dump that Kiev took, or under the Warsaw red commanders broke?
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 27 March 2016 15: 36
      0
      Quote: Warrior2015
      In general, if you DETAILS consider how the web of the First World intertwined - just music

      I know, but in this case it is hard to believe that they could not understand anything in the Austrian counterintelligence.
      Quote: Warrior2015
      treated almost worse than cattle

      I do not argue, but mass extinctions are a little different.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 27 March 2016 16: 23
    0
    I agree that the cannon behind 10000 km from the front line is useless, and did not immediately drag them, most likely because the trains were already clogged. But how can the line of SDs be a decisive factor? Any fortifications are dismantled by howitzers with a bang and the Germans easily broke through the Siegfried line in several places. A fortress cannot impose its will on the enemy, because it stands still.

    What kind of 2-3-fold advantage in l / s in 1944-45 and the millions of dead can be talked about when the Berlin operation was 2.5: 1 and the losses there killed 76 to the killed EMNIP? The whole operation is 2 weeks. If the same balance of forces were, for example, by the summer of 1944, then the New Year would certainly have been celebrated in Berlin and there could be no talk of any 500 + killed in Poland. Unfortunately, there was no such advantage then, it was achieved only in the spring of 45, after Bagration, the Allied landings in Normandy and all other operations, including including the final enforcement of peace and the transfer of all Finland to Romania to our side.
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 17: 42
      +2
      Both we and the Poles recognize the loss of the Red Army in half a million.
      The losses of the Red Army in Eastern Europe - 2 million people.
  • Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 27 March 2016 17: 31
    -2
    Russia rushed into the Great War, being completely unprepared for it.

    And not just was not ready but not prepared at all. Nicholas II not only ruined the whole of Russia but also his family.
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 27 March 2016 17: 40
      +3
      Absolutely unfounded claim.
      What does it mean to be prepared for war.
      No country is fully prepared for war.
    2. AK64
      AK64 27 March 2016 17: 42
      +5
      And not just was not ready but not prepared at all. Nicholas II not only ruined the whole of Russia but also his family.


      Yes, they didn’t build a fleet, they didn’t build fortresses, they didn’t carry out modernization of the army - they just went for a walk and walked. So it was ....

      Lord, why did you spend Internet 6 in kindergarten?
    3. AK64
      AK64 27 March 2016 17: 42
      +2
      And not just was not ready but not prepared at all. Nicholas II not only ruined the whole of Russia but also his family.


      Yes, they didn’t build a fleet, they didn’t build fortresses, they didn’t carry out modernization of the army - they just went for a walk and walked. So it was ....

      Lord, why did you spend Internet 6 in kindergarten?
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 27 March 2016 18: 56
    +3
    Something lately Shirokorad is getting
    more and more alternative. Previously considered a specialist in
    artillery.
    If only ...
    If Peter the Great had submarines and airplanes ... smile
    1. AK64
      AK64 27 March 2016 19: 37
      +5
      Something recently Shirokorad has become more and more an alternative.


      He already described all the artillery, and that’s why ...
  • Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 27 March 2016 19: 27
    +1
    Alexander, as always, is brilliant. For what article minus science is unknown.
  • Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 27 March 2016 19: 28
    0
    A table or abstract should probably be compiled ---- a lot of material in the comments. This important topic cannot be simple and easy.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 27 March 2016 21: 31
    0
    Quote: Your friend
    What dump was beaten off? This is the dump that Kiev took, or under the Warsaw red commanders broke?
    This happened after a state such as the Russian Empire ordered a long life. The same with Finland.

    Quote: Dart2027
    I know, but in this case it is hard to believe that they could not understand anything in the Austrian counterintelligence.

    Well, I don’t know if they could or did not want to. But how much effort the Austrians spent on Serbia without serious success already immediately showed that it would be necessary to immediately conclude peace.
  • gorefest7777
    gorefest7777 27 March 2016 22: 44
    +1
    Damn the most pearl of the French at the beginning of World War I was 1 tanks kapets! I haven’t laughed like that for a long time
  • Erg
    Erg 27 March 2016 22: 53
    +1
    "Sharchet la grandma" yes Look for beneficiaries. And then, leading to a discussion of the events of those ancient times, they will appear before us only as consequences in which many see the reasons ...
  • Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 28 March 2016 08: 38
    0
    Quote: Erg
    "Sharchet la grandma" yes Look for beneficiaries.

    If we talk about a clean economy, then everything is simple - any war, and especially world war, is beneficial to the owners of military concerns. Moreover, in ANY country. At least in WWI it was they who made huge fortunes - in France, and in England, and in Germany, and also in the USA, not counting countries smaller than Switzerland.

    And unfortunately our country suffered the most and least of all. Then Germany and Austria, then France and Italy go on the level of general human and economic losses.
    1. AK64
      AK64 28 March 2016 09: 59
      +2
      I think you did not understand the Erg question.
      The question, it seems to me, was "who benefited from the February events?"

      Look: the beggars, who suffered huge financial and human losses, the USSR goes to the Elbe in 1945 --- and immediately turns from Cinderella into a Beautiful Princess. The world is changing with one light movement of the hand: there are no "Great France, Great Germanies" anymore, and even Britain is becoming ... so, some hobbits live on the islands, they play the Beatles ...
      In the world of TWO Powers.

      But look at the 1942th --- well, could this be expected in 1942?

      So, in 1917 what could happen in 1945 could happen. The only difference is that the Elbe would not have been ravaged by the war of the USSR, but a completely healthy RI.

      Imagine for a moment that this happened - what would the world look like? Frazzu ... what other "French"? Their voice would only count for the cut of the panties. The Germans ... Well, they would help the Russian railways to build and aviation. There would be two Powers in the world: Britain and Russia, and the provincial USA would be Russia's ally (as it was before).

      That's how the war could end in 1917.

      Well, since it was impossible to prevent this, then ...
      so they "took action."
  • Velizariy
    Velizariy 28 March 2016 10: 08
    +2
    Quote: venaya
    Quote: sergeybulkin
    there were no men left in the villages, they plowed - sowed - they pressed women ... our people died in tens of thousands before they even reached the front ...

    This moment of our history is hushed up very carefully. After all, no one wants to know that at this time in Russia there was a terrible tragedy - a coordinated change of religious faith. There was a complete transition from traditional dual faith (Vedic + Abrahamic) to total monoistic Christianity. How many people were destroyed as a result of the rejection of the native faith (Rodnoverie) it is now reliably hard to even imagine, although the figure is often called that at that time up to 1/3 of the country's population was lost in Russia.

    Wait wait! unclear! from the beginning, they accused Prince Vladimir of the genocide of proto-vetorans, but now it turns out that they all agreed at the end of the genocide and the religion of the Vedas became Avramic, and Peter once again genocidal the proto-vetorans, now also Avramic!
    It's time to determine the genocide or agreed! And the Old Believers have nothing to do with the Vedas, and with what the new Rodnovers invented, nothing in common.
  • d-shvets
    d-shvets 28 March 2016 12: 54
    0
    Judging by the article, we must right now draw a table in which to draw that there are more tanks in NATO than in the rest of the world and urgently surrender to everyone! The logic is reinforced concrete! Aftarzhot !!!