Military Review

How did the Anglo-Saxons play the role of "partners"

62
How did the Anglo-Saxons play the role of "partners"



If you look at the twentieth century alone, it remains to be amazed how many times England managed to betray her allies.

Many naive people still think that good old Britain is a queen-dandelion, cozy London pubs and Big Ben. The old woman of England, with the effort of a whole army of PR people, has developed an image of such a sweet and pretty country with a face of the Yorkshire terrier, although in fact this is by no means the case, and a more unprincipled, cruel and cruel country in the world. stories was not yet. The only one who can compare with the British is the Americans, who have perfectly learned the invaluable experience of their ancestors, people from Foggy Albion. And this experience is truly immense. Especially in how to fool and betray those countries who are not lucky enough to fall into the category of Anglo-Saxon "allies."

In World War I, the British cynically betrayed their ally, Russia. Moreover, they managed to do this almost on the very first day of the war, when the English cruiser squadron "missed" the German Geben battle cruiser in the Mediterranean. Instead of sending him to the bottom, the British let him go to Constantinople, after which Turkey entered the war on the German side.

Until 1917, until the pendulum of war swung toward the Entente countries, the British assured the unsuspecting Tsar Nicholas II that Russia would receive the Black Sea straits as a result of the war. But they did not intend to fulfill their promises, and Anglo-French troops eventually ended up in Constantinople, and the last Russian tsar paid for his gullibility with his life and the lives of his family members.

Only by treachery can one explain the refusal of the English king George the Fifth to host the ex-tsar and cousin Nicholas, leaving him alone to solve his problems. All this ended with the firing basement of the Ipatiev house, and George the Fifth subsequently poured crocodile tears over his martyr brother.

And the fiery revolutionary Comrade Trotsky went to set fire to Russia from the USA in 1917, having an impeccable set of British documents. The British knew, for what purpose does Trotsky go to Russia? Definitely. And they even tried to detain him or depict his detention, but then they let him go and wished him a happy journey. Interestingly, how would they react if, if a group of Irish underground fighters had left them from Russia?

Very unbridled and cynically the British betrayed their allies in 1938 and 1939. Liberal historians do not like to recall the Treaty of Munich, preferring to talk about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in a voice quivering with indignation, but in Munich, England presented Czechoslovakia to Hitler on a silver platter. Selling it with giblets. And without even asking the Czechs themselves what they think about all this. The Czechoslovak delegation, while the "allies" wrote to their country in Germany, was generally kept in the waiting room, like some dumb cattle.

In 1939, England also cynically betrayed Poland. Having announced a war for Hitler to the visitor, the British were not seriously going to fight, preferring to bomb Germany with leaflets and send condoms and footballs to the active army. After all, a soldier in a war what should he do? That's right - to rush for the beauties and play football. And let the Poles fighting, they were attacked. The Poles did not wait for the help from the “allies”, which, however, did not prevent them from relying again on the British “partners” who ... correctly betrayed them again. Agreeing that after the war Poland will enter the zone of Soviet interests.

By the way, many documents signed with the USSR at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 of the year, the British podmahnuli solely for visibility. At the time, they had already betrayed their ally — the USSR — more than once. First three years they were fed with promises to open the Second Front, and then, when Germany was defeated, Churchill immediately began to sabotage in every possible way the agreements he had signed. And soon he delivered a famous speech at Fulton, where his yesterday’s ally, Stalin, eloquently made it clear that the friendship was over. And it was still a relatively soft version of the British betrayal.

The Anglo-Americans did not interfere with concluding a separate peace with the Germans and convert weapon against the Red Army. The cases of how the Germans probed the ground for the conclusion of a separate peace are well known, and the Anglo-Saxons under certain conditions were not averse to concluding it. Molotov did not just wrap his “partners” with telegrams with a request to clarify what they were whispering about in Switzerland with the Germans? And as a fact of such backstage negotiations to regard the Soviet side?

Finally, the British also podgadili their allies, the French. They didn’t like general de Gaulle’s too independent, so they organized a kind of Orange Revolution in Syria and Lebanon to the French “friends” in 1945. And all this happened at a time when there was still a war with Hitler in Europe. Overexcited by British advisers and even more - by pounds of sterling - the Arab "freedom fighters" staged the French so merry farewell that they didn’t dare to go to Syria for a long time.

After World War II, Great Britain began to lose its position, but it was replaced by an even more cynical and cruel changer - the United States. Americans betrayed their "partners" wholesale and retail and, perhaps, the most characteristic example is Gorbachev. As is known, the “great reformer” and the Nobel laureate loved so much when Western “partners”, starting from Thatcher and ending with Bush, clap their shoulders in a friendly way that he managed to believe everything he had promised. And they promised him an eternal friendship that NATO would not move to the east and that arms reduction agreements would be strictly observed. And if the fraternal Soviet people need help, then the newly-minted Anglo-Saxon "allies" will provide it in any amount.

All this ended it is known what. The country was dismembered, the army and navy relegated to a pitiful state, science and industry were thrown back in their development decades ago. Along the way, the “friends” received a lot of credits, with the almost complete disappearance of the country's gold reserves in an unknown direction.

In addition, the "partners" actually moved the borders of NATO to Pskov and Rostov, and along the entire western border, with the exception of Belarus, which has not yet been "formatted" by the Anglo-Saxons, are extremely hostile to Russia. Which, like the chain dogs, constantly set on our country. That Latvia once again yelps from its gate, then Poland at the level of government members will accuse Russia of aggressive intentions, and now Ukraine has also been added to this chorus of Russophobes. And for all this it is necessary to thank the unforgettable Mikhail Sergeyevich, who now makes surprised eyes and throws up his hands, unable to explain how it all turned out? After all, they promised to marry, but themselves ...

By the way, as for Ukraine, it can also be considered a victim of Anglo-Saxon treachery. Ukraine itself does not yet understand this or simply does not want to see it, but, like Czechoslovakia in 1938, the Anglo-Saxon “friends” did not even ask what she thought of her own destiny. The country was made a pawn in a geopolitical game, without offering anything in return. Only some vague promises of a mythical beautiful European life.

But the Anglo-Saxons have always been famous for their inimitable ability, how to give out empty promises, so also to find those who will faithfully believe in them. The Polish government in exile, before 1945, firmly believed its English "allies" until Churchill surrendered Poland at the Yalta Conference. Or rather, tritely exchanged it for Greece, under a bottle of Armenian brandy.

Under what bottle “passed” Ukraine, historians have yet to find out, but it is possible that this will be a bottle of Russian vodka. Russia is too big and serious country for the Anglo-Saxons to abandon relations with it for the sake of some geopolitical dwarfs. Therefore, it is possible that very soon Ukraine will be amazed to see how, in violation of all its obligations, the worshipful and adorable Anglo-Saxons will again declare Russia to be their "friend and partner." As they say, nothing personal, business is business.

And then we have to keep our ears open. Moreover, that tons of Western noodles dangling on Gorbachev's trusting ears, no one in Russia has yet managed to forget.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru/science-tech/2016/05/17/istoriya-khkh-veka/776856-kak-anglosaksy-igrali-rol-partnerov
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. kumaxa
    kumaxa 29 May 2016 06: 39
    +17
    that’s not an eyebrow! I will add the Prime Minister of the UK, WI CHERCHUL, declared. BRITAIN DOESNT HAVE CONSTANT FRIENDS THE BRITAIN HAS CONSTANT INTERESTS. like literally correct if I am mistaken with a quote!
    1. bastard
      bastard 29 May 2016 07: 42
      +11
      Quote: kumaxa
      UK Prime Minister WI CHERCHUL said. BRITAIN DOESN’T CONSTANT FRIENDS BRITAIN HAS CONSTANT INTERESTS. like literally correct if I am mistaken with a quote!

      The same was said by Henry John Temple Palmerstone (years 1784 - 1865), the 35th Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1855 to 1858. and 37th from 1859 to 1865
      This is what Churchill repeated. hi
      Their jackal customs do not change for centuries.
      Article plus!
      1. techie
        techie 29 May 2016 08: 13
        +11
        Yes, with such "allies" no enemies are needed. Meanness and betrayal as the essence of state policy is something. And they are leaving! They are still leaving! They substitute, betray, sell, deny and have their own gesheft on all this. Swim out due to the drowned, in general. As a well-known substance.
        1. SSR
          SSR 29 May 2016 09: 01
          +5
          Edrikhin-Vandam foresaw already during the Boer War and warned his compatriots: “It is bad to have Anglo-Saxon as an enemy, but God forbid to have him as a friend ...

          Golden words do not lose their relevance today and to Taty it is England that accepts all our runaway oligarchs, that is where officials run and their children study there, the simple way there is complicated and thorny))))
          PS.
          It was the British who slaughtered the Tasmanians, it was they who owned the idea of ​​concentration camps, it was they who paid less for the head of an Irish than for the head of a wolf.
          1. russkiy redut
            russkiy redut 29 May 2016 16: 02
            +1
            I agree, they run to their own because the descendants from the Khazar Khaganate rule there.
      2. silver_roman
        silver_roman 30 May 2016 15: 04
        +1
        Quote: villain
        Their jackal customs do not change for centuries.

        It’s as if a country the size of a quarter of our region is not particularly worthy of its average military ambitions. They found an excellent remedy: cunning and meanness.
        As the saying goes: "There are no rules in love and war."

        The funny thing is that we draw the conclusions made by the author all the time, and constantly we come across this rake again and again.
        I also understand the enemy as Americans: a large and powerful country with its own uber-aggressive interests, but England ... of course you cannot call it directly militarily weak, but I am sure that in a month it could be rolled into a SHI! But for this there is "meat" in the form of NATO.
        I hope to live to see the moment when their hegemony goes to waste!
    2. peta locksmith
      peta locksmith 29 May 2016 09: 50
      +6
      it was not Churchill who said it - our chancellor Alexander Gorchakov said this

      cit. "The state (meaning Russia) cannot have friends or enemies - the state can only have national interests" (from his reply to the Austrian ambassador about the strengthening of relations between Russia and Germany, 1856 after the Crimean War and the betrayal of Austria)
      He is also the author of the statement "Russia is not angry - Russia is concentrating" La Russie ne boude pas - elle se recueille "(1856 circus note of September 10 (26))
    3. Aleksander
      Aleksander 29 May 2016 11: 52
      0
      Quote: kumaxa
      U. CHURCHUL, Prime Minister of the UK, said. BRITAIN HAS NO PERMANENT FRIENDS; BRITAIN HAS CONSTANT INTERESTS


      It said lord palmerston:

      " We have no permanent allies, we have no eternal enemies. Only our interests are unchanging and eternal, and our duty is to follow them. ."

      And what has been said is absolutely true in relation to all countries; all follow their own interests.

      Another thing is that in pursuit of these interests of its own, England, as a result, fell into disarray: after the Munich conspiracy, it was England that was left alone for a whole year alone with Germany, the monster she had born.

      But England’s main crime is still not the case: it was England that allowed Japan to occupy Manchuria in the 1931 and blocked the resistance to aggression in the League of Nations, thereby destroying the wonderful international peace instrument (LN), which has been wonderful in principle: since then no aggressor has done anything Afraid, neither Italy, nor Germany, nor Poland with Hungary.
      the British assured the trusting Tsar Nicholas II that, following the results of the war, Russia would receive the Black Sea straits. But keep your promises they were not going to, and ultimately the Anglo-French troops ended up in Constantinople, and the last Russian tsar paid for his credulity with his life and the lives of his family members.

      Did the author say that she was not going to? And not only England decided, but also Russia HERSELF, and as the most powerful ally of the Entente. And no one objected. I note, by the way, that even the weak allies in the Entente received after the victory what they agreed upon, both Serbia (fully occupied), and Romania (almost completely occupied), etc. The same thing happened after WWII.
      And in Constantinople, the Anglo-French troops were in quality war winners, and not as a result of "betrayal" of Russia. Traitors found themselves in Russia itself and concluded Brest shame, betraying the huge sacrifices of Russia in the struggle against the German invaders and depriving her of victory.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 29 May 2016 18: 23
        +1
        Neither Serbia nor Romania was concerned about the Bosphorus tides !!! So they got their pieces from the master's tables! And before those who concluded the Best peace there were still many people! And many of them were fed from the English table!
      2. Cro-Magnon
        Cro-Magnon 31 May 2016 09: 10
        0
        The smallest ones got their "promised" because it in no way harmed or weakened England ... I also remember in the war of 1877/78 all who did not oppose Turkey and who did harm against Russia also received "their" ... one " strong and victorious "Russia with bare f **** remained !!!
    4. Proxima
      Proxima 29 May 2016 13: 02
      +2
      Quote: kumaxa
      that’s not an eyebrow! I will add the Prime Minister of the UK, WI CHERCHUL said. BRITAIN DOESNT HAVE CONSTANT FRIENDS THE BRITAIN HAS CONSTANT INTERESTS.

      It's still okay ... I am amazed with its cynicism by another phrase of Churchill: "I WILL FIGHT HITLER to the LAST RUSSIAN SOLDIER"!
    5. Akuzenka
      Akuzenka 29 May 2016 21: 28
      +4
      Nikolai Starikov has a good book on this topic: "How Russia was betrayed." Everything is clear there, with facts and examples.
    6. A.Lex
      A.Lex 30 May 2016 15: 38
      0
      I came up with a saying not so long ago - Breshet like an Anglo-Saxon!
  2. Приговор
    Приговор 29 May 2016 06: 40
    +16
    Such "partners" and "friends", as they say, are sent to the museum. But seriously, it cannot be regarded as an ally, and even as a partner, a country that has been playing off the states and peoples of Europe and then the whole world for the last 600 years. In order to profit from trading with both sides of the conflict and the subsequent robbery of the losing side. Washington continues this policy, but this is a common method for the Anglo-Saxon elite, which has long turned into a transoceanic elite, firmly merged with predominantly Jewish banking capital. And our conflict in unhappy Ukraine is not at all Petro Valtsman-Poroshenko and a bunch of stupefied Natsiks. Namely, with those gentlemen whom I mentioned above. Considering their monstrous power and the complete absence of any morality, I am surprised at the steadfastness of our President. May God grant him wisdom and strength, and we will support him. Regardless of the fifth column and our "aligarhs" (and in fact the henchmen of the Anglo-Saxon kaganate). The Third World War has already begun, all the fun is just beginning.
    1. Greenwood
      Greenwood 29 May 2016 14: 04
      -3
      I agree with the first part of the comment, but this is to no means:
      Quote: Sentence
      I am surprised at the resilience of our President. God grant him wisdom and strength
      Stop licking the president’s back seat already. He is a protege of Yeltsin and a company of oligarchs - friends of the Anglo-Saxons. All his imaginary opposition to the West is a game of his own rating, no more. And judge his real activities by the worthless economic situation in the country.
      Quote: Sentence
      we will support him
      You may support, but we do not.
      Quote: Sentence
      Despite the fifth column and our "aligarhs"
      I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this "fifth column" and the oligarchs flourished even more during Putin's time as president. There are much more billionaires and millionaires in the country under him.
      Quote: Sentence
      World War III has already begun
      Well, if only in someone’s inflamed brain.
      1. Приговор
        Приговор 29 May 2016 19: 39
        +5
        Apparently, he really stepped on a "sore corn" if he poured so much slop on me. One thing is reassuring: the likes count. Indicative, isn't it? Try not to write so much spiteful nonsense and next time, perhaps people will support your thoughts. In the meantime, I will not stoop to your level, and I wish you all the best.

        PS And yes. Our president cannot be removed from you. But they did not begin to love your diaspora in the country seriously. Please pay attention to what you are doing and saying. You cannot live in a country and be disloyal to it. And that’s what you’re doing. In this case, everything will end badly. For you.
        1. Greenwood
          Greenwood 30 May 2016 09: 56
          0
          Quote: Sentence
          so much slop poured on me
          There would be no phrase about the president, I would put a plus.
          Quote: Sentence
          One thing is encouraging: the likes account.
          I don’t give a damn about these likes, honestly. Not at school, chasing grades.
          Quote: Sentence
          Our president cannot be removed from you.
          Thank God it is not eternal.
          Quote: Sentence
          your diaspora
          Um, what is ours? Have you ranked me to whom, to liberals, communists, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Natsiks, or maybe Jehovah's Witnesses ??? laughing
          Quote: Sentence
          You cannot live in a country and be disloyal to it.
          I agree. Nevertheless, our gallant government is just the most disloyal to its own country. When I see what kind of people Putin surrounded himself with, there can be no respect in principle.
  3. PKK
    PKK 29 May 2016 07: 09
    +2
    It’s time to change over a foggy island, the Oldenburg flag is small British, to our original Red. Damned children jumped. Yes and the town was our bosom Don.
    1. Greenwood
      Greenwood 29 May 2016 14: 08
      +2
      Quote: PKK
      to our original Red
      I suggest first changing the flag to Red over the Kremlin and the White House, and then thinking about all sorts of England.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. cap
    cap 29 May 2016 07: 49
    +6
    Through the efforts of an entire army of public relations, the old woman of England formed the image of a kind of sweet and pretty country with a muzzle of the Yorkshire Terrier, although in reality this is by no means the case, and there has never been a more unprincipled, tough and cruel country in world history. The only ones who can compare with the British are the Americans, who perfectly learned the invaluable experience of their ancestors, who came from Misty Albion. And this experience is truly enormous. Especially in how to fool and betray those countries who are unlucky to fall into the category of Anglo-Saxon "allies."
    Comments on this video are superfluous. We see what kind of England it is.
  6. knn54
    knn54 29 May 2016 07: 55
    +8
    The "real" Gentleman gave his word - he also took it ...
  7. 56_br
    56_br 29 May 2016 08: 02
    +5
    In a word, "Anglosuckers", and we also say "the humpbacked grave will fix it." There is a good saying "they knock out a wedge with a wedge", which means that these Anglosuckers should be treated exactly as they are to us!
  8. s.melioxin
    s.melioxin 29 May 2016 08: 08
    +12
    After World War II, Great Britain began to lose its position, but it was replaced by an even more cynical and cruel successor - the United States. The Americans betrayed their “partners” wholesale and retail, and perhaps the most characteristic example is Gorbachev. As you know, the “great reformer” and the Nobel laureate loved so much when Western “partners” slamming him on the shoulder, starting from Thatcher and ending with Bush, managed to believe everything that was promised to him. And they promised him eternal friendship that NATO would not move east and that the arms reduction treaties would be strictly respected. And if the fraternal Soviet people need help, the newly made Anglo-Saxon "allies" will provide it in any amount.
    Here are two leaders, and which are different. After the end of World War II, on the Day of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Winston Churchill praised Joseph Stalin. However, the leader of the USSR did not respond to his words quite as Churchill had expected.
    M. Molotov instructed to publish in the newspaper Pravda, the central organ of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, an account of the speech of a British politician. After reading the newspaper, I.V. Stalin cabled.
    “I consider it a mistake to publish Churchill’s speech praising Russia and Stalin. Churchill needs this praise in order to appease his unclean conscience and mask his hostile attitude towards the USSR, in particular, to mask the fact that Churchill and his disciples from the Labor Party are organizers of the Anglo-American-French bloc against the USSR. By publishing such speeches we help these gentlemen. We now have many responsible workers who are enthralled by the calves of Churchill, Truman, Byrnes and, conversely, are discouraged by the unfavorable comments from these gentlemen. I consider such moods dangerous, as they develop our servility to foreign figures. A cruel struggle must be waged with servility to foreigners. But if we continue to publish detailed speeches, we will thereby enforce servility and cringing. This is not to say that Soviet leaders do not need praise from foreign leaders. As for me personally, such praise only warps me. ”
    Now, after so many years, there is someone to compare with, which of the main persons of the State was his clear defender and Representative whose actions and deeds can and should be proud of, and from what actions it becomes embarrassing and insulting to humiliate the Country
    1. Lankaster
      Lankaster 29 May 2016 11: 17
      +1
      [quote = s.melioxin] [quote] Churchill and his students from the Labor Party [/ quote]
      Churchill was actually in the conservative party ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
  9. afrikanez
    afrikanez 29 May 2016 08: 20
    +2
    What is exactly, then exactly, Britain is a slut country, nothing more. Rare "freaks". So they also gave birth to their own kind, the same states, just a cliché one to one.
    1. Greenwood
      Greenwood 29 May 2016 14: 11
      +6
      Quote: afrikanez
      country whore
      A whore country is a country that everyone is lazy to have. This can be said for example about the current Ukraine or Poland, as well as the Baltic states. And England - the mistress of the seas, for many centuries established its rules around the world, so she does not fit this nickname. Let us evaluate states objectively, without stupid hatred.
  10. v.yegorov
    v.yegorov 29 May 2016 09: 56
    +5
    And then we have to keep our ears open. Moreover, that tons of Western noodles dangling on Gorbachev's trusting ears, no one in Russia has yet managed to forget.

    Yes, we ourselves are to blame, the media whistled to our ears, and we, like fools, reached out
    amicably for "universal human values" and as a result pro.ralie the State. Few
    Moreover, I’m not at all sure that with the change of Putin the foreign policy will not change
    course, and we are not expecting series No. 2 with the final collapse. Need a charismatic
    a person at the head of the country and the rise of the economy so that people believe. Until this
    observed, one imitation of activity.
  11. samarin1969
    samarin1969 29 May 2016 10: 39
    +9
    Unfortunately, the "fathers" of modern Russian foreign policy do not read history. They are looking for some "partners" among outright enemies.
    1. D24081973
      D24081973 29 May 2016 13: 12
      +1
      read, they’re just enemies themselves
    2. The comment was deleted.
  12. Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik 29 May 2016 10: 45
    +9
    Gorbachev is not some kind of gullible fool, but an agent of influence, an inveterate enemy of the USSR and Russia!
    1. D24081973
      D24081973 29 May 2016 13: 15
      +1
      definitely said
    2. The comment was deleted.
  13. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 29 May 2016 11: 01
    +4
    partners are allies ......... pah.! For centuries, nothing in their essence has changed the jackal!
  14. 1536
    1536 29 May 2016 11: 20
    +8
    I.V. Stalin did not like the British. He well remembered how miraculously survived when in the 1907 year in London he was attacked by a crowd of brutal drunken English workers. Stalin went to a meeting of the Fifth Congress of the RSDLP, held in London. An English drunk who lost her human form, mistaking him for a Jew, wanted to immediately deal with him. Only G.V. Chicherin explained to the English barbarians, apparently in a language that they understood, that the person they attacked was not a Jew, he was from the Caucasus, from Russia, Georgian by nationality. This saved the life of I.V. To Stalin. (Did the Jew change this matter before this gathering, Georgians or Zimbavians? Racists who degraded in half-humans, half-animals are the bulk of the British of that time. And today too!).
    Only the extreme necessity - the war against Hitler, whom Churchill incited against the USSR - contributed to the fact that he entered into an alliance with Churchill - the worst enemy of Russia. An alliance for gold, generously paid, which is what the British sought. Here's a "policy".
    1. DenisSPb
      DenisSPb 29 May 2016 13: 45
      +1
      How could Churchill incite against Russia the one who built all of Germany's foreign policy and future according to the "Onslaught to the East" program?
      1. Cro-Magnon
        Cro-Magnon 31 May 2016 09: 22
        +1
        Poland also dreamed of an onslaught to the east, but decided to fight the war against Soviet Russia after the blessings of England and France and pumping them with weapons and equipment! So Germany without the restoration of the economy and the military-industrial complex with the approval and help of the Anglo-Saxons in the USSR would not have trampled!
    2. Greenwood
      Greenwood 29 May 2016 14: 14
      +3
      Quote: 1536
      But did the Jew change this matter before this gathering, Georgians or Zimbavians? Racists, degraded in half-humans, half-animals - this is the bulk of the British of that time.
      In fairness, Jews have never been loved anywhere. And in Russia too. Jewish pogroms periodically happened in many countries. The point here is not the British, but the general attitude towards the Jews.
      1. Basil50
        Basil50 29 May 2016 14: 54
        +6
        greenwood.
        The point is not in relation to Jews, but in relation to Jews to all people. Even in Israel, Jews are divided into different categories and each * category * has its own duties towards Jewish * chosen *. By the way * ghetto * ALWAYS built by the Jews themselves in all countries where they lived in a separate community. Only the Nazis built * the ghetto * for the Jews at their own expense.
      2. Cro-Magnon
        Cro-Magnon 31 May 2016 09: 23
        0
        And why would it ..!?
    3. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 29 May 2016 14: 56
      +1
      Having surrendered to him first Czechoslovakia, and then Poland.
  15. Obolensky
    Obolensky 29 May 2016 11: 46
    +3
    The author wrote everything correctly. The British have been "playing" their games with us for a very long time. The United States joined in the 20th century.
  16. Basil50
    Basil50 29 May 2016 11: 50
    +4
    Everything said about the British is true, much can be added, there are only those who believe the words of gentlemen, forgetting that they always * correct * their circumstances according to circumstances. As I read about the code of knightly honor, it struck me how many opportunities for not fulfilling my own promises and agreements were laid down in the code itself.
    The history of England is long and has always been accompanied by treachery and incredible cruelty. Even stranger is the statement about the oldest democracy in England, and this is in a country where kings inherit power, lords inherit titles and rights, the queen * dad * of their own church, and where only the queen appoints the government.
  17. Dart2027
    Dart2027 29 May 2016 13: 03
    +2
    So, of all the animals, let the sovereign be likened to two - a lion and a fox. A lion is afraid of traps, and a fox is afraid of wolves, therefore, one must be like a fox in order to get around traps, and a lion in order to scare away wolves. One who is always like a lion may not notice a trap.
    From which it follows that a rational ruler cannot and should not remain true to his promise if it harms his interests and if the reasons that prompted him to make a promise have disappeared. Such advice would be unworthy if people honestly kept their word, but people, being bad, do not hold a word, therefore you should do the same to them. And there is always a plausible excuse to break a promise. There are many examples of this - how many peace treaties, how many agreements have not entered into force or have gone to ashes because the sovereigns have broken their word, and whoever had flesh always always won. However, one must still be able to cover up this nature, one must be a pretty deceiver and a hypocrite, people are so simple-minded and so absorbed in immediate needs that the deceiver will always find someone who will let himself be fooled.
    Of the examples close in time, I can’t keep silent about one thing. Alexander VI spent his whole life in deceiving, but every time there were people who were ready to believe him. There was no man in the whole world who would so oathly assure, promise so convincingly and care so little about fulfilling his promises. Nevertheless, deceits always succeeded him, as he wished, for he knew a lot about this matter.
    It follows that the sovereign does not need to possess all these virtues, but there is a direct need to look possessing them.

    (N. Machiavelli "The Sovereign")

    Here's what you need to learn in schools, in history lessons. And do not cram into unnecessary dates of battles between countries which are already on the map.
  18. DenisSPb
    DenisSPb 29 May 2016 13: 37
    +3
    The British around the world are known for their lack of conscience in politics. They are experts in the art of hiding their crimes behind a facade of decency. They have done so for centuries, and it has become so much a part of their nature that they themselves no longer notice this trait. They act with such a well-meaning expression and such absolute seriousness that they even convince themselves that they serve as an example of political innocence. They do not admit to themselves their hypocrisy. One Englishman will never wink at another and say: "but we understand what we mean." They not only behave as an example of purity and integrity - they believe in themselves. This is both funny and dangerous. (Goebbels)
    1. RedBaron
      RedBaron 31 May 2016 02: 18
      0
      Quote: DenisSPb
      The British around the world are known for their lack of conscience in politics.

      The reasoning about conscience in politics is not from a great mind, as well as to attribute the character traits of a person to the state. hi
  19. Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin 29 May 2016 14: 16
    -4
    It is clear that waiting for an answer from the author is pointless, but still I emphasize a number of points.

    Quote: Alexander Plekhanov
    Especially in how to fool and betray those countries who are unlucky to fall into the category of Anglo-Saxon "allies."
    I would like to learn from the author at least a few of the many examples of England's betrayal of its allies from history to the 20 century.

    In my opinion, the UK was just fairly honest and always abided by treaties - including with Russia (for example, it was our faithful ally in the fight against Napoleon).

    And it is simply not clear why it is worth condemning a country that puts its own interests above all else. maybe because Russia finally has enough to play the role of some kind of crazy altruist and think first of all about its own national interests and its own citizens?

    Quote: Alexander Plekhanov
    In World War I, the British cynically betrayed their ally, Russia. Moreover, they managed to do this almost on the very first day of the war, when the English cruiser squadron "missed" the German Geben battle cruiser in the Mediterranean. Instead of sending him to the bottom, the British let him go to Constantinople, after which Turkey entered the war on the German side.
    The author clearly does not want to share military failures and intentionally national betrayal by one side of the other. So the British can also accuse Russia of betraying allied obligations in the First World War - and, oddly enough, you will be right in many ways, because the Bolsheviks who seized power concluded a separate peace, abandoned ALL the spheres of influence (including the Straits) and completely set up the Western allies, leaving them face to face with the Germans.
    1. Basil50
      Basil50 29 May 2016 15: 12
      +5
      Would you read anything about the February revolution, which took place under the leadership of the British and French, or about the murder of Mr. Rasputin, well, or about the wars in Central Asia. Or about how they stole the money of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE allocated for military purchases. An even more exciting story about the personal money of Nicholas II, and how the English * cousin * defended his right to Romanov capital from different applicants. Very instructive.
      1. Mikhail Matyugin
        Mikhail Matyugin 30 May 2016 00: 02
        -4
        Quote: Vasily50
        Would you read anything about the February Revolution, which took place under the leadership of the British and French, or about the murder of Mr. Rasputin,
        The February Revolution occurred for many reasons. England was involved in the LEAST among other involved persons.

        Quote: Vasily50
        well, or about the wars in Central Asia.
        I know this topic deep enough, what do you want to tell me? about the atrocities of the bloody regime of tsarism and the allegedly inept colonial rule of Turkestan in the Russian Empire?
      2. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 31 May 2016 03: 19
        0
        Yes, and I would love to read the same thing, and much more. When to catch it, where is the time to find?
        In general, the events of the 20th century are probably the most veiled.
  20. russkiy redut
    russkiy redut 29 May 2016 15: 57
    +2
    Thanks to the author for the article! England bloody totalitarian evil empire! The British themselves throughout history have not invented anything worthwhile except manipulation and deception.
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      Mikhail Matyugin 30 May 2016 00: 07
      -1
      Quote: russkiy redut
      England bloody totalitarian evil empire!
      On the constant shedding of blood and totalitarian domination, it is even difficult to build an empire, and even to manage for centuries is generally impossible. Learn English colonialism. Not according to Soviet textbooks. Discover a lot of new things.

      Quote: russkiy redut
      The British themselves throughout history have not invented anything worthwhile except manipulation and deception.
      Without a doubt, without the highest ability to manipulate and deceive, it was impossible to build the largest colonial empire in the world. But how skillfully they controlled her!

      And so - the British and Scots invented a huge variety of those items that we still use in everyday life. It is the Anglo-Saxons who are the main nation of inventors, especially for the period 17-19 centuries.

      PS I am not an Anglophile to any degree, but we must still adhere to historical objectivity.

      And unfortunately, he never received examples of what and how the British "threw" Russia - especially for the period of the 17-19 centuries. And where did England betray her allies?
      1. Cro-Magnon
        Cro-Magnon 31 May 2016 09: 33
        +1
        And what did these inventions give to humanity? Delivered from hunger, disease, poverty, war and the destruction of morality! ?? Or just a miserable handful of Anglo-Jewish merchants turned into global world oligarchs destroying the planet for their own power and vanity ?!
        1. Mikhail Matyugin
          Mikhail Matyugin 31 May 2016 18: 43
          0
          Quote: Cro-Magnon
          And what did these inventions give to humanity? Saved from hunger, disease, poverty, war and the destruction of morality !?

          Well, Anglo-American computers allow us to communicate with you online. Is this not enough?

          English and American medicines (including the invention of antibiotics and vaccination) so yes - they saved mankind from many diseases and saved tens of millions of lives.

          The invention of the industrial factory method of production, and then conveyors, allowed to increase the output of industrial products - and yes, they allowed, if not everyone to get rid of poverty, but greatly increased the general standard of living of all mankind.

          Is it enough?
  21. Rostislav
    Rostislav 29 May 2016 16: 27
    +3
    Maybe it’s enough to already look for those to blame for their problems?
    Gorbachev was betrayed, confided in the wrong ...
    Was the head of state born yesterday? Didn't know who he was dealing with? In the country, analysts are over, able to predict the development of the situation?
    Already got this search for excuses.
    And now the same thing continues.
    For any reason and without reason, Russia is accused of aggression, infringement of rights, non-compliance, violation, etc. etc. And we begin to make excuses again. Before whom? Before the organizer of this anti-Russian hysteria?
    The answer to all these reproaches and concerns should be very polite: "Dear Germans (Saxons, Swedes, Americans and further down the list), on what basis did you decide to tell a sovereign country what to do?"
    And it is necessary to cover our actions in the world in the course of information releases telling what and why we are doing. But in no case in the form of excuses for the next reproaches of minke whales and others like them.
  22. trantor
    trantor 29 May 2016 16: 50
    +3
    there was no more unprincipled, harsh and cruel country in world history. The only ones who can compare with the British are the Americans, who perfectly learned the invaluable experience of their ancestors ...

    Not that. The Americans are as simple as dimes or as straight as the shafts compared to the British. For the most part, they really believe in what they proclaim (what we laugh at), like this: "He chose freedom" (about defectors). Or what is in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. they do help the "good guys versus bad guys" even though they don't have either ...

    They are zombified and tied hand and foot with their vision of democracy to a much greater extent than we communism at the peak of the USSR (mid-70s). Our history is simply richer and longer. What is some 70 years for us :)
  23. Kibl
    Kibl 29 May 2016 19: 04
    +3
    So not in the subject. Citizens of Russia, why do the children of your bosses study in prestigious educational institutions in England, which you hate so much? Okay, when "firms" do it, but when children and not only state officials study there, this is already alarming. What will they be taught there to love Homeland, I doubt very much, but the recruits of the fifth column are easy.
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 31 May 2016 03: 29
      0
      Because they (our bosses) want their children to stay there forever and, at the same time, study, make the necessary acquaintances. You might think that this is incomprehensible to someone. Even my aunt wanted to send her daughter there. But my daughter went the other way. Saaaaavsem other. HA!
      Or here’s a series about the praaaaavilnoy woman investigator. Incorruptible. And the children are in England!
  24. Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin 30 May 2016 11: 38
    -1
    Returning to the topic, I am waiting for historical examples when Great Britain "threw" Russia in the fulfillment of allied obligations, with the concluded union treaty for the period of the XVI-XIX centuries. ?
    1. Cro-Magnon
      Cro-Magnon 31 May 2016 09: 37
      0
      One local example is enough ?! PQ-17 .....
      1. Basil50
        Basil50 31 May 2016 11: 40
        0
        To Magnon.
        There are those for whom the February coup of 1917 under the leadership of the British and French is not something extraordinary. So the episode, just the same duty, because behind the * hill * are always right.
        1. sibiryak10
          sibiryak10 31 May 2016 12: 56
          0
          Mikhail is right that until the 20th century Britain did not "throw" Russia.
          But the title of the article directly says: "If you look at the XNUMXth century alone, you will be amazed how many times England managed to betray its allies."

          So the article is still about the 20th century
        2. Mikhail Matyugin
          Mikhail Matyugin 31 May 2016 18: 47
          0
          Quote: Vasily50
          The February coup of the 1917 year, under the leadership of the British and French, is not something extraordinary.

          Actually, the main stakeholders in the 1917 revolutions of the year were just Germany and the USA, but not France and Great Britain. Sorry, but you absolutely do not understand the issue.

          And did the 1917 coups of the year really be something extraordinary? Perhaps this is so, but they have buried all of Russian statehood, which was created for several centuries.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Mikhail Matyugin
        Mikhail Matyugin 31 May 2016 18: 51
        0
        Quote: Cro-Magnon
        One local example is enough ?! PQ-17 .....

        Once again - I was not talking about the 20th century, but even the example you cited is just a military failure, no matter how bitterly aware of this (the British simply did not take even greater risks) but not purposeful betrayal. Well and still - the expediency of the north-west convoys was in general questionable - and so 4 \ 5 of all Lend-Lease products went to the USSR through Iran or through the Far East.

        You can say even more - and the inability of the supposedly powerful Soviet fleet and Soviet aviation to reliably cover the convoy at sea in its sector of responsibility - is that how? betrayal? the British in the convoy or themselves?

        So this episode is very, very ambiguous. Although deeply tragic for all allies.
  25. Idiot
    Idiot 8 June 2016 14: 27
    0
    Quote: Greenwood
    Um, what is ours? Have you ranked me to whom, to liberals, communists, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Natsiks, or maybe Jehovah's Witnesses ???


    You have been ranked among badly educated idiots.
  26. Skif
    Skif 15 December 2016 04: 50
    0
    And what do you, dear ones, want? That's how big politics was done, and our ancestors died in wars for the interests of "Foggy Albion", if the kings (emperors, secretaries general) had problems with brains ... (Unlike the Anglo-Saxons). Now the war in Donbass is their business, extinguish each other, fools-Slavs, and we will shout from you from the island and from across the ocean, and then we will take everything we need, with your own hands we will rake in the heat