Military Review

Brusilovsky breakthrough

121
Brusilovsky breakthrough

100 years ago, 4 June 1916, began the offensive of the Russian armies of the Southwestern Front against the Austro-German forces. This operation went into history as Brusilovsky breakthrough, and also known as the Lutsk Breakthrough and the 4-I Galician Battle. This battle was the most memorable for Russia in the First World War, as the Russian troops in Galicia under the command of General Alexei Brusilov broke through the defenses of the Austro-German forces and rapidly went forward. In the first days of the operation, the account of the prisoners went to tens of thousands. There was an opportunity to withdraw the Austro-Hungarian Empire from the war. After the hard failures of the 1915 campaign of the year, this operation temporarily reinforced the morale of the army. The operation of the Russian troops continued from May 22 (June 4) until the end of August 1916.

Successful actions of the South-Western Front were not supported by other fronts. The stake was unable to organize the interaction of the fronts. Also, command errors at the command level of the Southwestern Front and the command of the front armies affected. As a result, the Lutsk breakthrough did not lead to the fall of the enemy front and a major strategic success leading to victory in the war. However, the operation in Galicia was of great importance. The Austro-Germans lost 1916 in May-August to 1,5 million people, out of them up to 400 thousand prisoners (although Russian troops suffered heavy losses only in May-June 600 thousand people). The forces of the Austro-Hungarian military machine, which had already suffered a terrible defeat during the 1914 campaign and was able to more or less recover in 1915, were finally undermined. Until the end of the war, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was no longer able to conduct active hostilities without the support of the German troops. In the Habsburg monarchy itself the processes of disintegration sharply intensified.

To stop the advance of the Russian army, the German command had to redeploy 11 divisions from the Western front to the Eastern, and withdraw the 6 divisions from the Italian front to the Austrians. This contributed to the weakening of the pressure of the German army in the Verdun area and the overall victory of the Allied forces in the Battle of Verdun. The Austrian command was forced to stop the Trentino operation and significantly strengthen the army group in Galicia. The operation of the South-Western Front was a major achievement of military art, proving the possibility of breaking through the enemy’s strong positional defense. Romania, which is in 1914-1915. she waited, waiting for the major success of one of the parties in the Great War, and was on the side of the Entente, which sprayed the forces of the Central Powers. The Lutsk breakthrough, along with the Battle of Verdun and the battle on the Somme, marked the beginning of a strategic turning point in the course of World War in favor of the Entente, forcing the Central Powers to switch to a strategic defense in 1917.

As a result, this battle will be included in the official historiography as “Brusilov's Breakthrough” - this was a unique case when the battle was called not by geographical (for example, the Battle of Kalka, the Battle of Kulikovo or Erzerumskaya operation) or another accompanying attribute, but by the name of the commander. Although contemporaries knew the operation as the Lutsk breakthrough and the 4 battle for Galicia, which corresponded to the historical tradition of giving the name to the battle at the battlefield. However, the press, mostly liberal, began to praise Brusilov, just as they did not praise other successful commanders of the Great War (like Yudenich, who in the Caucasus had inflicted severe defeats on the Turkish army several times). In Soviet historiography, given the fact that Brusilov switched to the side of the Reds, this name was fixed.

1916 campaign plan

In accordance with the decision of the conference of the Entente powers in Chantilly (March 1916) on the general offensive of the Allied armies in the summer of 1916, the Russian Stavka decided to launch an offensive on the Eastern Front in June. In their calculations, the Russian Headquarters proceeded from the correlation of forces on the Eastern Front. On the part of Russia there were three fronts: Northern, Western and South-Western. The northern front of Kuropatkin (Chief of Staff Sivers) covered the St. Petersburg sector and consisted of the 12, 5 and 6 armies. The headquarters of the front was located in Pskov. They were opposed by the 8-I German army and part of the army group Scholz. The western front of Evert defended the Moscow direction. It consisted of 1-I, 2-I, 10-I and 3-I armies (in May 4-I army was attached). The front headquarters is in Minsk. The Russian troops were opposed by a part of the army group of Scholz, 10, and 12, and 9, and part of the army group of Linsingen. The southwestern front of Brusilov covered the Kiev area and included 8, 11, 7 and 9 armies. The headquarters of the front - Berdichev. Against these troops, the army group Linsingen, the army group Böhm-Yermoli, the Southern Army and the 7-I Austro-Hungarian Army acted. According to Alekseev, on the three Russian fronts there were more than 1,7 million bayonets and sabers against more than 1 million people from the enemy. The Northern and Western fronts had an especially great advantage: 1,2 million against 620 thousand Germans. The South-Western Front possessed 500 thousand people against 440 thousand Austro-Germans.

Thus, according to the Russian command in the northern sector of the front, Russian troops had double superiority over the enemy. This advantage could be seriously increased after the acquisition of parts to the regular strength and the transfer of reserves. Therefore, Alekseev proposed to launch a decisive offensive in the sector just north of Polesie, by the forces of the Northern and Western fronts. The strike groups of the two fronts were to advance in the general direction of Vilna. The South-Western Front had a defensive mission. Brusilov was only to prepare for a strike from the Rovno area in the direction of Kovel, if the offensive was successful in the north.

Alekseev believed that it was necessary to seize the strategic initiative and not let the enemy go first to the offensive. He believed that after the failure at Verdun, the Germans would again pay attention to the Oriental Theater and go on a decisive offensive as soon as the weather permits. As a result, the Russian army had to either give the initiative to the enemy and prepare for defense, or preempt him and attack. At the same time, Alekseev noted the negative consequences of a defensive strategy: our forces were stretched on the 1200 kilometer front (the Anglo-French defended the entire 700 km and could concentrate more forces and assets without fear of enemy attacks); the underdeveloped network of communications did not allow for the quick transfer of reserves in the required quantity. According to Alekseev, it was necessary to launch an offensive in May, which would preempt the actions of the enemy.

However, the March failure (the Naroch operation) had a catastrophic effect on the commanders-in-chief of the Northern and Western fronts - Aleksey Kuropatkin and Aleksey Evert. Any decisive offensive seemed unthinkable to them. At the April meeting at the 1 General Headquarters (14), generals Kuropatkin and Evert spoke in favor of complete passivity, and, with the technical condition of our army, our offensive, in their opinion, would end in failure. However, the new commander-in-chief of the Southwestern Front, Alexey Brusilov, believed in Russian troops and demanded an offensive task for his front, vouching for victory.

According to the plan approved by the 11 (24) rate in April, the main attack was delivered by the troops of the Western Front in the Vilnius direction. Auxiliary strikes inflicted the Northern Front from the Dvinsk area on Novo-Aleksandrovsk and further on Vilna, and the South-Western Front - on the Lutsk direction. Due to the difficult situation on the Italian front, where the Austro-Hungarian troops launched the Trentino operation in May 1916 and threatened to break through the front and remove Italy from the Entente camp, the Allies urged Russia to speed up the start of the offensive in order to pull the enemy’s forces off the Italian directions. As a result, the Russian Stavka decided to launch an offensive earlier than the scheduled date.

Thus, instead of the two main attacks by the forces of the Northern and Western fronts, it was decided to deliver a decisive blow by the forces of only one - the Western front. The northern front supported this offensive with an auxiliary strike. The task of the South-Western Front, which was supposed to deliver an auxiliary strike on Lutsk and thereby facilitate the actions of the troops of the Western Front in the main direction, changed significantly.

The offensive operation was different in that it did not provide for the depth of the operation. The troops had to break through the enemy’s defenses and inflict damage, the development of the operation was not envisaged. It was believed that after overcoming the first defense zone, a second operation would be prepared and carried out to break through the second zone. The Russian high command, taking into account French and own experience, did not believe in the possibility of breaking through the enemy defenses with one blow. To break the second line of defense required a new operation.



Preparation of the operation

After the Stake accepted the plan of operation on the 1916 campaign, the fronts began to prepare a strategic offensive. April and most of May were in preparation for a resolute offensive. As noted by the military historian A. A. Kersnovsky: “The collections of the Northern Front were baggy. Kuropatkin hesitated, doubted, losing his spirit. In all his orders, there was an unreasonable fear of the landing of the German landing force in Livonia — to the rear of the Northern Front. ” As a result, Kuropatkin asked for reinforcements all the time and all the troops (in general, 6 infantry and 2 cavalry divisions) sent to guard the Baltic Sea coast. Thereby he weakened the shock group, which was supposed to support the main blow of the Western Front.

A similar situation was on the western front of Evert, whose troops were to play a major role in the operation. Evert could not be blamed for bad work, he did titanic paperwork, literally bombarded the troops with countless orders, instructions, instructions, trying to provide for virtually every little thing. The command of the Russian Western Front was guided by the experience of the French Front, but it could not create its own, find a way out of the strategic impasse of a positional war. As a result, behind the bustle of the headquarters of the Western Front, there was a lack of confidence in the forces and the troops felt it. Evert concentrated the 12 corps of the 2 and 4 armies of the Smirnov and Ragoza corps - 480 thousand soldiers against 80 thousand Germans in the Molodechno district of Molodechno for the strike on Vilna. In addition, behind them in the second line, the Reserve Headquarters had 4 Corps (including 1 and 2 Guards, Guards Cavalry Corps). However, this seemed to the commander-in-chief enough. And the closer the start date of the onset of the May 18 was approaching, the more Evert's spirit fell. At the last moment, when the operation was already prepared, he suddenly changed the whole plan and instead of hitting Vilno, he chose the attack on Baranavichy, transferring the headquarters of the 4 Army to a new direction. On the preparation of a new strike, he demanded a delay - from May 18 to May 31. And then he asked for a new postponement - until June 4. This irritated even calm Alekseev and he ordered to attack.

Best of all, preparation for the offensive was conducted on the South-Western Front. When commander-in-chief Ivanov surrendered the front to Brusilov, he described his armies as "incapable", and called the attack in Galicia and Volyn "hopeless." However, Brusilov was able to reverse this unfavorable tendency and instill confidence in the forces of the troops. However, Kaledin and Sakharov (8-I and 11-I armies) did not expect anything good from the operation, Shcherbachov and Lechitsky (7-I and 9-I armies) showed skepticism. However, everyone energetically set to work.

The idea of ​​Brusilov, which was the basis of the offensive plan of the front, was completely new and seemed adventurous. Before the outbreak of war, the best form of an offensive was considered to bypass one or two flanks of the enemy with the aim of his environment. This forced the enemy to retreat or lead to a complete or partial environment. Positional warfare with a solid, well prepared for defense front, buried this method. Now we had to break through the defenses of the enemy with a powerful frontal strike and suffer huge losses. Having fully taken into account the experience of the failed offensive and attempts to break through the positional front on the French and Russian fronts, the commander in chief refused to concentrate the strike force in one place, which was always detected by the enemy in advance, and demanded that the offensive be prepared on the entire front in order to deceive the enemy. Brusilov ordered each army and some corps to select a breakthrough site and immediately proceed to engineering work to get closer to the enemy. For the same reason, artillery preparation was reduced to ensure a surprise strike. Each commander had to attack in the direction that he chooses. As a result, the front delivered not one concentrated strike, but launched 20-30 attacks in various places. The Austro-German command was deprived of the opportunity to determine the place of the main attack and to concentrate here artillery, additional troops and reserves.

This method of breaking through the enemy front had not only advantages, but also serious shortcomings. In the direction of the main attack, it was impossible to concentrate such amount of forces and means that allowed the first success to be developed. Brusilov himself understood this well. “Each course of action,” he wrote, “has its opposite side, and I thought that it was necessary to choose the plan of action that would be most beneficial for a given case, and not blindly emulate the Germans.” “... It can easily be,” he noted, “that we may get a little success at the site of the main attack, or not have it at all, but since the enemy is attacked by us, then greater success may be where we currently do not expect it” . These bold ideas embarrassed the supreme command. Alekseev tried to object, but as usual without special energy, in the end, having received a rebuff from his subordinate, resigned himself.

The main role of General Brusilov took his right flank - Kaledin's 8 Army, as adjacent to the Western Front, which was to deliver the main blow to the enemy. Brusilov remembered all the time that he was solving an auxiliary task, that the role of his front was secondary and subordinated his calculations to the plan worked out at GHQ. As a result, the main direction of the South-Western Front - Lvivske, on which the 11-i army was located, was sacrificed. A third of the infantry (8 divisions from 13) and half of the heavy artillery (38,5 batteries from 19) of the entire front were sent to the 39 Army. Army Kaledin pointed direction Kovel-Brest. Kaledin himself decided to deliver the main blow with his left flank on the Lutsk direction, well-trained troops of the 8 and 40 buildings.

In the 11 Army, General Sakharov outlined a breakthrough from Tarnopol in the area of ​​his left-flank 6 Corps. The 7 Army of General Shcherbachev, against which the strongest section of the Austro-German front was located, was the weakest and consisted of only 7 divisions. Therefore, Shcherbachev decided to break through the enemy defenses there, de it was the easiest, in the area of ​​the left-flank 2 corps of Yazlovets. In the 9 Army, Lechitsky decided to first smash the enemy in Bukovina, therefore he delivered a blow with his left flank — the reinforced 11 corps, in a southwesterly direction, towards the Carpathians. Then, having secured the left flank, he planned to transfer the blow to the right flank, to Zadnestrovie.

Thus, the South-Western Front planned four battles, not counting the distraction and auxiliary actions of other corps. Each commander chose the direction for his strike, regardless of his neighbors. All four armies struck their left flanks. Especially bad was the fact that the 8-i and 11-i army acted in inconsistency. Sakharov's 11 Army, in theory, was to activate its right flank, contributing to the main attack of the 8 Army in Lutsk. Instead, Sakharov directed all his efforts to the left flank, while the right-flank 17 corps had the task only to demonstrate the offensive. With normal coordination between 8 and 11 AMs, a breakthrough of the enemy front could be more impressive.

However, the headquarters of the South-Western Front did not set out to bind together the actions of four armies, or at least two - 8 and 11. After all, the main battle in the south-western strategic direction was not at all part of the calculations of the Russian Stavka, even as a plan “B”, if the offensive of the Western Front fails. The main role in the strategic offensive was assigned to the Western Front. Front Brusilov had only to "demonstrate." Therefore, Brusilov planned several battles, hoping to divert and forge the Austro-German forces with numerous blows. The development of the offensive, in the event of a breakthrough of the enemy defenses, was simply not envisaged, except for the Lutsk sector in the 8 Army, and depending on the success of the Western Front. In reserve, Brusilov had only one building.

The preparation itself for breaking through the enemy defense was carried out by Brusilov's armies perfectly. The headquarters of the 8th Army well organized the "fire fist", carefully prepared the infantry assault headquarters of the 7th Army. Our aviation photographed enemy positions all over the front of the South German army. Based on these images, the headquarters of the 7th Army made detailed plans, where it brought all the fortifications, communications, and machine gun nests. In the rear of the 7th Army, even educational camps were erected, where they reproduced the sections of the enemy defense planned for the assault. The troops were prepared in such a way as to then feel in enemy positions, as at home. Huge earthworks were carried out, etc.


Source: Zayonchkovsky A. World War 1914-1918.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
1916 Campaign

The strategy of the Entente and the Central Powers on 1916 year
"The French Armed Forces will bleed to death in any case - will she keep Verdun or not"
France and England were going to "fight to the last Russian soldier"
Russian soldiers in France
Brilliant victory of the Russian Caucasian army under Erzerum
Keprikeyskoe battle
Assault Erzerum
Defeat of the Turkish Army 3
Trapezund operation
Verdun meat grinder
Verdensky meat grinder. H. 2
Strategic defeat of the German army near Verdun
Naroch operation
Portugal in the First World War
The Fifth Battle of the Isonzo
Trentino operation
As the Russian Caucasian army defeated the Turkish army 3 th in Erzincan battle
121 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik 4 June 2016 16: 19
    +12
    article plus! Yes, more to such generals as Brusilov!
    1. xan
      xan 4 June 2016 20: 20
      +6
      Quote: Uncle Murzik
      article plus! Yes, more to such generals as Brusilov!

      The Brusilov breakthrough gives a double impression and far from unambiguously characterizes Brusilov himself. A great start was drowned in the Kovel meat grinder and brought Russia an image plus and a real minus - the guard was lost and the threshold of loss tolerance was crossed. The collapse of power became inevitable. I can’t understand for myself why such a competent warrior Brusilov made terrifying losses under Kovel? Didn’t he understand what this threatened with?
  2. Cartalon
    Cartalon 4 June 2016 16: 39
    +5
    Unfortunately, Brusilov wasn’t a great commander in the full sense of the word, since he wouldn’t understand that only he could win a war for Russia and instead of trying to break through to Brest to influence Evert, he would cover Lviv there even coverage of the Austrians was planned.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 4 June 2016 17: 06
      +9
      Quote: Cartalon
      Brusilov, unfortunately in the full sense of the word, was not a great commander, otherwise he would have understood that only he could win a war for Russia and instead of trying to break through to Brest in order to influence Evert, he would cover Lviv there even the Austrians were outlined.

      Was he "independent"? It seems that there should be subordination in the army ... So he did it! Either Nicholas 2 or Wilhelm 2 would be "great" in case of victory of their troops. According to the results of the 1st MV, the commander of the Entente forces, Marshal Ferdinand Foch, became the great commander. How much of ours to "theirs great" ...
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 4 June 2016 17: 10
        -1
        Great is not a post, but in your opinion, Alexander is the first generally the greatest
        1. V.ic
          V.ic 4 June 2016 21: 15
          +1
          Quote: Cartalon
          Great this is not a post

          Excuse me, you were the first to say, in your own words and answered.
          Quote: Cartalon
          Brusilov unfortunately in the full sense of the word great was not a commander
    2. Alexey T. (Oper)
      Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 17: 31
      +3
      Quote: Cartalon
      So it’s not stereotyped to start the operation and finish swotting on Kovel

      Kovel was the target of 4A, planned during the development of the operation. And after the Germans transferred their troops to the aid of the Austrians, "Kovel's swotting" became simply inevitable.
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 4 June 2016 20: 28
        +1
        Why was it inevitable?
        1. Alexey T. (Oper)
          Alexey T. (Oper) 6 June 2016 22: 30
          0
          The Russian army could not break through the defenses of German divisions, which in comparison with the Austrians had much more powerful artillery and a large number of machine guns.
  3. V.ic
    V.ic 4 June 2016 16: 49
    +14
    For the entire galaxy of generals there are only two diamonds: N.N. Yudenich and A.A. Brusilov? But I.V. Stalin raised a galaxy of military talents!
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 4 June 2016 17: 01
      0
      Do you seriously, just think all these people in the photo were talented and could show themselves in the conditions of the WWII? And then in 41 departed worse than in 15 and the rest is somehow poorly compared.
      1. Alexey T. (Oper)
        Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 17: 33
        +8
        Quote: Cartalon
        And then in 41 departed worse than in 15

        In the 1941 year, the entire Wehrmacht and its allies were against the Red Army, and in the 1915 year - only a third of the Reichswehr and even half consisting of divisions of the second stage and the Landwehr.
        Catch the difference?
        1. creak
          creak 4 June 2016 21: 04
          0
          Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
          In the 1941 year, the entire Wehrmacht and its allies were against the Red Army, and in the 1915 year - only a third of the Reichswehr and even half consisting of divisions of the second stage and the Landwehr.


          What about such an ally of the Reichswehr in 1915. like Austria-Hungary - or Germany had allies only in 1941
          1. Alexey T. (Oper)
            Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 21: 33
            0
            Quote: ranger
            What about such an ally of the Reichswehr in 1915. like Austria-Hungary

            But no way. Austria-Hungary has never been a full-fledged adversary. You would remember Turkey, which at the beginning of the twentieth century was in a state of political insanity and which only the lazy could not beat, even Romanians with Bulgarians were noted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. creak
              creak 4 June 2016 22: 03
              +1
              But Italy, of course, was an exceptionally full-fledged ally of the Wehrmacht and "brilliantly" showed itself both to Russia and in North Africa ...
              You would also recall such valiant allies of Hitler as Romania, Hungary, Spain (one division), tens of thousands of Scandinavians in the Waffen SS or Bulgaria who did not send a single soldier to the Eastern Front ...
              Or, in your version, Hungary in 1941 was a full-fledged opponent of the Red Army (and when it managed to become one), and why Austria-Hungary in 1915 wasn’t ...
              The Wehrmacht had such allies as a cart and a small cart, the list is long, only the sense of them is like a goat's milk (not counting Finland) ...
              Further discuss the obvious things I see no reason ... hi
              1. Mavrikiy
                Mavrikiy 5 June 2016 01: 00
                0
                Quote: ranger
                But Italy, of course, was an exceptionally full-fledged ally of the Wehrmacht and "brilliantly" showed itself both to Russia and in North Africa ...
                You would also recall such valiant allies of Hitler as Romania, Hungary, Spain (one division), tens of thousands of Scandinavians in the Waffen SS or Bulgaria who did not send a single soldier to the Eastern Front ...
                Or, in your version, Hungary in 1941 was a full-fledged opponent of the Red Army (and when it managed to become one), and why Austria-Hungary in 1915 wasn’t ...
                The Wehrmacht had such allies as a cart and a small cart, the list is long, only the sense of them is like a goat's milk (not counting Finland) ...
                Further discuss the obvious things I see no reason ... hi

                Well, okay, at least Finland did not lie down. Everyone got it. Only these divisions of "paper soldiers", as Mussolini put it, had to be ground up before they were buried.
                You lose sight of the military-industrial complex throughout Europe, which plowed on Hitler. Without Romanian oil, his planes would not have flown. Here we also had an ally, especially valuable. Maybe there was a regiment of volunteers from him. But without him it would be oh how hard it is to fight. Food, horses, short fur coats, leather, but you never know. The Mongols, remembered the good.
                Yes, and neglect - Spain (one division). Where does this arrogance come from? 200 volunteers went through the Blue Division during the war. Always fresh, ready to fight for ideological reasons.
              2. Parsec
                Parsec 5 June 2016 01: 40
                +1
                Quote: ranger
                Hungary in 1941 was a full-fledged opponent of the Red Army (and when it managed to become one), and why Austria-Hungary in 1915 didn’t ...


                Hungary was Germany's most consistent and effective ally.

                Hungary lost 300 thousand killed, 450 thousand wounded and half a million were captured. In 1945, the Hungarians finished the fighting in May. The Budapest operation is one of the bloodiest.
                "The Hungarians fought as well as the Germans" - the unanimous opinion of the Soviet military leaders.

                The Austro-Hungarian Empire and Hungary of 1941 differ greatly.
        2. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 5 June 2016 00: 42
          +1
          Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
          Quote: Cartalon
          And then in 41 departed worse than in 15

          In the 1941 year, the entire Wehrmacht and its allies were against the Red Army, and in the 1915 year - only a third of the Reichswehr and even half consisting of divisions of the second stage and the Landwehr.
          Catch the difference?

          Let me clarify. Not "the entire Wehrmacht and its allies," but all of Europe. That's more accurate.
          1. Alexey T. (Oper)
            Alexey T. (Oper) 5 June 2016 02: 07
            +1
            Quote: Mavrikiy

            Let me clarify. Not "the entire Wehrmacht and its allies," but all of Europe. That's more accurate.
            I agree. Accepted.
      2. V.ic
        V.ic 4 June 2016 21: 11
        +5
        Quote: Cartalon
        Seriously, do you really think all these people in the photo were talented and could show themselves in the conditions of WWII?

        Seriously, I think so. They sit in the first row of the second and third on the left.
        Budyonny S. M. was rewarded with the George Crosses (soldier's “Egoriy”) of four degrees (“full bow”) and four St. George medals.
        Rokossovsky K.K. awarded the St. George medals of the 3rd and 4th degree and the St. George cross of the 4th degree. It’s so easy to throw the lower ranks of the award, or what?
    2. Pitot
      Pitot 4 June 2016 17: 30
      +1
      That's right. ++++++
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. RUSS
      RUSS 4 June 2016 17: 35
      -6
      Quote: V.ic
      But I.V. Stalin raised a galaxy of military talents!

      Did you grow these?
      Blucher, Vasily Konstantinovich
      Commander of the Far Eastern Front
      Arrest - 22.10.1938/XNUMX/XNUMX
      He died in prison on November 9.11.1938, 12.03.1956, rehabilitated on March XNUMX, XNUMX


      Egorov, Alexander Ilyich
      ZakVO Commander
      Previously - First Deputy People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR, dismissed 25.02.1938/XNUMX/XNUMX
      Arrest - 27.03.1938/58/1, convicted under Art. 8,11-22.02.1939b, XNUMX k VMN XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX
      Shot February 23.02.1939, XNUMX.

      Tukhachevsky, Mikhail Nikolaevich
      Commander PrivO
      Earlier - First Deputy Commissar of Defense of the USSR
      Arrest - 22.05.1937/11.06.1937/XNUMX, sentenced to VMN XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX
      Shot February 12.06.1937, XNUMX.

      Belov, Ivan Panfilovich
      BVO commander
      Arrest - 7.01.1938/29.07.1938/XNUMX, sentenced to VMN XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX
      Shot on the day of conviction

      Uborevich, Jerome Petrovich
      BVO commander
      Arrest - 29.05.1937/11.06.1937/XNUMX, sentenced to VMN XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX
      Shot 12.06.1937/XNUMX/XNUMX


      Fedko, Ivan Fedorovich
      First Deputy People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR
      Arrest - 7.07.1938/23.02.1939/XNUMX, sentenced to VMN XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX
      Shot on the day of conviction

      Frinovsky, Mikhail Petrovich
      People's Commissar of the Navy of the USSR
      Arrest - 6.04.1939/4.02.1940/XNUMX, sentenced to VMN XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX
      Shot February 8.02.1940, XNUMX.


      Yakir, Iona Emmanuilovich
      Lvo commander
      Previously - Commander of KVO
      Arrest - 28.05.1937/11.06.1937/XNUMX, sentenced to VMN XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX
      Shot 12.06.1937/XNUMX/XNUMX
      etc...

      Marshal of the Soviet Union A.M. Vasilevsky believed that the repressions of 1937 played a significant role in the history of the USSR:
      Without the thirty-seventh year, perhaps there would have been no war at all in the forty-first year. In the fact that Hitler decided to start the war in the forty-first year, an important role was played by the assessment of the degree of defeat of the military personnel that we had. [
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 4 June 2016 20: 50
        +2
        Quote: RUSS
        Did you grow these? Blucher Vasily Konstantinovich, Egorov Alexander Ilyich, Tukhachevsky Mikhail Nikolaevich, Belov Ivan Panfilovich, Uborevich Jerome Petrovich, Fedko Ivan Fedorovich, Yakir Iona Emmanuilovich ...

        If you are so smart and attentive, then find the persons you indicated in the photograph I have provided. By the way, I copied from your comment, I just removed the extra commas separating the last name from the first and middle names. If you are used to separating a person’s surname by name and patronymic, these are your cockroaches, but this is the first time I’ve seen such crap. Now, if: Blucher V.K., Egorov A.I., Tukhachevsky M.N .... etc., then this is welcome!
      2. Nagaibak
        Nagaibak 4 June 2016 21: 24
        +1
        RUSS "Marshal of the Soviet Union A. M. Vasilevsky believed that the repressions of 1937 played a significant role in the history of the USSR:
        Without the thirty-seventh year, perhaps there would have been no war at all in the forty-first year. In the fact that Hitler decided to start a war in XNUMX, an assessment of the degree of defeat of military personnel that took place in our country played an important role. "
        Hitler's chatter is not an indicator.))) He greatly admired Stalin for having purged in the army. And he regretted that he did not do it himself, for which he had a bomb under the table.
        And did anyone think of Stalin planting a bomb?))) And if Tukhachevsky would have been alive, I think they would have planted a hundred pounds.)))
        Frinovsky is one of the many geniuses of generals and naval commanders who knowingly spanked.))) Do you seriously believe that this leader would have stopped the Germans?))) From the wiki ...
        "In March-July 1918 he worked as an assistant superintendent of the Khodynskaya hospital. He joined the RCP (b), worked in the party cell and the local committee of the Khodynskaya hospital. In July 1918 he enrolled in the Red Army, served as squadron commander, head of the Special Department of the 1st Cavalry Army ...

        In 1919, after a serious wound, he was transferred to union work, and then to the Cheka. In the second half of 1919 he served as an assistant to the head of the active part of the Special Department of the Moscow Cheka. He participated in the most important operations of the Cheka - the defeat of anarchists, the elimination of anarchist and rebel groups in Ukraine, etc.
        From December 1919 to April 1920 he served in the Special Department of the Southern Front. In 1920, he was the head of the active part of the Special Division of the South-Western Front, and the deputy chief of the Special Division of the 1st Cavalry Army. In 1921-1922 - Deputy Head of the Special Department, Deputy Head of the Operational Unit of the All-Ukrainian Cheka.
        In 1922-1923, Frinovsky was the head of the general administrative unit and the secretary of the Kiev department of the GPU (from June 23, 1923, he was the head of the OGPU envoy to the South-East).
        In November 1923, he was transferred to the North Caucasus as the head of the Special Department of the North Caucasian Military District. Since March 1924, Frinovsky is the first deputy envoy of the OGPU in the North Caucasus. In 1925, he was the head of the border guard of the Black Sea coast of the North Caucasus Territory; since January 1926, he was the first deputy envoy and chief of the GPU troops.
        July 8, 1927 was transferred to Moscow to the position of assistant chief of the Special Department of the military district. In 1927, he completed courses for senior officers at the Frunze Red Army Military Academy. From November 28, 1928 to September 1, 1930 he was commander-commissar of a separate special-purpose division named after F.E. Dzerzhinsky at the collegium of the OGPU of the USSR.
        September 1, 1930 Frinovsky receives a promotion and is appointed as chairman of the GPU of Azerbaijan. He was one of the organizers of dispossession in Azerbaijan. April 8, 1933 became the head of the Main Directorate of Border Guard and troops of the OGPU of the USSR, in this capacity he led the OGPU operation to suppress the uprising in Xinjiang [3].
        With the formation of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the USSR on July 10, 1934, the Main Directorate of Border Guard and OGPU Troops was renamed into the Main Directorate of Border and Internal Security (from mid-1937 - the Main Directorate of Border and Internal Troops) of the NKVD of the USSR, the post of which the next day, 11 July, MP Frinovsky was reappointed. "
      3. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 5 June 2016 01: 24
        +1
        RUSS (3) RU Yesterday, 17

        "Marshal of the Soviet Union A. M. Vasilevsky believed that the repressions of 1937 played a significant role in the history of the USSR:
        Without the thirty-seventh year, perhaps there would have been no war at all in the forty-first year. In the fact that Hitler decided to start a war in XNUMX, an assessment of the degree of defeat of military personnel that took place in our country played an important role. "

        The conspirators, the stooges of Trotsky, were correctly shot.
        Vasilevsky wrote memories when? Correctly. He could not know who unleashed 2MB and for what purpose. The confessions of Western politicians have not yet been published. Vasilevsky saw the weakening of the army due to cleansing personnel, the restructuring of the army, rearmament and .... it is finally necessary to justify, or rather to explain, at least somehow, the failure of the outbreak of war.
        Hitler was given Austria and Czechoslovakia so that he would defeat Poland and France and go to bed?
        Rave. Hitler, seeing Blucher with Tukhachevsky, realized that he did not shine with the USSR. And with all the foolishness he would have attacked England!
        Really what to discuss
    5. AK64
      AK64 5 June 2016 09: 02
      +1
      But I.V. Stalin raised a galaxy of military talents!


      Have fun what
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. 3agr9d0tryad
      3agr9d0tryad 5 June 2016 22: 25
      0
      Quote: V.ic
      For the entire galaxy of generals there are only two diamonds: N.N. Yudenich and A.A. Brusilov? But I.V. Stalin raised a galaxy of military talents!

      Below, we have already written more than once about the "quality" of these talents, I will just remind you of the words of the most important Bolshevik (which, in fact, everyone else should have known) - Better less, but better.
  4. volodya
    volodya 4 June 2016 17: 11
    +6
    I liked the article, I need to know my story! The analogies are especially interesting, here the British and French asked to pull the troops over, in the Second World War the British and the Americans asked the same thing!
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 4 June 2016 17: 15
      -2
      Well, they did it right, ours generally asked the same thing sometimes, what was criminal?
      1. volodya
        volodya 4 June 2016 17: 21
        0
        Quote: Cartalon
        Well, they did it right, ours generally asked the same thing sometimes, what was criminal?

        Nothing criminal, just interesting!
      2. AK64
        AK64 5 June 2016 09: 03
        0
        ours generally the same sometimes asked what was criminal?


        And how many times were the requests granted?
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. 97110
        97110 5 June 2016 14: 00
        0
        Quote: Cartalon
        ours generally the same sometimes asked what was criminal?

        To ask is a male affair.
  5. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 4 June 2016 17: 36
    +5
    Brusilov saw losses during the offensive by a common front and wanted to reduce them. This began a change in the tactics of the battle that they forgot about! But I had to remember only in the city. Stalingrad Chyukov V.I. division into assault groups. The examples are different, of course, but dividing by smaller small gupps yielded results in offensives in different directions (environment), loss reduction and result.
    1. Alexey T. (Oper)
      Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 17: 44
      +4
      Quote: Siberia 9444
      But I had to remember only in the city. Stalingrad Chyukov V.I. division into assault groups.

      Assault groups were already used during the Winter War.
      And the surname of Marshal Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov is written with "U".
      1. Siberia 9444
        Siberia 9444 4 June 2016 18: 04
        +2
        You are right. This is a mistake. I ask for a petition. hi negative
        1. Alexey T. (Oper)
          Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 18: 06
          0
          Yes, I am without reproach. Just corrected. Indeed, many read comments, including complete ignoramuses in history. May be taken at face value
          1. Siberia 9444
            Siberia 9444 4 June 2016 18: 59
            +2
            You did it right hi
      2. 97110
        97110 5 June 2016 14: 03
        0
        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
        Assault groups were already used during the Winter War.

        We will not recall the attack planes in the Reichswehr of World War I fundamentally? For a strange attachment to the shoes of the sample of 1866?
        1. AK64
          AK64 5 June 2016 15: 19
          0
          We will not recall the attack planes in the Reichswehr of World War I fundamentally? For a strange attachment to the shoes of the sample of 1866?


          You’ll be awesome, but ... for example, the British do not clean rifles with bricks believe that the inventor of the "assault detachments" were the Russians: the first use in the Brusilov breakthrough, Kaledin (8th Army) for sure, in other armies of the South-West Front I won't say - I'm not sure.
        2. Alexey T. (Oper)
          Alexey T. (Oper) 5 June 2016 21: 22
          0
          As I understand it, it was about the use of assault groups in the Russian, and later in the Soviet army. There was no talk of Germans.
  6. Alexey T. (Oper)
    Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 17: 40
    0
    The most interesting thing is that as a result of this seemingly brilliant tactical victory (which in fact was a distracting blow on a secondary sector of the front against the obviously weakest enemy), the general strategic position of the Russian army only worsened. Moreover, it has deteriorated significantly.

    Impressed by Brusilov’s victories, Romania decided to enter the war, which had previously observed neutrality. Mummies were eager to grab their piece fatter from Austria-Hungary. As a result, the Romanians were utterly defeated already in the first days of their speech, and Russia received an extra hundred kilometers of front in a strategically important direction, withdrawing the Bulgarian-German troops (Bulgaria was an ally of the Germans but, due to Romanian neutrality, had no immediate opportunity to attack Russia) directly to the south of Russia - to the fertile regions of Ukraine and to the Black Sea coast.

    After that, all Napoleonic plans to conquer Constantinople and pin the crown of Nikolai the Bloody on the gates of Constantinople were lowered into the toilet. Since it was urgently required to find several divisions to cover the Romanian border as well.

    In general: they wanted the best, but it turned out as always.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 4 June 2016 18: 16
      +1
      Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
      In general: they wanted the best, but it turned out as always.

      And why should the Russian tsar have to be responsible for Romania?
      1. Alexey T. (Oper)
        Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 18: 35
        +3
        Quote: Dart2027
        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
        In general: they wanted the best, but it turned out as always.

        And why should the Russian tsar have to be responsible for Romania?
        And where did he go? The Romanians were defeated and the Bulgarians together with the Germans through their territory, which was not protected by anyone, had direct access to Odessa, Nikolaev and Crimea.
        Wolens-Nolens had to look for troops to cover this section of the front, previously closed by neutral Romania.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 4 June 2016 20: 28
          +2
          Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
          And where did he go?

          This is understandable, I mean, where does "they wanted the best, but it turned out as always"? The Romanians did not obey him, but the fact that he had to sort out another question.
          1. Alexey T. (Oper)
            Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 20: 37
            +2
            Quote: Dart2027
            I mean, where does "they wanted the best, but it turned out as always"
            Well, what about? They attacked, hoping at least to defeat Austria-Hungary.
            As a result, the Austrians were not knocked out of the war, plus their brilliant but fruitless victory deceived the Romanians, who decided that the Austrians are no longer fighters and that you can go pinch the Franz Joseph empire.
            Before that, although they licked at Transylvania, they sat upright and did not climb into the war. And after they got very excited and decided that it was time.
            It turned out that it’s never time.

            So it turns out that we wanted the best, but in the end it turned out as always.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 4 June 2016 20: 46
              +1
              Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
              Attacked hoping at least to defeat Austria-Hungary

              What was to be done? Sitting and waiting by the sea for the weather? There was a war and it was necessary to beat the enemy. The defeat of Austria, by the way, was inflicted and after that it actually did not recover. I still don’t understand which side are WE to blame for the stupidity of the Romanians? And there was enough confusion and outright betrayal, but here RI is definitely not to blame.
              1. Alexey T. (Oper)
                Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 21: 09
                +2
                Quote: Dart2027
                What was to be done? Sitting and waiting by the sea for the weather?
                Initially, it was not necessary to meddle in this massacre, unnecessary for either the people or the country, for other people's commercial interests.
                Well, since it turned out, in relation to the 1916 year, to force the same Evert to act in accordance with the previously developed plan and not to evade the offensive, allowing the Germans to transfer troops to help the Austrians.


                Quote: Dart2027
                I still don’t understand which side are WE to blame for the stupidity of the Romanians?

                Well, if you do not understand, then I can not explain in another way.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 4 June 2016 22: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                  Initially, it was not necessary to meddle in this massacre, unnecessary for either the people or the country, for other people's commercial interests

                  May be. It is difficult to say whether RI could have avoided participating in a war that was inevitable.
                  Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                  force the same Evert to act in accordance with a previously developed plan

                  Including about this I wrote:
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  And confusion and outright betrayal was then enough

                  Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                  I can’t explain it differently

                  What to explain something? RI is at war with Austria. Romanians climbed into the fray without calculating strength. Who's guilty? If H2 had asked them about it, then yes, and so.
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 5 June 2016 09: 07
                    -1
                    What are the howls about "Romania"?
                    The entry into the Romanian war was a huge success for Russian diplomacy.
                    For among other things
                    (1) increased the total length of the front - and the Germans already had a shortage of troops, while Russia had troops with a huge reserve
                    (2) completely gave Romania to Russia’s hands AFTER the war --- which was also a huge strategic gain.

                    So stop retelling these Soviet tales
                    1. hohol95
                      hohol95 5 June 2016 19: 23
                      +1
                      How wonderful you are! And howling with us without an account and everything else! So the French and the British sang in the ears of the Romanian king - RUSSIA they say YOU will provide everyone! And you know that Romania sold its main food supplies to warring Germany and when it entered the war it requested food from ANTANTA! That is, with the country closest to you-RUSSIA!
                      1. AK64
                        AK64 5 June 2016 20: 07
                        0
                        How wonderful you are! And howling with us without an account and everything else!

                        Quite so: Everything is perfectly fine with us. (But envy is not good)


                        So the French and the British sang in the ears of the Romanian king - RUSSIA they say YOU will provide everyone!

                        And what?

                        Did you know that Romania sold its main food supplies to warring Germany

                        Kindly confirm this statement.


                        and upon entering the war, she requested food from ANTANTA! That is, with the country closest to you-RUSSIA!

                        And now what? Would it be better if Romania continued to supply food to Germany?
                      2. hohol95
                        hohol95 5 June 2016 23: 56
                        0
                        Of course, I’m not very special! But in my answers I do not use mocking AND WHAT !!!
                      3. AK64
                        AK64 6 June 2016 00: 04
                        0
                        Of course, I’m not very special! But in my answers I do not use mocking AND WHAT !!!


                        Instead of this you tell how the French and the British sang in the ears of the Romanian king - I imagine a picture: the king is sitting, and the Frenchman is singing something in his left ear, and the Englishman is singing in his right ear.

                        And I feel sorry for the king.
                    2. hohol95
                      hohol95 5 June 2016 19: 24
                      +1
                      And you forgot that the main rivals of the Romanians were not Germans, but BULGARS!
                      1. AK64
                        AK64 5 June 2016 20: 17
                        0
                        And you forgot that the main rivals of the Romanians were not Germans, but BULGARS!


                        And I did not know that Mackensen was a Bulgarian; that's how it turned out ... Century live - Century study

                        There, besides Mackensen, there were still Bulgarians: the 1st Austrian army of Straussenburg and the 9th German army of Falkenhayn.

                        That is, of course, I understand: after all, the Bulgarians have a lot of free armies that they need 1 Autrian Bulgarian army, and one German Bulgarian army to pull out of the sleeve. It is so?

                        So: the Russian troops had enough, and the extension of the front by the Russians so was profitable. This is a flat fact: if you have more troops, then boldly lengthen the front.
                      2. hohol95
                        hohol95 5 June 2016 23: 53
                        0
                        Really Mackensen is not a Bulgarian! But the Bulgarians do not need to be thrown out of the calculations! And the number of troops is a controversial statement! In terms of manpower, there may have been some advantage! But not in supplying this very manpower! And not in the amount of artillery! And as for the sale of food by Romanians, I’ll try to look for sources!
                      3. AK64
                        AK64 6 June 2016 00: 21
                        -1
                        Really Mackensen is not a Bulgarian!

                        That Bulgarian, then no - you do not understand you.


                        But the Bulgarians do not need to be thrown out of the calculations!

                        And what? Well? Well, do not discard - I do not force. But on the other hand: Romanians mean reset - but we do not reset the Bulgarians. Unclear somehow.

                        And the number of troops is a controversial statement!

                        What is "controversial" here? There is nothing "controversial" here: by the end of 1916, only about 20% of those mobilized in Russia were at the front. And from the rest, most of the front did not even smell.
                        What can be "controversial" here? This is an easily verifiable fact.


                        In terms of manpower, there may have been some advantage!

                        Yes, you, as I look, stubborn.
                        Maybe you should go read some books? Well, since you still don't believe me. 20% of the Russian army at the front. The rest in the rear eat a pound of meat a day, gorging themselves on ryashki. But "some".

                        Go read books, honestly-word.


                        But not in supplying this very manpower!

                        Yah? A pound of meat per day - the Germans didn’t dream of this

                        And not in the amount of artillery!

                        Truth? But why didn’t the Russian artillery autriacs be knocked out at the SWF during artillery preparation? Yes, and in the west did not knock out.

                        You than bawl off topic --- would find out to which specific year are the lament about "little artillery, few shells."

                        And as for the sale of food by Romanians, I’ll try to look for sources!


                        Just about --- maybe you won’t return soon: it’s hard to find a black cat in a dark room.
                    3. hohol95
                      hohol95 5 June 2016 23: 59
                      0
                      Romania was guaranteed equal political rights with the great powers, promised to transfer after the war Austrian Transylvania (a historical region occupying almost a third of the present territory of Romania in the northwestern and central parts - RP), part of Bukovina and Banat region (a historical region covering the east of present-day Romania, western Serbia and southern Hungary - RP). The convention emphasized that all the contracting parties would make peace only together, and the content of the signed union treaty should be kept secret until the signing of a common peace.

                      The military part of the agreement guaranteed Romania to cover the mobilization of the Romanian army by Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary. For this, two Russian infantry and one cavalry division were sent to the Romanian Dobrudja (a historical region on the west coast of the Black Sea, limited by the lower Danube, on the territory of modern Romania and Bulgaria - RP). In addition, the Western Allies pledged to launch a decisive offensive by the Anglo-French Army of Thessaloniki no later than 8 days before the opening of hostilities by Romania.

                      A talented Russian diplomat and director of the Foreign Ministry's office, German Mavriky Fabianovich von Schilling, after reading the text of the military-political convention with Romania, as well as an explanatory note to it, which emphasized that the Western allies urge Russia to consider the concessions made by Romania, of little value, smiled bitterly: “The French consider the concessions of low value - how sweet it is! The concessions are of little value to the French only because all of them are made mainly at the expense of Russia. ”
                    4. hohol95
                      hohol95 6 June 2016 00: 04
                      +1
                      French marshal Joffre burst out with demands to send 200 thousand Russian soldiers to save Romania. Romanian grinding Diamandi wound up the tsar’s rapids with the plan of the Bucharest General Staff so that the Russians concentrated 3-4 corps broke through the Eastern Carpathians and hit the attacking Germans on the flank. The Allies demanded the impossible: so many troops in such a short time there was simply nowhere to take.
                      So you think that we had "EXTRA 200 thousand" soldiers and officers to save Romania!
  7. Kotost
    Kotost 4 June 2016 17: 44
    +2
    Russia needed a victorious war, but, even with such generals, this war only brought even greater decay in society. Our economy was simply not ready for such trials. As Stolypin said, "Give the state 20 years of internal and external peace, and you will not recognize Russia!" Unfortunately, a different fate awaited Russia.
    1. xan
      xan 4 June 2016 20: 12
      +3
      Quote: Kotost
      Our economy was simply not ready for such tests.

      What does the economy have to do with it? Our government was not ready for such tests. It was necessary to get involved in the war in any economy, otherwise the victors Austria and Germany would simply dare Russia. But it was necessary to organize the rear correctly, which the snotty monarchy could not do.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 4 June 2016 21: 44
        +4
        . "But it was necessary to properly organize the rear, that" /////

        But the rear is the economy. Ammunition, shells, gunpowder, explosives.

        Neither the monarchy nor the USSR had a powerful enough economy to
        wage many years of protracted war.
        But the monarchy, its allies - the Entente - did not help financially (supply),
        since she pulled to the limit.
        But the USSR seriously helped America. Since 1943, ammunition, shells, bombs at the Red
        Army was in bulk, without restrictions.
        1. AK64
          AK64 5 June 2016 10: 50
          0
          Personally, you upset me. You grieve me.

          . "But it was necessary to properly organize the rear, that" /////

          Who had the rear "properly organized"? Oh, Germany? Well, yes, Wilhelm accomplished a feat - mobilizing the economy to the point of complete impossibility.
          And what about the rest of the party members? And the rest - the same as in Russia: "confusion, they shoot from cannons ..."
          And they stole even more than that.

          Neither the monarchy nor the USSR had a powerful enough economy to
          wage many years of protracted war.

          Finish tales to tell something, finish.
          By the end of 1916, the tsar had 15 million people under arms.
          I write in writing: FIFTEEN MILLION.
          Moreover, 12 million of the front didn’t even sniff - this is how Nikolai created a reserve for himself.
          And all 15 million are armed.
          And all in leather boots.
          And each of these 15 million, even those in the rear, ate the prescribed ration of 1 pound of meat. Daily.
          So who among those present in CA received such a meat ration, huh? I'm not talking about the victorious Stalinist Red Army.

          By the way, this ration - 1 pound of meat per day - is already war time solderingThat is, stripped down. And before the war, the ration was one and a half pounds.

          So tell us further about the "incapable economy" and about the "atrocities of the tsarist regime."

          Yes, 15 million is not a secret at all, anyone even read the modem at least on Wiki in five minutes.

          But the USSR seriously helped America. Since 1943, ammunition, shells, bombs at the Red
          Army was in bulk, without restrictions.

          You will still laugh, but the king also had "shells and cartridges in bulk."
          Shell hunger was ONLY in 1915. Already in 1916 there was NO MENTION of shell hunger.

          So enough fairy tales.
          1. 97110
            97110 5 June 2016 14: 17
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            So enough fairy tales.

            You want to say that RI had a fairly powerful economy, but its greatness did not know how to use it? So this is the absence of an economy, which, in addition to sellers of labor, must also have managers. The fact that they dressed everyone in leather boots and fed meat from the belly is the consequences of the Tatar origin of the sovereign power. There was an article here recently by a Kazan official, mercilessly defeated for humiliating the title of Great Russian. And you see how it is - on the other hand it climbs out. There were, there were Tatars during the empire - and the army fed meat, dressed in leather boots - Genghisides, what ...
            1. AK64
              AK64 5 June 2016 15: 16
              0
              You want to say that RI had a fairly powerful economy, but its greatness did not know how to use it?

              (1) The Russian economy was more powerful than the French - just for example.
              (2) His Majesty not only skillfully used this economy - His Majesty created this economy. Yes Yes.
              (3) No economic problems were found in Russia in 1916. In Germany there are such, in France - there are. Even in England - a thing. But in Russia, poor and miserable Russia - N-TU. And this despite the fact that His Majesty managed to put 15 million peasants under arms.


              So this is the absence of an economy, which, in addition to sellers of labor, must also have managers.

              Better than the Stalinist "geniuses". And the Brezhnevskys too.

              The fact that they dressed everyone in leather boots and fed meat from the belly is the consequences of the Tatar origin of the sovereign power.

              That is, under Stalin - hungry and in a tarpaulin - is this significant "Europe of steel"?
              Funny logic.

              There were, there were Tatars during the empire - and the army fed meat, dressed in leather boots - Genghisides, what ...

              Exactly: Tatar Genghiside Nicolas Romanoff, and Tatar Chumichka Victoria Alisa Elena Louise Beatrice of Hesse-Darmstadt are all Genghis people.
          2. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 5 June 2016 18: 28
            0
            "Already in 1916, there is NOT a SINGLE REFERENCE about shell hunger." ////

            In 1916, it was adjusted with the supply of cartridges, yes. The shells were in
            deficit all the time, especially for heavy guns.
            I did not write anything about the "atrocities of the tsarist regime": what was not - that was not.
            There was an extreme inefficiency of command and supply of the army.
            1. AK64
              AK64 5 June 2016 18: 45
              0
              In 1916, it was adjusted with the supply of cartridges, yes. Shells were in short supply all the time, especially for heavy guns.


              Be so kind as to PROVE this, and not by reading from the "liberals", but by something more weighty.

              "Shell hunger" was such that not only the entire civilian, but also in the Second World War, tsarist shells were fired - starving, yes, yes.

              I did not write anything about the "atrocities of the tsarist regime": what was not - that was not.


              Weak though it is to God.
              I bow to you for justice for yours to us, wretched.

              There was an extreme inefficiency of command and supply of the army.

              And now you also have to prove it. And again, not quotes from Milyukovo-Guchkovs.

              And at the same time to show how "effective" everything became under Stalin, in the Second World War.

              Come on, practice. And I'll wait until you bring evidence. But I'm afraid I have to wait two years.

              And so:
              (1) there is no "effective" supply in war - just ask the Germans near Moscow. But they had, they had winter things - but they lay under Vorshava.
              (2) there is no "effective government" in war --- because the enemy ruins all plans. However, as an example of "Russian inefficiency" - the mobilization was completed one and a half times faster than they had planned, and three times faster than it was according to the German plans. Thus, turning the German "effective" plpny into completely ineffective.

              In general, end here "Echo of Moscow" to retell: better than you did THEN you can do it only with afterglow... These are all tales about the "bloody regime" (which, in its own way, during the war (!!), the soldiers in the rear were prescribing a pound of meat for anemia).

              But during the Second World War, the mistakes of the Soviet command are already obvious, and how to do better is already visible.
            2. 3agr9d0tryad
              3agr9d0tryad 5 June 2016 22: 31
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              There was an extreme inefficiency of command and supply of the army.

              Normally, everything was perhaps better than all the other participants in the conflict, especially the central powers.
              And this is on condition that in WWI we almost single-handedly pulled a yoke on our front.
              And for "shell hunger", well, so none then he did not know what would be the expense of shells in that war, there was no experience of such conflicts. And no one kept them "for future use."
              As a result, shell hunger began in everyone, on the western front even earlier.
              But we defeated him.
          3. The comment was deleted.
    2. AK64
      AK64 5 June 2016 09: 13
      0
      Russia needed a victorious war, but even with such generals,

      And why were the Russian generals worse than the French?
      Or German, for that matter?
      Well, the Germans had two "super-geniuses" - Heisenberg and Ludendorff - not enough for the whole of Germany?
      Enough of these ridiculous howls about "bad generals".

      this war brought only more decay in society.

      Yah? Oh really?

      Our economy was simply not ready for such tests.

      And whose "was ready"? Maybe German was ready for the blockade?
      Russia is the only country that has not introduced cards, and in which food purchases continued until the end of 1916.
      (And the fact that since the beginning of 1917 is so, excuse me, it’s not Russia anymore)

      In general, would you stop retelling the ridiculous propaganda of "Poor Demyan"

      As Stolypin said, "Give the state 20 years of internal and external peace, and you will not recognize Russia!" Unfortunately, a different fate awaited Russia.

      Oh tyutyushechki some ...
      Howls began.
      Pluses earn tears?

      France and England decided that they did not want to share - well ... they staged a coup. This is actually the whole "secret"
      1. 97110
        97110 5 June 2016 14: 20
        0
        Quote: AK64
        And why were the Russian generals worse than the French?

        Ours have more German surnames, even without taking into account the change of those into Russian. Among the commanders of the armies on the western front, in my opinion, a couple of all are not German.
        1. AK64
          AK64 5 June 2016 15: 09
          0
          Quote: AK64
          And why were the Russian generals worse than the French?


          Ours have more German surnames, even without taking into account the change of those into Russian. Among the commanders of the armies on the western front, in my opinion, a couple of all are not German.


          It is clear: Russians were worse than French surnames ...

          Well, that's reasonable.

          Just in case: is it nothing that the German tsarina Prussia and William hated (as a word, the whole of Hesse)? And education and sympathy had English?
  8. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 4 June 2016 17: 49
    +1
    Very stupidly planned, in terms of supply, operation. Due to the fact that Brusilov did not calculate the supply, the attack was exhausted and ended with a Kabedets for ordinary Russian soldiers. Brusilov did not give a damn about the important component of the offensive, which was not during the Second World War, our railroad workers did the impossible and were able to provide the front with everything necessary than to admire the grand failure, it is better to recall the heroism of the grandfathers. The feat of the railway workers during the Second World War is of much greater significance for Russia than Brusilov’s initiative.
    1. Alexey T. (Oper)
      Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 18: 01
      +3
      Quote: cth; fyn
      Very stupidly planned, in terms of supply, operation. Due to the fact that Brusilov did not calculate the supply, the attack ran out

      Brusilov according to the plan of the company was to deliver a distracting blow. The main blow was to deal with the Western front of Evert. And all the calculations of the supply of troops with the headquarters of the southwest. front were made on the basis of the formulation of this particular task.
      So the operation was planned not stupid, but under other circumstances. But on the move, logistics and the poor development of railways on theater of operations did not allow for restructuring.
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 5 June 2016 05: 59
        0
        What about a backup plan? When planning something, it is necessary to mean all possible courses of events, and they didn’t give a damn, they calculated only the attack and that’s all, and no one thought what would happen if the attackers were knocked over or the operation was successful, they just spat.
        As a result, we have a breakthrough that did not lead to anything, except for the useless death of people on both sides.
        During WWII, a similar operation was performed in the same place, but with a normal positive result.
        The Brusilovsky breakthrough is a complete failure strategically, albeit a tactical victory. Pyrrhic victory is obtained.
        1. Alexey T. (Oper)
          Alexey T. (Oper) 5 June 2016 11: 38
          +1
          Quote: cth; fyn
          What about a backup plan?

          A backup plan for what? 1916 Summer Company of the Year? And what about Brusilov?
          Or a backup plan based on the fact that suddenly an auxiliary hit will become the main? How can this be planned, and where in this case to take the necessary reserves for the development of the strike?
          The claim is not correct.
    2. 3agr9d0tryad
      3agr9d0tryad 5 June 2016 22: 34
      0
      Quote: cth; fyn
      that during the Second World War was not

      Do not make people laugh.
      And now there will be a description of how many "sleepers and locomotives" the Allies have supplied to us.
      And in WWI I’ll remind you, we almost completely satisfied the needs of our army at the expense of HIS economy!
      1. Alexey T. (Oper)
        Alexey T. (Oper) 6 June 2016 11: 47
        +1
        Yes Yes. Therefore, at the end of the 1914 of the year, they were forced to place billions of rubles in military orders abroad for 1,5. smile
  9. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 4 June 2016 18: 31
    0
    artillery training was reduced to ensure surprise attacks.

    /// The artillery preparation lasted from 3 a.m. on May 22 (old style) to 9 a.m. on May 24 and led to a strong destruction of the first line of defense and partial neutralization of enemy artillery. (From the description of the Brusilovsky breakthrough) ////
    Wow reduced! I thought that for half an hour or an hour artillery was processing the enemy, and then bombed for 54 hours! Probably, I compare it with the Second World War, and in World War I it really could have been artillery preparation lasting a week? But even so. was it difficult to predict the places of breakthroughs and start pulling up parts of the gain there?
    1. AK64
      AK64 5 June 2016 11: 48
      +1
      Wow cut!


      Don't scream like that.
      And to trust everything in a row is not necessary all the more.
      really cut back.
      The duration of the artillery preparation was DIFFERENT in the four armies participating in the offensive. From 6 hours (11 army) and up to 45 hours. In the 8th Army (Kaledin), the artillery preparation lasted 29 hours, intermittently (to lure the defenders from the shelters)
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 5 June 2016 14: 10
        0
        While you shout, you’ll tear your whole voice .. Thanks for the clarification, of course yes
  10. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 4 June 2016 18: 32
    +1
    General Denikin wrote later in his memoirs that the High Command (VK Nikolai Nikolaevich and Nikolai II. Chief of General Staff Alekseev) stole Brusilov’s victory !? Victory in the Great War ?! Partly he is right - Yudenich defeated Turkey, Brusilov almost defeated Austria - Hungary! I wonder if there would be a VOSR if Russia would have won the war in 1916? And how would all of World History ever develop? However. there is no subjunctive mood if yes? There is a reality - we are in shit and the Brest peace!
    1. Alexey T. (Oper)
      Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 18: 41
      0
      Quote: KudrevKN
      I wonder if there would be a VOSR if Russia would win the war in 1916?
      BOSR would not have been. It would be worse and bloodier.

      Since victory in the war did not remove the main problematic issue of Russian society, on 80% of the peasant - the issue of land, which lay at the basis of all Russian revolutions of the twentieth century.

      The revolution could only be averted by his decision in favor of the peasants. Any other solution would inevitably trigger an outbreak of intra-public conflict. And since the peasants came from the war, trained in discipline, able and not afraid to kill, and who did not value their own life, they would arrange such a bloody bacchanal that the Civil War would seem like a childish prank
      1. Kudrevkn
        Kudrevkn 4 June 2016 19: 03
        +1
        From what? Stolypin withdrew the land issue back in 1906. When he gave Russian land in Siberia and the East, what is the Medvedev government trying to "repeat" today? An example of this is the success of 1913. with which the communists even compared 1988 ?! About what a "bloody bacchanalia that Civil ..." You gutar if the population of Ingushetia decreased from 1913 to 1922 by almost 40 million or 25% + add unborn Russians (another 5 million?) ! The civil war did not end in 1922. it continued in 1929 (collectivization and another minus 3 million), Holodomor 32-33 and 1937-39, WWII (where only in the ROV served almost 2 million, not counting other traitors and Bandera)? SO ABOUT WHAT CHILD'S Prank (!) ARE YOU BREAKING HERE, CHILD?
        1. Alexey T. (Oper)
          Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 20: 28
          +2
          Quote: KudrevKN
          Stolypin removed the question of the Earth in 1906. to
          He tried to remove it, but the reform failed. And its success would lead to the same social explosion, since it was aimed at forced pauperization (i.e. impoverishment) of the vast majority of the peasantry, which, according to the reformers, should have turned into landless hired laborers. Before which lay only three ways for further existence:
          1. Go pick up at a local fist
          2. Go to town to work in a factory
          3. Die of hunger or go rob.

          The first way for the overwhelming majority (and according to the most conservative estimates it was supposed to be impoverished of the order of 60-70 million peasants) was unacceptable since the kulak is cheaper and more profitable to buy an agricultural machine - it costs less and returns and more profit.

          The second way was also not acceptable, since the number of jobs in industry was limited and the state program for the construction of new enterprises was not and was not expected. And the state did not have money for their construction. Private capital was simply not able to master such a number of working hands.

          The third way remains: to die of hunger or go rob. So much for the social explosion described above.

          Quote: KudrevKN
          An example of this is the success of 1913 of the year.
          Those who write about the success of the 1913 of the year for some reason do not indicate that two years in a row were a good harvest. But in the 1911 year there was a short life and hunger from the consequences of which, according to conservative estimates, about 1,5 million people died. For this reason, it was even forbidden to mention him in the press. This is what related to agriculture.
          As for the industry, there, too, everything 5 was far away so chocolate, rather the opposite. In the period from 1907 to 1910, there was no industrial growth, there was stagnation, and in some sectors there was a general decline in production, and it was significant, accompanied by the closure of factories and the mass dismissal of workers. The reason is the international economic crisis.

          Relative growth began only in the 1911 year and the percent of industrial growth, which modern French bakers love to wave, was given by those enterprises that were closed during the crisis and later re-launched.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 4 June 2016 20: 42
            0
            Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
            according to the most conservative estimates, there should have been about 60-70 million peasants

            Can I have a source?
            Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
            it’s cheaper and more profitable for a fist to buy an agricultural machine - costs are lower and returns and profits are more ...
            ... the number of jobs in industry was limited and the state program for the construction of new enterprises was not and was not expected

            And who would buy a fist from these very machines, which practically did not exist, by the way, not only in the Republic of Ingushetia, but also in other countries, and which, judging by your own words, would have nowhere to build? Decide as well.
            Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
            Those who write about the success of 1913 for some reason do not indicate that they had a good harvest for two consecutive years, but in 1911 there was a shortage of famine and the consequences of which, according to the most conservative estimates, about 1,5 million people died
            That is, when hunger begins from a crop failure, the power is to blame, and when the crop is good and development is underway, then the power has nothing to do with it, is it all the weather? By the way, the number of dead is also a moot point - some shout almost about tens of millions.
            Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
            The reason is the international economic crisis.

            Are you confusing anything? There was a crisis in the USA in 1907, but it did not seem to be international.
            1. Alexey T. (Oper)
              Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 21: 19
              +4
              Quote: Dart2027
              Can I have a source?
              The source of what? The number of the poorest peasants? 30% of peasant farms in 1913 were horseless. Those. the beggars so that did not have their own horse to plow their allotment. This is already about 40 of millions of people who would replenish the army of farm laborers first.
              Of the remaining 80 millions, at least 20 was also barely making ends meet (look at the number of farms that had only one horse as a workforce).
              Here you have 60-70 millions.
              Quote: Dart2027
              And who would buy a fist from these very cars,
              Abroad, where they bought without the Stolypin agrarian reform.

              Quote: Dart2027
              That is, when hunger begins from a crop failure, the power is to blame, and when the crop is good and development is underway, then the power has nothing to do with it, is it all the weather?
              Stop stop. Did I write somewhere about who is to blame? I corroborated the fact: in the 1912-1913 years there were good yields that gave high economic indicators for agriculture. And in 1911 there was a lack of food and hunger. And this is a historical fact.
              Quote: Dart2027
              By the way, the number of dead is also a moot point - some shout almost about tens of millions.

              Controversial. Since no one has ever kept such statistics in the empire. And according to some information (I didn’t succeed in confirming it), there was a circular forbidding doctors to put death as a cause of death - starvation.

              Quote: Dart2027
              Are you confusing anything? There was a crisis in the USA in 1907, but it did not seem to be international.
              Do you think that the US financial crisis did not affect the global eco-economy. One way or another, he affected Germany (our main trading partner) and England, Japan and even Chile. Therefore, the economy of RI too.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Dart2027
                Dart2027 4 June 2016 22: 43
                0
                Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                Abroad, where they bought without the Stolypin agrarian reform.

                Given the fact that the first more or less efficient tractors appeared just before the war, and in the USA, the probability that they were bought by fists is, to put it mildly, doubtful. Russian engineers were familiar with them and even made suggestions for improvement, but they appeared in Russia after the revolution.
                Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                The number of the poorest peasants

                So much has been written about the then peasantry that it is extremely difficult to understand where the truth is and where ideology is. It was possible to listen to those who lived then and they did not recall any horrors. Yes, it was not necessary to luxuriate, but even that what Soviet historians wrote about was not there either. Yes, and Russian folk cuisine does not mean a constant lack of food, frogs, grasshoppers and snakes are not there, unlike some other countries. And population growth is also a fact.
                Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                US financial crisis does not affect global eco-economy

                Not as much as the crisis of the 30s. Then the economy of other countries was not so much tied to the United States.
                1. Alexey T. (Oper)
                  Alexey T. (Oper) 5 June 2016 00: 01
                  +1
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Given the fact that the first more or less efficient tractors appeared just before the war,

                  But what, except for tractors, there was no other agricultural technology? Seeders, winders, mowers, locomobiles, steam mills, etc., other, other. All this was used in agriculture of the world long before the start of the WWII.
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  So much has been written about the then peasantry that it is extremely difficult to understand where the truth is and where ideology is.

                  There are statistics, moreover, in the form of guides issued before the revolution. And on the network it is in the form of scans. So to understand where the truth is not difficult. And this truth is very, very unpleasant for neo-monarchists.

                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Not as much as the crisis of the 30's.
                  Not to that extent. But it is enough to cause a drop in demand for raw materials and, as a result, a drop in industrial production in such a weakly industrialized country as the Russian Empire. Which is also confirmed by statistics.
                2. Alexey T. (Oper)
                  Alexey T. (Oper) 5 June 2016 00: 03
                  +1
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Yes, and Russian folk cuisine does not mean a constant lack of food

                  Let's not talk about the nutrition of the peasants. It has been studied quite enough to understand that 90% of the peasants of the pre-revolution lived in a state of permanent malnutrition.

                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Yes, and population growth is also a fact.
                  Yeah. As well as life expectancy, the lowest among European countries and the United States. And I won’t mention child mortality either - a third of the babies did not live up to a year, every third.
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 5 June 2016 10: 33
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                    But what, except for tractors, there was no other agricultural technology?

                    When they say that in RI there was an extremely low level of technical equipment of the CX, then this is true. Just when they began to think about mechanization, how the war began and there was no time for it.
                    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                    to cause a drop in demand for raw materials

                    As far as I know, the main export at that time was bread, not raw materials.
                    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                    It has been studied quite enough to understand that 90% of the peasants of the pre-revolution lived in a state of permanent malnutrition

                    When people have nothing to eat, they eat everything they can. This is an elementary law of survival. But for some reason there are no traces of such nutrition.
                    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                    As well as life expectancy, the lowest among European countries and the United States. And I will not mention child mortality
                    Actually this is one and the same. High infant mortality and reduced average duration.
                    But here there is a small nuance that is usually not remembered when discussing RI.
                    The development of Europe was carried out by robbing the colonies. It was from there that resources were allocated for the development of the metropolises. What was the infant mortality rate throughout England or France?
                    1. Alexey T. (Oper)
                      Alexey T. (Oper) 5 June 2016 11: 54
                      +1
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      When they say that in RI there was an extremely low level of technical equipment of the CX, then this is true. Just when they started thinking about mechanization

                      What kind of mechanization, if for the whole empire the peasants had only 900 thousand of iron plows and 5 of millions of wooden plows and harrows?
                      The peasants were picking the earth with pieces of wood as under King Gorokh.

                      Quote: Dart2027
                      As far as I know, the main export at that time was bread, not raw materials.
                      Not bread, but grain. Which is also the raw material for making bread.
                      By the way, the Germans, taking advantage of the difference in import duties, bought our grain from themselves in Germany, ground it there and threw flour into us, cooking crazy money on it.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      When people have nothing to eat, they eat everything they can. This is an elementary law of survival. But for some reason there are no traces of such nutrition.

                      Read Tolstoy's "On Hunger": "In Russia, famine is not when the bread is not born, but when the quinoa is not." Since the bulk of the peasants ate bread with quinoa, they practically did not eat pure bread - they did not have enough grain for this.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      But here there is a small nuance that is usually not remembered when discussing RI.
                      The development of Europe was carried out by robbing the colonies.

                      What's the difference? Who prevented the tsarist government from resolving the land question in favor of the peasants, clutching their fists and landlords? Is it not the fact that it was the emperor who was the main one with the tranny landowner and oligarch?
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      What was the infant mortality rate throughout England or France?

                      In 1912, in the European part of Russia, infant mortality before 1 was equal to 24,1% of all births. At the same time, mortality in Finland was 10,9%. In the same year, infant mortality in England was 9,5%, in France - 7,8%, in Norway - 6,8%, in Denmark - 9,3 :, in Romania - 18,6%, in Serbia - 14,6%, in Bulgaria - 15,6%.
                      http://istmat.info/files/uploads/25722/smertnost_mladencev_1912.pdf

                      The version that the colonial nature of the development of Western economies strongly influenced the reduction in mortality does not work. Since neither Norway nor Denmark had colonies, and infant mortality there was at the level of England and France. Such newly formed countries (at the time of the 1912 year) like Serbia or Bulgaria did not have colonies either. However, infant mortality was significantly lower than in Russia.
                      1. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 5 June 2016 12: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        The peasants were picking the earth with pieces of wood as under King Gorokh.

                        So you yourself claimed that the fists buy cars
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        since it’s cheaper and more profitable for a fist to buy an agricultural machine
                        You really decide, eh?
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        Not bread, but grain. Which is also a raw material.
                        Strictly speaking, yes, but the essence of this does not change - everyone wants to eat and always.
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        Read Tolstoy's "On Hunger": "In Russia, famine is not when bread is not freed, but when quinoa is not freed."
                        Then please bring recipes for quinoa bread. For many years I have not found anything.
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        Who prevented the tsarist government from resolving the land question in favor of the peasants, clutching their fists and landlords?
                        All share? Already passed, inefficiently. In addition, the kulaks are the peasants, and the landlords by that time were almost completely ruined and their estates gradually passed just to the peasants.
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        At the same time in Finland
                        It was the European part of Russia that suffered from crop failures and epidemics, so mortality on its territory should have been higher than elsewhere. By the way, Finland is also RI, which means that not everything was so nightmarish.
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        neither Norway nor Denmark had colonies

                        The Virgin Islands ceased to be a Danish colony only in 1917, they lost the remaining colonies only at the end of the 19th century. Norway is almost the only exception, although it is uncertain.
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        Such newly formed countries (at the time of 1912) such as Serbia or Bulgaria
                        who inherited the infrastructure that was built while they were part of Austria-Hungary.
                      2. Alexey T. (Oper)
                        Alexey T. (Oper) 5 June 2016 13: 48
                        +2
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        So you yourself claimed that the fists buy cars
                        And who told you that the fists were peasants? They were only listed by them according to the estate lists, but in fact it was the rural bourgeois who put together their capital on trade and usurious deals.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Then please bring recipes for quinoa bread. For many years I have not found anything.
                        Not from a quinoa, but with the addition of a quinoa. And you can see the recipe at least here.

                        http://hlebopechka.ru/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=126&topic=4031.0

                        I was not specifically interested in this issue, but found it at the touch of a finger. This is a modern recipe.

                        But here you can read what Brockhaus and Efron wrote about bread with a swan in their famous dictionary.

                        http://www.bibliotekar.ru/bel/177.htm

                        In 1891 — 92 we got from Tula lips. bread made from 66 — 75% L. and 25 — 34% rye flour or rye bran. In the Kazan lips. L., during the last crop failure, was often consumed in its pure form, especially when food bread was eaten and had to wait until a new distribution; more often L. mixed with rye flour, as well as with spring bread (wheat, barley, spelled). The proportion was the most varied, depending on the available stock of bread, starting with 1 parts of rye or some other flour on 10 parts L., and reaching evenly mixed. In appearance, bread containing more or less significant amounts of L. differs sharply from rye bread: due to poor raising of the dough, it seems low, heavy; its dark brown upper crust is cut with deep cracks and easily lags behind the crumb; bread in general resembles a lump of land, or rather peat; it crumbles easily and on its break are visible fragments of the seed coat of the swan seed in the form of small black dots; the crumb is dark gray or earthy black in fresh bread moist to the touch, compact; indentation from the fingers does not align; the smell of bread is heavy, musty; the taste is bitter, disgusting for an unusual person; when chewing, bread crunches on the teeth (even if there is no sand in it), due to the admixture of hard seed peel. In order to partially mask the unpleasant taste of swan bread, it is sometimes salted very strongly. Old, stale, swan bread seems, on the one hand, as hard as stone, and on the other hand, it is still brittle and brittle from a large number of large and small cracks.
                      3. Alexey T. (Oper)
                        Alexey T. (Oper) 5 June 2016 13: 48
                        +2
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        All share?
                        Well, why immediately share? You’re just some kind of Bolshevik radical, honestly.
                        Nationalize the land and transfer it to eternal free use for those who wish to work on it. At the same time, banning the hiring of farm laborers and leasing of agricultural machinery, livestock, grain, etc., etc. It goes without saying that private ownership of land is canceled and any transactions with it, such as rent, sale, donation, etc. are prohibited.

                        By the way, it was precisely in this that the wishes of the overwhelming majority of peasants consisted, even before the revolution, voicing them in their orders to the deputies of the State Duma of all four pre-revolutionary convocations.

                        The Bolsheviks carried out a similar reform, and in response, the peasants expressed their confidence in giving them the opportunity to win the Civil War, in spite of the methods of military communism (surplus-appraisal), which the Bolsheviks used rather harshly.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        fists are peasants,
                        Only according to estate lists. In fact, the kulaks did not engage in agriculture — they did not crawl through the fields with the plow and did not plow the land.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        By the way, Finland is also RI, which means that not everything was so nightmarish.
                        Only nominally. But in fact it was a separate state, even having its own currency. So low infant mortality in Finland is another additional minus of the rest of the Russian Empire.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Norway is almost the only exception, although it is uncertain.
                        Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania also did not have colonies, and infant mortality there was almost one and a half times lower.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        who inherited the infrastructure that was built while they were part of Austria-Hungary.
                        Austro-Hungarian? belay
                        You probably wanted to write - to Turkey, which regularly weeded these countries so that it cut entire counties clean. And she obviously did not build hospitals, schools, kindergartens, etc. there.
                      4. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 5 June 2016 16: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        And who told you that the fists were peasants? They were only listed by them on the estate lists, but in fact they were rural bourgeois [/ i]

                        You can talk a lot about how it should be, but in life always and everywhere any society consists of different layers. Including the peasants.
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        In 1891–92 [/ i]

                        When was the crop failure? Yes, at such a time they eat a lot, if only if they constantly ate it from a lack of normal bread, then there would be a lot of dishes from quinoa and the like, and they would learn to improve them somehow. For example, oriental cuisines.
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        Only nominally. But in fact it was a separate state

                        It was a personal possession of the Russian tsars, and not a separate state.
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        You probably wanted to write - Turkey

                        At the beginning of the 1739th century, Banat, Oltenia, Belgrade and Northern Serbia moved to the Habsburgs in the Pozharevatsky world. After the return of Northern Serbia to the power of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, it retained a special position, an economy oriented towards Austria. The border Belgrade Pashalyk was created, the Turkish population was significantly reduced, local authorities began to transfer to local residents. Vojvodina was ruled by the Habsburgs until XNUMX.
                        Bulgaria was also actually a protectorate of the Austrians.
                      5. Alexey T. (Oper)
                        Alexey T. (Oper) 5 June 2016 21: 18
                        +2
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        You can talk a lot about how it should be, but in life always and everywhere any society consists of different layers. Including the peasants.
                        This is demagoguery. According to researchers as far back as the 19th century, the kulaks did not engage in agriculture, but poured their capital into trade and usury. Those. peasants could only be considered nominally.


                        Quote: Dart2027
                        When was the crop failure? Yes, at such a time they eat a lot, if only if they constantly ate it from a lack of normal bread, then there would be a lot of dishes from quinoa and the like, and they would learn to improve them somehow. For example, oriental cuisines.

                        Well, why this meaningless set of words? The testimonies of people who lived at that time were given to you and they write that the peasants did not eat clean bread, but ate bread with a swan.
                        Everything else is an attempt to cover up this obvious fact with rants on a given topic.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        It was a personal possession of the Russian tsars, and not a separate state.
                        Who cares? The fact is that in Finland infant mortality was at the level of 10% and in 30 km from it, in the vicinity of the capital of the empire, it reached 24%.
                        And this is such a red-hot nail in the ass to the crowned bloody mediocrity, who cannot be pulled out in any situation.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        At the beginning of the 18th century, Banat, Oltenia, Belgrade and Northern Serbia moved to the Habsburgs in the Pozharevatsky world.
                        Yes Yes. And by the 1912 year, the Serbs continued to use the infrastructure that the Austrians paostoroil them in the middle of the XVIII century. At the same time, due to this infrastructure (after all, you rely on the fact that it was the cause) they managed to reduce infant mortality by almost one and a half times in comparison with Russia. That is, in your words, it turns out that by the 1912 year Russia did not have the infrastructure that Serbia already had in the 18th century.

                        Stumble. This is what you lowered the empire ...
                      6. 3agr9d0tryad
                        3agr9d0tryad 5 June 2016 22: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                        According to researchers as far back as the XNUMXth century, the kulaks did not engage in agriculture, but poured their capital into trade and usury.

                        I do not know who the "researchers of the 19th century" considered to be a fist, but the Bolsheviks declared fists almost all at least some successful peasants who did not want give yours for free to the state.
                      7. Alexey T. (Oper)
                        Alexey T. (Oper) 6 June 2016 11: 58
                        +2
                        Read the same Engelhardt "Letters from the Village", he writes about it absolutely specifically.
                        As for the Bolsheviks, such tales rolled in the middle of the 80's, when it was difficult to access information. Now it’s enough to find decisions on dispossession in the network to make sure that you are writing nonsense and signs of kulak economy have been determined quite specifically. The main ones were the exploitation of other people's labor, usury and the presence of unearned income.
                3. 3agr9d0tryad
                  3agr9d0tryad 5 June 2016 22: 54
                  -1
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  So much has been written about the then peasantry that it is extremely difficult to understand where the truth is and where ideology is.

                  And you read Tolstoy as one of the researchers of the famine of 1891-1892, which shocked the entire then Russian public.
                  So Tolstoy himself writes that despite the "terrible state of the village" he did not know a single case when a person would die of exhaustion (as they later died in the USSR), and those deaths that he knew were the result of a "typhus epidemic and td "caused malnutrition and mistrust of peasants to doctors.
                  Comments are superfluous, it is enough to add that the bulk of the "starving" 1891-1892, despite the famine, did not cut the cattle, but fed it (albeit exhausted) for all 2 years.
              3. 3agr9d0tryad
                3agr9d0tryad 5 June 2016 22: 47
                0
                Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
                30% of peasant farms in 1913 were horseless.

                Well, then, then what, it became better ?! belay
                Oh, everything, even further to read laziness, what to write, zombie land, only the red flags are not enough.
                1. Alexey T. (Oper)
                  Alexey T. (Oper) 6 June 2016 12: 01
                  +1
                  Quote: 3agr9d0string

                  Well, then, then what, it became better ?! belay
                  Oh, everything, even further to read laziness, what to write, zombie land, only the red flags are not enough.

                  And then it got better. Already in the 1939 year, collective farmers massively purchased luxury items such as bicycles, gramophones, pocket and watches, sewing machines, etc., etc. what the king did not dream of.
          2. 3agr9d0tryad
            3agr9d0tryad 5 June 2016 22: 46
            -1
            Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
            He tried to remove it, but the reform failed.

            Nothing failed, everything went perfectly.
            And yes, let me remind you, for the period when the population of the Republic of Ingushetia has grown more than 2 times, productivity has grown less than one and a half.
            And this was the main problem solved by Stolypin by destroying the "community", which resulted in both an increase in the number of cultivated land and a greater productivity of rural labor.
            1. Alexey T. (Oper)
              Alexey T. (Oper) 6 June 2016 12: 04
              +1
              Some unhealthy fantasies you have. Statistics disproves them.
        2. Alexey T. (Oper)
          Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 20: 28
          +2
          Quote: KudrevKN
          You say, if the population of RI declined from 1913 to 1922 by almost 40 million or 25%
          Losses from the consequences of the Civil War amounted to about 9 million people. This is for all reasons: combat losses, emigration, famine, epidemics, etc.
          No need to catch up on horror stories.
          Quote: KudrevKN
          it continued with 1929 (collectivization and another minus 3 million),
          This is not even funny. 3 million is the number sent. But not dead.

          Quote: KudrevKN
          WWII (where almost 2 million served only in the ROV, not counting other traitors and Bandera)?
          Shikoka Shikoka? Yes, where did you get these numbers from?
          In total, together with Heavi, who made up 70% of collaborators, on the Wehrmacht side, about 1 million 200 thousand former Soviet citizens participated in the war. This is all - and Bandera, and the police, and self-defense units and the eastern legions and ROA and RONA and KNOR and the SSK Cossacks and others. In the ROA during the period of its highest number, about 50 thousand people fought.
          Quote: KudrevKN
          SO ABOUT WHAT CHILDREN'S Prank (!) DO YOU TREAT, CHILD?
          Dear, do not overhear. Have you agreed? Behave as you should in a civilized forum.
          1. Kudrevkn
            Kudrevkn 4 June 2016 21: 01
            +1
            even if you take into account your 1.2 million traitors - is that not enough? Or "3 million deported. But not dead"? Listen, you are at the "civilized forum". and how are you better in your cynicism than Stalin's executioners or Hitler's ideologists for the destruction of "subhumans" like Jews or Slavs? "They were not killed. They were only" sent "to build the Volga - Don or my native Magnitogorsk? The whole city on the right bank on the bones of dispossessed" volunteers "is, CIVIL, HIS MOTHER !!!
            1. Alexey T. (Oper)
              Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 21: 40
              +4
              Quote: KudrevKN
              even if you take into account your 1.2 million. traitors - is it not enough?
              And here is a little or a lot? Why did they all become victims of the Civil War in which you recorded them?
              Quote: KudrevKN
              Or "3 million deported. But not dead"? Listen, you are at the "civilized forum". and how are you better in your cynicism than Stalin's executioners or Hitler's ideologists for the destruction of "subhumans" like Jews or Slavs?
              Stop stop. You seem to have written about the human losses of the Civil War, and all of them en masse in them? Can you explain how could people who remained alive be among the losses?

              Quote: KudrevKN
              my native Magnitogorsk? The whole city on the right bank on the bones of dispossessed "volunteers" is, CIVIL, HIS MOTHER !!!
              And what, found mass graves of dispossessed?
              Maybe you should not fantasize?
              1. Uncle Murzik
                Uncle Murzik 5 June 2016 07: 58
                +1
                ignore liberals fantasies have no limits! belay
                1. Kudrevkn
                  Kudrevkn 5 June 2016 14: 44
                  -1
                  It's you, Bolshevik bastards, to shoot a couple of thousand people - warm-up - zeroing before the "competition" for the badge of the BGTO "Voroshilovsky shooter" !!!
              2. Kudrevkn
                Kudrevkn 5 June 2016 14: 42
                0
                And who went to serve the Germans? Zapadentsy with the Balts, or ours - brothers Slavs7 In almost every occupied region or city there were commandant's offices and policemen of traitors, not even a thousand. and hundreds of thousands! Who pointed out to the Germans the Communists and the families of the Red Army soldiers, after all, it was not written on the person's forehead that he was a party worker or a Chekist? Or they only betrayed their homeland for the Reichsmarks and the cow. and not out of ideological considerations of the struggle against Soviet power? Now about fantasies - in 1929 - 31 alone, more than 40 "first builders" were killed or died during construction. which were massively buried on the right bank of the Urals, where then there was the station Magnetic. The city on the right European bank began to be built only in 000, and bones are still being taken out of the pits - this is a fact! with regards to those shot in 1951 -1936. then in the M. Kuibas region there were races. 39 23 people
                1. Alexey T. (Oper)
                  Alexey T. (Oper) 5 June 2016 21: 19
                  +2
                  Quote: KudrevKN
                  Now about fantasies - in 1929 - 31 alone, more than 40 "first builders" were killed or died during construction. which were massively buried on the right bank of the Urals, where then there was the station Magnetic.

                  Well, then show us in this case the mass graves of these executed and deceased builders, so that all vokrug can make sure that the Bolsheviks are bloody monsters. Will show?
      2. 31rus2
        31rus2 4 June 2016 19: 18
        0
        Dear, where did you read, any nasty things?
        1. Alexey T. (Oper)
          Alexey T. (Oper) 4 June 2016 20: 29
          0
          Who are you? Me or my opponent?
    2. AK64
      AK64 5 June 2016 09: 17
      0
      General Denikin wrote later in his memoirs that the High Command (VK Nikolai Nikolaevich and Nikolai II. Chief of General Staff Alekseev) stole Brusilov’s victory !? Victory in the Great War ?! Partly he is right - Yudenich defeated Turkey, Brusilov almost defeated Austria - Hungary!


      Denikin lied - Brusilov stole the victory from Nikolai and Stavka.
      The offensive was prepared by the General Headquarters, and not Brusilov, taken separately and promoted by the "liberal press". Brusilov was actually pretty much sir, and neither BEFORE nor AFTER was somehow noted. "One Fight Hero"? Or it's simple - the first blow was laid out on the shelves and shoved into his mouth. But further - here you have to look at the place. But this "genius" was not enough.
    3. 3agr9d0tryad
      3agr9d0tryad 5 June 2016 22: 41
      0
      Quote: KudrevKN
      I wonder if there would be a VOSR if Russia would win the war in 1916?

      The Russian Empire was the least affected state in the war and there were no political and economic reasons for the revolution in the Republic of Ingushetia at that time, this is all a myth.
      1. Alexey T. (Oper)
        Alexey T. (Oper) 6 June 2016 12: 16
        +3
        The Empire, which before the war was a semi-colony of Western countries, supplying cheap raw materials to the foreign market, had lost a significant part of its sovereignty by the 1915, expressed in the fact that the British forced the tsarist government to grant them the exclusive right to control the placement of Russian military orders at their discretion. Those. the tsar was obliged to pay money but was not able to control the conditions of placing the order (terms, prices, etc.).
        And after that there are storytellers telling that: "Everything is fine, beautiful marquise" good
  11. 31rus2
    31rus2 4 June 2016 19: 15
    +1
    Dear ones, this is a story and I don’t understand why it is incomparable to compare, each time it solved its tasks, pursued certain goals, but all the reds and whites, the communists and monarchists defended their homeland, carried out the order to the end, what else was needed. For example, for me only military talent Field Marshal A.S. Suvorov, but this does not plead with the merits of other military commanders. In general, in any war, they are ordinary soldiers, many still unknown
    1. Kudrevkn
      Kudrevkn 4 June 2016 19: 19
      +1
      What are you talking about?
    2. gg.na
      gg.na 4 June 2016 20: 06
      +1
      Quote: 31rus2
      For example, for me, only military talent Field Marshal A.S. Suvorov,

      Let the cutest what Suvorov. A.V. was a generalissimo. If the memory what I do not lie !!! Yes, I do not deny the fact that he was also a field marshal ..., Here: Generalissimo of the Russian land and sea forces, General Field Marshal of the Holy Roman Empire, Grand Marshal of the Piedmontese troops, cavalier of all Russian orders of his time, awarded to men, as well as seven foreign.
      1. 31rus2
        31rus2 5 June 2016 07: 47
        0
        Dear you are right
  12. gg.na
    gg.na 4 June 2016 19: 48
    0
    Bad then they got a share recourse
  13. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 4 June 2016 20: 19
    0
    good article. Thank you for the historical excursion ..... once upon a time at a seminar on History at the university I read a report on the Brusilovsky breakthrough, the exam was released ....... a fertile topic for me. and set out well. Thank.
  14. masiya
    masiya 4 June 2016 20: 24
    +1
    100 years, and in our information field, neither on TV, nor where, they remember our Russian Heroes of the participants of the 1st MV, not only about the Brusilovsky breakthrough, but, whatever you say, it was at that time that there were so many prisoners - it’s okay, but to go so far in that positional war, without ammunition, without shells, without normal supply (everything was just plundered now ..) was simply unrealistic, the French won the whole war in their trenches and sat ... that then no one reached Berlin in WWI, and the Reich did not occupy ...
  15. From Tver
    From Tver 5 June 2016 00: 06
    0
    Oh, sorry then there were no our airborne.
    1. svp67
      svp67 5 June 2016 00: 28
      +1
      Quote: From Tver
      Oh, sorry then there were no our airborne.

      Which would be launched towards the enemy in balloons or at worst from a catapult.
      Do you think what you say? At that time, the RI army included elite troops no worse and they were called "GUARDIA", which was divided into "old" and "new". The elite from the elite was the "Petrovskaya Brigada" from the old guard, and how did that help?
      1. 3agr9d0tryad
        3agr9d0tryad 5 June 2016 23: 02
        0
        Quote: svp67
        Which would be launched towards the enemy in balloons or at worst from a catapult.

        Well, RI already had what could be called "strategic aviation".
  16. Dal arya
    Dal arya 5 June 2016 00: 46
    +6
    My picture ,, Brusilovsky breakthrough ,,.
    I wanted to give the museum one world, but alas, I did not get an answer from them. Well, or the picture is not too good.
  17. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 5 June 2016 10: 16
    0
    Quote: masiya
    100 years, and in our information field, neither on TV, nor where, they remember our Russian Heroes of the participants of the 1st MV, not only about the Brusilovsky breakthrough,

    Yes, unfortunately it is. Under Socialism, apparently, they did not want to show that there were heroes under a different system. Now a new power has come - capitalist. She also has no time for the TRUTH. The new government is busy with the Mausoleum draping, denigrating Stalin, obliterating Our Heroes from WW2 history (in the textbooks), (Art. "twice killed"), creates the Yeltsin Center ...
    But you could talk about the Heroes of WW1, about the Russian-Turkish wars ...
    Here, in VO, I read various articles about WW1, on the heroic Russian people. For this --- huge gratitude to the Authors and Editorial Board of VO.
  18. Stiletto_711
    Stiletto_711 5 June 2016 14: 36
    0
    Quote: Alexey T. (Opera)
    The most interesting thing is that as a result of this seemingly brilliant tactical victory (which in fact was a distracting blow on a secondary sector of the front against the obviously weakest enemy), the general strategic position of the Russian army only worsened. Moreover, it has deteriorated significantly.

    Impressed by Brusilov’s victories, Romania decided to enter the war, which had previously observed neutrality. Mummies were eager to grab their piece fatter from Austria-Hungary. As a result, the Romanians were utterly defeated already in the first days of their speech, and Russia received an extra hundred kilometers of front in a strategically important direction, withdrawing the Bulgarian-German troops (Bulgaria was an ally of the Germans but, due to Romanian neutrality, had no immediate opportunity to attack Russia) directly to the south of Russia - to the fertile regions of Ukraine and to the Black Sea coast.

    After that, all Napoleonic plans to conquer Constantinople and pin the crown of Nikolai the Bloody on the gates of Constantinople were lowered into the toilet. Since it was urgently required to find several divisions to cover the Romanian border as well.

    In general: they wanted the best, but it turned out as always.

    Before Romania entered the war, the Russian General Staff joked "If Romania takes the side of the Germans, we will need 40 divisions to defeat it; if it declares war on Germany, we will need 40 divisions to defend it." As they say, in every joke ...
    1. AK64
      AK64 5 June 2016 15: 02
      0
      Before Romania entered the war, the Russian General Staff joked "If Romania takes the side of the Germans, we will need 40 divisions to defeat it; if it declares war on Germany, we will need 40 divisions to defend it." As they say, in every joke ...


      And may I ask: HOW DO YOU know this?

      Ah, you read it in a book ... And the one who wrote this book - did he work in the General Staff?

      Ah, didn’t work at GSH? So HOW DOES he know that?

      This bike is from the same opera as "one rifle for two". But in fact, Romania's entry into the war is a great success for Russian diplomacy. And it was precisely as such that it was considered then in the General Staff, and in general everywhere - everywhere except for the "liberal" then versions of "Rains" and "Echoes of Maskva"
    2. The comment was deleted.
  19. DJDJ GORA
    DJDJ GORA 6 June 2016 22: 13
    0
    Yes, as it turned out with the Romanians.