Premiere of the eight-part documentary film “World War I” from the author’s series Felix Razumovsky"WHO ARE WE?" will take place on September 11 at 20:40 on the Rossiya channel. Culture".

Felix Razumovsky told Pravmir about what the soldiers fought for in the First World War, whether the February coup of 1917 was a betrayal, and much more.

– In the new series you are probably talking about the causes of the First World War. On this topic you can often hear that we fought for no one knows why. And the soldiers did not know why they were sent to die.

– You know, I believe that conversations of this kind contain a fair amount of slyness. Do you really think that the miracle heroes led by Suvorov in the Italian Campaign understood the intricacies of European politics at the end of the 18th century? Of course not. However, they did not demand explanations about the need to cross the Alps. The order of their beloved commander was enough for them.

When, more than a hundred years later, the First began World War, the situation has become different. Not a trace remains of the Russian optimism of the 18th century. There was no national hero among the high command, whom the army trusted and valued. Of course, there were favorite commanders, but this is about in this case about other. About figures on the scale of Suvorov, Kutuzov or Nakhimov.

Figures of the Headquarters, and first of all the Supreme Commander-in-Chief Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich is a man of very average abilities, who did not have the necessary military talents and spiritual qualities. Yes, at the beginning of the war the Grand Duke was popular... That's all. This is clearly not enough to send thousands of people to their deaths.

I will say more, the Russian soldier always had a poor understanding of the imperial tasks and needs. And I don’t see a big problem here. Soldiers' loyalty is what a huge country rested on. However, the First World War revealed an obvious decline in the soldier's spirit. And not only the soldier's. And that’s why, in the end, we didn’t make it.

An amazing situation arose, unprecedented in history: on the verge of victory, we refused to fight, betrayed ourselves, our Fatherland. For us, the First World War is not a forgotten, but a faithful war. And since it is unpleasant to remember this betrayal and betrayal, we talk a lot about the meaninglessness of that war, about the lack of clear goals, about the fact that the people did not understand why such sacrifices were required of them. However, the war was very, very difficult, including psychologically difficult, it’s true.

–The war that was the harbinger of the revolution, the collapse of Russia?

– This war ended in a national catastrophe for Russia, the nation committed suicide. Although we had everything we needed to defeat the enemy. As once in 1812, Russia had to put aside all internal strife. And unite, at least out of the instinct of self-preservation. Alas, this did not happen. The country began to rapidly split, to divide internally - into military and politicians, soldiers and generals, into power and society, into “white” and “black” bones.

The predisposition to such a collapse has been there for a long time. It was not by chance that Tolstoy in “War and Peace” depicted the scene of a peasant revolt in the village of Bogucharovo, on the estate of the Bolkonsky princes. This was an important sign of that wartime. The invasion of Napoleon, the “thunderstorm of 1812,” shook the usual order of Russian life. And in this life, both strengths and weaknesses immediately showed themselves. “Bonaparte will come and give us freedom, but we don’t want to know the masters anymore,” these words could be heard from peasants near Moscow. And not only those living near Moscow.

But this is not class enmity, despite serfdom. This is something more serious: a cultural split. The traditional village, which produces soldiers, and the Europeanized manor, which produces officers, speak different languages. A hundred years later, during the First World War, this split will lead to the collapse of the Russian army and the death of historical Russia.

–But none of the Entente countries seems to have suffered as much to the point of self-destruction as Russia...

– This is an important topic. The fate of Russia, its position and role in the First World War is unique. Perhaps this is not entirely obvious. As you know, three more empires collapsed as a result of the war. But only we wanted to destroy ourselves “to the ground”: both the political regime and the very foundations of national existence, that is, the entire Russian world, which was created over centuries.

The country was pushed towards this catastrophe different forces, but the Bolsheviks surpassed everyone with their recklessness and cynicism. They relied on national treason, on the destruction of the country. And they won. The call to “transform the imperialist war into a civil war” (Lenin) is incitement to treason.

So, the calculation turned out to be correct, despite the fact that Lenin’s understanding and vision of the First World War is nothing more than a crude and primitive simplification. The creator of a new type of party attached the label “imperialist” to the war. Allegedly, this is just a struggle of interests, a struggle for markets, spheres of influence, and so on. Russia does not fit into this picture at all.

Our goal cannot be to assert national exclusivity and pride. We have enough of our own historical illnesses and ailments, why should we ascribe to ourselves those of others. It is in Germany that militant Germanism, a kind of European nationalism, triumphs. But here you can find only something opposite - diverse manifestations of Russian nihilism. But first of all, of course, the Troubles, the collapse and self-destruction of Russian life. The war, which required the utmost effort from Russia, again opened the way to the Troubles.

The films of the new cycle show what actions of the authorities and society contributed to the growth of the Troubles. For example, it was impossible to drive a wave of Germanophobia in a country where many Germans lived. Where they traditionally served in the Russian army. Accusations against the Germans heard everywhere and idle talk about “hostile subjects” caused enormous damage to the army. And they provoked a German pogrom in Moscow in the summer of 1915.

– How do you assess the behavior of those senior military officials of the Russian army who participated in the coup d’etat in February–March 1917? At a time when the country was at war?

– By the beginning of the 17th year, the Troubles were corrupting not only the mass of soldiers, but also, to a large extent, the generals. In March 1917, the army, represented by its high command, supported the abdication of Nicholas II. As is known, only two generals will send telegrams to Headquarters containing a different attitude to events. Only two generals will want to support the monarchical system. The rest will frivolously rejoice at the change of power.

In fact - none new government will not happen, anarchy will begin. “With the fall of the king, the very idea of ​​power fell,” and without this idea, both the state and the army inevitably collapse. A soldier who has rejected his oath, loyalty, and duty is simply a “man with a gun.” It is completely pointless in this case to discuss whether Nicholas II was good or bad. It was impossible to save the Russian army after his abdication.

All that happens next is agony. The army will be overwhelmed by revolution and democratization, soldiers' councils and committees will appear in military units, and the murder of officers and desertion will become commonplace.

It is impossible not to notice that for the first time in Russian history the Great War did not leave a pantheon of national heroes. And this is not just about the Bolsheviks, believe me. Well, who do we remember today, who can we put on a par with the names of Kutuzov, Nakhimov, Skobelev? There is nothing to say about Rumyantsev and Suvorov. There are no such names in the history of the First World War. There were victories and exploits. Was heroic defense Osovets fortress, there were victories in Galicia. But the national memory is silent. This means... This means that there was no longer a nation as such then.

– 100 years have passed since the beginning of the First World War. But we haven’t fully comprehended it, haven’t studied it. What does this mean to us?

– How could we comprehend the First World War if it was erased from historical memory? The Bolsheviks at one time did not want to remember this war, because they participated and took advantage of national betrayal and treason. The destruction of the state and army during war is precisely treason; there can be no two opinions about it. The Bolsheviks always remembered this and did everything possible to consign the First World War to oblivion.

However, in reality this is only half the truth. Because we ourselves didn’t really want to remember that war either. In a certain sense, this is natural; a person prefers to turn to the unpleasant and, even more so, shameful pages of his life as rarely as possible. The nation does the same. In a word, we did not learn the bitter lessons of the First World War. And that is why we still cannot deal with the issue of historical continuity.

Which Russia are we inheriting: historical or Soviet? There is still no clear answer. Our sitting on two chairs continues. This comes back to us, in particular, due to the lack of political will and the inability to determine the vector of our development. Build a memory policy. It is impossible to talk about national revival without understanding the phenomenon of 1917.

The persistence of the Soviet myth of the Great October Revolution is a consequence of the oblivion of the First World War. The same applies to the Civil War (more precisely, the Troubles), which began precisely before the October 17th coup and largely prepared it. And this greatest tragedy of ours has not been overcome. Many years have passed, but we still do not know how to restore the unity of the Russian world, the unity of Russia, destroyed by the civil war.

–Did the entire history of the First World War fit into eight episodes of the film?

– These series are part of a large historical project. The films shown this season cover the first year of the war. The first film is called “On the Threshold of War” and is dedicated to its prehistory. And we end with the events of the autumn of 1915, when we managed to stabilize the front after the Great Retreat.

It is worth noting in passing that we then retreated not to Moscow or even to Smolensk. This, among other things, speaks of the strength and resilience of Russian soldiers. Our almost unarmed army, deprived of shells, did not flee, but gradually retreated into the interior of the country in perfect order.

Probably, the consequences of the “shell famine” might not have been so tragic if not for the Headquarters and its incompetent actions. It was impossible to tolerate this any longer, and in August 1915, Nicholas II removed the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. The Emperor himself takes command of the army and heads Headquarters. This ends the first stage of the war and the first 8-episode block of our cycle.

Sergei Kulichkin’s book “The First World War” was published in Moscow, which has already aroused reader interest. Its author, editor-in-chief of Military Publishing House and secretary of the Writers' Union of Russia, analyzes in detail all the events of that period, talks about their secret background and military-political consequences.

– Sergei Pavlovich, your book was published, as they say, on time. And yet, I think this is not what made you turn to the topic of the First World War. What exactly?

– I will say this: I was prompted to analyze little-known, especially controversial issues related to the events and personalities of the First World War, by resentment and sadness about the undeservedly forgotten heroes of the Masurian swamps, Carpathian passes, Sarykamysh and Moonsund. And also disagreement with current interpreters of the “new truth” about this war. I am especially confused by their comparative analysis of the two world wars in relation to the participation of our Fatherland in them.

– In my opinion, it’s quite difficult to compare. If the USSR, without any doubt, bore the brunt of the war with Nazi Germany on its shoulders, then Russia’s role in the First World War seems much more modest...

- Let me disagree with this. Russia was perhaps the most active participant in those tragic and heroic events that lasted not a day, not a month, but several years. By the way, our losses were the greatest.

– Then why did the First World War turn into an unknown war for us? Purely for ideological reasons?

- Not only. I would like to note the most important feature that characterizes the entire course of the First World War: from the first to the last hour, the main vector of struggle for Germany was the Western Front. It was there, on the Western theater of operations, that the course and outcome of the war were to be decided - primarily on the fields of France. Therefore, the best part of the German troops concentrated there. There, first of all, new tactical schemes, methods and means of armed struggle were used and tested, new types of weapons and military equipment were tested. Even in 1915, when Germany concentrated its main efforts on the defeat and withdrawal of Russia from the war, the Western Front remained the main thing for the Germans in strategic terms. So it’s not a matter of revolution and Russia’s exit from the war...

– To be honest, it’s not entirely clear: Russia took an active part in the war, suffered huge losses – and yet the main vector of the struggle was the Western Front. What then is the role of Russia?

– Well, look... The Battle of the Marne is rightfully considered the main battle of 1914. But at the same time, we carried out two major strategic operations in the East - East Prussian and Galician. The Russians sought to draw back the German forces at all costs - their allied duty obliged them. And the Germans were indeed forced to transfer part of their troops advancing on Paris to East Prussia. These corps and divisions, which went to the East at the most decisive moment, were one of the reasons for the German defeat on the Marne... And in the Battle of Galicia, the Austro-Hungarian troops suffered a crushing defeat: they lost about 400 thousand people, of which more than 100 thousand were prisoners, 400 guns , 200 machine guns and 8 banners - that is, half of its combat strength. Impressive compared to the figures from the Battle of the Marne...

– What were the results there?

– The Germans lost about 250 thousand killed, wounded and missing, the Allies – more than 260 thousand. There is no mention of big trophies.

– But this is the very beginning of the war, and what happened next?

- Let's turn to 1916. That summer, many battles took place in theaters of military operations, but the main one, undoubtedly, was the victorious offensive operation of the troops of the Southwestern Front under the command of General Brusilov.

- Brusilov breakthrough?

- Yes. This, by the way, is the only operation of the World War that was named not by geographical area, but by the name of the military leader, commander. This operation unexpectedly turned out to be so successful that it was rightfully recognized as the main operation of the summer of 1916. This was recognized by both Russia and its allies in the Entente bloc. And this despite the fact that the bloody battles near Verdun continued, drawing hundreds of thousands of soldiers of the opposing sides into their orbit, despite the full-scale offensive of the Anglo-French troops on the Somme River...

– That is, almost until the very end of the empire, Russia took an active part in the World War?

– Not “almost”, but really – until the collapse of the empire and even longer! Already in 1917, when the revolution led to the death of both the Russian army and the Russian empire, we continued to advance in Galicia and defend in the Baltic states, chaining to ourselves 124 enemy divisions, of which 84 were German. greatest number since the beginning of the war. The numbers speak for themselves. And even then, in the seventeenth, Russian blood was shed abundantly both on the Eastern Front and on the Western Front, where the Russian divisions of the Expeditionary Force covered themselves with unfading glory. In general, without going into many other details, one can understand that Russia’s role in the World War was very large.

How much Russian blood has been shed because of someone’s ambitions and for these worthless “allies”.

“And yet, it was virtually forgotten - both in our homeland and abroad.

– I wouldn’t say so clearly. In the West they remember both the Russian imperial army and our millions of victims. The famous military museum in Paris alone - in the Invalides - can tell more about this than our entire memorial memory. By the way, recently in the center of Paris, near the bridge Alexandra III, a monument was erected to the soldiers of our Expeditionary Force. In fairness, it should be noted that in our country, the First World War, to one degree or another, of course, always remained in the field of view of historical science, especially military science. Even in the first years after the establishment Soviet power In our country, thousands of military theoretical works, memoirs, and memoirs of war participants were published.
Why didn't the First World War become the Second Patriotic War? It's simple. The country frankly did not understand this war. The chatter about the straits and the Russian flag over Istanbul somehow did not reach most people and did not touch them in the least. There was no idea.
The unprecedented upsurge and enthusiasm during the Turkish campaign can be explained simply: there was an idea then. To save the Orthodox Bulgarian brothers from the Turkish adversary - I must admit, it’s a working idea, capable of seriously captivating. Another thing is that these same brothers, frankly speaking, did not deserve shed Russian blood at all - but that’s a different topic...
Neither in the Russian-Japanese war, nor in the First World War, the overwhelming majority of Russians did not feel these wars as their own. And since man is so constructed that he categorically does not agree to die for goals that are incomprehensible to him, the lower classes did not want to fight. Desertion began on a massive scale. Only later, in 1920, when general mobilization began due to the war with Poland, deserters would be pulled out of the dark corners in large numbers, having pulled away from the front in 1915 and having sat out all the turbulent events like the revolution and civil...
In 1915 in Moscow, the wounded from the infirmary rioted in crowds - so much so that even policemen were killed. In 1916, near Riga, a company commander was raised at bayonets - without any Bolshevik agitation. Rods were whistling everywhere: back in the fifteenth, soldiers began to be flogged for the slightest offense and even to... raise morale!
And no one has ever expressed it better than Trotsky about the elite:

“Everyone hurried to grab and eat, in fear that the blessed rain would stop, and everyone indignantly rejected the shameful idea of ​​​​a premature world.”

- However, then...

– Yes, the dominant ideology and internal politics had an impact. The Bolsheviks, who turned, in their terminology, the “damned” and “unjust” imperialist war into a “fair” Civil War, quickly and successfully carried out a campaign to completely discredit everything connected with Russia’s participation in the First World War. Moreover, none of the new rulers even showed up on the fronts of the First World War.

– Thus, the “Great Patriotic” War, as it was called in pre-revolutionary Russia, turned into a “forgotten”, “unknown” war. That war that they are now trying to “return” to our national history.

– Unfortunately, here again everything is not so simple. It would seem that in our time God himself ordered the restoration of forgotten or falsified pages of history. But some of the current “truth tellers” have gone to the other extreme, apparently based on the fact that everything that was hated by the Bolsheviks should now be glorified without fail and unconditionally. And now the average person learns with surprise that imperial Russia on the eve of the war was perhaps the most prosperous state in the world, that the God-bearing people in one impulse fought for the Tsar-Father, the Orthodox state, and that only the machinations of the Bolsheviks clouded, clouded the bright mind of the Russian people and threw him into the crucible of revolution and fratricidal war.

- Meanwhile, it is well known that the Bolsheviks did not take any part in the overthrow of Nicholas II - this is the result of a palace conspiracy with the participation of the grand dukes, leaders of the Duma, top generals, and ambassadors of the Entente countries. And, alas, the church hierarchy did not support the sovereign... In general, as always happens with us - from the frying pan into the fire! Either everything is good or everything is bad. There is no middle!

– Yes, unfortunately, now they are proving to us in all seriousness that the real heroes of the First World War ended up in the camp of the White Guards, and the fake heroes – in the ranks of the Red Army. Now they are proving that the Red Army on the eve of the Great Patriotic War- a bunch of people who have been bullied by commissars and NKVD officers, led by incompetent commanders. That in the First World War we did not give up an inch of Russian land to the enemy, and the Stalinists allowed the Germans to reach the Volga... How sad all this is! We are again rushing from one extreme to another.

– As I understand it, the purpose of your book is to warn the reader against these shynesses?

– You can say so. I do not claim to have the ultimate truth, nor do I claim to have a comprehensive coverage of the events of the First World War. This is backbreaking work. However, I strive to support my personal, subjective, of course, position with weighty arguments.
An attempt to debunk long-established myths, as life shows, is unproductive. That's why they are myths - forever living, indestructible. But it is necessary to draw the attention of the interested reader to the controversial moments of our past, so as not to give rise to new myths. Therefore, I allow myself to focus on the key, controversial points and try in my book to recall the glorious deeds, the glorious heroes of those half-forgotten battles - in obligatory comparison with the events of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War.
I also try to answer the question of why that war did not become the Great Patriotic War, and talk about how the fates of its main heroes and anti-heroes turned out.

European powers had been feverishly preparing for a major conflict for several decades before 1914. And yet, it can be argued: no one expected or wanted such a war. The General Staffs expressed confidence that it would last a year, a maximum of a year and a half. But the general misconception concerned not only its duration. Who could have imagined that military leadership, faith in victory, and military honor would turn out to be not only not the main qualities, but sometimes even harmful to success? The First World War demonstrated both the grandeur and the futility of belief in the ability to calculate the future. The faith with which the optimistic, clumsy and blind 19th century was so filled.

Photo BETTMANN / CORBIS / RPG

In Russian historiography, this war (“imperialist”, as the Bolsheviks called it) has never enjoyed respect and has been studied very little. Meanwhile, in France and Britain it is still considered almost more tragic than even the Second World War. Scientists are still arguing: was it inevitable, and if so, what factors - economic, geopolitical or ideological - most influenced its genesis? Was the war a consequence of the struggle between the powers that had entered the stage of “imperialism” for sources of raw materials and markets? Or perhaps we are talking about a by-product of a relatively new phenomenon for Europe - nationalism? Or, while remaining “the continuation of politics by other means” (Clausewitz’s words), this war only reflected the eternal confusion of relations between large and small geopolitical players - is it easier to “cut” than to “untangle”?
Each of the explanations seems logical and... insufficient.

During the First World War, the rationalism familiar to Western people from the very beginning was overshadowed by the shadow of a new, terrible and bewitching reality. He tried not to notice her or tame her, stuck to his line, completely lost, but in the end - contrary to the evidence, he tried to convince the world of his own triumph.

“Planning is the basis of success”

The pinnacle of the rational planning system is rightly called the famous “Schliefen Plan” - the favorite brainchild of the German Great General Staff. It was precisely this that hundreds of thousands of the Kaiser’s soldiers rushed to carry out in August 1914. General Alfred von Schliefen (already deceased by then) sensibly assumed that Germany would be forced to fight on two fronts - against France in the west and Russia in the east. Success in this unenviable situation can only be achieved by defeating opponents one by one. Since it is impossible to quickly defeat Russia due to its size and, oddly enough, backwardness (the Russian army cannot quickly mobilize and move to the front line, and therefore cannot be destroyed in one blow), then the first “turn” is for the French. But a frontal attack against them, who had also been preparing for battle for decades, did not promise a blitzkrieg. Hence the plan to flank through neutral Belgium, encircle and defeat the enemy in six weeks.

The plan was simple and without alternative, like everything ingenious. The problem was, as often happens, precisely in his perfection. The slightest deviation from the schedule, a delay (or, conversely, excessive success) of one of the flanks of a gigantic army, which carries out a mathematically precise maneuver over hundreds of kilometers and several weeks, threatened not only complete failure, no. The offensive “only” dragged on, the French had a chance to catch their breath, organize a front, and... Germany found itself in a strategically losing situation.

Need I say that this is exactly what happened? The Germans were able to advance deep into enemy territory, but they failed to either capture Paris or encircle and defeat the enemy. The counter-offensive organized by the French - the “miracle on the Marne” (the Russians also helped, rushing into Prussia in an unprepared disastrous offensive) showed with all clarity: the war will not end quickly.

Ultimately, responsibility for the failure was laid on Schlieffen's successor, Helmuth von Moltke the Younger, who resigned. But the plan was impossible in principle! Moreover, as the subsequent four and a half years of fighting on Western Front, distinguished by fantastic tenacity and no less fantastic futility, the much more modest plans of both sides were also unfulfillable...

Even before the war, the story “The Sense of Harmony” appeared in print and immediately became famous in military circles. His hero, a certain general, clearly based on the famous war theorist, Field Marshal Moltke, prepared such a precise battle plan that, not considering it necessary to follow the battle itself, he went fishing. The detailed development of maneuvers became a real mania for military leaders during the First World War. The task for the English 13th Corps alone at the Battle of the Somme was 31 pages long (and, of course, was not completed). Meanwhile, a hundred years earlier, the entire British army, entering the battle of Waterloo, had no written disposition at all. Commanding millions of soldiers, the commanders found themselves both physically and psychologically farther from real battles than in any previous war. As a result, the “General Staff” level of strategic thinking and the level of execution on the front line existed as if in different universes. Planning operations in such conditions could not help but turn into a self-sufficient function divorced from reality. The very technology of war, especially on the Western Front, excluded the possibility of a breakthrough, a decisive battle, a deep breakthrough, selfless feat and, ultimately, any tangible victory.

"All Quiet on the Western Front"

After the failure of both the “Schliefen Plan” and the French attempts to quickly capture Alsace-Lorraine, the Western Front was completely stabilized. The opponents created a deeply layered defense of many rows of full-profile trenches, barbed wire, ditches, concrete machine gun and artillery nests. The enormous concentration of manpower and firepower made a surprise attack henceforth unrealistic. However, even before that it became clear that the murderous fire of machine guns made the standard tactics of a frontal attack with scattered chains meaningless (not to mention the dashing raids of the cavalry - this once most important branch of the army turned out to be absolutely unnecessary).

Many career officers, brought up in the “old” spirit, that is, who considered it a disgrace to “bow to bullets” and put on white gloves before battle (this is not a metaphor!), laid down their heads already in the first weeks of the war. In the full sense of the word, the old military aesthetics, which required elite units to stand out with the bright colors of their uniforms, also turned out to be deadly. Rejected at the beginning of the century by Germany and Britain, it was preserved by 1914 in the French army. So it is no coincidence that during the First World War, with its psychology of “burrowing into the ground,” it was the French cubist artist Lucien Guirand de Sevol who came up with camouflage mesh and coloring as a way to merge military objects with the surrounding space. Mimicry became a condition for survival.

But the level of losses in the active army quickly exceeded all imaginable expectations. For the French, British and Russians, who immediately threw the most trained, experienced units into the fire, the first year in this sense became fatal: professional troops virtually ceased to exist. But was the opposite decision less tragic? In the fall of 1914, the Germans sent divisions hastily formed from student volunteers into battle near Ypres, Belgium. Almost all of them, singing into the attack under the aimed fire of the British, died senselessly, due to which Germany lost the intellectual future of the nation (this episode received the name, not without black humor, “the Ypres massacre of the infants”).

During the first two campaigns, the opponents developed some common combat tactics through trial and error. Artillery and manpower were concentrated on the section of the front chosen for the offensive. The attack was inevitably preceded by many hours (sometimes many days) of artillery preparation, designed to destroy all living things in the enemy trenches. Fire adjustments were carried out from airplanes and balloons. Then the artillery began to work on more distant targets, moving behind the enemy’s first line of defense in order to cut off the escape routes for the survivors and, on the contrary, for the reserve units, the approach. Against this background, the attack began. As a rule, it was possible to “push” the front for several kilometers, but later the onslaught (no matter how well it was prepared) fizzled out. The defending side brought up new forces and launched a counterattack, with more or less success recapturing the given spans of land.

For example, the so-called “first battle in Champagne” at the beginning of 1915 cost the advancing French army 240 thousand soldiers, but led to the capture of only a few villages... But this turned out to be not the worst compared to the year 1916, when The largest battles unfolded in the west. The first half of the year was marked by the German offensive near Verdun. “The Germans,” wrote General Henri Pétain, the future head of the collaborationist government during the Nazi occupation, “tried to create a death zone in which not a single unit could hold out. Clouds of steel, cast iron, shrapnel and poisonous gases opened up over our forests, ravines, trenches and shelters, destroying literally everything...” At the cost of incredible efforts, the attackers managed to achieve some successes. However, the advance of 5-8 kilometers due to the persistent resistance of the French cost the German army such colossal losses that the offensive fizzled out. Verdun was never taken, and by the end of the year the original front had been almost completely restored. On both sides, losses amounted to about a million people.

The Entente offensive on the Somme River, similar in scale and results, began on July 1, 1916. Its very first day became “black” for the British army: almost 20 thousand killed, about 30 thousand wounded at the “mouth” of the attack, only 20 kilometers wide. "Somme" became a household name for horror and despair.

The list of fantastic, incredible “effort-to-result” operations can be continued for a long time. It is difficult for both historians and the average reader to fully understand the reasons for the blind persistence with which the headquarters, each time hoping for a decisive victory, carefully planned the next “meat grinder.” Yes, the already mentioned gap between the headquarters and the front and the stalemate strategic situation played a role, when two huge armies rested against each other and the commanders had no choice but to try to move forward again and again. But it was easy to grasp a mystical meaning in what was happening on the Western Front: the familiar and familiar world was methodically destroying itself.

The resilience of the soldiers is amazing, which allowed the opponents, practically without moving, to exhaust each other for four and a half years. But is it any wonder that the combination of external rationality and the deep senselessness of what was happening undermined people’s faith in the very foundations of their lives? On the Western Front, centuries of European civilization were compressed and ground - this idea was expressed by the hero of an essay written by a representative of that same “military” generation that Gertrude Stein called “lost”: “You see the river - no more than two minutes walk from here? So, it took the British a month to get there. The whole empire moved forward, advancing several inches per day: those who were in the front ranks fell, their places were taken by those behind. And the other empire retreated just as slowly, and only the dead remained lying in countless piles of bloody rags. This will never happen again in the life of our generation, not a single European people will dare to do this..."

It is worth noting that these lines from the novel Tender is the Night by Francis Scott Fitzgerald were published in 1934, just five years before the start of a new grandiose massacre. True, civilization “learned” a lot, and World War II developed incomparably more dynamically.

Saving madness?

The terrible confrontation was a challenge not only to the entire headquarters strategy and tactics of past times, which turned out to be mechanistic and inflexible. It became a catastrophic existential and mental test for millions of people, most of whom grew up in a relatively comfortable, cozy and “humane” world. In an interesting study of front-line neuroses, the English psychiatrist William Rivers found that of all branches of the military, pilots experienced the least stress in this sense, and observers who adjusted fire from stationary balloons over the front line experienced the greatest stress. Among the latter, forced to passively wait for a bullet or shell to hit, attacks of madness occurred much more often than physical injuries. But all the infantrymen of the First World War, according to Henri Barbusse, inevitably turned into “waiting machines”! At the same time, they were not waiting for a return home, which seemed distant and unreal, but, in fact, death.

What drove us crazy - in the literal sense - was not the bayonet attacks and single combats (they often seemed like deliverance), but the hours-long artillery shelling, during which several tons of shells were sometimes fired per linear meter of the front line. “First of all, what puts pressure on the consciousness is... the weight of a falling projectile. A monstrous creature is rushing towards us, so heavy that its very flight presses us into the mud,” wrote one of the participants in the events. And here is another episode relating to the last desperate effort of the Germans to break the resistance of the Entente - to their spring offensive of 1918. As part of one of the defending British brigades, the 7th Battalion was in reserve. The official chronicle of this brigade drily narrates: “At about 4.40 in the morning, enemy shelling began... Rear positions that had not been shelled before were subjected to it. From that moment on, nothing was known about the 7th Battalion." It was completely destroyed, as was the 8th, which was on the front line.

The normal reaction to danger, psychiatrists say, is aggression. Deprived of the opportunity to manifest it, people passively waiting, waiting and waiting for death broke down and lost all interest in reality. In addition, adversaries introduced new, increasingly sophisticated methods of intimidation. Let's say combat gases. In the spring of 1915, the German command resorted to the large-scale use of toxic substances. On April 22, at 5 p.m., 180 tons of chlorine were released into the position of the 5th British Corps in a few minutes. Following the yellowish cloud spreading over the ground, German infantrymen cautiously moved into the attack. Another eyewitness testifies to what was happening in the trenches of their enemy: “First surprise, then horror and finally panic gripped the troops when the first clouds of smoke enveloped the entire area and forced people, gasping for breath, to struggle in agony. Those who could move fled, trying, mostly in vain, to outrun the cloud of chlorine that pursued them inexorably.” The British positions fell without a single shot being fired - a rare occurrence in the First World War.

However, by and large, nothing could disrupt the established pattern of military operations. It turned out that the German command was simply not ready to build on the success achieved in such an inhumane way. There was not even a serious attempt to introduce large forces into the resulting “window” and turn the chemical “experiment” into victory. And the allies quickly replaced the destroyed divisions, as soon as the chlorine dissipated, with new ones, and everything remained the same. However, later both sides used chemical weapons more than once or twice.

"Brave New World"

On November 20, 1917, at 6 o’clock in the morning, German soldiers, “bored” in the trenches near Cambrai, saw a fantastic picture. Dozens of terrifying machines slowly crawled towards their positions. This is how the entire then British mechanized corps went on the attack for the first time: 378 combat and 98 auxiliary tanks - 30-ton diamond-shaped monsters. After 10 hours the battle ended. The success, according to current ideas about tank raids, is simply insignificant, but by the standards of the First World War it turned out to be amazing: the British, under the guise of “weapons of the future,” managed to advance 10 kilometers, losing “only” one and a half thousand soldiers. True, during the battle 280 vehicles failed, including 220 due to technical reasons.

It seemed that a way to win trench warfare had finally been found. However, the events at Cambrai became more of a herald of the future than a breakthrough in the present. Clumsy, slow, unreliable and vulnerable, the first armored vehicles nevertheless seemed to indicate the traditional technical superiority of the Entente. The Germans only came into service with them in 1918, and they were counted in just a few.

The bombing of cities from airplanes and airships made an equally strong impression on contemporaries. During the war, several thousand civilians suffered from air raids. In terms of firepower, the then aviation could not be compared with artillery, but psychologically the appearance of German aircraft, for example, over London meant that the previous division into the “warring front” and the “safe rear” was becoming a thing of the past.

Finally, the third technical innovation - submarines - played a truly enormous role in World War I. Back in 1912-1913, naval strategists of all powers agreed that the main role in future confrontation on the ocean would be played by huge battleships - dreadnought battleships. Moreover, in the arms race, which exhausted the leaders of the world economy for several decades, the lion's share was accounted for by naval expenditures. Dreadnoughts and heavy cruisers symbolized imperial power: it was believed that a state claiming a place “on Olympus” was obliged to show the world strings of colossal floating fortresses.

Meanwhile, the first months of the war showed that the real significance of these giants was limited to the sphere of propaganda. And the pre-war concept was buried by the inconspicuous “water striders”, which the admiralty refused to take seriously for a long time. Already on September 22, 1914, the German submarine U-9, which entered the North Sea with the task of preventing the movement of ships from England to Belgium, discovered several large enemy ships on the horizon. Having approached them, within an hour she easily sent the cruisers Crecy, Abukir and Hog to the bottom. A submarine with a crew of 28 people destroyed three “giants” with 1,459 sailors on board - almost the same number of British killed in the famous Battle of Trafalgar!

It can be said that the Germans began the deep-sea war as an act of desperation: it was not possible to come up with a different tactic to combat His Majesty’s powerful fleet, which completely blocked the sea routes. Already on February 4, 1915, Wilhelm II announced his intention to destroy not only military, but also commercial and even passenger ships of the Entente countries. This decision turned out to be fatal for Germany, since one of its immediate consequences was the entry of the United States into the war. The most notorious victim of this kind was the famous Lusitania, a huge steamer that sailed from New York to Liverpool and was sunk off the coast of Ireland on May 7 of the same year. 1,198 people were killed, including 115 citizens of the neutral United States, which caused a storm of indignation in America. A weak excuse for Germany was the fact that the ship was also carrying military cargo. (It is worth noting that there is a version in the spirit of “conspiracy theory”: the British, they say, themselves “framed” the Lusitania in order to drag the United States into the war.)

A scandal erupted in the neutral world, and for the time being Berlin “reversed” and abandoned brutal forms of warfare at sea. But this issue was again on the agenda when the leadership of the armed forces passed to Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff - the “hawks of total war”. Hoping, with the help of submarines, the production of which was increasing at a gigantic pace, to completely interrupt the communication of England and France with America and the colonies, they convinced their emperor to again proclaim February 1, 1917 - on the ocean he no longer intended to restrain his sailors with anything.

This fact played a role: perhaps because of it - from a purely military point of view, in any case - it was defeated. The Americans finally entered the war, finally changing the balance of power in favor of the Entente. The Germans did not receive the expected dividends. The losses of the Allied merchant fleet were truly enormous at first, but gradually they were significantly reduced by developing anti-submarine measures - for example, the “convoy” naval formation, so effective already in World War II.

War in numbers During the war, more than 73 million people, including: 4 million- fought in regular armies and navies 5 million- signed up as volunteers 50 million- were in reserve 14 million- recruits and untrained in units at the fronts The number of submarines in the world increased between 1914 and 1918 from 163 to 669 units; aircraft - from 1.5 thousand to 182 thousand units During the same period produced 150 thousand tons toxic substances; spent in combat - 110 thousand tons More than 1,200 thousand people; of them died 91 thousand The total line of trenches during the hostilities amounted to 40 thousand km Destroyed 6 thousand ships with total tonnage 13.3 million tons; including 1.6 thousand combat and auxiliary ships Combat consumption of shells and bullets, respectively: 1 billion and 50 billion pieces By the end of the war, the following remained in the active armies: 10,376 thousand people - among the Entente countries (excluding Russia) 6,801 thousand- in the countries of the Central Bloc

"Weak Link"

By a strange irony of history, the erroneous step that caused US intervention was made literally on the eve of the February Revolution in Russia, which led to the rapid disintegration of the Russian army and ultimately the fall of Eastern Front, which again restored Germany's hope for success. What role did the First World War play in national history, would the country have had a chance to avoid revolution if not for it? Naturally, it is impossible to answer this question mathematically accurately. But in general, it is obvious: it was this conflict that became the test that broke the three-hundred-year-old Romanov monarchy, as a little later - the Hohenzollern and Austro-Hungarian Habsburg monarchies. But why are we first on this list?

“Fate has never been as cruel to any country as to Russia. Her ship sank when the harbor was already in sight. She had already weathered the storm when everything collapsed. All the sacrifices have already been made, all the work has been completed...According to the superficial fashion of our time, the royal system is usually interpreted as a blind, rotten tyranny, incapable of anything. But an analysis of the thirty months of war with Germany and Austria should have corrected these facile ideas. We can measure the strength of the Russian Empire by the blows it suffered, by the disasters it survived, by the inexhaustible forces it developed, and by the restoration of strength of which it was capable... With victory already in its hands, it fell to the earth alive, like ancient Herod, devoured by worms,” these words belong to a man who was never a fan of Russia - Sir Winston Churchill. The future prime minister already understood then that the Russian catastrophe was not directly caused by military defeats. The “worms” really undermined the state from within. But internal weakness and exhaustion after two and a half years of heavy fighting, for which it turned out to be much worse prepared than others, were obvious to any unbiased observer. Meanwhile, Great Britain and France stubbornly tried not to notice the difficulties of their ally. The Eastern Front, in their opinion, should only have distracted as many enemy forces as possible, while the fate of the war was decided in the west. Perhaps this was the case, but such an approach could not inspire millions of Russians who fought. It is not surprising that in Russia they began to say bitterly that “the allies are ready to fight until the last drop of blood of a Russian soldier.”

The most difficult campaign for the country was the 1915 campaign, when the Germans decided that, since the blitzkrieg in the west had failed, all forces should be thrown to the east. Just at this time Russian army experienced a catastrophic shortage of ammunition (pre-war calculations turned out to be hundreds of times lower than actual needs), and they had to defend themselves and retreat, counting every cartridge and paying in blood for failures in planning and supply. The defeats (and it was especially difficult in battles with a well-organized and trained German army, not with the Turks or Austrians) were blamed not only on the allies, but also on the incompetent command, the mythical traitors “at the very top” - the opposition constantly played on this theme; "unlucky" king. By 1917, largely under the influence of socialist propaganda, the idea was widespread among the troops that the massacre was beneficial to the propertied classes, the “bourgeois,” and they were deliberately prolonging it. Many observers noted a paradoxical phenomenon: disappointment and pessimism grew with distance from the front line, especially affecting the rear units.

Economic and social weakness immeasurably increased the inevitable hardships that fell on the shoulders of ordinary people. They lost hope of victory earlier than many other warring nations. And the terrible tension required a level of civil unity that was hopelessly absent in Russia at that time. The powerful patriotic impulse that swept the country in 1914 turned out to be superficial and short-lived, and the “educated” classes, much less than the elites of Western countries, sought to sacrifice their lives and even their well-being for the sake of victory. For the people, the goals of the war, in general, remained distant and incomprehensible...

Churchill's later assessments should not be misleading: the Allies perceived the February 1917 events with great enthusiasm. It seemed to many in liberal countries that, having “thrown off the yoke of autocracy,” Russians would begin to defend their newfound freedom even more zealously. In fact, the Provisional Government, as we know, was unable to establish even a semblance of control over the state of affairs. The “democratization” of the army turned into its collapse under conditions of general fatigue. “Keeping the front”, as Churchill advised, would only mean accelerating disintegration. Tangible successes could stop this process. However, the desperate summer offensive of 1917 failed, and from then on it became clear to many: the Eastern Front was doomed. It finally collapsed after the October revolution. The new Bolshevik government could only stay in power by ending the war at any cost - and it paid this incredibly high price. Under the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918, Russia lost Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, Ukraine and part of Belarus - about 1/4 of the population, 1/4 of arable land and 3/4 of the coal and metallurgical industries. True, less than a year had passed since the defeat of Germany, these conditions ceased to apply, and the nightmare of the world war was surpassed by the nightmare of the civil war. But it is also true that without the first there would be no second.

Respite between wars?

Having the opportunity to strengthen the Western Front with units transferred from the east, the Germans prepared and carried out a whole series of powerful operations in the spring and summer of 1918: in Picardy, in Flanders, on the Aisne and Oise rivers. In fact, this was the last chance of the Central Bloc (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey): its resources were completely depleted. However, this time the successes achieved did not lead to a turning point. “The enemy resistance turned out to be higher than the level of our forces,” Ludendorff stated. The last of the desperate strikes - on the Marne, as in 1914, completely failed. And on August 8, a decisive Allied counteroffensive began with the active participation of fresh American units. At the end of September the German front finally collapsed. At the same time, Bulgaria capitulated. The Austrians and Turks had long been on the brink of disaster and were held back from concluding a separate peace only under pressure from their stronger ally.

This victory was expected for a long time (and it is worth noting that the Entente, out of habit of exaggerating the enemy’s strength, did not plan to achieve it so quickly). On October 5, the German government turned to US President Woodrow Wilson, who had repeatedly spoken in a peacekeeping spirit, with a request for a truce. However, the Entente no longer needed peace, but complete surrender. And only on November 8, after a revolution broke out in Germany and Wilhelm abdicated, the German delegation was allowed into the headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief of the Entente, French Marshal Ferdinand Foch.

What do you want, gentlemen? - Foch asked without shaking his hand.
- We want to receive your proposals for a truce.
- Oh, we have no proposals for a truce. We like to continue the war.
- But we need your conditions. We cannot continue to fight.
- Oh, so you came to ask for a truce? This is another matter.

World War I officially ended 3 days later, on November 11, 1918. At 11 o'clock GMT, 101 gun salutes were fired in the capitals of all Entente countries. For millions of people, these volleys meant a long-awaited victory, but many even then were ready to recognize them as a mournful remembrance of the lost Old World.

Chronology of the war All dates are given in the Gregorian (“new”) style June 28, 1914 Bosnian Serb Gavrilo Princip kills the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife in Sarajevo. Austria issues ultimatum to Serbia August 1, 1914 Germany declares war on Russia, which stands up for Serbia. Start of World War August 4, 1914 German troops invade Belgium September 5-10, 1914 Battle of the Marne. By the end of the battle, the parties switched to trench warfare September 6-15, 1914 Battle in the Masurian swamps (East Prussia). Heavy defeat of Russian troops September 8-12, 1914 Russian troops occupy Lviv, the fourth largest city of Austria-Hungary September 17 - October 18, 1914"Run to the Sea" - Allied and German troops try to outflank each other. As a result, the Western Front stretches from the North Sea through Belgium and France to Switzerland October 12 - November 11, 1914 The Germans try to break through the Allied defenses at Ypres (Belgium) February 4, 1915 Germany announces underwater blockade of England and Ireland April 22, 1915 Near the town of Langemarck on Ypres, German troops use poison gas for the first time: the second Battle of Ypres begins May 2, 1915 Austro-German troops break through the Russian front in Galicia (“Gorlitsky breakthrough”) May 23, 1915 Italy enters the war on the side of the Entente June 23, 1915 Russian troops leave Lviv August 5, 1915 The Germans take Warsaw September 6, 1915 On the Eastern Front, Russian troops stop the advance of German troops near Ternopil. The parties switch to trench warfare February 21, 1916 The Battle of Verdun begins May 31 - June 1, 1916 Battle of Jutland in the North Sea - main battle navies of Germany and England June 4 - August 10, 1916 Brusilovsky breakthrough July 1 - November 19, 1916 Battle of the Somme August 30, 1916 Hindenburg is appointed Chief of the General Staff of the German Army. The beginning of "total war" September 15, 1916 During the Somme offensive, Great Britain used tanks for the first time December 20, 1916 US President Woodrow Wilson sends a note to the war participants with a proposal to begin peace negotiations February 1, 1917 Germany announces the start of an all-out submarine war March 14, 1917 In Russia, during the outbreak of the revolution, the Petrograd Soviet issues order No. 1, which marked the beginning of the “democratization” of the army April 6, 1917 USA declares war on Germany June 16 - July 15, 1917 The unsuccessful Russian offensive in Galicia, launched on the orders of A.F. Kerensky under the command of A.A. Brusilova November 7, 1917 Bolshevik coup in Petrograd November 8, 1917 Decree on Peace in Russia March 3, 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk June 9-13, 1918 The advance of the German army near Compiegne August 8, 1918 The Allies launch a decisive offensive on the Western Front November 3, 1918 The beginning of the revolution in Germany November 11, 1918 Truce of Compiègne November 9, 1918 A republic is declared in Germany November 12, 1918 Emperor Charles I of Austria-Hungary abdicates the throne June 28, 1919 German representatives sign a peace treaty (Treaty of Versailles) in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles near Paris

Peace or truce

“This is not peace. This is a truce for twenty years,” Foch prophetically characterized the Treaty of Versailles concluded in June 1919, which secured the military triumph of the Entente and instilled in the souls of millions of Germans a feeling of humiliation and a thirst for revenge. In many ways, Versailles became a tribute to the diplomacy of a bygone era, when wars still had undoubted winners and losers, and the ends justified the means. Many European politicians stubbornly refused to fully understand: in 4 years, 3 months and 10 days great war the world has changed beyond recognition.

Meanwhile, even before the signing of peace, the ending massacre caused a chain reaction of cataclysms of varying scale and strength. The fall of autocracy in Russia, instead of becoming a triumph of democracy over “despotism,” led it to chaos, Civil War and the emergence of a new, socialist despotism, which frightened the Western bourgeoisie with “world revolution” and “destruction of the exploiting classes.” The Russian example turned out to be contagious: against the background of the deep shock of people by the past nightmare, uprisings broke out in Germany and Hungary, communist sentiments gripped millions of people in completely liberal “respectable” powers. In turn, trying to prevent the spread of “barbarism,” Western politicians hastened to rely on nationalist movements, which seemed to them more manageable. The collapse of the Russian and then the Austro-Hungarian empires caused a veritable “parade of sovereignties”, and the leaders of the young nation-states demonstrated the same hostility towards both the pre-war “oppressors” and the communists. However, the idea of ​​such absolute self-determination, in turn, turned out to be a time bomb.

Of course, many in the West recognized the need for a serious revision of the world order, taking into account the lessons of the war and the new reality. However, good wishes too often only covered up selfishness and a short-sighted reliance on power. Immediately after Versailles, President Wilson's closest adviser, Colonel House, noted: "In my opinion, this is not in the spirit of the new era that we swore to create." However, Wilson himself, one of the main “architects” of the League of Nations and laureate Nobel Prize world, found himself hostage to the old political mentality. Like other gray-haired elders - leaders of victorious countries - he was inclined to simply not notice much that did not fit into his usual picture of the world. As a result, the attempt to comfortably arrange the post-war world, giving everyone what they deserved and re-affirming the hegemony of “civilized countries” over “backward and barbaric” ones, completely failed. Of course, in the camp of the victors there were also supporters of an even tougher line against the vanquished. Their point of view did not prevail, and thank God. It is safe to say: any attempts to establish an occupation regime in Germany would be fraught with great political complications for the Allies. Not only would they not have prevented the growth of revanchism, but, on the contrary, they would have sharply accelerated it. By the way, one of the consequences of this approach was a temporary rapprochement between Germany and Russia, which were excluded by the allies from the system international relations. And in the long term, the triumph of aggressive isolationism in both countries, the aggravation of numerous social and national conflicts in Europe as a whole, brought the world to a new, even more terrible war.

Of course, other consequences of the First World War were also colossal: demographic, economic, cultural. Direct losses of nations that were directly involved in the hostilities amounted, according to various estimates, from 8 to 15.7 million people, indirect (taking into account the sharp drop in the birth rate and the increase in mortality from hunger and disease) reached 27 million. If we add to them the losses from Civil War in Russia and the famines and epidemics it caused, this number will almost double. Europe was able to regain its pre-war economic level only in 1926-1928, and even then not for long: the global crisis of 1929 completely crippled it. Only for the United States did the war become a profitable enterprise. As for Russia (USSR), then economic development it has become so anomalous that it is simply impossible to adequately judge the overcoming of the consequences of the war here.

Well, millions of those who “happily” returned from the front were never able to fully rehabilitate themselves morally and socially. The “Lost Generation” tried in vain for many years to restore the broken connection of times and find the meaning of life in the new world. And despairing of this, they sent a new generation to a new slaughterhouse - in 1939.

First World War (1914 - 1918)

The Russian Empire collapsed. One of the goals of the war has been achieved.

Chamberlain

The First World War lasted from August 1, 1914 to November 11, 1918. 38 states with a population of 62% of the world took part in it. This war was quite controversial and described extremely contradictorily in modern history. I specifically quoted Chamberlain’s words in the epigraph in order to once again emphasize this inconsistency. A prominent politician in England (Russia's war ally) says that by overthrowing the autocracy in Russia one of the goals of the war has been achieved!

The Balkan countries played a major role in the beginning of the war. They were not independent. Their policies (both foreign and domestic) were greatly influenced by England. Germany had by that time lost its influence in this region, although it controlled Bulgaria for a long time.

• Entente. Russian Empire, France, Great Britain. The allies were the USA, Italy, Romania, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
• Triple Alliance. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire. Later they were joined by the Bulgarian kingdom, and the coalition became known as the “Quadruple Alliance”.

The following took part in the war: large countries: Austria-Hungary (27 July 1914 - 3 November 1918), Germany (1 August 1914 - 11 November 1918), Turkey (29 October 1914 - 30 October 1918), Bulgaria (14 October 1915 - 29 September 1918). Entente countries and allies: Russia (August 1, 1914 - March 3, 1918), France (August 3, 1914), Belgium (August 3, 1914), Great Britain (August 4, 1914), Italy (May 23, 1915), Romania (August 27, 1916) .

One more important point. Initially, Italy was a member of the Triple Alliance. But after the outbreak of World War I, the Italians declared neutrality.

Causes of the First World War

The main reason for the outbreak of the First World War was the desire of the leading powers, primarily England, France and Austria-Hungary, to redistribute the world. The fact is that the colonial system collapsed by the beginning of the 20th century. The leading European countries, which had prospered for years through the exploitation of their colonies, could no longer simply obtain resources by taking them away from Indians, Africans and South Americans. Now resources could only be won from each other. Therefore, contradictions grew:

• Between England and Germany. England sought to prevent Germany from increasing its influence in the Balkans. Germany sought to strengthen itself in the Balkans and the Middle East, and also sought to deprive England of maritime dominance.
• Between Germany and France. France dreamed of regaining the lands of Alsace and Lorraine, which it had lost in the war of 1870-71. France also sought to seize the German Saar coal basin.
• Between Germany and Russia. Germany sought to take Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states from Russia.
• Between Russia and Austria-Hungary. Controversies arose due to the desire of both countries to influence the Balkans, as well as Russia's desire to subjugate the Bosporus and Dardanelles.

The reason for the start of the war

The reason for the outbreak of the First World War was the events in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a member of the Black Hand of the Young Bosnia movement, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Ferdinand was the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, so the resonance of the murder was enormous. This was the pretext for Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia.

The behavior of England is very important here, since Austria-Hungary could not start a war on its own, because this practically guaranteed war throughout Europe. The British at the embassy level convinced Nicholas 2 that Russia should not leave Serbia without help in the event of aggression. But then the entire (I emphasize this) English press wrote that the Serbs were barbarians and Austria-Hungary should not leave the murder of the Archduke unpunished. That is, England did everything to ensure that Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia did not shy away from war.

Important nuances of the casus belli

In all textbooks we are told that the main and only reason for the outbreak of the First World War was the assassination of the Austrian Archduke. At the same time, they forget to say that the next day, June 29, another significant murder took place. The French politician Jean Jaurès, who actively opposed the war and had great influence in France, was killed. A few weeks before the assassination of the Archduke, there was an attempt on the life of Rasputin, who, like Zhores, was an opponent of the war and had great influence on Nicholas 2. I would also like to note some facts from the fate of the main characters of those days:

• Gavrilo Principin. Died in prison in 1918 from tuberculosis.
• The Russian Ambassador to Serbia is Hartley. In 1914 he died at the Austrian embassy in Serbia, where he came for a reception.
• Colonel Apis, leader of the Black Hand. Shot in 1917.
• In 1917, Hartley’s correspondence with Sozonov (the next Russian ambassador to Serbia) disappeared.

This all indicates that in the events of the day there were a lot of black spots that have not yet been revealed. And this is very important to understand.

England's role in starting the war

At the beginning of the 20th century, there were 2 great powers in continental Europe: Germany and Russia. They did not want to openly fight against each other, since their forces were approximately equal. Therefore, in the “July crisis” of 1914, both sides took a wait-and-see approach. Came to the fore English diplomacy. She conveyed her position to Germany through the press and secret diplomacy - in the event of war, England would remain neutral or take Germany's side. Through open diplomacy, Nicholas 2 received the opposite idea that if war broke out, England would take the side of Russia.

It must be clearly understood that one open statement from England that it would not allow war in Europe would be enough for neither Germany nor Russia to even think about anything like that. Naturally, under such conditions, Austria-Hungary would not have dared to attack Serbia. But England, with all its diplomacy, pushed European countries towards war.

Russia before the war

Before the First World War, Russia carried out army reform. In 1907, a reform of the fleet was carried out, and in 1910, a reform of the ground forces. The country increased military spending many times over, and the total peacetime army size was now 2 million. In 1912, Russia adopted a new Field Service Charter. Today it is rightly called the most perfect Charter of its time, since it motivated soldiers and commanders to show personal initiative. Important point! The doctrine of the army of the Russian Empire was offensive.

Despite the fact that there were many positive changes, there were also very serious miscalculations. The main one is the underestimation of the role of artillery in war. As the course of events of the First World War showed, this was a terrible mistake, which clearly showed that at the beginning of the 20th century, Russian generals were seriously behind the times. They lived in the past, when the role of cavalry was important. As a result, 75% of all losses in the First World War were caused by artillery! This is a verdict on the imperial generals.

It is important to note that Russia never completed preparations for war (at the proper level), while Germany completed it in 1914.

The balance of forces and means before and after the war

Artillery

	Number of guns	Of these, heavy guns
Austria-Hungary
Germany

According to the data from the table, it is clear that Germany and Austria-Hungary were many times superior to Russia and France in heavy weapons. Therefore, the balance of power was in favor of the first two countries. Moreover, the Germans, as usual, created an excellent military industry before the war, which produced 250,000 shells daily. By comparison, Britain produced 10,000 shells per month! As they say, feel the difference...

Another example showing the importance of artillery is the battles on the Dunajec Gorlice line (May 1915). In 4 hours, the German army fired 700,000 shells. For comparison, during the entire Franco-Prussian War (1870-71), Germany fired just over 800,000 shells. That is, in 4 hours a little less than during the entire war. The Germans clearly understood that heavy artillery would play a decisive role in the war.

Weapons and military equipment

Production of weapons and equipment during the First World War (thousands of units).

	Strelkovoe	Artillery
Great Britain
TRIPLE ALLIANCE
Germany
Austria-Hungary

This table clearly shows the weakness Russian Empire in terms of equipping the army. In all main indicators, Russia is much inferior to Germany, but also inferior to France and Great Britain. Largely because of this, the war turned out to be so difficult for our country.

Number of people (infantry)

Number of fighting infantry (millions of people).

	At the beginning of the war	By the end of the war	Casualties
Great Britain
TRIPLE ALLIANCE
Germany
Austria-Hungary

The table shows that Great Britain made the smallest contribution to the war, both in terms of combatants and deaths. This is logical, since the British did not really participate in major battles. Another example from this table is instructive. All textbooks tell us that Austria-Hungary, due to large losses, could not fight on its own, and it always needed help from Germany. But notice Austria-Hungary and France in the table. The numbers are identical! Just as Germany had to fight for Austria-Hungary, so Russia had to fight for France (it is no coincidence that the Russian army saved Paris from capitulation three times during the First World War).

The table also shows that in fact the war was between Russia and Germany. Both countries lost 4.3 million killed, while Britain, France and Austria-Hungary together lost 3.5 million. The numbers are eloquent. But it turned out that the countries that fought the most and made the most effort in the war ended up with nothing. First, Russia signed the shameful Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, losing many lands. Then Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles, essentially losing its independence.

Progress of the war

Military events of 1914

July 28 Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia. This entailed the involvement of the countries of the Triple Alliance, on the one hand, and the Entente, on the other hand, into the war.

Russia entered World War I on August 1, 1914. Nikolai Nikolaevich Romanov (Uncle of Nicholas 2) was appointed Supreme Commander-in-Chief.

In the first days of the war, St. Petersburg was renamed Petrograd. Since the war with Germany began, the capital could not have a name of German origin - “burg”.

Historical reference

German "Schlieffen Plan"

Germany found itself under the threat of war on two fronts: Eastern - with Russia, Western - with France. Then the German command developed the “Schlieffen Plan”, according to which Germany should defeat France in 40 days and then fight with Russia. Why 40 days? The Germans believed that this was exactly what Russia would need to mobilize. Therefore, when Russia mobilizes, France will already be out of the game.

On August 2, 1914, Germany captured Luxembourg, on August 4 they invaded Belgium (a neutral country at that time), and by August 20 Germany reached the borders of France. The implementation of the Schlieffen Plan began. Germany advanced deep into France, but on September 5 it was stopped at the Marne River, where a battle took place in which about 2 million people took part on both sides.

Northwestern Front of Russia in 1914

At the beginning of the war, Russia did something stupid that Germany could not calculate. Nicholas 2 decided to enter the war without fully mobilizing the army. On August 4, Russian troops, under the command of Rennenkampf, launched an offensive in East Prussia(modern Kaliningrad). Samsonov's army was equipped to help her. Initially, the troops acted successfully, and Germany was forced to retreat. As a result, part of the forces of the Western Front was transferred to the Eastern Front. The result - Germany repulsed the Russian offensive in East Prussia (the troops acted disorganized and lacked resources), but as a result the Schlieffen plan failed, and France could not be captured. So, Russia saved Paris, albeit by defeating its 1st and 2nd armies. After this, trench warfare began.

Southwestern Front of Russia

On the southwestern front in August-September, Russia undertook offensive operation to Galicia, which was occupied by the troops of Austria-Hungary. The Galician operation was more successful than the offensive in East Prussia. In this battle, Austria-Hungary suffered a catastrophic defeat. 400 thousand people killed, 100 thousand captured. For comparison, the Russian army lost 150 thousand people killed. After this, Austria-Hungary actually left the war, since it had lost the ability to conduct independent actions. Austria was saved from complete defeat only by the help of Germany, which was forced to transfer additional divisions to Galicia.

The main results of the military campaign of 1914

• Germany failed to implement the Schlieffen plan for lightning war.
• No one managed to gain a decisive advantage. The war turned into a positional one.

Map of military events of 1914-15

Military events of 1915

In 1915, Germany decided to shift the main blow to the eastern front, directing all its forces to the war with Russia, which was the weakest country of the Entente, according to the Germans. It was a strategic plan developed by the commander of the Eastern Front, General von Hindenburg. Russia managed to thwart this plan only at the cost of colossal losses, but at the same time, 1915 turned out to be simply terrible for the empire of Nicholas 2.

Situation on the northwestern front

From January to October, Germany waged an active offensive, as a result of which Russia lost Poland, western Ukraine, part of the Baltic states, and western Belarus. Russia went on the defensive. Russian losses were gigantic:

• Killed and wounded - 850 thousand people
• Captured - 900 thousand people

Russia did not capitulate, but the countries of the Triple Alliance were convinced that Russia would no longer be able to recover from the losses it had suffered.

Germany's successes on this sector of the front led to the fact that on October 14, 1915, Bulgaria entered the First World War (on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary).

Situation on the southwestern front

The Germans, together with Austria-Hungary, organized the Gorlitsky breakthrough in the spring of 1915, forcing the entire southwestern front of Russia to retreat. Galicia, which was captured in 1914, was completely lost. Germany was able to achieve this advantage thanks to the terrible mistakes of the Russian command, as well as a significant technical advantage. German superiority in technology reached:

• 2.5 times in machine guns.
• 4.5 times in light artillery.
• 40 times in heavy artillery.

It was not possible to withdraw Russia from the war, but the losses on this section of the front were gigantic: 150 thousand killed, 700 thousand wounded, 900 thousand prisoners and 4 million refugees.

Situation on the Western Front

"Everything is calm on the Western Front." This phrase can describe how the war between Germany and France proceeded in 1915. There were sluggish military operations in which no one sought the initiative. Germany implemented plans in Eastern Europe, and England and France calmly mobilized their economy and army, preparing for further war. No one provided any assistance to Russia, although Nicholas 2 repeatedly turned to France, first of all, so that it would take active action on the Western Front. As usual, no one heard him... By the way, this sluggish war on Germany’s western front was perfectly described by Hemingway in the novel “A Farewell to Arms.”

The main result of 1915 was that Germany was unable to bring Russia out of the war, although all efforts were devoted to this. It became obvious that the First World War would drag on for a long time, since during the 1.5 years of the war no one was able to gain an advantage or strategic initiative.

Military events of 1916

"Verdun Meat Grinder"

In February 1916, Germany launched a general offensive against France with the goal of capturing Paris. For this purpose, a campaign was carried out on Verdun, which covered the approaches to the French capital. The battle lasted until the end of 1916. During this time, 2 million people died, for which the battle was called the “Verdun Meat Grinder”. France survived, but again thanks to the fact that Russia came to its rescue, which became more active on the southwestern front.

Events on the southwestern front in 1916

In May 1916, Russian troops went on the offensive, which lasted 2 months. This offensive went down in history under the name “Brusilovsky breakthrough”. This name is due to the fact that the Russian army was commanded by General Brusilov. The breakthrough of the defense in Bukovina (from Lutsk to Chernivtsi) happened on June 5. The Russian army managed not only to break through the defenses, but also to advance into its depths in some places up to 120 kilometers. The losses of the Germans and Austro-Hungarians were catastrophic. 1.5 million dead, wounded and prisoners. The offensive was stopped only by additional German divisions, which were hastily transferred here from Verdun (France) and from Italy.

This offensive of the Russian army was not without a fly in the ointment. As usual, the allies dropped her off. On August 27, 1916, Romania entered the First World War on the side of the Entente. Germany defeated her very quickly. As a result, Romania lost its army, and Russia received an additional 2 thousand kilometers of front.

Events on the Caucasian and Northwestern fronts

Positional battles continued on the Northwestern Front during the spring-autumn period. As for the Caucasian Front, the main events here lasted from the beginning of 1916 to April. During this time, 2 operations were carried out: Erzurmur and Trebizond. According to their results, Erzurum and Trebizond were conquered, respectively.

The result of 1916 in the First World War

• The strategic initiative passed to the side of the Entente.
• The French fortress of Verdun survived thanks to the offensive of the Russian army.
• Romania entered the war on the side of the Entente.
• Russia carried out a powerful offensive - the Brusilov breakthrough.

Military and political events 1917

The year 1917 in the First World War was marked by the fact that the war continued against the background of the revolutionary situation in Russia and Germany, as well as the deterioration of the economic situation of the countries. Let me give you the example of Russia. During the 3 years of the war, prices for basic products increased on average by 4-4.5 times. Naturally, this caused discontent among the people. Add to this heavy losses and a grueling war - it turns out to be excellent soil for revolutionaries. The situation is similar in Germany.

In 1917, the United States entered the First World War. The position of the Triple Alliance is deteriorating. Germany and its allies cannot effectively fight on 2 fronts, as a result of which it goes on the defensive.

The end of the war for Russia

In the spring of 1917, Germany launched another offensive on the Western Front. Despite the events in Russia, Western countries demanded that the Provisional Government implement the agreements signed by the Empire and send troops on the offensive. As a result, on June 16, the Russian army went on the offensive in the Lvov area. Again, we saved the allies from major battles, but we ourselves were completely exposed.

The Russian army, exhausted by the war and losses, did not want to fight. The issues of food, uniforms and supplies during the war years were never resolved. The army fought reluctantly, but moved forward. The Germans were forced to transfer troops here again, and Russia's Entente allies again isolated themselves, watching what would happen next. On July 6, Germany launched a counteroffensive. As a result, 150,000 Russian soldiers died. The army virtually ceased to exist. The front fell apart. Russia could no longer fight, and this catastrophe was inevitable.

People demanded Russia's withdrawal from the war. And this was one of their main demands from the Bolsheviks, who seized power in October 1917. Initially, at the 2nd Party Congress, the Bolsheviks signed the decree “On Peace,” essentially proclaiming Russia’s exit from the war, and on March 3, 1918, they signed the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty. The conditions of this world were as follows:

• Russia makes peace with Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey.
• Russia is losing Poland, Ukraine, Finland, part of Belarus and the Baltic states.
• Russia cedes Batum, Kars and Ardagan to Turkey.

As a result of its participation in the First World War, Russia lost: about 1 million square meters territory, approximately 1/4 of the population, 1/4 of arable land and 3/4 of the coal and metallurgical industries were lost.

Historical reference

Events in the war in 1918

Germany got rid of the Eastern Front and the need to wage war on two fronts. As a result, in the spring and summer of 1918, she attempted an offensive on the Western Front, but this offensive had no success. Moreover, as it progressed, it became obvious that Germany was getting the most out of itself, and that it needed a break in the war.

Autumn 1918

The decisive events in the First World War took place in the fall. The Entente countries, together with the United States, went on the offensive. German army was completely driven out of France and Belgium. In October, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria concluded a truce with the Entente, and Germany was left to fight alone. Her situation was hopeless after the German allies in the Triple Alliance essentially capitulated. This resulted in the same thing that happened in Russia - a revolution. On November 9, 1918, Emperor Wilhelm II was overthrown.

End of the First World War

On November 11, 1918, the First World War of 1914-1918 ended. Germany signed a complete surrender. It happened near Paris, in the Compiègne forest, at the Retonde station. The surrender was accepted by the French Marshal Foch. The terms of the signed peace were as follows:

• Germany admits complete defeat in the war.
• The return of the province of Alsace and Lorraine to France to the borders of 1870, as well as the transfer of the Saar coal basin.
• Germany lost all its colonial possessions, and was also obliged to transfer 1/8 of its territory to its geographical neighbors.
• For 15 years, Entente troops were on the left bank of the Rhine.
• By May 1, 1921, Germany had to pay members of the Entente (Russia was not entitled to anything) 20 billion marks in gold, goods, securities, etc.
• Germany must pay reparations for 30 years, and the amount of these reparations is determined by the winners themselves and can be increased at any time during these 30 years.
• Germany was prohibited from having an army of more than 100 thousand people, and the army had to be exclusively voluntary.

The terms of the “peace” were so humiliating for Germany that the country actually became a puppet. Therefore, many people of that time said that although the First World War ended, it did not end in peace, but in a truce for 30 years. That’s how it ultimately turned out...

Results of the First World War

The First World War was fought on the territory of 14 states. Countries took part in it, with total number population of more than 1 billion people (this is approximately 62% of the entire world population at that time). In total, the participating countries mobilized 74 million people, of whom 10 million died and another 20 million were injured.

As a result of the war, the political map of Europe changed significantly. Such independent states as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Albania appeared. Austria-Hungary split into Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Romania, Greece, France, and Italy have increased their borders. There were 5 countries that lost and lost territory: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey and Russia.

Map of the First World War 1914-1918

It is recommended to check the materials in this paragraph using a home test, the questions of which cover all parts of the paragraph and relate not only to facts, but also to an understanding of the ongoing processes in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America:

1. The First World War: a) did not affect the development of countries outside Europe and the USA; b) led to the collapse of the colonial system; c) largely influenced the development of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

2. Find the incorrect statement: a) the peoples of Asia and Africa took part in hostilities; b) the peoples of Latin America took an active part in the hostilities; c) residents of dependent countries provided for the needs of the armies of their metropolises.

3. During the First World War, colonial regimes: a) remained unchanged; b) sharply intensified; c) temporarily weakened.

4. The mandate system created at the Paris Conference actually proclaimed: a) the destruction of colonial oppression; b) equal rights of former colonies in resolving issues of world politics; c) maintaining the dependence of Asian and African countries on developed countries.

5. In the 20-30s. the struggle for the independence of the countries of Asia and Africa was carried out: a) by armed means; b) peacefully; c) in both forms.

6. The influential force helping the countries of Asia and Africa in the struggle for independence was: a) the USA (the goal is to increase influence in the world); b) League of Nations (the goal is the struggle for lasting peace); c) Soviet Russia (the goal is to unleash a “world revolution”).

7. Crisis of 1929-1933 and the Great Depression: a) intensified the struggle for independence in Asian and African countries; b) made the countries of Asia and Africa more submissive to their metropolises; c) contributed to the establishment political union between colonies and metropolises.

9. The slogan “Asia for Asians,” put forward by Japan, in fact meant: a) the creation of a military alliance of all Asian countries; b) termination of all economic and diplomatic contacts with European countries; c) the development of Asian peoples under Japanese control.

10. In the 30s. foreign policy Japan was aimed at: a) territorial conquests and increasing influence in the world; b) for development diplomatic relations with leading European powers and the United States; c) to strict self-isolation from the outside world.

11. By the end of the 30s. Japan planned a struggle for dominance in the area: a) the Balkan Peninsula; b) the Pacific Ocean; c) Africa.

12. The Communist Party of China was created: a) in 1921; b) in 1925; c) in 1929

13. Leader Communist Party China became: a) Sun Yat-sen; b) Mao Zedong; c) Chiang Kai-shek.

14. In domestic policy, Chiang Kai-shek’s government pursued: a) strict government regulation; b) Europeanization of culture and life; c) broad development of democracy.

15. In the 20-30s. India: a) became an independent state; b) became a colony of the United States; c) remained a colony of Great Britain.

16. The basis of the teachings of Gandhism in India was: a) the inclusion of India into Great Britain on the basis of equality; b) achieving Indian independence through non-violent resistance to the colonial British administration; c) achieving Indian independence through an armed uprising against the British administration.

17. The main force of the national liberation struggle in India was: a) The Communist Union of India; b) Social Democratic Party; c) Indian National Congress.

18. The policy of nonviolent protest did not include: a) boycott of British goods; b) tax evasion; c) emigration to Europe.

19. A new constitution was adopted in Turkey: a) in 1920; b) in 1924; c) in 1928

20. In the 20-30s. in Turkey there was: a) the formation of a secular state; b) development of religious authority; c) strengthening the monarchy.

21. The main ideological principles of Kemal do not include: a) nationalism and nationality; b) religious fanaticism and traditionalism; c) republicanism and revolutionism.

22. One of unresolved issues domestic policy in Turkey there remained: a) the question of the form of power; b) environmental issue; c) the national question.

23. Features of the political development of Latin American countries in the 20-30s. were: a) the development of authoritarian and military regimes; b) development of democratic regimes; c) development of all types of regimes.

24. The population of African countries in the 20-30s: a) continued to remain dependent and powerless; b) won for itself basic democratic rights; c) won the right to create trade unions.