Download "Серия 43. Могла ли Россия победить в Крымской войне? И другие ответы на ваши вопросы по истории"
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FRV4AXHuGudg%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
Table of contents
Audio from this video
Video tags
Subtitles
Russian
00:00:08
The officers were afraid to accept awards from Paul so as not to arouse the Empress’ jealousy.00:00:13
You see, there is a kind of a small medallion inlaid in the hilt of this sword - this is a military order.00:00:22
"These people are thieves and runaways - we are not responsible for them." In Constantinople, the Sultan only gritted his teeth as he realised that he was being fooled, but could do nothing.00:00:34
How many tons of gold had we sent there, dozens of tons.00:00:38
They gave away the entire Kars region to Turkey, including the great Armenian Mount Ararat. What for? All sorts of reasons are being stated.00:00:51
As for the Realpolitik, in our case real foreign policy, then you need to understand that isolation is always bad for a country. Alexander III decided to make an alliance with France.00:01:08
Our Emperor and German Kaiser Wilhelm II, Uncle Willie, were relatives. But by and large, what was the alternative?00:01:13
Salavat Yulaev and his father defended the truth as they understood it.00:01:18
Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
Questions & Answers on the military history. Part I00:01:32
Good afternoon, dear viewers, subscribers of Dostoevsky Lecture Hall, radio listeners and all those for whose sake we make our historical broadcasts. According to the standing tradition, we have recorded several programmes dedicated to answering your questions that you ask through letters to Culture TV channel, and as I have already noted, it is very touching to receive letters on paper as it often seems to me that people no longer write them, but no, they do, and they write engagingly, competently and clearly. We also receive questions through my Telegram channel, Vladimir Medinsky, YouTube, Rutube, VKontakte, etc., so thank you all. 00:02:15
This collection of questions will be devoted not just to the history of Russia, but to its military history. It just so happens that this is my hobby, and I have been lucky enough to work for many years at the Russian Military History Society, where we are engaged in various projects. We have good history experts working with us and I hope that the answers that we have prepared for you together will be interesting for both men and our beloved ladies, especially since there are a lot of them among our audience.00:02:48
So, where possible, I shall name the author of the question; the first question is from Dmitry: "I have heard that Russia and Turkey have waged war against each other 27 times, is that so?"00:03:02
Mmm... 27 times - here, as one of my assistants says, it depends on how you count. The situation is as follows: the last Russian-Turkish war happened at the beginning of the 20th century, and this, in fact, was part of the First World War. Prior to that, until the end of the 19th century, if we take only major wars, Russia fought the Ottoman Empire as many as 10 times. And if we add to this the campaigns of Russian troops against the Crimean Khan, as for example occurred under Ivan the Terrible, then perhaps we can add one or two campaigns to this number and get a total of 12 times.00:03:49
Where did this mind-boggling figure 27 come from, which, I'm sure, also has merit? I think that if you wish, you can count more if you add all the clashes with the Crimean Khanate here. The fact is that when the Grand Duke of Moscow, Ivan III ruled, it was around these years, in 1475 to be precise, that the Turkish Sultan Mehmed II’s troops captured the southern coast of Crimea and the fortress of Kaffa (this is today's Feodosia). Thus, the Crimean Khan turned into a vassal of the Ottoman Empire.00:04:34
And since that time, all the raids of the Crimeans on Russian lands with the clear purpose of plundering and taking prisoners in order to sell them into slavery in the markets of Constantinople can be formally called Russo-Turkish wars. However, I would be careful in doing this, because our government, repelling the Crimean raids, never considered itself at war with the Ottoman Empire. Yes, we fought with the Crimeans, but in the meantime, our ambassadors in Constantinople conducted routine diplomatic work, which consisted of bribing the sultan's officials, as well as persuading the Sultan himself to somehow restrain his arrogant vassal, the Crimean Khan. 00:05:24
Of course, as a rule, the Sultan took our side and kept promising to sort it out, but this was all a political game. We also played a similar game. For example, when the Don Cossacks attacked Turkish ships and robbed their trade caravans, and also captured the Azov fortress in the middle of the 17th century, the famous ‘defence of Azov’, and the Sultan expressed his indignation at this, then in Moscow they said about the same thing: "And what do we have to do with the Cossacks? These people are thieves and runaways - we are not responsible for them, and they do not obey Moscow Tsar". 00:06:02
In Constantinople, the Sultan only gritted his teeth as he realised that he was being fooled, but could do nothing. So, this was a mutual military-diplomatic game. Therefore, I would certainly approach the calculation of the actual wars with Turkey, that is, the Ottoman Empire, more strictly. There were 10-12 such incidents all in all, but this number, you must agree, is impressive by itself.00:06:29
Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
Questions & Answers on the military history. Part I00:06:34
Dear friends, as you can see, the decor in our studio has changed somewhat. This means that we have moved from our traditional studio to the adjacent premises at the Museum of Military Uniforms in the centre of Moscow at Bolshaya Nikitskaya 46. There are so many authentic ancient and very valuable exhibits here that I did not dare to take them with me to record this lecture and, therefore, I would rather show them to you here on the spot. And so, speaking of the Russian-Turkish wars, I can't help but dwell on this wonderful specimen.00:07:04
This is a uniform that, for a minute, is one hundred and fifty years old. This is a uniform of a trumpeter of the 3rd Dragoon, of the Military Order of his Imperial Majesty Grand Duke, Mikhail Nikolaevich, regiment of the 1872 model. In these uniforms, our soldiers liberated the Balkans during that victorious Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, when Skobelev came right to the outskirts of Constantinople. What is the uniqueness of this regiment? Let me decipher its naming for you.00:07:37
What does ‘of Grand Duke, Mikhail Nikolaevich’ mean? It's just that the son of Nicholas I, also a combat officer, was General-in-Chief of this regiment. And why was it called the ‘regiment of the military order’? It's a very interesting story. The fact is that the regiment itself is ancient and was formed somewhere in Poltava region during the war and the famous battle of 1709 with the Swedes. Afterwards it was reorganised several times and, for a while, was just a dragoon regiment - dragoons were cavalrymen who could also fight on foot. Then it became a cuirassier regiment, i.e. of heavy cavalry, and was even called the Minich regiment as it apparently had a direct link to Field Marshal Burkhard Minich, and here I refer you to my lecture on Field Marshal Minich, an interesting German national in the Russian service.00:08:22
During the reign of Catherine II, this regiment received a unique name for its special military merits. We remember that the Order of St. George, a military officer's order, was established by Empress Catherine II and was the highest military order awarded only to combat officers. Usually, regiments such as Sumsky, Melitopolsky, Chernigovsky, etc. were called either by place of formation, or on the principle of geographical reference to some area, region, district, or even to the name of a river. However, this regiment, unique in the Russian Imperial army, was named after a military order, i.e. the regiment of the Order of St. George.00:09:07
And indeed, please pay attention, all the trims on this uniform are piped with orange, and these, I almost said shoulder straps, but they were called wings, are accomplished in St. George colours. Next, the cuffs of the sleeves are also orange. This uniform is actually so dark green that it looks black, i.e. it is all done out in the colours of the Order of St. George. All the commanders of this regiment, all staff and chief officers, had to be no less than knights of the Order of St. George. That is, each captain was already a well-deserved and heroically proven combat officer.00:09:50
Can you imagine the quality of the officer corps of this regiment? Therefore, it was a special regiment, and it was no coincidence that it went through all the subsequent wars, liberated the Balkans and lauded itself with unfading glory during the First World War, although of course, there under machine gun fire and poison gases, the soldiers fought not in such a beautiful uniform, but certainly in a khaki uniform, which did not diminish in the least the heroism of our soldiers. The glorious, almost two-hundred-year history of this regiment had ceased, unfortunately, with the Revolution of 1917. 00:10:48
The most important thing, though, is that after 1917, when the Bolshevik government strongly backed Kemal Ataturk and his supporters after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, we have never fought with Turkey ever again. Now, thank God, there is peace between our countries and this was the result of the subtle, careful and systematic work of our Foreign Ministry and the President, as well as restraint in our foreign policy. 00:11:04
There have also been difficult moments; for example, our ambassador was killed by terrorists, former employees, by the way, of the Turkish security service. The result of such a restrained and thoughtful policy is that, in general, Turkey and Russia’s relationship, along with some rough edges that always occur between large states with long and diverse national interests and ambitions, has been developing in the direction of mutually beneficial cooperation for many decades. This is a great success for both our and Turkish leadership.00:11:39
Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
Questions & Answers on the military history. Part I00:11:44
The next question dates back to the middle of the 19th century: "How did the death of Nicholas I affect the course of the Crimean War? Did Russia have a chance to win this war?"00:11:58
Well, I believe that the death of Nicholas I did not affect the outcome of this war in any way, and it would hardly have been able to influence it. In general, we should talk very carefully about the chances of Russia's victory in the Crimean War. Let's look at the situation from this angle: what goals did its parties set already in the midst of this war? Not at the beginning, because at the beginning everything had gone fine for Russia: the Turkish fleet was annihilated by Admiral Nakhimov and we kept defeating the Turkish land army on all fronts. 00:12:28
Until Turkey received full-fledged support from England, France, partly Austria, Prussia, Germany and Italy in the form of Sardinia; when Russia happened to be one-on-one against the whole of united Europe, the prospect of our victory had been very tangible, it seemed that if we pushed a little more, then Constantinople, along with the Cathedral of St. Sophia, would return to where it really belonged. However, everything turned out to be much more complicated and difficult in big politics, and, of course, Nicholas I did not expect such international isolation and treacherous betrayal from his allies.00:13:08
Let's see what goals the anti-Russian coalition set for itself at the height of the war. What objectives did Russia pursue? Our government was in its right mind, and there just could be no plans of a maritime operation, say to London, or a victorious march on Paris. Russia’s main objective was to somehow drive the enemy out of its territory in the Crimea, push this combined landing force into the sea and force it to withdraw. Did our army manage to do it? No, unfortunately, this was not the case.00:13:48
Russian defeat in the Crimean war, which in Europe was called the Eastern War, and today we often refer to as the World War Zero, one important proviso statement should be made, namely, that the conditions of peace that had been achieved by means of Russian weapons were, in general, quite decent compared to the strategic goals that our enemies were harbouring. And it is no coincidence that in France, and in England, after the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty, the headlines of the local newspapers questioned "Who's the winner and who's being defeated?", as it was not clear at all from the outcome of the Paris Peace Congress.00:14:25
I shall remind you that even before the war began, the then Head of the Foreign Office of the British Empire, Lord Palmerston, had formulated verbatim the following objectives on the Russian direction: "For me, the ideal goal of the war (and this was said already about the war of the British Empire with Russia) is as follows: (i) to return the Aland Islands and Finland to Sweden; (ii) to restore the core of the Polish Kingdom as a barrier between Germany and Russia; (iii) to give away Wallachia and Moldavia to Austria; (iv) to tear Crimea, Circassia and Georgia away from Russia, while Crimea and Georgia should be transferred to Turkey, and Circassia should be made independent, or also subordinate to the Sultan."00:15:21
Such were the overambitious British appetites for our territory. However, thanks to the victories of the Russian army in the Caucasus, there could be no question of any separation of Georgia and Circassia from Russia. Furthermore, thanks to the heroic defense of Sevastopol, the allies, England, France, Sardinia and Turkey could no longer even hint at the separation of Crimea from Russia in favour of Turkey. 00:15:41
In addition, thanks to the successful defense of St. Petersburg and Kronstadt from the British fleet, there was no question of Finland's separation any longer. And finally, what was the restoration of Poland all about? They didn't even dare to open a front there. Just as the Allied forces were unable to do anything either in Solovki or Arkhangelsk, as well as in the Far East theater of operations, Kamchatka and Sakhalin. The Russian army had won everywhere.00:16:15
Talking about the Crimean War and how the death of Nicholas I could have influenced the outcome of this war, I can't help but show you this wonderful authentic item, which is also many years old - an officer's award sword of the 1798 model for a uniform of Paul I’s army. We understand that edged weapons had always been largely of different grades and various kinds in our army, but only before Paul I.00:16:50
Since Paul I was a great lover of the Ordnung, the iron order - under him, everything had become extremely unified across the board, everything that he could only reach to. He issued a prescription order for the army according to which, swords were designated as combat or ceremonial, as well as, specifically, when, in what circumstances, and along what type of uniform, staff officers, chief officers and generals were supposed to wear them. It was strictly forbidden to violate this order; at least in the capital it was better not to catch his eye if something was wrong with your uniform.00:17:14
This sword is a later issue, of course, and you can see that it is not a combat one, but an absolutely formal ceremonial weapon, as an element of a ceremonial uniform, most likely a general's, of the late 19th century. But there is an interesting detail in it: you see, there is a kind of a small medallion inlaid in the hilt of this sword - this is a military order. This is an officer's Order of St. Anna of the fourth degree, which was usually given for personal bravery shown in battle. 00:17:54
My fellow historians and I, assume that this sword belonged to some general, and he received this military order in his youth, maybe in the Crimean War. The Order of St. Anna was unusual and it was worn not on a tunic, but on the hilt of a sword, sometimes on a strap. There is a legend that Paul I, while still heir to the throne, very much wanted to reward military men from among his entourage on his own, without the participation of his strong-willed mother, Empress Catherine, but was afraid to do so.00:18:34
In turn, officers were afraid to accept awards from Paul so as not to arouse the Empress’ jealousy, since, after all, according to all regulations, awarding military orders and medals was the prerogative of the monarch. And so, Paul I came up with this Order of St. Anna of the fourth degree, which was mounted in the hilt of a sword and thus, hidden from prying eyes. Pavel I had awarded them to several people, but when he decided to award it off his own bat to the future Moscow Governor-General, Rostopchin, who was one of his confidants and close aides, Rostopchin became very nervous about this. 00:19:13
On the one hand, it seemed to him rather impolite to refuse his boss, but on the other hand, God forbid, someone could inform the Empress that it was as if he had illegally received an award. In the end, he got an audience with Catherine and tried to explain to her the awkwardness of his position. Catherine II just smiled and said: "Well, what a silly son I have! He couldn't really explain to me what he wanted to do. All right, Rostopchin, wear this order of yours. Let my son continue to award it, and I will continue not to notice it, anyway you can't distinguish this order on the sword." 00:19:49
Thus, Paul I continued to award this order and his mother Empress continued not to notice it. Apropos, orders were not awarded for nothing at that time. Even Anna of the fourth degree, unless of course you were a confidant of Paul I and could get it for some successful maneuver in his Gatchina army, then in all other circumstances you just had to be so kind as to prove yourself on the battlefield.00:20:11
And in conclusion, what books I can recommend about the era of Catherine II. Of course, ‘Catherine the Great’ by my beloved author Nikolai Pavlenko – this is a magnificent, professionally written, light-spoken historical narrative. What is especially valuable is the scientific preface to this book by another remarkable academic, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Tatyana Chernikova, who, by the way, is one of the most active participants in the author's team, which is currently preparing a unified state textbook on the history of Russia. Therefore, I highly recommend this book from a popular and very good historian.00:21:27
Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
Questions & Answers on the military history. Part I00:21:32
In continuation of my answer to the question of whether Russia could have won the Crimean War, I want to note that British diplomats did not at all abandon all those aspirations that they cherished, no, they simply had to postpone them for several decades and, following the results of the First World War, they partially did manage to achieve those goals of weakening Russia, for after all, Anglo-Saxons are consistent people. At that time, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States were indeed torn away from Russia. They also attempted to annex Crimea, already from Soviet Russia, which they called the Independent White Guard Republic of Wrangel, but it did not work out.00:22:13
The Caucasus was torn away with the help of local nationalists, but not for long, and soon the Russian, now the Red Army, entered the Caucasus and restored the borders of the Russian Empire. Here, I want to express a reservation, because a lot of questions also come on this topic, so I will make a small deviation. In the Caucasus, part of our lands still went to Turkey, and in this, my fellow colleagues, monarchist historians, as I jokingly call them, blame the Bolsheviks for allegedly losing not only Poland, Finland and the Baltic States, but also part of Armenia. However, I want to make it clear here that this was not because of the Bolsheviks.00:23:02
Rather, it happened because of the Armenian nationalists, the so-called Dashnaks, who wove their intrigues, but eventually harmed their own people. The story is quite interesting, so I'll take a few minutes of your attention. Moreover, taking into account all that is happening in Transcaucasia today around Armenia, Azerbaijan and Karabakh, peoples that are close to us, who have always lived within the framework of the Soviet Union in friendship and harmony with their neighbours, this story cannot but bother us. Therefore, let me tell you about what happened then, after the end of the First World War and how it happened that part of Armenia ended up as part of Turkey.00:23:50
In 1920, a separate Sevres Peace Treaty was concluded, which was very unfeasible and enslaving for Turkey, according to which, the Entente dictated the terms of separation, the so-called division, of the Arab and European territorial possessions of the Ottoman Empire. Please note that the topic of Palestine also arose at the same time - you can see how everything in history is connected with today. By the beginning of the First World War, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire.00:24:24
So, Turkey agreed to transfer all territories to the independent Republic of Armenia in accordance with the Sevres Peace Treaty. The independent Republic of Armenia, headed by its own independent nationalist government, appeared on political maps only for a short period of time. The borderline between Turkey and Armenia was to be established by a so-called independent arbitrator, and the United States of America was invited to play the role of this independent arbitrator. The Armenian nationalists agreed to US arbitration, but not everyone liked it. This did not please the Armenian socialists and communists, who continued to fight, already under Soviet flags, with local nationalists.00:25:06
And it also did not please the young progressive officers and patriots in Turkey, supporters of Kemal Ataturk, who also did not recognize this peace treaty and continued to conduct dragging hostilities on the border with Armenia. Soviet Russia, in terms of foreign policy, very seriously politically and financially supported Kemal Ataturk - how many tons of gold had we sent to his aid, dozens of tons. Those who are interested can look up this information. Perhaps, without the help of Soviet Russia, it would have been much, much harder for him to win then.00:25:42
So, we supported the Kemalists and hoped that as a sign of gratitude, when Ataturk came to power, he would agree that the border would return to the old imperial one, i.e. most of Armenia would be part of the USSR. In the end, Kars, Ardagan, Sarykamysh, as well as the legendary Mount Ararat were to remain part of Armenia. But, in this difficult and confusing situation, the independent Armenian government, which then controlled the capital, for some reason declared war on Turkey. 00:26:28
To be honest, historians are still arguing and cannot understand why this was done at all. This remains a mystery, since the nationalist Armenian government had no chance of winning. For Europe, Paris and London, it looked like a direct invitation to the Turks for occupation. Thus, the only assumption is that the territory of Armenia, at least the disputed areas, should have gone not to Moscow, but to Turkey or anyone else, since there was no other sense in this strange war. As a result, the Turks defeated the Armenians in a month and occupied most of the Armenian territory.00:27:02
In order to prevent the complete defeat of Armenia, since there were many pro-Soviet citizens there, Soviet Russia urgently began a process that later became known as Sovietisation - the forces of the Red army entered the territory of Armenia at the end of 1920 and already on December 2nd, 1920, representatives of the nationalist Dashnak government signed an agreement with the Soviets, where they agreed to the creation of Soviet Armenia.00:27:36
Then an absolutely incredible story happened. A few hours later, the same Dashnak government literally on the night of December 3rd, apparently realising that its days were numbered, suddenly signed a peace treaty with the Turks on behalf of Armenia, i.e. they had just declared war on them, immediately lost it and then signed a peace treaty with the Turks, according to which they gave away the entire Kars region to Turkey, including the great Armenian Mount Ararat.00:28:08
Naturally, the Soviet government did not recognize this agreement and declared it. However, it was a difficult time, the Civil War was raging, negotiations continued, even a year later Moscow had to re-sign a delimitation agreement, and yet in the end, Moscow was forced to recognize Kars and Ardagan as part of Turkey. However, the Soviet government still achieved certain concessions from the Kemalists as a result - they returned Batumi and its surroundings to Georgia, Gyumri to Armenia, and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan. 00:28:43
But the Turks refused to return the Kars region and Mount Ararat, not without reason referring to the fact that they had received it as a gesture of goodwill from independent Armenia, since they de facto did not fight for these lands and did not seize them by military force in any way from Russia. Thus, the Armenian nationalists, as many historians believe today, had made a double mistake: first, for some reason, they relied on the arbitration of the United States or the Entente in general, who, of course, were not going to defend Armenia by any means, and then simply gave their lands away to Turkey themselves.00:29:20
All in all, the independent nationalist government of Armenia played a mean trick on its own people - they gave the ancestral Armenian lands, Kars and Ardagan, conquered by Russian weapons in fierce battles and numerous Russian-Turkish wars, which we have talked about, to Turkey with their own hands. What for? All sorts of reasons have been stated - that this was done because of their natural anti-Bolshevism, i.e. they did it out of spite for the Bolsheviks, or because of Russophobic sentiments. 00:29:52
There is also an opinion that its then leaders themselves were just going to emigrate and acted directly at the behest of the British and Americans. This cannot be ruled out either, because since then, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, what has not happened in this beautiful, ancient Armenian land, and what kind of intrigues, often not in favour of the Armenian people, have not been carried out by some representatives of the Armenian leadership. I shall not talk about this today, because we have a historical programme here after all, and I do not want to politicise it to any extent. 00:30:34
Although if we had a different format, I could remember the times when I served in the Ministry of Culture and what pleasure and displeasure I took in communication with various Armenian Ministers of Culture. There were those who had been brought up in the Soviet Union, for whom Russian was a second native language and Russian culture was as native, understandable and beloved as the ancient Armenian culture and history were for us. And there were other ministers, among them those who pretended not to speak Russian at all, but I had an impression that they did not speak Armenian very well either. I shall not talk about it now, because the Armenian nation is ancient and wise and they will certainly figure everything out themselves eventually.00:31:19
And now let's go back to the Crimean War. The main reason why, after coming to power, Alexander II and his government went to end the war on unfavourable terms for Russia, was that Russia had exhausted its resources and the Empire was essentially on the verge of financial collapse. I remind you that under the Paris Peace Treaty, we lost a small territory in the region of Moldavia, but most importantly, we lost the Black Sea fleet and pledged to demolish all military fortifications in the Crimea and on the coast of Malorossia in the area of Odessa and other coastal towns. That is, it was about turning the Black Sea into a demilitarised neutral water basin, since the Turks also pledged to eliminate their military fleet in this area.00:32:09
So, during the years of the Crimean war, we can note a multiple increase in national debt, almost 20 times, a significant depreciation of the ruble, as well as a shortage of weapons and ammunition. Suffice it to say that the forces defending Sevastopol consumed almost the entire amount of gunpowder produced by all the factories of the Russian Empire combined. That is, we were not ready for a war of such intensity. Therefore, based on these prerequisites, it was decided to make minimal concessions, but get out of the war. So, these were the economic reasons. However, I will draw this line - on the battlefield, the British and French, and even more so the Sardinians and Turks, actually did not gain any particular military supremacy whatsoever.00:32:59
Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
Questions & Answers on the military history. Part I00:33:04
The next question comes from our subscriber, Olga Smolygina: "What, 60 years after the Crimean War, forced Russia to conclude a triple alliance with Britain and France? What prompted Alexander III to form an alliance with our now disrespected partner?"00:33:29
It's a bit of a confusing question, but I assume we are talking about the creation of the Entente, the triple alliance of England, France and Russia, at the beginning of the 20th century. And when the author of the question talks about a disrespected partner, she probably means Britain. Let's figure it out in order. Alexander III uttered the sacramental phrase: "Russia has only two reliable allies - its army and its navy." This is his most famous aphorism, although, frankly, we do not know for sure whether he actually said it, because the only source is the memoirs of his son-in-law, Grand Duke, Alexander Mikhailovich, husband of Alexander III's daughter Ksenia Alexandrovna.00:34:13
As for the Realpolitik, in our case real foreign policy, then you need to understand that isolation is always bad for a country. It is advisable to always have a system of agreements in place with neighbouring countries on friendship and cooperation, and preferably on an alliance than not having them at all. At the end of the 19th century, in the 1890s, Alexander III decided to make an alliance with France. Everyone who criticised this decision, in fact, did not think that Russia should have remained isolated, no. The point was that it was necessary to negotiate not with France, but with the German states, Germany and Austria-Hungary, countries that were close to us not only geographically and psychologically, but where the ruling dynasties were all relatives.00:35:11
That is, an alternative point of view was based on the need for an alliance with the Germans against the French and the British, saying that this alliance would be more beneficial to us. However, there was one nuance here - the fact was that German industry had a very strong position in Russia and, by and large, we supplied Germany with raw materials. All this had very bad prospects, because over time Russia could turn into merely a semi-colony supplying raw materials for the growing German monster. 00:35:46
When the tsarist government accelerated a kind of industrialisation and supported national capital in every possible way, it needed a large loan, money for the development of domestic industry. Money could be taken from the same Germans, or it was possible to take cheaper loans from those who did not have such strong positions in the territory of the Russian Empire, i.e. from French and Belgian banks. The French had a lot of free money and they provided loans on very favourable terms for Russia, so it was decided to conclude an alliance with France in order to take cheap loans from them and invest these funds in domestic industry.00:36:26
Britain happened to be in a similar situation - British industry, the famous ’factory of the world’, had begun to lose more and more to the Germans, and lose not only in quality, but also in price. It is difficult to imagine today, but Germany acted then like China today - goods made in Germany were of high quality, but much cheaper than those produced in British factories and plants, which created serious competition. Thus, the British, at the most appropriate moment for us, as it turned out, after the defeat of the tsarist government in the 1905 war with Japan, made an offer to Russia, an offer that made no sense for us to refuse.00:37:08
Britain very amiably proposed to the government of Nicholas II to conclude an agreement on the delimitation of spheres of influence in Asia. Roughly speaking, Afghanistan and everything to the south, India and modern Pakistan, then it was one country, India, became a zone of influence of the British, and Persia, modern Iran, became a Russian zone of influence. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the entire territory of Central Asia was considered the territory of the Russian Empire, which was not even discussed and was legally recognized by everyone. But Persia, where Russia's expansion could conceivably go, was placed under our control.00:37:58
This was not an easy decision, because we understood perfectly well that by negotiating with the British and already having an agreement with the French, who, in turn, also had a military alliance with England, we would thus, objectively, enter into a confrontation with the Germans, especially since our Emperor and German Kaiser Wilhelm II, Uncle Willie, were relatives. It was not an easy decision, but by and large, what was the alternative? 00:38:22
In Germany, in addition to the fact that it was an industrial and military giant, a nationalist movement was already sprouting, based on the underlying motto ‘Drang nach Osten’, literally an onslaught, a push to the east, meaning German expansion at the expense of eastern territories, and there, sorry, was the border of the Russian Empire, for, as it was, Poland was non-existent then. And if we had not agreed with the British, then, in the event of, God forbid, any conflict with Germany, the British would have immediately stabbed us in the back and invaded our Central Asia and the Caucasus, in which case all Lord Palmerston's plans would have come back to life again.00:39:01
It would have been nice to have the British as a neutral state, but better as allies. Therefore, it was a complicated affair and the best way out for Russia would certainly be not to get involved in the First World War, but to stay above the fray, which would be an ideal political solution. Unfortunately, as history shows, Russia due to its geographical location, political realities, and, frankly, imperial ambitions, has almost never been able to stay above the fray, which is a real pity. 00:39:42
If we put the question more broadly, whether the First World War, imperialistic according to Lenin, could have been avoided at all, then this is also a very complicated issue. This is relevant to the debate whether history is deterministic, as Marxists claim, or whether there are always multiple historical alternatives. This is a topic for a large, separate and serious conversation, my friends.00:40:07
Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
Questions & Answers on the military history. Part I00:40:12
The next question is: "It would be very interesting to hear about our armoury factories of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, as well as talented Russian gunsmiths who created new types and designs of cannons, rifles and pistols."00:40:25
I must say right away that one needs to be well-versed on this issue and it requires a narrow historical specialisation, as well as a lot of time. A separate lecture, or even a series of lectures, should be devoted to this. Maybe someday we shall do it, I don't know. And if you are interested in this topic, then I recommend that you go to Tula, or go online to the website of the wonderful Tula State Museum of Weapons - this is probably one of the best museums of ancient weapons in the world. It was founded in 1873 and when I served in the Ministry of Culture, we carried out its reconstruction and filled the expositions. 00:41:04
There is passionate, all-round and very knowledgeable museum staff working there. Go take a look for it’s not too far away; you will really like it and learn a lot of interesting things about the history of Russian weapons, as well as production facilities and domestic weaponry business in general. There, people who really and deeply understand this will tell you all about it. I also advise you to bring along your children, because the exposition is really very rich and enjoyable, especially for children.00:41:32
Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
Questions & Answers on the military history. Part I00:41:37
The next question is: "Which of the famous military men would be in demand in our time? Whose talent and art of warfare would come handy now?"00:41:51
My dear friends, we all wonder what would have happened if Suvorov, Kutuzov, Zhukov or Rokossovsky had served in our army today. Alas, this does not happen. I could answer this question briefly, laugh it off, or say in the words of the proverb "when born, then came in handy" or maybe state that they were all children of their time, but I will try to answer more thoroughly. If we talk in line with the concept of a time machine, i.e. what if one of our great military men were transported to our time and found himself at the head of the modern Russian army, or whose advice would be most useful and who would be most effective in modern conditions of warfare, then I shall answer briefly: no one.00:42:35
You see, all our outstanding commanders, from Skopin-Shuisky and Menshikov to Suvorov and the heroes of the Patriotic War of 1812, as well as the heroes of the First and Second World Wars, they were all innovators, supporters of modern methods of warfare and modern combat tactics for their time, then if transferred to our time, none of them would bother to give their advice. The fact is that they all would have to retrain, because new means of fighting the enemy, such as aviation, tanks, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), missiles, nuclear weapons, etc., as well as a new strategy and tactics - everything would be different for them, a completely different war. 00:43:27
My point is that the military traditions laid down by our great predecessors continue to live in the modern army today; let's not belittle them. These traditions are studied, respected, revered, honoured and cherished, from the Military Regulations of Peter the Great, the ‘Science of Winning’ by Suvorov and Skobelev’s warfare instructions to the ‘Manual on Street Fighting’ by General Chuikov and the tactical guidelines of the Marshals of Victory.00:43:57
What qualities of historical Russian military men are worth mentioning? Loyalty to the oath, a battle banner or a naval flag; personal example of a commander in battle and his concern for the preservation of the lives of subordinates; mutual assistance on the battlefield, combat brotherhood or, as they said then, military comradeship; humane attitude to the defeated enemy, to prisoners of war, to the population of enemy countries - these are all traditions of the Russian army.00:44:34
There are also larger-scale things to note - this is something that, by the way, has always been given special attention, what was specifically studied and what still needs to be learned today. I remind you that Suvorov initially served for many years in quartermaster positions, which subsequently helped him a lot in real combat operations. For he understood the basic principle, understood the army not only as a place where everything was resolved by personal heroism, but as a single and very complex economic mechanism where there can be no trifles in supply and provision. He also understood the importance of education, a well-functioning mobilisation system, etc., etc. That is, the entire army system is important, not just personal heroism.00:45:39
Therefore, if you have watched my other lectures on the great commanders of the past, Rumyantsev, Potemkin, Suvorov, Kutuzov, Barclay de Tolly, Bagration, Paskevich, Dibich, Kotlyarevsky, Vorontsov and Skobelev, then you will see that military traditions have been developed and strengthened for centuries; and that the experience gained by our best commanders, and their covenants are still with us.00:46:16
Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
Questions & Answers on the military history. Part I00:46:21
The next question is related to military history as it is: "Why did Salavat Yulaev, who was going to suppress Pugachev's uprising, suddenly decide to support the rebel? Both had terrible fates, but they did not dare to execute Yulaev, why? Why are there monuments to Salavat Yulaev, cities and hockey clubs named after him?"00:46:43
Well, we have moved on from the Russian Germans to the Russian Bashkirs. To be honest, I have not come across any information that Salavat Yulaev really went to fight against Pugachev, or commanded some detachments before joining the uprising, or received specific orders to suppress the rebellion. It is known that for a couple of years he served as helmsman of his native province, the Shaitan-Kudeysky region of the Siberian highway tract, that is, Bashkiria. So, he was the helmsman there, replacing his father, while his father, a respected man named Yulai (i.e. Yulaev was Salavat's patronymic, not his surname), bravely fought as part of the Bashkir cavalry in Russia’s military campaign against Poland.00:47:29
Then his father returned, and at some point, they, father and son together, decided to join the rebellious Pugachev. What is important is not to believe that there was some kind of Bashkir army that was directed against the rebels, but then defected to their side, no. Firstly, Pugachev did not act somewhere far from those places, but he acted directly on the territory of Bashkiria. Apparently, the local administration somehow tried to organise local Bashkirs for defence, however they did not really want to protect their local authorities, but on the contrary mainly joined the Pugachev movement for their own reasons.00:48:13
The Bashkir participation in the uprising was due to their own internal problems. Firstly, a few years before that, a major uprising had been suppressed there, and suppressed very cruelly, so much so that thousands of Bashkirs were forced to move south to the Kazakh steppes. What was the reason for this? Oppression and harassment by the local authorities. It so happened that the Empire did not always correctly impose itself on the rights of the local population, abused their trust, limited local self-government, i.e. not everything was always perfect in the national-territorial issue.00:48:49
Bashkirs paid taxes poorly and the Empire decided to ban them from salt extraction, obliging them to buy it in government stores. This was a serious limitation for people living mainly on meat - it was necessary to preserve it somehow, so there was no way to do without salt. Therefore, the authorities reacted accordingly - if you didn’t want to pay yasak, or tribute, then you had to buy salt from the state at exorbitant prices and it would be reconciled against the taxes due. That is, the government had its own logic, but as a result it turned out that at the prices set, the tax rate had increased several times. The Bashkirs were not happy, to say the least.00:49:22
When the Bashkirs began to show their resentment, the authorities began to requisition firearms from them, and in such an elaborate form - if you wrote a denunciation against a neighbour that he had a gun withheld from the authorities, then this gun was confiscated and handed over to the informer, which the Bashkirs considered offensive and unfair. There was also the appropriation of land to build fortresses, factories, settlements for people displaced there for civil service, etc. All this was perceived by the local population, naturally primarily not by the poor population, but by the rich Bashkirs, as a violation of the ancient patrimonial rights granted by Ivan the Terrible when Bashkiria voluntarily had become part of the Moscow Kingdom.00:50:00
A similar story happened to Salavat Yulaev's father. When helmsman Yulai returned from the war, he returned with a reward - he had been granted some kind of land fiefdom for his participation in the Polish campaign and faithful service. And so, when he came to claim his ownership, it turned out that some crooked contractor had illegally seized this land and was already building a factory there. Naturally, a dispute arose. Helmsman Yulai tried to restore his rights through court, but unsuccessfully - the local court turned out to be unfair and sided with the usurper.00:50:44
Then, he began to complain to higher authorities, but his complaints were not heeded, and only then did the offended Yulai, along with his son and other Bashkirs, join the uprising against injustice. Therefore, Salavat Yulaev is a national people’s hero of Bashkiria. The fact is that they did not fight against St. Petersburg or against the Empress, but they fought, by and large, against injustice and lawlessness, harassment and abuse from local governors and officials who believed that St. Petersburg was far away and they were allowed everything. That was one of the reasons.00:51:21
I think that is why none of the Bashkir leaders of the uprising were executed, and most of the Bashkirs were released to their homes. Salavat himself and his father were not executed either, because probably the St. Petersburg authorities, and Catherine herself, understood that there were nuances here and everything was rather more complicated. The Bashkirs fought rather not for Pugachev, who proclaimed himself Emperor Peter Fedorovich, but against untruth, and as often happens, fighting against injustice, they also committed a lot of injustice themselves. In this exactly, by the way, lies the imperial flexibility, that is the Empire's ability to adapt and correct mistakes somehow.00:52:02
Yes, there stand monuments to Salavat Yulaev. In the center of Ufa there is a wonderful monument elevated high on a hill with a view of the forest and the Belaya River spread out in front of it. Let these monuments keep standing. And let the Salavat Yulaev Hockey Club play, we wish them sporting success. Salavat Yulaev and his father defended the truth as they understood it. The fact that Salavat had not served the Empire like his father, but turned out to be among the opponents and fought against it, this was not good and means that they simply could not come to a timely agreement between themselves. And mistakes need to be corrected - this is the only way to move forward.00:52:44
After a lot of questions about military history, I wish for only one thing, and probably our series of questions and answers on this topic, we shall always end with this wish of mine - let there be fewer questions about war. Despite the fact that our military history is glorious, we are peaceful people and I wish you all peace, happiness and kindness. And thank you for your love of Russian history. I wish you all the best and see you next time.00:53:11
Stories from Russian history
Vladimir Medinsky
Questions & Answers on the military history. Part IDescription:
Подписывайтесь на канал Лекторий Dостоевский: https://www.youtube.com/@dostoverno_ru/ *** Военная история России – буквально кладезь интереснейших вопросов. Этой теме мы посвятим три выпуска. Смогли бы великие полководцы прошлого проявить свои качества в условиях современной войны? Крымская война: Почему после смерти Николая I новый монарх Александр II принял решение начать мирные переговоры? Почему на старинных русских шпагах знак ордена Св. Анны прикреплялся к эфесу, и почему Салават Юлаев избежал участи Емельяна Пугачева? Ответы на эти и другие вопросы – в первой части ответов Владимира Мединского на вопросы по военной истории на канале Лекторий Dостоевский. *** Вопросы вы можете задавать через Telegram-канал автора: https://t.me/vr_medinskiy Ответы на них ждите в эфире на радио Sputnik Таймкоды: 00:00 • В этом выпуске 01:29 • Сколько раз в истории Россия воевала с турцией? 11:44 • Был ли у России шанс на победу в Крымской войне? 16:15 • Артефакты эпохи - Зачем офицерский орден вмонтировали в эфес шпаги 1798 года? 20:10 • Артефакты эпохи - Рекомендации книг об эпохе Екатерины II и человеческих качеств Николая I 22:10 • Был ли у России шанс победить во время Крымской войны? (продолжение) 32:00 • Почему Александр II принял решение остановить Крымскую войну? 33:43 • Что подвигло Россию заключить союз с Англией и Францией? 40:49 • Про оружейные заводы и талантливых оружейников 42:15 • Кто из знаменитых полководцев был бы востребован в наши дни? 46:59 • Почему Салавата Юлаева, участника пугачевского бунта, не казнили? МОЖЕТ БЫТЬ ИНТЕРЕСНО Ответы на Ваши вопросы по истории XIX века (Волконский, Броненосец "Потемкин", Воронцов и др.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5MPVAimYVo Россия - родина ананасов. Кто сжег Москву? Коварные иезуиты. И другие ответы на Ваши вопросы https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MthagmN4L7M Бой с британцами на Камчатке, бизнес по-старообрядчески, виноват ли Николай II. Ответы на вопросы https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NjBs3TNSMM 📚 Наш сайт: https://dostoverno.ru/ 📚 VK: https://vk.com/lectorydostoevsky 📚 OK: https://ok.ru/dostoevsky.lectory 📚 Telegram: https://t.me/dostoevsky_fm_dostoverno 📚 Яндекс.Дзен: https://dzen.ru/lectorydostoevsky 📚 Rutube: https://rutube.ru/u/LektoriyDostoyevskiy/
Preparing download options
Similar videos from our catalog
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252F0wyQzebWcFQ%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252F99_Qe0rtTqQ%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FGWbD-koeh-I%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi%252FIw_SIxVa_Jk%252Fmaxresdefault.jpg&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FSZpKw8U0Svk%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi%252FeImhMn86G2E%252Fmaxresdefault.jpg&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi%252FgioRlsHF4fo%252Fmaxresdefault.jpg&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FgxArsmGalkk%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FsP-kpxRY2ho%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi%252F4o4k5LuFgg4%252Fmaxresdefault.jpg&w=1139&q=75)
* — If the video is playing in a new tab, go to it, then right-click on the video and select "Save video as..."
** — Link intended for online playback in specialized players
Questions about downloading video
How can I download "Серия 43. Могла ли Россия победить в Крымской войне? И другие ответы на ваши вопросы по истории" video?
http://unidownloader.com/ website is the best way to download a video or a separate audio track if you want to do without installing programs and extensions.
The UDL Helper extension is a convenient button that is seamlessly integrated into YouTube, Instagram and OK.ru sites for fast content download.
UDL Client program (for Windows) is the most powerful solution that supports more than 900 websites, social networks and video hosting sites, as well as any video quality that is available in the source.
UDL Lite is a really convenient way to access a website from your mobile device. With its help, you can easily download videos directly to your smartphone.
Which format of "Серия 43. Могла ли Россия победить в Крымской войне? И другие ответы на ваши вопросы по истории" video should I choose?
The best quality formats are FullHD (1080p), 2K (1440p), 4K (2160p) and 8K (4320p). The higher the resolution of your screen, the higher the video quality should be. However, there are other factors to consider: download speed, amount of free space, and device performance during playback.
Why does my computer freeze when loading a "Серия 43. Могла ли Россия победить в Крымской войне? И другие ответы на ваши вопросы по истории" video?
The browser/computer should not freeze completely! If this happens, please report it with a link to the video. Sometimes videos cannot be downloaded directly in a suitable format, so we have added the ability to convert the file to the desired format. In some cases, this process may actively use computer resources.
How can I download "Серия 43. Могла ли Россия победить в Крымской войне? И другие ответы на ваши вопросы по истории" video to my phone?
You can download a video to your smartphone using the website or the PWA application UDL Lite. It is also possible to send a download link via QR code using the UDL Helper extension.
How can I download an audio track (music) to MP3 "Серия 43. Могла ли Россия победить в Крымской войне? И другие ответы на ваши вопросы по истории"?
The most convenient way is to use the UDL Client program, which supports converting video to MP3 format. In some cases, MP3 can also be downloaded through the UDL Helper extension.
How can I save a frame from a video "Серия 43. Могла ли Россия победить в Крымской войне? И другие ответы на ваши вопросы по истории"?
This feature is available in the UDL Helper extension. Make sure that "Show the video snapshot button" is checked in the settings. A camera icon should appear in the lower right corner of the player to the left of the "Settings" icon. When you click on it, the current frame from the video will be saved to your computer in JPEG format.
What's the price of all this stuff?
It costs nothing. Our services are absolutely free for all users. There are no PRO subscriptions, no restrictions on the number or maximum length of downloaded videos.