The First World War, which in Europe is called the Great, determined the fate of mankind for more than a century. In his new book, relying on numerous testimonies of the participants in those dramatic events and archival documents only recently made public, L. Mlechin describes in a fascinating and exciting manner not only the causes that gave rise to the bloody war, but also, most importantly, its consequences.

If not for the First World War, the Russian Empire would not have collapsed, there would have been no revolution. In Germany, Hitler would not have come to power and would not have unleashed the Second World War. The First World War pushed the old European countries to the periphery. Bolshevik Russia came to the fore, which considered the whole world around as hostile, and the United States, which turned into a world superpower. France and England, fearing a new war, preferred a policy of neutrality. The Balkans are still torn apart by the hatred of the fraternal peoples. Conditionally drawn borders in the Middle East to this day give rise to endless conflicts. The consequences of the First World War largely determined the fate of even Asian and African states far from Europe ...

Leonid Mlechin
The Great War is not over. Results of the First World

Miscellaneous memory
Instead of a preface

After the death of the last participants in the First World War, it finally passed from human memory into history. But it has not sunk into oblivion. Its consequences are not only scars on the political map of the world. The war did not solve any of the contradictions that torn apart Europe at that time, worse than that, it only aggravated them, and even sowed the seeds of new conflicts that are blazing to this day.

Europe was no longer able to return to the prosperous state in which it was at the beginning of the century. When the First World War broke out, the continent began to slide from the heights of political, military, economic and cultural leadership. The lowest, truly tragic mark is the coming to power of the Nazis.

Thirty countries participated in the First World War, which lasted from the summer of 1914 to the autumn of 1918. 65 million people donned military uniforms. One in six died. Millions returned home injured or disabled. And millions died in the rear from hunger and disease.

The First World War was a bloody massacre, although half a century earlier in China, during the Taiping uprising, from 20 to 30 million people were killed! But China is far away. Western Europeans suffered the greatest losses in the First World War in their entire history, and therefore this particular war is called the "great". In World War I, twice as many British, three times as many Belgians and four times as many French died as in World War II.

“When I see the list of losses,” said the then British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, sadly, “I think: why did we have to win all these victories?

It is characteristic that even today Europe does not have a single memory of the great war.

France has not forgotten the dead. Memories of the First World War are a vital element of modern national identity. Then eight million people were called under arms. Almost half a million died. These are heroes revered in the country.

For the French, the victory in the First World War is as glorious a page as the great revolution of 1789. For politicians, each anniversary of the war is a welcome opportunity to call on compatriots to national unity, courage and readiness to make sacrifices for the sake of the motherland. France is afraid of falling behind in the competitive struggle going on in a globalized economy, and is looking for internal support in the memory of the great war. The image of a heroic soldier helps France, which is experiencing a crisis of national identity. This memory unites left and right, pacifists and hawks, European idealists and nationalists.

Unlike the United States, Canada, Britain and France, where the last veterans of the First World War were magnificently buried, they were not noticed in Germany. The First World War left the German collective memory, supplanted by the Second World War and the Holocaust.

As for our country ... More than two million soldiers of the Russian army died on the battlefield, died of wounds and went missing. But the Bolsheviks once called the war "imperialist" and erased it from history.

Generally speaking, in all of Europe, in most families, someone participated in the First World War. They wrote letters from the front - now an invaluable historical source. To some extent it was the most "literary" war. After the First World War, serious changes took place in cultural life, in philosophy, sociology, starting with an understanding of the psychology of war.

But the Russian educated class perished or left the country. Russian philosophy, literature and art did not even have time to comprehend this war, as happened in Western Europe and North America.

Anti-war novel by Henri Barbusse "Fire" came out in the midst of hostilities. Ernest Hemingway, who served as a driver on the Italian front and was wounded, John Dos Passos, Scott Fitzgerald, Thomas Eliot - these are what Gertrude Stein called the "lost generation". They were victims of the First World War, regardless of whether they participated in it themselves. They also captured her unique spiritual experience. Josef Roth wrote the novel Radetzky March in Austria. Yaroslav Hasek in Czechoslovakia - "The Adventures of the Good Soldier Schweik". This literature will then become a discovery for the Russian reader. There was almost no own: the First World War was supplanted by the revolution and the Civil War. For us, the First World War did not seem to exist.

Historians for a hundred years have not come to a single conclusion as to who is guilty of starting the war. Some stigmatize Kaiser Germany. Others speak of a fatal system of rivalry, alliances and alliances, when some empires were on the decline, like Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans, while others were rapidly gaining strength - Russia and Germany, which in itself led to confrontation. In 1914, the rulers overestimated the importance of military power and grossly underestimated economic power.

The war lasted four and a half years. Spread throughout Europe, captured the Middle East, Asia and even Africa. And fundamentally changed the modern world. She overthrew the Kaisers, kings, tsars and sultans, destroyed entire empires. Chemical weapons, tanks and military aircraft appeared.

Independence was gained by the Central European states, which were formed on the ruins of empires that did not survive the war. New countries have emerged in the Middle East - with borders not recognized as neighbors.

The Great War was a disaster for Russia. If it were not for the First World War, the revolution and the Civil War had not happened, our country would have developed evolutionarily and millions of people would not have died in the name of building communism. In general, the history of mankind would have taken a different path.

Of course, Friedrich Nietzsche predicted that the 20th century would be a century of great wars fought in the name of philosophical doctrines. But without World War I, total ideologies would not have played such a role, and dictatorships would not have arisen.

The First World War became an unnecessary and senseless massacre. It was the self-destruction of Europe, which led to the death of a large part of European youth. The war put an end to Europe's self-confidence. The First World War gave rise to massive disillusionment, which for decades determined the mood of Western society. The Great War crossed out the very idea of ​​progress.

According to some historians, the consequences of the First World War were so disastrous because Germany was defeated. If not for the Entente, but for Kaiser Wilhelm II, he won the war, Adolf Hitler would not have become chancellor, World War II would not have started ... And what would happen to France and England if they lost? They would lose their colonies. Not such a problem.

The war determined the fate of mankind for more than a century. The old European powers receded into the background. Two countries came forward: Bolshevik Russia, which considered the whole world around as hostile, and the United States, which turned into a world superpower. France and England, fearing a new war, adopted a policy of appeasing the aggressors: let them do what they want, as long as they don't touch us. The Balkans are still torn apart by the hatred of the fraternal peoples. Conditionally drawn borders in the Middle East to this day give rise to endless conflicts.

The demons that gave rise to the First World War have not disappeared.

Premiere of the eight-episode documentary film "The First World War" from the author's cycle Felix Razumovsky"WHO ARE WE?" will take place on September 11 at 20:40 on the Russia. 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 about many other things.

- In the new cycle, 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 what. And the soldiers did not know why they were sent to die.

“You know, I believe that this kind of talk contains a fair amount of slyness. Do you really think that the miraculous 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 an explanation about the need to cross the Alps. The order of their beloved commander was enough for them.

When the First World War broke out more than a hundred years later, the situation was already different. Not a trace remained of the Russian optimism of the 18th century. Among the high command there was no national hero whom the army trusts and cherishes. Favorite commanders, of course, were, but in this case it's about something else. About figures of the scale of Suvorov, Kutuzov or Nakhimov.

The leaders of the Headquarters, and first of all, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, are a person 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. In order to send thousands of people to their deaths, this is clearly not enough.

I will say more, the Russian soldier has always poorly imagined the imperial tasks and needs. And here I do not see a big problem. Soldiers' loyalty - that's what kept a huge country. However, the First World War revealed an obvious decline in the soldier's spirit. And not only soldiers. And that's why, in the end, we didn't make it.

An amazing situation arose, unprecedented in history: on the threshold of victory, we refused to fight, betrayed ourselves, our Fatherland. For us, the First World War is not a forgotten, but a devoted war. And since it is unpleasant to remember this betrayal and betrayal, we talk a lot about the senselessness of that war, about the absence 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 for Russia ended in a national catastrophe, the nation committed suicide. Although we had everything we needed to defeat the enemy. As once in 1812, Russia had to cast aside all internal strife. And unite, at least from the instinct of self-preservation. Alas, this did not happen. The country began to rapidly split, internally divided - into military and politicians, soldiers and generals, into government and society, into "white" and "black" bones.

The predisposition to such a collapse has been around for a long time. Tolstoy in "War and Peace" did not accidentally depict the scene of a peasant revolt in the village of Bogucharovo, in the estate of the princes Bolkonsky. It 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, he will give us freedom, but we don’t want to know the masters anymore,” such words could be heard from the peasants near Moscow. And not only suburban.

But this is not class enmity, despite serfdom. This is something more serious: it is a cultural split. A traditional village that gives soldiers and a Europeanized manor that gives 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 after all, from the countries of the Entente, it seems that no one suffered so much, before self-destruction, like Russia ...

- This is an important topic. The fate of Russia, its position and role in the First World War is unique. Maybe it's not quite obvious. As you know, as a result of the war, three more empires collapsed. But as soon as 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 built up over centuries.

Various forces pushed the country to this catastrophe, but the Bolsheviks surpassed everyone with their recklessness and cynicism. They staked on national treason, on the destruction of the country. And they won. The call to "turn 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 the new type of party labeled the war "imperialist". Allegedly, this is only 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 the assertion of national exclusivity and pride. We have enough of our own historical illnesses and ailments, why should we ascribe to ourselves strangers. It is in Germany that militant Germanism, a kind of European nationalism, triumphs. And here you can only find something opposite - the diverse manifestations of Russian nihilism. But first of all, of course, the Troubles, the collapse and self-destruction of Russian life. The war, which demanded the utmost exertion of forces from Russia, again opened the way for the Time of Troubles.

The films of the new cycle show what actions of the authorities and society contributed to the growth of the Time of 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. Sounding everywhere and everywhere accusations against the Germans, 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'état in February-March 1917. At a time when the country was at war?

- By the beginning of the 17th year, the Time of Troubles is decomposing not only the mass of soldiers, but also to a large extent the generals. In March 1917, the army, represented by its high command, would support 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 monarchy. The rest will frivolously rejoice at the change of power.

In fact, there will be no new power, anarchy will begin. “With the fall of the tsar, the very idea of ​​power fell,” and without this idea, both the state and the army inevitably collapse. A soldier who has renounced his oath, loyalty, 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 comes after is agony. Revolution and democratization will overwhelm the army, soldiers' councils and committees will appear in the military units, and the killing of officers and desertion will become an ordinary phenomenon.

It is impossible not to notice that the Great War for the first time in Russian history did not leave a pantheon of national heroes. And it's 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. There was a heroic defense of the Osovets fortress, there were victories in Galicia. And the national memory is silent. And that means ... It means that the nation as such then no longer existed.

It has been 100 years since the start of the First World War. But we have not fully comprehended it, we have not studied it. What does it mean for 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, treason. The destruction of the state and the army during the war is precisely treason, there can be no two opinions. The Bolsheviks always remembered this and did everything possible to bring the First World into oblivion.

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

What kind of Russia are we inheriting: historical or Soviet? There is still no clear answer. Our sitting on two chairs continues. This "resonates" with us, in particular, the lack of political will, the inability to determine the vector of one's development. Build a memory policy. It is impossible to talk about national revival without understanding the phenomenon of the 17th year.

The persistence of the Soviet myth about 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 in many ways prepared it. And this greatest tragedy of ours remained unresolved. Many years have passed, but still we do not know how to restore the unity of the Russian world, the unity of Russia, destroyed by the civil war.

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

– These series are part of a large historical project. The films that will be 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 and not even to Smolensk. This, among other things, speaks of the strength and stamina of Russian soldiers. Our almost unarmed army, deprived of shells, did not run, but gradually retreated deep into the country in perfect order.

Probably, the consequences of the "shell hunger" could not have been so tragic if not for the Headquarters and its mediocre actions. It was impossible to endure this longer, and in August 1915, Nicholas II dismissed the supreme commander in chief, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich. The sovereign himself takes command of the army and heads the Headquarters. This ends the first stage of the war and the first 8-episode block of our cycle.

It is recommended to check the materials of this paragraph with the help of a home test, the questions of which cover all parts of the paragraph and relate not only to facts, but also to understanding 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 of Europe and the United States; b) led to the collapse of the colonial system; c) largely influenced the development of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

2. Find the wrong 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 mother countries.

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

4. The mandate system created at the Paris Conference actually proclaimed: a) the abolition of colonial oppression; b) equal rights of former colonies in solving questions of world politics; c) maintaining the dependence of the countries of Asia and Africa on the developed countries.

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

6. An influential force helping the countries of Asia and Africa in the struggle for independence was: a) the United States (the goal is to increase influence in the world); b) the League of Nations (the goal is the struggle for a 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 the countries of Asia and Africa; b) made the countries of Asia and Africa more submissive to their mother countries; c) contributed to the establishment of a political union between the colonies and mother countries.

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 the Asian peoples under the control of Japan.

10. In the 30s. Japan's foreign policy was aimed at: a) territorial conquest and strengthening of influence in the world; b) the development of diplomatic relations with the leading European powers and the United States; c) 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 Chinese Communist Party was established: a) in 1921; b) in 1925; c) in 1929

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

14. The government of Chiang Kai-shek pursued in domestic policy: a) strict state 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 US colony; c) remained a British colony.

16. The basis of the teachings of Gandhism in India was: a) the inclusion of India in the UK on the basis of equality; b) achieving the independence of India through non-violent resistance to the colonial English administration; c) achieving the independence of India by means of 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 non-violent protest did not include: a) the boycott of British goods; b) tax evasion; c) immigration 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) the development of religious authority; c) strengthening the monarchy.

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

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

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

24. The population of African countries in the 20-30s: a) still remained dependent and disenfranchised; b) has won basic democratic rights; c) won the right to form trade unions.

Our colleague, journalist Konstantin Gaivoronsky is seriously interested in military history. He studied a huge amount of literature and historical documents, devoted dozens of articles to the participants, battles and little-known episodes of the First World War, and is now finishing a voluminous book on this topic.
Konstantin outlined to "Subbota" his view of the causes and lessons of the war, the centenary of which Europe and Russia began to celebrate last year. He believes that Russia partly unleashed the world massacre on its own - and itself became its victim. The war stirred up revolutionary moods, split the nation, the empire collapsed, and the people were plunged into bloody civil strife. However, other countries participating in the war had to endure the most difficult trials. Modern politicians would do well to learn the lessons of the First World War. For example, to realize that petty nit-picking and big humiliations of national minorities do not lead to good.
* Why is the First World War more important for Europe than the Second World War?
* Why does Russia keep silent about some facts about the First World War?
* How did the First World War change the world community?
Natalia SEVIDOVA,
Olga KNYAZEVA.

disillusionment

- Kostya, why are you interested in the period of the First World War (WWII)?
“Because it has become an unprecedented example of a military conflict in the history of Europe and the world, in which people began to fight with weapons and tactics invented back in the 19th century. And by the end of the war in 1918, all types of weapons that we have today were already present on the battlefields, except for nuclear weapons. Poisonous substances, tanks, aviation, strategic bombing of cities - all this happened. London began to be bombed already in 1915, and they bombed in such a way that once a shell hit a school and killed 32 children. For ordinary people, it was a shock.
The Europeans were sure that a world of progress and social well-being awaits everyone. And they were one step away from this: in Germany by that time there were both insurance and old-age pensions. And then suddenly the war, and, it would seem, from scratch. World War I literally broke the Europeans. Many call it the suicide of European civilization.

By prior arrangement

- In the USSR, they wrote about the First World War in textbooks like this: it was an imperialist war, where the interests of large powers clashed. In your opinion, where were the roots of the conflict?
- The lesson and paradox of this war is that a group of people, and far from the first persons of the state, by prior agreement can plunge several countries into a military conflict. Yes, there were contradictions between the powers, but they always existed, and Europe somehow knew how to smooth them out. Two groups - Germany and Austria-Hungary against England, France and Russia - coexisted quite peacefully, although they could not always share something. Of all the heads of state, only Raymond Poincare, the President of France, was a supporter of the war. Everyone else was against it. Although England is more often blamed for starting the war. But it was precisely this decision that was most difficult for her, since the ministers who were in favor of the war were a minority in the cabinet.

They wanted to return the export, but lost the country

- Let me remind you about the crisis at the end of 1912, when Austria-Hungary was going to defeat Serbia. The Russian generals, under the impression of that covert mobilization, decided that we would do the same. And Russia announced a general mobilization, and this was then considered the beginning of hostilities. Thus, Russia launched a chain reaction.
While the Minister of Foreign Affairs Sazonov was negotiating with the Germans on the settlement of the military conflict, the generals carried out mobilization activities.
How did the Germans react to this? They were territorially squeezed between two potential adversaries: Russia and France. And they perfectly understood that if these countries mobilize faster than them, they lose the war. Therefore, the Germans had no choice but to declare war. All this happened from July 24 to August 1, 2014.
Moreover, Minister Sazonov was warned: do not give free rein to the military! And he pretended that he had nothing to do with it, that it was all the generals' fault! Although on the most critical day for his career - July 30, 1914, when Nicholas II first allowed and immediately banned mobilization - Sazonov first delayed the tsar's letter about the abolition of mobilization, and then nevertheless persuaded the emperor to take this fatal step.
- What explains such militancy of the tsar's entourage?
- By that time, Germany had practically ousted Russia from the bread markets of Europe. Sazonov and his assistants, generals of the General Staff, Minister of Agriculture Krivoshein advocated using military force to return the possibility of export to Russia.

For Latvians, World War I was national

- Are the losses of the First World War known?
- There are no exact figures. Statistics in Russia were kept poorly. They call from 900 thousand to two million dead Russians. In total, about nine million people died in WWI. If we compare these two wars, then the loss of people on the battlefield during the Second World War was about eight to nine million people, the remaining 15-20 million people are civilians who died in burned villages, from hunger, epidemics and bombings.
- For this reason, in Russia, the attitude to the Second World War is completely different than in Europe, where there are a lot of memorials and monuments about the WWII?
- Undoubtedly. During the Great Patriotic War, it was really about the survival of the country and the existence of the Russian people: the OST plan to consolidate the dominance of the Third Reich in Eastern Europe was known. And during the First World War, people no longer understood for the second year: what, in fact, are we fighting for? The Germans are not on Russian territory, that is, there is no obvious enemy. For the Latvians, this war was patriotic: when the front line passes through Latvia, and Kurzeme remains occupied by German territory, of course, you are eager to liberate them. And some Siberian shooter from Omsk had a completely different attitude, in front of whom comrades die every day, and tomorrow his turn will come. Very soon, the soldiers had a question: what is all this for?

Behind the front line - horned nonhumans

- At first, the military was told: we are helping our brother Serbs. For a while it worked. And in the third year of the war, any soldier began to think: is it really worth so many lives, or maybe it was possible to agree differently? The decomposition of the Russian army went faster, because many soldiers in it were illiterate. It was difficult to influence them with printed propaganda. In England, France and Germany, soldiers were convinced to the last that this was a righteous war in the name of civilization. The propaganda was terrible! In the July days of 1914, when the question of starting hostilities was being decided in England, there was a very broad anti-war movement. Industrialists, banks, professors, students - almost everyone was against it: they say, why should we fight the civilized country of Schiller and Goethe? And a year later, the British were successfully convinced that the Germans were almost new Huns, they were barbarians, that they raped Belgian girls, and then cut off their arms to the elbow. Mass hysteria began: they say, everything German needs to be removed from the streets. Even the dachshund was recognized as a German breed, which was called for to be taken to shelters. The British royal family was forced to change their surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor. In Russia it was no better. In May 1915, it came to German pogroms: the Germans broke down to withdraw, shops were smashed.
In order to keep the soldiers in the trenches, they were told that we were opposed by nonhumans with horns! But the Germans had helmets with horns. And the Germans were told that they were fighting homosexuals and degenerates, who had nothing sacred in their souls. The same propaganda methods are being used today.
— In Ukraine and in Russia?
- Yes, and nothing new came up! The enemy must be presented, on the one hand, as miserable and insignificant, on the other, predatory and insidious.
Civilians were not spared
- And the methods of warfare were the same as during the Second World War?
- Almost the same, only the scale is smaller due to the limited technology. Shelling, chemical weapons, bombing of cities were used. The only difference was that the attitude of the prisoners was softer. But there were atrocities against civilians during WWI. Unless the Jewish question was so acute. In Belgium, for example, the Germans took hostages, and if suddenly the partisans killed a couple of German soldiers, they shot 20-30 well-known residents of the city in response.

Forgotten War

Why is the First World War so little talked about in Russia?
Her memory was erased by the Civil War. WWI mainly affected those who were drafted into the army, as well as their relatives. The civil war affected absolutely everyone. And there were many more victims. 20 million people who died during the Civil War on the battlefield and from hunger, epidemics - these were colossal losses. In addition, after WWI, a revolution followed and we began to build a new world. And our attitude after this war was completely different. Europe after WWI was a pitiful sight. When people came to their senses in 1918, they clutched their heads: my God, what did we put a whole generation of our young people for?! For Europeans, losses in WWI are the same as for Russia, losses in the Great Patriotic War. The West received the same lost generation that Hemingway wrote about in his novels.
Good example. The British have a memorial day - July 1st. On this day they lay out poppies. This is the day the battle of the Somme began. They went on the offensive and on the first day they lost 60 thousand people. These are the largest losses in one day in all wars that have ever been. In 1941, our daily losses did not reach this figure. There were only a couple of days in 1941 when we were just approaching this level. And all along the front. And they lost 60 thousand people at once on a small sector of the front. Therefore, for Europeans, WWI is certainly a more significant memorable date than the Second World War.

A bad peace is better than a good quarrel

Are wars like World War I unpredictable?
- In most cases, yes - they are unleashed by politicians who think this way: if I do not solve this problem with the help of war now, I will never solve it again. The Austrian-Hungarians decided that if they don't deal with Serbia now, they won't have that opportunity again. Russia has decided that if they don't get the Black Sea straits now to control grain exports, the window of opportunity will also close. The Straits were controlled by the Turks, who were heavily influenced by Germany. After a couple of years, the Russians realized that there were other methods to achieve these goals. And 20 years later, historians found out that the goals were false. If Austria-Hungary had waited, then it would have solved its problem with the Serbs without a war. Austria-Hungary was a dynamically developing country with a European bureaucracy, and Serbia was a small, corrupt Balkan state. And sooner or later, the Serbs would have made a choice in favor of a more prosperous life. Everyone understood this, except for the thugs and bawlers who organized anti-Serb movements. The same goes for Russia. For her, these straits would be incredibly profitable to get 20 years of peace, as Stolypin said.

It is unlikely that there will be another war in the documented history of mankind that changed the minds of people so much as the First World War - the “great”. But it's not just about the severe moral trauma inflicted on the entire Western civilization by four years of mass senseless suicide. The First World War irrevocably changed the war itself. Some of the cardinal innovations from 1914-1918, after which the war never became the same, are in our selection.

Positional impasse

World War I is a "trench" war. Europe was dug up in several rows of trenches from and to, bloody battles were sometimes fought for sections of positions hundreds and even tens of meters deep. Maneuvering war was replaced by exhausting frontal attacks, many days of shelling of positions.

The result of the death of tens of thousands of people on barbed wire and under machine-gun fire sometimes became a shift in the front line by a couple of hundred meters in one direction or another.

A strategic breakthrough of the front was impossible - the offensive was being prepared and developed too slowly, they managed to stop it with reserves transferred from other sectors. It was a dead end that was tried to be solved, either by starving Germany out, or by massacres in the framework of the "strategy of crushing". From 1914 to 1918 itself, the Western Front, sung by Remarque, was marking time, until the states that created it collapsed during the revolutions in Austria and Germany.

Mass mobilization

The First World War touched many people. Men went to the front, women got up to the machines in the rear.

This mass, having been in conditions never seen before, became significantly politicized.

The result was revolutions in Europe and severe political crises in many states, the emergence of totalitarian regimes and military fascist dictatorships. World War II was born in this cradle, already poisoned by mass propaganda.

Artillery - god of war

In both world wars, up to 80% of all defeats to personnel were inflicted as a result of artillery shelling.

In World War I, days of exhausting bombardment of positions preceded every major offensive.

This rarely gave a result, because in a few days the attacked managed to drag reserves to the sector and stop the future offensive. But people were grinded properly.

Machine gun - a symbol of the First World War

This weapon, which appeared at the very end of the 19th century, was called either "barbarism", or too expensive a toy (they say, you can go broke on some ammunition thrown into the air). The First World War quickly put everything in its place: the machine gun became almost the key weapon of the infantry, its merits could not be overestimated.

Climbing into the attack "against the wind" of working machine guns was not an occupation for the faint of heart.

poisonous substances

Or simply "gases", as they said in those days. In 1915, when the front became solid, and the very first attempts to break through it with frontal attacks led to monstrous losses, the Germans used a cloud of chlorine near the Belgian city of Ypres, released from cylinders downwind towards the enemy's trenches. Subsequently, the release of artillery shells with toxic substances began, in particular, this turned out to be a fairly effective means of suppressing enemy artillery. However, the “gases” were not only an inhumane weapon (the fear of Europe in front of them kept them from the massive use of accumulated military chemistry in World War II), but they also did not allow solving the problems of developing a breakthrough of the front, that is, removing the curse of “positional impasse”.

The vile weapon could do everything except for what it was created for.

tanks

Breaking through the equipped positions became more and more difficult. To accompany the infantry in 1917, the British applied a technical innovation - tanks. Huge armored hulls on caterpillar tracks (to overcome the destroyed zone of the breakthrough and trenches), equipped first with machine guns and then with cannons, were initially considered as a means to overcome the "positional impasse". Already after the war, the concept of mobile tank formations appeared, entering the gap in the front and disrupting communications in the enemy rear faster than the enemy manages to bring up reserves - something that we could then massively observe on the battlefield of World War II, in German, and then in the Soviet performance.

Mobile mechanized units made it possible to at least partially get away from the dull hopelessness of the trench seat and frontal attacks on barbed wire without any result, except for piles of corpses.

However, World War II provided mankind with new horrors.

In general, the mechanization of the army

The very first use of vehicles in the "great war" happened as an improvisation - Parisian taxis were used in 1914 for the rapid transfer of French infantry to the battlefield on the Marne. All the armies of the world emerged from the war with a clear conviction in the need to create powerful and numerous fleets of vehicles.

Combat aviation

Strictly speaking, the first combat use of aviation happened, albeit not long ago, but even before the First World War.

However, it was during the "great war" that combat aviation developed rapidly and gradually took the most important place on the battlefield.

It got to the point that in the interwar period, the possibility of a "non-contact" war from the air through massive strategic bombing of industrial centers and cities of the enemy was seriously discussed - the so-called "Douai doctrine". Partially, these ideas were used in World War II, their results were the destruction of a number of cities - Rotterdam, Coventry, Dresden, Tokyo, as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.