Who started the Second World War? Who started the Second World War Dr Annika Mombauer, Open University, Britain

Look for someone who benefits. So, let me remind you, Roman lawyers advised identifying the perpetrators of crimes when there was a shortage of direct evidence. To an even greater extent than in jurisprudence, this approach is applicable to the sphere of politics, in which the decisions made, as well as the actors making them, are not of a public nature. Crimes in politics have a disproportionately larger number of victims than those crimes dealt with in jurisprudence. Such obvious crimes - crimes against humanity - include starting a war. Especially if we are talking about a war on a global scale. But an organized crime must obviously have a customer. Hence the question - who ordered the First World War? Look for someone who benefits...

The fact that the war was not a weave of random circumstances is evidenced by its foresight with an accurate description of the implemented scenario even before the Sarajevo incident. Such a foresight, down to the details, was a note addressed to the Tsar back in February 1914 by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs Pyotr Durnovo. A book was even recently published in which he is referred to as “Russian Nostradamus.” Durnovo assigned the initiating role in unleashing the coming world conflict to Great Britain, which was losing economic and military hegemony in the world and was trying to prevent this. The main theses of the note boiled down to the following provisions: “Even victory over Germany promises extremely unfavorable prospects for Russia...

This war will require such huge expenses that will many times exceed the more than dubious benefits... We will fall into financial economic bondage to our creditors... Russia will undoubtedly be plunged into the anarchy it experienced during the ever-memorable period of unrest of 1905-1906...

In case of failure, the possibility of which, when fighting such an enemy as Germany, cannot but be foreseen,

social revolution, in its most extreme manifestations, is inevitable in our country... Germany, in case of defeat, will have to endure no less social upheaval than Russia...” But if the consequences in the form of geopolitical and economic losses, anarchy and social revolution for Russia in the event of war were obvious to the former Russian minister, then they were also obvious to Russia’s counterpart. From this evidence it follows that when designing the war, its planners counted on a corresponding catastrophic outcome for both Germany and Russia. Accordingly, Russia was by no means an interested party in the global military conflict.

The main stratagem of the United States, and before the British Empire, was to prevent the very possibility of anyone being able to pose a geostrategic challenge to American world hegemony. Such a challenge was articulated by Germany and Russia (USSR) in the twentieth century. Economically, this was expressed in their reaching second position in the share of world GDP and reducing the gap with the United States. After this, a geopolitical blow was dealt to competing countries. The results of the First World War, the Second World War and the Cold War were the overthrow of the American enemy. Actually, this is what they apparently started for.

Now a new challenge to American hegemony is being articulated by China. Considering China as the main rival of the United States in the struggle for hegemony in the world is currently a common place in futurological discourse. According to polls, the majority of the population of a number of Western countries believes that China will win the global competition. Up to a third of Americans themselves believe that it is not the United States, but China that will play the role of world hegemon in the future.

How will the United States respond to this challenge? There is no doubt that they will not allow China to get ahead. The severity of the challenge implies the severity of the response. Based on historical experience, the obvious method of counteraction is a large-scale war.

The contradictions associated with the German challenge were complemented by internal contradictions within the Anglo-Saxon world. Today the USA and Great Britain are considered in the world almost as a single whole. But this was not always the case. The American-British alliance that still exists today was formed at the final stage of the First World War. Before the war, relations between the United States and Great Britain were confrontational. Anti-British sentiment in the United States in 1914 was even stronger than anti-German sentiment. There was a change in the world economic and financial leader. Great Britain was losing its leadership position. The United States has taken first place in the world economy. The clash between the former leader of Great Britain and another potential competitor in the struggle for leadership, Germany, and a third contender in the more distant future, Russia, was certainly beneficial to American capital. The First World War summed up the global inversion that had taken place.

Both world wars were associated with the process of changing the mechanisms of the global financial system. The US Federal Reserve System, as we know, was established just six months before the Sarajevo murder. After the victory of the Entente in the First World War, instead of the previous gold parity, a regime of floating managed exchange rates was established. The dollar and pound sterling became the universal reserve currencies. The de facto financial hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon world was established. However, the global crisis and the emergence of geopolitical actors challenging Anglo-Saxon hegemony led in the 1930s to the collapse of the established system. And then - the Second World War, Bretton Woods and the establishment of the dollar-gold principle as the basis of international monetary circulation. Will the new financial transition be associated with comparable geopolitical turmoil? The likelihood of such a scenario, as current events show, is increasing. The Jamaican financial system is bursting at the seams. Challenges are articulated in relation to the global hegemony of the dollar. For the United States, such a revision would obviously have the character of a systemic collapse. Therefore, they will do everything possible to prevent it. And the arsenal of these possibilities is well known.

The First World War led to the collapse of the previous polycentric world system, based on the balance of power of a number of Western colonial powers competing with each other. It clearly set the logic for the transition to a unipolar world. After the war, the United States becomes the No. 1 economic and financial power. But the revolution that occurred in the final stage of the war in Russia creates the prospect of putting forward an alternative world-building paradigm.

The next step in this logical chain is associated with the Second World War. Its result was the establishment of a model of a bipolar world. The defeat of the USSR in the Cold War leads to the actual establishment of a unipolar American-centric system. For its final establishment, with appropriate institutionalization (“world government”), a request for a new global military conflict may arise. The main interest in the war turns out to be, in fact, the same as a hundred years ago.

Answered by: Deputy Head of the Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology, Doctor of Historical Sciences. Vardan Baghdasaryan

The question of who started the Cold War - the Americans or the Soviets - has been debated since the very beginning of the conflict, and historians still cannot agree.

The approach of historians to the question of the origins of the Cold War, both in the United States and in Russia, has changed over time. At first, both sides persistently blamed each other. Then they tried to compromise on something. However, in the 1990s the US returned to post-war orthodoxy.

Chief Cold War Specialist

A Yale University professor and winner of many awards, including the Pulitzer Prize, John Lewis Gaddis is considered "one of America's leading historians."
It was Gaddis who began to argue that too much blame was placed on the United States for starting the Cold War. He said he believed Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was the main driving force behind the conflict.
In his opinion, the United States had no choice after being faced with Stalin's "ambitious plans and paranoid fears."


John Lewis Gaddis

According to Gaddis, Roosevelt and Churchill allowed for the possibility of finding common interests even in the situation of competing systems, while Stalin sought to “ensure his own security and the security of his country by encouraging competition between capitalist countries.” With such a position from Stalin, there could be no talk of cooperation and peaceful coexistence.
The historian also contrasts the United States and the Soviet Union.
"...the citizens of the United States could well claim in 1945 that they lived in the freest society on earth." On the other hand, “at the end of World War II, the USSR was the most authoritarian society on earth.”
The Cold War is portrayed as a confrontation between freedom and authoritarianism, which is the culprit responsible for the conflict.
Two Trends in American PoliticsOn the Russian side, the most complete and coherent account of the Cold War was presented by Valentin Falin, a historian and Soviet diplomat. Although he placed the blame on the US government, he did not view American policy as hostile from the start.


Valentin Falin

Falin traced the origins of the conflict to World War II and noted two trends in American policy towards the USSR. The first concerned concerns about the growing power of Moscow during the fight against the Nazis. The second supported the “Yalta approach,” aimed at peaceful cooperation between the United States and the USSR, as President Franklin Roosevelt wanted.
The historian quoted the words that Roosevelt said in his speech to Congress on March 1, 1945 after the signing of the Yalta agreement between the United States, Great Britain and the USSR: “The world we are building cannot become the American or British world, the Russian, French or Chinese world. It cannot be a world of large or small countries. It must be a world based on the joint efforts of all countries...”


"Big Three" at the Yalta Conference. Pictured: (from right to left) Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill

According to Falin, "the world that Franklin Roosevelt spoke of did not live up to the expectations of the reactionary faction in Washington, which was growing stronger," and when Roosevelt died, his successor Harry Truman was unwilling to consider the interests of other nations. Already in April of the same year, he stated that “cooperation between Moscow and Washington must be broken...” To illustrate the new hostile course of the US administration towards Moscow, Falin mentioned the Pentagon’s military plans. He refers to Memorandum 329 of the American Joint Intelligence Committee dated September 4, 1945, which set the following task for the US military:
“Select approximately 20 of the most important targets suitable for strategic atomic bombing in the USSR and on territory controlled by it.”

3 answers

In the 1930s, world Jewry pushed Poland into war with Germany.

Forcing Germany into war

Technically, it was Hitler. Because he attacked Poland, which caused a chain reaction. In principle, you can limit yourself to this if the details do not interest you. And if you are interested, it should be noted that more or less all leading European states were to blame for the beginning of World War II. Great Britain, France and the USSR allowed Germany to swell and gain power, flirted with Hitler and pretended that they wanted to be friends. We became friends. The short-sighted and stupid policies of British, French and Soviet diplomats led to World War II.

War is almost like sex, in the sense that it also requires at least two. And in most cases, these two are responsible for the war. If only because they didn’t find a way to avoid it.

Firstly, the USSR, together with Germany, captured Poland. Secondly, Hitler was forced to start a war by international Jewry.

In the 30s, world Jewry carried out a scenario in Poland, the same as in today's Ukraine. The result was Poland's attack on Germany and World War II... It's time for us to learn from those mistakes, and not repeat the old ones...

Forcing Germany into war

How a local conflict was blown up into a World War

1930: Paul Edward Rydz-Smigli, who imagined himself to be Napoleon, declared that Poland should show its fangs to its arch-enemy. He became the new Marshal of Poland in 1936. The Polish newspaper “Liga der Grossmacht” implored its readers (3): “War against Germany to move the border to the Oder and Nysa rivers. Prussia should be captured up to the Spree River. In the war with Germany we will not take prisoners. And there will be no room for human feelings and cultural restrictions. The world will tremble from the Polish-German war. We must instill in our soldiers a spirit of superhuman sacrifice, ruthless vengeance and cruelty."

March 24, 1932: Bernard Lecache, President of the Jewish World Federation: “Germany is our enemy No. 1 in the whole world. Our goal is to organize a war against her without any regret.”

March 24, 1933: The front page of the Daily Express published a call for a boycott of German goods, which sharply undermined the standard of living in Germany, the goods-exporting country. "14 million Jews stand together as one man, declaring war on Germany."

Spring 1933: Member of the District Council (voivode) of Eastern Oberschleisen, Gracinski, declared in a propaganda speech at the Polish Foreign Ministry: “Destroy the Germans.”

January 25, 1934: Vladimir Jabotinsky, leader of the Marxists and Zionists, writes: “We will unleash a mental and material war of the entire world against Germany.”

February 1936: The murder of the German diplomat Wilhelm Gustlow in Switzerland by the Jew David Frankfuter.

1936: After the death of Marshal Pilsudski, Edward Ridz-Smigly becomes the new Marshal of Poland.

1938: Churchill's open letter to Hitler(1): "If England found itself in a national disaster similar to that of Germany in 1918, I would pray to God to send me a man of your spirit and strength."

1938: 2/3 of German estates were brutally expropriated in Poland, forcing hundreds of thousands of Germans to leave Poland.

1938: 8,000 Germans were killed in the most brutal manner, including Catholic and Protestant priests and pastors, women and children. This was followed by persecution, terror and state persecution.

October 24, 1938: Germany submitted proposals to resolve tensions in Poland to the Polish embassy in Berlin. The plan proposed to free the purely German state “Freistaat Danzig” from Polish customs controls imposed on April 1, 1922. It was also proposed to hold a referendum in East Prussia. The German-Polish non-aggression pact (“Nichtangriffspakt”) with Marshal Pilsudski from 1934 was extended for 25 years. After the death of Marshal Pilsudski, Secretary of State Beck rejected German proposals. Warsaw rejected German proposals 4 times.

The newly created Poland under the Diktat of Versailles occupied the German provinces of Westpreussen, Posen and Ost-Oberschlesien ("Polish" Corridor), which had been German for more than 800 years. Moreover, Poland intended to occupy German territories in the direction of Berlin.

November 7, 1938: Attempt on the life of German diplomat Ernst von Rath by the Polish Jew Grynszpan, who was allowed to escape from Europe and never face trial.

November 9/10, 1938: Kristallnacht rocks Germany. Jewish businesses, homes and about 12% of the 1,420 synagogues were damaged. 36 people died. Thousands were arrested. Hitler was beside himself, declaring: “My work has been set back 5 years, if not destroyed.” This proves that the incident did not happen “by command from above.” (2)

November 10, 1938: Adolf Hitler immediately orders the protection of Jews and their property.

December 19, 1938: Bernard Lecache, President of the Jewish World Federation: “Our task is to organize a moral and cultural blockade of Germany with the division of its nation into 4 parts.”

March 21, 1939: Hitler formally proclaims Germany's right to return the Free City of Danzig and open railway and road traffic through the Corridor to Danzig under guarantees from Poland.

March 23, 1939: Poland provocatively rejected German demands after announcing partial mobilization on March 23.

March 31, 1939: The Anglo-French “Declaration of Guarantee” to Poland was practically granted to destroy Germany’s work for a peaceful and fair resolution of the crisis. The Poles announced that they would expand their borders to the Elbe River and that Berlin was not a German city, but an old Polish village. Numerous Polish posters proclaimed: “To Berlin!”

April 25, 1939: American journalist Weigand was summoned to the American embassy in Paris, and Ambassador Bullitt told him: “The war in Europe is a done deal... America will enter the war after France and Great Britain.” (4) This is confirmed by White House documents from Harry Hopkins, including the following statement from Churchill at the time: “The war will begin very soon. We will go to war, and the United States must do the same. You, Baruch, will do what needs to be done, but I will keep an eye on it all.” (4)

April 26, 1939: British Ambassador Henderson told his Secretary of State: “Passage through the Corridor is an absolutely fair decision. If we were in Hitler’s place, we would demand him, at a minimum.”

April 28, 1939: The German government reacts by revoking the German-Polish Agreement of 1934 and the German-British Naval Agreement of 1935. Germany is taking a wait-and-see approach.

May 1, 1939: Mrs. Mrozowiczka appeals to the Polish people: “The Fuhrer is far away, but the Polish soldier is close and there are plenty of branches on the trees in the forest.” Thousands of innocent Germans were compiled and arrested on false charges. A great Power like Germany should not be involved in such a disgusting game for so long. Instead, Germany continues its efforts to find a peaceful solution.

May 3, 1939: (5) During a large parade of Polish troops, which took place during the Polish National Day, excited people shouted to the troops: “To Gdansk!” and “Forward to Berlin!”

Summer 1939: Marshal Ridz-Smigli: “Poland wants war with Germany, and Germany cannot avoid it even if it wants.”

After this, Hitler for the first time presented to the press the facts of the persecution of Germans in Poland. Hitler's invitation to negotiations in Berlin was not accepted, but at the same time negotiations were underway between the Western powers and the USSR. Stalin proposed a military agreement in order to completely encircle and isolate Germany. In case of war, he demanded free passage through Poland and complete freedom of action in the Balkans and against Turkey.

In response to this, Hitler called on England to maintain peace and emphasized Germany's right to Danzig and the Corridor. He predicted the collapse of the British Empire if it entered the war.

Lord Vansitargh, a sworn enemy of peaceful relations with Germany and diplomatic adviser to the State Department in London, said that the mere mention of the possibility of a German-English pact would have a devastating effect on Britain in the United States.

August 20, 1939: Graszynski openly calls for murder: “Slaughter the Germans wherever you find them.”

August 23, 1939: Germany concludes the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact with the USSR, smashing the Anglo-French agreements to smithereens.

August 25, 1939: Hitler tells British Ambassador Neville Henderson: “The idea that Germany wants to conquer the whole world is ridiculous. The British Empire has 40 million square kilometers, the USSR - 19 million, and Germany - 600,000 square kilometers. Even from this it is clear who has intentions of conquest..."

August 25, 1939: Signing of the Anglo-Polish Mutual Assistance Agreement, which increased military euphoria in Poland. Crimes against Germans in Poland are multiplying. A resident of Slesin recalls: “Due to Poland’s repressive measures, about 80,000 Germans left Poland in 1938/39. Since May 1939, Germans living in Poland near the German border have been in particular danger. Townspeople and farmers are attacked, houses are burned, women and children are beaten..."

August 27, 1939: Excerpt from Hitler's address to French Prime Minister Deladier: “I, Mr. Deladier, am fighting with my people against the injustice committed against us, and the rest are fighting for this injustice. You and I lived through the war and are familiar with its devastating cruelty. We know of untold misfortunes befalling the masses. We must do everything in our power to prevent a new war..."

27 August 1939: Chaim Weizmann (who participated in the Balfour Declaration), chairman of the Jewish Palestine Agency, told Chamberlain that the Jews were on the side of Britain and were ready to fight on the side of democracy.

August 30, 1939: Once again Adolf Hitler issues a 16-point document to avoid war and resolve the German-Polish conflict. Poland refused to send an ambassador to receive the document. On the contrary, on the same day Poland declares general mobilization, which, according to the Geneva Protocols, is tantamount to a declaration of war.

August 30, 1939: German consul August Schillinger was killed in Krakow. And still Germany does not respond with war.

August 31, 1939: Dahlerus: (6) “When on August 31 at 11:00, accompanied by the British diplomatic adviser Forbes, I visited the Polish ambassador in Berlin - Lipski, to present Hitler’s 16 points, he (Lipski) made a similar statement what is done in case of war: that Germany is in revolt and that numerous Polish troops will successfully reach Berlin ... "

September 1, 1939: Hitler gives an impromptu speech to the Reichstag at the Krolloper, in which he emphasizes that Germany has no interests in the West. He then states: “Last night there were 21 border violations, this night there are already 14, and 3 of them were very serious. For the first time, the Polish army invaded German territory. At 4:45 am we returned fire...”

September 1, 1939: 75 German divisions numbering 1.1 million men confront the Polish army numbering 1.7 million. In short-term, heavy battles, the Polish army was defeated within 18 days. The German army, having crossed the border of Poland, discovered fresh graves of Germans, and on the roads - their torn, bloody clothes and utensils. Inhumane were the bloody scenes in Bromberg and other places where German corpses were dismembered, raped, tortured and killed in inhumane ways. German troops entering Pomerania, Schlesin and Slovakia witnessed similar horrors.

September 3, 1939: First, England declared war on Germany, and then France. The Reich Chancellor was horrified. Lord Helifax expressed his satisfaction: (7) “We have now forced Hitler into war so that he will no longer be able to take a single step away from the Treaty of Versailles in a peaceful manner.” Following this, Churchill declared on the radio: (8) “This war is England’s war and its goal is the destruction of Germany.”

September 17, 1939: USSR troops occupied 3/5 of Polish territory, but neither London nor Paris declared war on the Soviets or sent troops to defend Poland.

December 27, 1945: US Secretary of Defense Forrestal wrote in his diary words from a conversation with Joe Kennedy: “...neither France nor Britain had any reason to consider Poland the cause of the war, if not for constant pressure from Washington... Chamberlain explained to me that America and world Jewry pushed England into war..."

PREFACE

In July-August 2014, the whole world will remember a memorable date - the 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War (On July 28, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, on August 1, Germany declared war on Russia). Most often, modern historians write that All major European powers were interested in war because they saw no other ways to resolve the accumulated contradictions. Moreover, in the West (and sometimes, unfortunately, here in Russia) you can hear that, supposedly, the main reason for Germany’s entry into the war was the general mobilization announced in Russia on July 31. It is even more sad that in the mass consciousness of modern Russians there are very widespread myths that Russia could have avoided participating in this world massacre, but “got involved” in it because of the short-sighted policy of the tsarist government (Nicholas II).

In fact, Nicholas II and Russian diplomacy made every possible effort to peacefully resolve the conflict in the Balkans of 1912-1914, and in July 1914 he suggested that the German Emperor Wilhelm II refer the Austro-Serbian problem to the Hague International Court of Justice (which, by the way, , was founded within the framework of the Hague Peace Conferences on the initiative of Russian diplomacy and personally of Nicholas II). This peace initiative of Russia, which could have prevented (or delayed for a long time) a world massacre, remained unanswered - because Germany needed war precisely in 1914 (when it had already completed the rearmament of its army, and the Entente countries did not yet exist).

WHERE COME MYTHS ABOUT THE EQUAL GUILTY OF ALL GREAT POWERS

“First World War” - this name was established in historiography only after the outbreak of World War II in 1939. Previously, it was called “The Great War” (English: The Great War, French: La Grande guerre). In the Russian Empire it was called the “Second Patriotic War” (the second - after the Patriotic War of 1812), and among the people it was also called “German”; then in the USSR - the “imperialist war”.

As you know, the immediate cause of the war was the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by the Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo - this happened on June 28 (new style) 1914. It is also generally accepted that this event served only as an excuse, but there were many reasons, and first of all - the competing interests of the largest European powers.

The origins of this point of view (about the “equal responsibility” of all powers) actually go back to the articles of V.I. Lenin 1915-1916. Trying to justify his treacherous (in relation to Russia) ideology of “the defeat of one’s own government” and “transferring the imperialist war into a civil war,” he wrote, in particular, in the fall of 1916:

“The war is generated by imperialist relations between the great powers, that is, the struggle for the division of spoils, for who should eat such and such colonies and small states, and in the first place in this war there are two clashes. The first is between England and Germany. The second is between Germany and Russia. These three great powers, these three great highwaymen, are the main values ​​in a real war...”

However, in September 1914, at the beginning of the war, Lenin wrote something completely different, directly calling Germany the main culprit of the war - we will talk about this later.

The first Western leader to voice the crafty position on the equal responsibility of all great powers in starting a war was American President Woodrow Wilson, after the end of the First World War. Of course, he put it more carefully:

« Everyone is looking and not finding the reason why the war started. Their search is in vain; they will not find this reason. The war did not start for any one reason, the war started for all reasons at once.”

This point of view gradually became almost universally accepted in Western historiography. It is clear that it was acceptable for Soviet historians and politicians. With the exception that they often supplemented it with invective addressed to the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II - they say that he “made the idiotic decision to get involved in the war” by declaring general mobilization on July 31 (18th according to the Julian calendar) 1914. This accusation can also be heard from modern authors, including in Russia. – Next we will look at this issue in more detail.

However, it is first worth recalling that the rearmament program of the Russian and French armies was supposed to be completed by 1917, while the rearmament of the German army began much earlier than in Russia and France, and was completed by 1914 - which means that in 1914 year, Russia, led by Nicholas II, and France, led by President Poincaré, were in no way interested in starting a war - even if only for these military-strategic considerations..

The question of whether Russia could have avoided participating in the First World War comes up again and again in various discussions about it. So, could Nicholas II have avoided Russian participation in the First World War?

Let's figure it out.

BALKAN WARS 1912-1913

Let us recall that in 1912-1913, Nicholas II made a lot of efforts to peacefully resolve conflicts in the Balkans (during the First and Second Balkan Wars), while some “hawks” in the government and close circle pushed him to war to protect the interests of Serbia and other Balkan Slavs.

Liberated by Russia back in the 19th century from the Ottoman yoke, the young Balkan states (Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, and Greece) sought to crush the gradually weakening Turkey and divide its European territories among themselves.

Of course, “pan-Slavic” patriotism was very strong in Russia, and especially flared up just with the beginning of the Balkan Wars - it was very difficult for Nicholas II to keep the country from entering these wars to protect the Balkan Slavs and Greece. At the stations of many Russian cities in October 1912, Russian volunteers were already seen off to the “Farewell of the Slav” march...

And yet, almost at the very beginning of the First Balkan War, Russia proposed that all the great powers declare their complete disinterest in the division of Turkey. And everyone joined: France, England, and Germany. But the war in the Balkans continued. To enter the war in 1912-1913 would mean war with the entire Triple Alliance, including Italy and Romania - and with the neutrality of Great Britain. Knowing and understanding all this, Nicholas II personally appealed to the Balkan peoples and their leaders (monarchs) with a call to stop hostilities and conclude peace treaties among themselves and with Turkey. Alas, this did not help, and the Second Balkan War was provoked by the diplomats of Austria-Hungary and Germany, who sought to destroy the Balkan Union. It very quickly ended with the defeat of Bulgaria. The Treaty of Bucharest was signed on August 7, 1913.

The short history of the two Balkan wars is well known to historians, but for some reason the peacekeeping role of Russia and Nicholas II personally in these wars has been thoroughly “forgotten.” But a world war could have started even then...

CHRONOLOGY OF THE LAST DAYS OF JULY 1914 (KAGOON OF WAR)

A new real and imminent threat of world war arose first between Austria-Hungary and Serbia - three weeks after the assassination in Sarajevo - when on July 23, Austria-Hungary presented Serbia with a very harsh ultimatum, some points of which actually deprived Serbia of sovereignty, and the duration of the ultimatum was only 48 hours. Great Britain, France and Russia supported, to one degree or another, almost all the demands of Austria-Hungary, but considered the deadline for fulfilling the ultimatum to be too short. Russia identified some of the ultimatum's requirements as too stringent.

Germany is persistently pushing Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia.

On July 25, Germany begins hidden mobilization: without officially announcing it, they began sending out summonses to reservists at recruiting stations.

July 26 Austria-Hungary announces mobilization and begins to concentrate troops on the border with Serbia and Russia.

On July 28, Austria-Hungary, declaring that the demands of the ultimatum were not fulfilled, declares war on Serbia. Austro-Hungarian heavy artillery begins shelling Belgrade, and regular troops of Austria-Hungary cross the Serbian border. Russia says it will not allow the occupation of Serbia. Furloughs are ending in the French army.

On July 29, partial mobilization began in the western provinces of Russia, and leave in the German army was stopped.

29 July: British Foreign Secretary Edward Gray appeals to Germany to maintain peace. This was the last attempt to ensure Britain's neutrality. On the same day, the British ambassador in Berlin reports that Germany is about to start a war with France, and intends to send its army through Belgium.

On July 31, general mobilization into the army was announced in Austria-Hungary, France and the Russian Empire.

On the same day, a “war threat” was declared in Germany. Germany presents Russia with an ultimatum: stop general mobilization into the army and military preparations within 12 hours, or Germany will declare war on Russia. – Let’s say right away that this was a deliberately impossible demand, since even technically it was absolutely impossible to stop mobilization within 12 hours. We will return to this ultimatum to Germany later...

All this time, the great powers were conducting intense diplomatic negotiations, meetings took place between some leaders of the Entente countries (Russia, France, Great Britain) and, accordingly, the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary) and the Triple Alliance (together with Turkey).

On August 3, Germany declared war on France and on August 4 on Belgium. On the same day, Great Britain declared war on Germany. On August 6, Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia. The First World War has begun. By the end of 1914, Turkey (Ottoman Empire - on the side of Germany) and Japan (on the side) of the Entente were also involved in the war, in 1915 - Italy, Bulgaria and many other countries.

Now we have told what is generally known and accepted as a modern version of the beginning of the First World War. Now let's talk about little-known facts.

A TELEGRAM FORGOTTEN BY HISTORIANS

So, in July 1914, tense negotiations between Russia and Austria-Hungary and Germany were going on, everything was fluctuating “on the scales of history.” It is generally accepted that Nicholas II did nothing to prevent war in July, on the most decisive days. But that's not true. July 29 (16th Julian calendar) - two days before the start of the war - NikolaiSecondsentKaiserWilhelmvery importanta conciliatory telegram with a proposal to transfer the Austro-Serbian dispute to the Hagueinternationalto the court. Wilhelm did not answer her.

« So what?– perhaps another viewer will say, – Well, cousin Nicky sent a telegram to cousin Willy, but what's the point? Is it worth highlighting this telegram from the entire huge flow of diplomatic correspondence on the eve of the First World War?»

To such a viewer we will say right away that this was the only document from the personal correspondence of Emperor Wilhelm and Nicholas II that was not published in the “White Book” of diplomatic correspondence of the German Foreign Ministry in the fall of 1914, published to justify its position on the eve of the war - that fall all the great powers published their “White Books”, revealing to the world community all pre-war diplomatic correspondence... In diplomatic collections published in the same autumn in Russia and France, this telegram was published, along with all the personal correspondence of Nicholas II and Emperor Wilhelm...

Many prominent politicians, lawyers and journalists of that time immediately drew attention to this “gap” of the German Foreign Ministry. In January 1915, it was already a global diplomatic scandal...

But let’s talk about this now forgotten telegram in more detail.

Correspondence and exchange of telegrams between the Russian and German emperors were conducted in English. Here is the text of the message dated July 29, 1914 (from the English-language archive about the First World War “The World War I Document Archive”):

Tsar to Kaiser, July 29, 8:20 P.M.

Thanks for your telegram conciliatory and friendly. Whereas official message presented today by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. Beg you to explain this divergency! It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference.Trust in your wisdom and friendship.

Your loving Nicky

Translated into Russian:

« Thank you for your telegram, conciliatory and friendly. Meanwhile, the official message conveyed today by your ambassador to my minister was in a completely different tone. Please explain this discrepancy. It would be right to refer the Austro-Serbian issue to the Hague Conference. I count on your wisdom and friendship»

After this, there were five or six more telegrams (including three from Wilhelm) - But none of Wilhelm’s telegrams contained a response to the Sovereign’s proposal to transfer the consideration of the conflict to the Hague Conference (i.e., to the Hague International Tribunal).

The Hague Peace Conferences

Before continuing our story about this telegram, let us recall that Nicholas II in 1898 put forward his famous peace initiatives for general disarmament. In August 1898, Russia sent a note to governments around the world about the inadmissibility of a further arms race, and the destructive impact of this race on the economic, financial and moral state of society and civilization as a whole. Russia proposed convening an international conference on this problem.

Let us recall that even Nicholas’s grandfather, Alexander II, made efforts against the arms race that had just begun. In 1868, at his proposal, a conference of European diplomats was convened in St. Petersburg, and at it a convention on the “rules of war” was signed - prohibiting the use of explosive and incendiary bullets, and in 1874 Russia initiated an international conference on the codification of the “rules of war” in land battles. The grandson continued his grandfather’s international peacekeeping mission.

The proposal of the Russian Tsar, incredible for the end of the 19th century, surprised Europe. Some politicians welcomed him and argued that the Tsar would go down in history as Nicholas the Peacemaker. However, there were also very unflattering reviews, including from the Prince of Wales and Kaiser Wilhelm. The latter telegraphed to his cousin Nicholas: “Imagine a monarch disbanding his regiments, steeped in centuries of history, and betraying his people to anarchy and democracy.”

However, the persistence of Nicholas II and the activity of Russian diplomats bore fruit. Ultimately, most states supported Russia's initiative, and a peace conference was convened in The Hague in May 1899. It was attended by representatives of twenty major European powers, as well as the USA, Mexico, Japan, China, Persia and Siam. A series of regulations (the “Hague Convention”) were adopted with the aim of “putting a limit to continuous armaments.”

In 1907, the conference was convened again at the initiative of Russia. This time, more than 250 official representatives from 44 countries took part in it (even representatives from Latin American countries came). The conventions and declarations adopted at the two Hague peace conferences turned out to be very viable and later, after the First and Second World Wars, they were included in the charters of the League of Nations and the UN. We can say that the last Russian emperor stood at these origins. To this day, the UN Secretariat contains a bust of Nicholas II and his Address to the powers of the world on the convening of the first Hague Conference.

During his reign, the Sovereign himself several times referred controversial international issues (with the participation of Russia) to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The Hague Arbitration Court (also known as the “Hague Tribunal”) was established in 1899 by the decision of the first Hague Peace Conference and is the oldest organization for resolving international disputes.

Now, after this reminder of the Hague Conferences, let's continue our story about the telegram that could have prevented the First World War...

Let's open the memoirs of the French ambassador to Russia Maurice Paleologue. He published his St. Petersburg diary soon after the war, in the book “Tsarist Russia during the World War.” Under the date January 31, 1915 we read:

DIPLOMATS AND POLITICIANS ABOUT THE TELEGRAM OF NICHOLAS II:

This is what the French Ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paleologue, wrote in January 1915:

Sunday, January 31, 1915 The Petrograd Government Bulletin publishes the text of a telegram dated July 29 last year, in which Emperor Nicholas invited Emperor Wilhelm to transfer the Austro-Serbian dispute to the Hague Court. Here is the text of this document:

« Thank you for your telegram, conciliatory and friendly. Meanwhile, the official message conveyed today by your ambassador to my minister was in a completely different tone. Please explain this discrepancy. It would be correct to refer the Austro-Serbian issue to the Hague Conference). I count on your wisdom and friendship».

Maurice Paleologue:

And what a terrible responsibility Emperor Wilhelm took upon himself, leaving Emperor Nicholas’ proposal without a single word of response! He could not respond to such a proposal except by agreeing to it. And he didn’t answer because he wanted war.

Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov:

History will credit him with this. ...On July 29, Emperor Nicholas proposed to subject the Austro-Serbian dispute to international arbitration; ...on the same day Emperor Franz Joseph began hostile actions by giving the order to bombard Belgrade; and that on the same day Emperor William presided over the famous council at Potsdam, at which the general war was decided.

British Ambassador to Russia George Buchanan and some prominent foreign public figures and historians wrote about this now forgotten telegram in 1915-1919. In 1918, this telegram was even mentioned in the American encyclopedia about the First World War.

After the First World War, Winston Churchill wrote about this (in 1931)

Winston Churchill. The unknown war. L.: C. Scribner's Sons, 1931, p.170,

and in the 1960s - Robert Massey in his book “Nicholas and Alexandra”:

Robert K. Massie. Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: 1967.

All this seems to have been “forgotten” by modern historians...

It goes without saying that in the USSR the pre-history and the beginning of the First World War were presented only as a conflict of “imperialist predators”, and no one remembered the efforts of Russian diplomacy and personally of Nicholas II to prevent it.

So, two days after this telegram, Germany declared war on Russia. And a few hours later, on the evening of August 1, Wilhelm sent a telegram with a proposal: if the Tsar cancels the general mobilization, he (Wilhelm) withdraws the note declaring war. Naturally, the Emperor could not do this - it would have been perceived by the whole world (and the people of Russia) as a shameful capitulation. Whoever was on the throne of Russia at this moment could not agree with this telegram from Wilhelm - a little later we will explain this in more detail.

LIST OF SOURCES ON THE PROPOSAL OF NICHOLAS II dated JULY 29, 1914 (to transfer the Austro-Serbian problem to the Hague International Tribunal):

1.^ The Evidence in the Case. A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia, France, Austria, Italy and Belgium. By James M. Beck (LL.D. Late Assistant Attorney-General of the U.S. Author of “The War and Humanity.”), (p.81, p.106)2.

2. ^ Palaeologus M.G. Tsarist Russia during World War. – Moscow. Publisher “International Relations”, 1991 (page 155, 156 - in Russian); 1st Edition: Paléologue M.G. La Russie des Tsars pendant la grande guerre.- Paris: Plon, 1922. (Chapter XII); Maurice Paléologue. An ambassador's memoirs (Volume 1, Chapter VIII(see Sunday, January 31, 1915)

3. ^ G. Buchanan. “My Mission to Russia and other diplomatic memories”, 1923 (P.200)

4. ^ “Fighting for peace” by Henry Van Dyke. – New York. Charles Scribner's sons. 1917 (P.132-133)

5. ^ “International Judical Settlement Trends” by James Oliver Murdock, Harold J. Tobin, Henry S. Fraser, Francis O. Wilcox and Willard B. Cowles Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1921-1969) Vol. 34, (May 13-15, 1940) (P. 125-148)

6. ^ Arthur L. Frothingham. Handbook of War Facts and Peace Problems

7. ^ A Handy Reference on the Great War, published in 1918 (War Cyclopedia – N)(re-released in 2004: A Handy Reference on the Great War / by F. L. Paxson, E. S. Corwin, S. B. Harding and G. S. Ford. Honolulu Hawaii USA: University Press of the Pacific, 2004)

8. ^ Robert K. Massie. Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: 1967; Moscow 2003 (P. 84, 320 in Russian edition)

9. ^ Winston Churchill. The unknown war. L.: C. Scribner's Sons, 1931 (The unknown war. p.170)

11. ^ John Keegan. The First World War, 1998, p. 63

12. ^ Hew Strachan. The First World War, Vol I: To Arms, 2001, p. 85

13. ^ Richard F. Hamilton, Holger H. Herwig. Origins of World War One. Cambridge University Press, 2003 (P. 514)

14 ^ History of Russia. XX century / ed. Prof. A. Zubova, (vol. I, 1894-1939). - M.: ed. AST, 2010. (p. 291)

To be continued.

The war in Donbass, now in its fifth year, raises many questions about the causes of the conflict and the unbridled cruelty of the killers. Undoubtedly, the murders of opponents of the putschists in the cities of the South-East and the burning of living people in Odessa were elements of a general chain of escalating the situation in Ukraine. Combining supposedly independent events and facts into a single whole and my direct participation in them allows us to understand why and how peaceful protests in the Southeast turned into a civil war and why Odessa was chosen as a sacred victim.

The Odessa tragedy should be considered in the general context of the terror planned by the putschists against the insurgent South-East and the US strategy to drag Russia into the armed conflict in Ukraine. This was the putschists’ response to spontaneous popular protests in various cities of the Southeast.

Kharkov rose in the morning of February 23, and two days later Russia, with a swift operation, bloodlessly takes Crimea. Inspired by this, the people of the South-East rose up, even more massive protests began, the seizure of administrative buildings and the appointment of people's mayors and governors at rallies.

For various reasons, after Crimea and until Strelkov was removed from Donbass, Russia, apparently, refused to support the insurgent South-East and did not undertake serious activity in any of the regions. The putschists, well aware of the impossibility of peacefully subjugating the South-East, took advantage of this and began to methodically shed blood and intimidate the rebellious population.

After the execution of their own militants on the Maidan and the bloody massacre of the Berkut, which was defending power, the putschists decided to shed blood in Kharkov, where the most powerful protests in Ukraine at that time took place. The imported militants seize the regional administration building and plan provocations against the resistance from it. Unexpectedly for the putschists and local authorities, at a mass rally on March 1, Kharkov residents threw the militants out of the building, forced several dozen wet and frightened people to their knees on the podium and showed everyone what they are.

Undeterred, the putschists at the end of February 2014 released from prison the future leader of the Nazi formation “Azov” Biletsky and his accomplices. Two weeks later, they nevertheless organize a provocation in Kharkov and the murder of two resistance activists and the wounding of a local police officer. Thanks to the personal participation of the mayor of Kharkov, Kernes, two dozen detainees are released with impunity and they actively begin to participate in the formation of punitive battalions to “clean up” Donbass. If only Kernes had known that in a few months he would receive a bullet from those whom he so diligently freed.

In Kharkov, due to the small number of supporters of the regime, it was not possible to shed much blood. Moreover, the resistance is driving another group of militants on their knees down the street where the murder was committed, clearly demonstrating that they will not stand on ceremony with them.

Provocations are moving to the cities of Donbass with the aim of turning the peaceful confrontation into bloodshed, as a spontaneous seizure of power begins there. Punitive detachments from the “maydowns” are transferred to the Donbass and begin a bloody cleansing of the civilian population, while provocateurs stage clashes on the Russian border.

The popular resistance protest in Donbass in March was intercepted by oligarchic circles. Having ignored Moscow’s recommendations not to create the DPR and LPR, they do this and, as if on behalf of the people, accept a statement asking Russia to send troops. Russia does not react at all. The local oligarchy begins bargaining with the putschists for the surrender of the republics. Nobody touches them and, apparently, this would have happened, but the Strelkov factor intervened.

Contrary to the will of the Kremlin and the oligarchy, Strelkov unexpectedly appears in Slavyansk in mid-April and organizes an armed confrontation with the putschists. It is difficult to say what motivated him. The desire to reach Kyiv or it was used blindly no longer matters. As a comrade told me, who talked with Strelkov for many hours on this topic, “Strelkov found his war. The war he dreamed of.”

He organized resistance that was not included in any plans and made war inevitable. Strelkov gave the Ukrainian army a reason to launch a full-scale offensive not on Donetsk and Lugansk, but on Slavyansk, with which there were no agreements.

At the end of April, with the support of Oleg Tsarev, we organized a convoy of cars from Kharkov with food and medicine for the besieged Slavyansk. We managed to get into the city; there were already military checkpoints on the highway and preparations were being made to “cleanse” the city. Slavyansk did not yet know what fate the punitive forces had prepared for it.

After Slavyansk, peaceful Odessa was chosen for the next blow. The operation was planned on the day of a football match in Odessa and more than a thousand football ultras were brought from different cities of Ukraine (special train from Kharkov, buses from other cities). Having provoked the Odessa resistance into a clash and organized the murder of two militants, they staged a bloody massacre, as a result of which 48 people were officially killed and burned alive, and according to Odessa residents, several times more.

The provocation was a success. After the exchange of prisoners, I had to talk with Odessa residents involved in those events, including the father of Gennady Kushnarev, one of the resistance commanders, who was killed there. Everyone is inclined to one thing - this was a well-planned provocation with the goal of inoculating peaceful Odessa with blood, stopping protests and showing other regions how this could end.

The actions of the SBU immediately after the tragedy in Odessa testify to the excellent planning of the operation. The ultras and other militants from Kharkov who participated in the crime are immediately loaded onto the train. The Kharkov resistance is trying to organize a “worthy” meeting for them at the South Station, but the SBU redirects the train to another station and saves them from retaliation

In Kharkov, after the clearing of the regional administration on April 8 by Vinnitsa special forces, 66 resistance activists ended up in prison for years. And three days before the Odessa events, the remnants of the leadership of the Kharkov resistance were arrested and accused of preparing a terrorist attack on Victory Day. The basis was a provocation with a grenade and a pistol allegedly discovered, but actually planted, during a search in the organization’s office. At the same time, the F-1 grenade had no fuse, and the pistol was traumatic.

By the end of April, peaceful protests in the Southeast begin to subside, but such a development of the situation was not included in the plans of the putschists. Having dealt with Kharkov and Odessa, they expand the conflict and begin to shed blood in the Donbass. The forces of punitive battalions and the Ukrainian army carried out a siege and shelling of Slavyansk, as a result of which the suburb of Semenovka was torn to pieces by rockets and artillery strikes. On the day of the referendum, May 11, 2014, groups of militants break in and shoot civilians in the cities and towns of Donbass.

In Mariupol, militants of the Azov group seize the city on Victory Day, shoot at civilians and destroy local police officers who refused to obey the putschists. In New Aidar, on the “election day” of the president, SBU officers and militants of the “Aidar” formation, with the participation of the “heroine” Savchenko, stage a provocation, capture a group of opponents of the elections and eliminate one person upon delivery to Kharkov.

This blood is not enough for the putschists; on June 2, 2014, an air strike was carried out on the center of Lugansk. Two civilians are killed and 28 injured. A video of a woman with her legs torn off, with the words “don’t tell your daughter” before her death, is flying around the world.

In May, Strelkov took over the military control of the DPR and LPR from the oligarchic structures, but in early July he was forced to leave the practically surrounded Slavyansk. He is trying to organize defense on the approaches to Donetsk and Lugansk and is leading the war to the entire Donbass. This event has a serious impact on the outbreak of the civil war in Donbass. Military operations cover large territories, punitive forces do not limit their means, they use artillery, missiles, and aviation. Civilians are dying en masse and all this with impunity. In response, a people's militia begins to form and organize resistance to the putschists.

In mid-July, the Ukrainian army begins shelling Donetsk. Despite the tragedy of the situation in Donbass, Russia is not seriously interfering. Of course, there is media support, and with the arrival of the militia in June on the Russian-Ukrainian border, something begins to arrive both in terms of weapons and volunteers. This position of Russia does not suit the United States, and in order to accuse Russia of participating in the military conflict in the Donbass, on July 17, a provocation was carried out to destroy a passenger plane over the Donbass with the death of almost three hundred passengers. Naturally, Russia is categorically accused of the “barbaric” murder of civilians.

The militia forces are clearly not enough to resist the advancing Ukrainian army. With the mediation of Medvedchuk at the negotiations between the putschists and the militia at the end of July, it was possible to agree on a cessation of hostilities. But Poroshenko, instead of a truce, gives the order to attack and liquidate the self-proclaimed republics. In the confrontation between the militia and the Ukrainian army, the forces were too unequal, Russia had not yet provided effective military assistance, and in a short time the republics were practically dissected and a real threat of their liquidation loomed.

The situation was becoming catastrophic, the loss of Donbass led to a serious defeat for Russia in the global confrontation with the United States, the subordination of Ukraine to the interests of the West and the establishment of mass terror in the Donbass. Non-intervention was already fraught with serious consequences.

Apparently, it was then that the decision was made to launch Voentorg, remove Strelkov’s team, bring people loyal to the Kremlin to the leadership of the republics, and force Kyiv to peace. Russia had to intervene not to liberate Donbass, but with the goal of driving a painful thorn into the body of Ukraine and preventing the West from completely subordinating Ukraine to its influence. This is how the Minsk agreements emerged, which did not lead to peace in Donbass, but stopped the active phase of the civil war and froze the military confrontation for an indefinite period.

With the signing of the Minsk agreements, the situation in Ukraine turned out to be a stalemate. Neither side was able to achieve its goals. The United States managed to start a military conflict in Ukraine and indirectly drag Russia into it, but the latter did not allow the process of integrating Ukraine into Euro-Atlantic structures to be completed and the resistance of the South-East to be completely suppressed. The warring parties took a time out to assess the situation and make a fundamental decision - how to deal with Ukraine in the light of the global confrontation between Russia and the United States.