A Brief Russian military history

Some people’s arrogance towards France on these forums (for example in the “A Brief French military history”) must be met with an appriopriate response. Those people (and probably some other people) probably think that their countries were rarely defeated. So they should be shown the lists of other countries’ failures.

Below is a brief Russian military history.

Polish attack (1018)
Polish king Boleslav the Brave invaded Kiev and instituted his own pretendent to the throne there. He also grabbed a lot of gold and on his way back to Gnezno he joined the Chervyensk Towns to Poland. Later Russia instituted its own ruler back.

War against Poland (1025)
After Polish king Boleslav the Brave’s death his heir Mesko II crowned himself a king and refused to give Russia the Chervyensk Towns back and refused to give Germany Meissen and Lausitz back. Germany and Russia won.

Mongolian invasion (1227 and 1240)
The Russians were defeated and for over a century Russia was under Mongolian authority.

Polish and Lithuanian conquests (14th century)
Poles and Lithuanians conquered Russian territories (which were previously Mongolian authority).

War with Polish king Stephen Batory (16th century)
Tied.

War with Polish king John Casimir Vasa (17th century)
Tied. And it was mainly the Cossacks’ job.

Partitions of Poland
Russia has defeated Poland but it has to be remembered that Poland was weak and also Prussia helped Russia. Russia Prussia and Austria have divided Polish territory between themselves. Before Russia defeated Poland though it had to encounter heroic acts of some Poles.

War against Napoleon
It took around 15 years for Napoleon’s enemies to defeat him. And it wasn’t only Russia who won but also Great Britain, Prussia and Austria.

The Polish November insurrection
Russia has defeated Poles because the Poles were weak and also Russian Tsar decided to leave the Belgian insurrection and Greek insurrection alone.

The Crimean war
Russia has been defeated by Great Britain France and Austria.

The Polish January Insurrection
Russia has defeated Poles.

World War I
Russia was defeated by Germany before Germany was defeated by France.

World War II
The USSR took part in that war on a few fronts: against Finland, on the eastern front and against Japan. Against Finland the USSR was firstly defeated losing 200 thousand soldiers (Finland lost 23 thousand soldiers) and getting only 1/10 of Finland’s territory. Later the USSR occupied Finland.

On the eastern front, the USSR has firstly occupied Poland together with Germany but it was mainly Germany’s victory. Then the USSR was attacked and it took the USSR 4 years to defeat Germany (Germany at first was succeeding).

Against Japan, the USSR won but it was mainly the US’s victory.

Intervention in Afghanistan (1979-1989)
The USSR has been defeated by mujahedins.


[edit on 4-5-2005 by AtheiX]

While not wanting to burst your bubble at all....

Russia (USSR) was not actually at war with Japan during WWII until the last few days of the war. Japan was using Russia as an intermediary with the Allies to sue for peace after the dropping of the first atom bomb, however the Russian officials kept postponing meetings while rushing troops down the Korean peninsular.

The USSR did finally declare war on Japan, but the USA dropped the second bomb and brought WWII to what was for the USSR a premature end (in that they only managed to get half of Korea). This is how we have ended up with North and South Korea.

The fact of the matter is that neither the USSR nor Japan wanted to fight any part of WWII on two fronts (rather a wise decision on both parts really), which, of course, was Hitler's ultimate downfall.

You also left out a bit of Naval History.... the Japanese whipped the Russian Navy in (I think) either 1902 or 1905, with the Russians sueing for peace.

Let's not leave out that Russia, under the name of the Soviet Union, lost an economic and military build up -- a Cold War -- against the US. This happened after it lost a number of strategic battles; Lithuania breaking away from the U.S.S.R. (another victory against Russia by Lithuania), Poland, Latvia, Estonia, the Ukraine.....

The USSR didn't actually "lose" the cold war... what really happened was that the USSR disappeared under a blanket of beaurocracy. This had nothing whatsoever to do with the USA.

In fact, the tyranical rule of Stalin began the downfall as ever increasing layers of beaurocracy were put in place to protect everyones backsides from Stalin's excessive punishments for failure (with each succeeding layer slightly exaggerating productiveness) that the country/empire ended up with virtually nothing being produced!

So the best that the USA can claim with regard to the cold war was that they outspent eveyone else

Bear in mind that this can happen to any country which believes that the answer to any problem is to "form a commitee"

The symptoms can be observed here ....www.butteredcat.com...

Look past the propaganda and see the real world.

And by the way.....remember this....

People do not make war, only politicians make war.

The people of the USA did not suddenly decide enmasse to hammer Saddam, George W did that. The people of Germany did not suddenly decide to invade Poland, France, Russia, et al - Hitler did that... think about it.

As far as truth and lies.......

How can you tell when a politician is lying ?

Their mouth is moving!



[edit on 7/5/05 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by AtheiX
World War I
Russia was defeated by Germany before Germany was defeated by France.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by AtheiX]

And I am guessing that The British Empire and the United States (among others) had nothing to do with the defeat of the Germans?

Please, if you are going to start throwing history around in an attempt to discredit a nation, then add all the facts.

Originally posted by Daystar

Originally posted by AtheiX
World War I
Russia was defeated by Germany before Germany was defeated by France.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by AtheiX]

And I am guessing that The British Empire and the United States (among others) had nothing to do with the defeat of the Germans?

They had but not as much as France had. I already told the details about that in a separate thread.

The USSR didn't actually "lose" the cold war...

No? Then why did the USSR collapse?

Atheix, are you French? That may explain your ridicuously biased view on WW1. Russia withdrew from the war because of the revolution, therefore they cannot be said to have 'lost' can they? Germany did not crush them, invade then and take over. They simply stopped fighting.

Also without the British, France would have been overrun by the German army. Even with the British it was a stalemate with neither side making much ground and then the intervention of America in 1917 finally tipped the balance. *note* this dioes not mean that America won the war as some of them like to claim but merely that they were on the winning side. Therefore to say that 'France did more' is as ridiculous as to claim that either of the others did too. It was an alliance, same as the following war.

Just because France was overrun in a matter of weeks in 1940 does not mean I do not recognize that France played a part in the rest of the war too.

Again I will point out to you that the original message relating to France was humourous and not to be taken seriously, that much is obvious to me and I did not post it. If you are trying to reply to that then you should follow the same path and make it funny, instead of posting insulting rubbish which you obviously mean. Why must you post these shallow and insulting messages? People died for our freedom and all you can try to do is score points? Thats pathetic.

[edit on 22-5-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
Atheix, are you French?

No I'm not.

Originally posted by waynos

Also without the British, France would have been overrun by the German army.

No they wouldn't. They (the French) defeated the German army already in 1914 at Marne thus making it retreat to the nearby of the French-German border. Then the French defeated the German army again at Verdun in 1916. And later they defeated the German army at Marne in 1918.

What you're trying to do is dismissing the effort the French put into the fighting and trying to say that if it wasn't for the British, France would be overrun by the German army, which is not true, as I said above.

[edit on 22-5-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 22-5-2005 by AtheiX]

Actually, I think you'll find it is YOU that is being dismissive of the efforts of the other nations. The French army won at Marne? That is one battle, not the whole war. War is more complex and it does not follow that the winning side wins every battle. Surely you realise that.

The point I was making was that France alone could not defeat Germany. That is a fact. It is also a fact that Britain alone couldn't and neither could America alone. That was my point. It was the alliance of these nations (and others of course such as the Anzacs etc) combined that was too much for Germany. That is why talk of who did the most is stupid.

Originally posted by waynos
Actually, I think you'll find it is YOU that is being dismissive of the efforts of the other nations.

Actually it is YOU who dismissed the effort of the French by saying that without British help they would be overrun by the German army. They (the French) defeated the German army at Marne and then at Verdun and later at Marne. How would the German army overrun France then? After being already defeated severely in 3 battles?

Originally posted by waynos
The French army won at Marne? That is one battle, not the whole war. War is more complex and it does not follow that the winning side wins every battle. Surely you realise that.

That was not one battle. Later the French defeated the German army at the battle of Verdun. The French were defending themselves in the Verdun stronghold. They repelled the German attacks. This way the German army was severely defeated by the French army - for the second time during World War I. Then the German army had no chance of winning.

The British participation in this war was the following: as ally of France the British had the duty to help France in case of a German agression. The German army attacked France but the French defeated the German army severely at Marne before the British got involved in the fighting. Great Britain decided to fight against Germany anyway because that meant the perspective of taking over German colonies. So Great Britain and Japan took over the German colonies and Great Britain also took part in the fighting against Germany on the European continent so that later when Germany would be defeated they (the British) would be able to demand colonies from Germans when it would come to make the conditions of the peace treaty.

[edit on 22-5-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 22-5-2005 by AtheiX]

You forgot the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Anyway, what point are you trying to make?

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
You forgot the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Anyway, what point are you trying to make?

Regarding World War I I'm only proving that it's not truth that if it wasn't for the British, France would be overrun by the German army.
Regarding Russia I only want to show that Russia was defeated more times that France.

No, you are not proving anything. You are merely asserting it. And regards Russia. Why does it matter anyway? Whats the point? There isn't a country on earth that hasn't fought wars and lost, so what? Are you going to present a 'World War Cup' to the country with the 'best score'?

Originally posted by waynos
No, you are not proving anything.

I am. You just don't want to admit that you are wrong.

Originally posted by AtheiX

Regarding World War I I'm only proving that it's not truth that if it wasn't for the British, France would be overrun by the German army.
Regarding Russia I only want to show that Russia was defeated more times that France.

Yes, but why?
And incidentally, without British intervention in 1914, there is a good chance Germany would have captured Paris. The name of the battle escapes me but it took place on a river to the west of Paris, where the British army held the line and stopped the Germans advancing on Paris. Also, the fact that Russia mobilized quicker than expected by the Germans was a vital factor in the failure of the Schlieffen plan. Not that any of this matters at all in anything other than a historical context. It is irrelevant today.

What have you got against Russia? And why rise to the bait when people insult and misreopresent France's military history? You know yourself they are wrong, and only make such comments because they cannot accept that France doesn't conform to the American agenda in the middle east.

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
And incidentally, without British intervention in 1914, there is a good chance Germany would have captured Paris. The name of the battle escapes me but it took place on a river to the west of Paris, where the British army held the line and stopped the Germans advancing on Paris.

No there wasn't any chance for the German army to take over Paris. It has been defeated by the French at Marne in 1914. That stopped the German army.
And it is not true that it was the British who repelled the German attack. The French repelled the German attack alone.

He can't hear you (or me) cider. I'm not surprised with his head that far up his own arse

Yes so the French victories at Marne and Verdun mean that France would have won WW 1 on its own and the rest of the allied contribution was worthless, you win. Muppet.

Originally posted by waynos
Yes so the French victories at Marne and Verdun mean that France would have won WW 1 on its own and the rest of the allied contribution was worthless, you win. Muppet.

Not winning WWI on its own in the way that the Entente has won. The Entente not only defeated the German army on the European continent but also took over German colonies and made the German Reich so weak that it (the German Reich) had to surrender and accept the strict conditions of peace. France didn't achieve all of this alone and wouldn't achieve all of this alone.
But they defended themselves successfully on their own against the German army.

Hang on, when I pointed out that you cannot single out one nation as it was an allied effort you argued with me saying France didn't need any allies to win, are you now retracting that statement? Besides, France evidently did not defend itself fropm the German onslaught on its own as British forces were mobilised into France immediately in August 1914. Even if you count the French victories you have named do you not think the fact that German forces were also fighting with the British elsewhere somewhat diluted the number of troops available to fight the French army and therefore contributed to those French victories? Clearly if the British army had not been present the Germans would have been able to bring much stronger forces into battle against the French.

[edit on 22-5-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
Hang on, when I pointed out that you cannot single out one nation as it was an allied effort you argued with me saying France didn't need any allies to win, are you now retracting that statement?

No. I said that France didn't need any allies to win but needed allies to make Germany weaker than just weakened by severe defeats.

Originally posted by waynos
Besides, France evidently did not defend itself from the German onslaught on its own as British forces were mobilised into France immediately in August 1914.

The French have defeated the German army at Marne in 1914 ALONE - before the British army joined the fighting. The British army joined the fighting AFTER the battle at Marne. At Verdun it was also French only or at least mainly French who defeated the German army.

Originally posted by waynos
Even if you count the French victories you have named do you not think the fact that German forces were also fighting with the British elsewhere

Yes - in German colonies. And later on the European continent.

Originally posted by waynos
somewhat diluted the number of troops available to fight the French army and therefore contributed to those French victories?
Clearly if the British army had not been present the Germans would have been able to bring much stronger forces into battle against the French.

As I said the French defeated the German army BEFORE the British army landed on the European continent. The German army lost the perspective of winning BEFORE the British army landed on European soil.
Later, when the British army was on the continent, if it didn't fight the German army, the German Reich would be able to send a stronger army against France. But still that wouldn't help the German Reich achieve anything. The German army was already twice (at Marne in 1914 and at Verdun in 1916) defeated by the French although the French fought alone - how do you know the German army wouldn't be defeated for the third time?