Search Results
8/2/2025, 7:14:04 PM
>>512048054
>Historian E. Tarle was even more categorical: “The Crimean War, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 and Russia’s Balkan policy of 1908-1914 are a single chain of acts that did not have the slightest sense from the point of view of the economic or other imperative interests of the Russian people” . Another historian, M. Pokrovsky, believed that the Russian-Turkish war was a waste of "funds and forces, completely fruitless and harmful for the national economy." Skobelev argued that Russia is the only country in the world that allows itself the luxury of fighting out of compassion. Prince P. Vyazemsky noted: “Russian blood is in the background with us, and in front is Slavic love. A religious war is worse than any war and is an anomaly, an anachronism at the present time.
>The war cost Russia 1 billion rubles, which was 1.5 times higher than the state budget revenues of 1880. To make it clearer, we can draw an analogy from the present time: with a federal budget of 16 trillion rubles, the war would now cost Russia 24 trillion rubles in one year, or almost $400 billion. In addition to purely military spending, Russia incurred another 400 million rubles losses caused to the south coast of the state, trade, industry and railways. During the war of 1877-1878. the money supply increased 1.7 times, the metal backing of paper money decreased from 28.8% to 12%. The normalization of monetary circulation in Russia will come only after 20 years, thanks to external loans and the introduction of the gold ruble in 1897. It is worth adding that as a result of this war, Russia did not receive any territories and preferences from the defeated Turks.
>But this financial and economic recovery did not last long. Seven years later, Russia "joyfully" rushed into another war - the Russo-Japanese
>Historian E. Tarle was even more categorical: “The Crimean War, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 and Russia’s Balkan policy of 1908-1914 are a single chain of acts that did not have the slightest sense from the point of view of the economic or other imperative interests of the Russian people” . Another historian, M. Pokrovsky, believed that the Russian-Turkish war was a waste of "funds and forces, completely fruitless and harmful for the national economy." Skobelev argued that Russia is the only country in the world that allows itself the luxury of fighting out of compassion. Prince P. Vyazemsky noted: “Russian blood is in the background with us, and in front is Slavic love. A religious war is worse than any war and is an anomaly, an anachronism at the present time.
>The war cost Russia 1 billion rubles, which was 1.5 times higher than the state budget revenues of 1880. To make it clearer, we can draw an analogy from the present time: with a federal budget of 16 trillion rubles, the war would now cost Russia 24 trillion rubles in one year, or almost $400 billion. In addition to purely military spending, Russia incurred another 400 million rubles losses caused to the south coast of the state, trade, industry and railways. During the war of 1877-1878. the money supply increased 1.7 times, the metal backing of paper money decreased from 28.8% to 12%. The normalization of monetary circulation in Russia will come only after 20 years, thanks to external loans and the introduction of the gold ruble in 1897. It is worth adding that as a result of this war, Russia did not receive any territories and preferences from the defeated Turks.
>But this financial and economic recovery did not last long. Seven years later, Russia "joyfully" rushed into another war - the Russo-Japanese
Page 1