Brusilovsky breakthrough applies. Big plans for the Entente. Need help with a topic

One of the largest and most successful offensive operations of the Russian army during the First World War. It took place from May 22 (June 4, new style) to September 7 (20), 1916 on the Southwestern Front under the command of General A.A. Brusilov. The offensive covered the territories of Volhynia, Galicia and Bukovina (now Western Ukraine), as a result, the armies of Austria-Hungary and Germany suffered a heavy defeat.

The operation was part of the overall strategic plan of the Entente for the interaction of the allied armies on the western and eastern fronts. According to the decision of the conference of the allied powers in Chantilly in March 1916, a simultaneous offensive of the allied armies was envisaged in the summer of 1916 against Germany and its allies. An Anglo-French offensive on the Somme was scheduled for July 1916, and an offensive on the Russian front for June.

Based on the decisions of this conference, a general plan of action for the Russian army in the summer campaign of 1916 was developed. At the Military Council in April 1916 in Mogilev, under the chairmanship of the Supreme Commander Nicholas II, a fundamental decision was made to prepare the Russian troops for the offensive, which was to be deployed in mid-June on all three fronts simultaneously - the Northern (commander General A.N. Kuropatkin), Western (commander General A.E. Evert) and Southwestern (commander Adjutant General A.A. Brusilov). Moreover, the main blow was supposed to be delivered by the forces of the Western Front. The balance of power was in favor of the Russian army, especially since in the summer of 1916 the armies of the Central Powers were not preparing for large-scale offensive operations on the eastern front.

However, in May 1916 the situation changed. In connection with the successful offensive of the Austrian troops in the Trentino region, Italy was on the verge of defeat. The Italian king Victor Emmanuel III turned to Nicholas II with a request for help. The request was supported by France. Russia was, as always, faithful to its allied obligations. The headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief appointed the offensive of the South-Western Front for June 4, and the Western Front - for June 10-11. Thus, the immediate goal of the offensive operation was to divert the Austrian troops from the western front and save Italy. Under such circumstances, the role of the main striking force was assigned to the Southwestern Front, which stood directly against the Austro-Hungarian troops.

Front commander A.A. Brusilov, it was decided to carry out the offensive not in any one direction, but simultaneously along the entire front line. This scattered the enemy's forces and did not give him the opportunity to concentrate his forces to repel the main attack.

By the beginning of the offensive, the armies of the Southwestern Front numbered 40.5 infantry divisions (573 thousand bayonets) and 15 cavalry divisions (60,000 cavalry). 1770 light and 168 heavy guns were in service. At the same time, the strength of the armies of Austria-Hungary and Germany was 39 infantry divisions (437,000 bayonets) and 10 cavalry divisions (30,000 cavalry), there were 1,301 light and 545 heavy guns. Thus, the superiority of Russian troops over the enemy in manpower and artillery was very insignificant, and therefore the concentration of Russian troops in the areas of the future offensive played a huge role. There were 11 such sectors, and there it was already possible to achieve significant superiority over the enemy - in infantry by 2 - 2.5 times, in artillery by 1.5 - 1.7 times, and in heavy - by 2.5 times.

The action plan of the armies of the Southwestern Front was as follows. The 8th Army (commanded by General A.M. Kaledin) delivered the main blow on the right flank in the direction of Lutsk, and later on - Kovel. The remaining three armies carried out auxiliary attacks: the 11th Army (commander General V.V. Sakharov) - on Brody, the 7th Army (commander General D.G. Shcherbachev) - on Galich, the 9th Army (commander General P.I. A. Lechitsky) - to Chernivtsi (current Chernivtsi). A major role in organizing the offensive was played by Major General M.V. Khanzhin. Careful work was carried out to prepare the offensive.

The Russian troops were opposed from the German side by the army group of A. von Linzingen, from the Austrian side by the army group of E. von Böhm-Ermoli, the Southern Army and the 7th Army of Plyantser-Baltin.

The enemy, although he did not plan an offensive, was extremely well prepared for the defense. A powerful, deeply echeloned defensive system consisted of 2, and in some places of 3 lanes, spaced from each other at a distance of 3 to 5 kilometers, with trenches, support nodes, pillboxes, concrete dugouts and various obstacles and traps - from wire obstacles and mines fields to notches, wolf pits and flamethrowers. The Austro-German command had intelligence data on the impending attack, but believed that without significant reinforcements, the Russian troops would not be able to break through such a powerful line of defense, especially after the defeats of 1915.

In this regard, for the success of the offensive of the armies of the Southwestern Front, not only a significant concentration of forces in the directions of the future breakthrough, but also well-coordinated joint actions of various types of troops - primarily infantry and artillery, were of great importance. Therefore, the offensive began on the night of May 22 (June 4) with the most powerful artillery preparation, which lasted from 6 to 45 hours in different sectors of the front. Under the cover of artillery fire, the Russian infantry went on the offensive. The troops moved in waves, 3 - 4 chains in each, following one after the other after 150 - 200 steps. The first wave, not lingering on the first line of defense, immediately attacked the second. Following the advanced units, regimental reserves went, which, forming the third and fourth waves, attacked the third line of defense, passing by the first two (the so-called "attack by rifts"). The breakthrough was carried out immediately in 13 sectors of the front, followed by an advance towards the flanks and in depth.

The greatest success of the offensive was achieved on the right flank, where the 8th Army of General A.M. Kaledin. Already on the third day Lutsk was taken. By June 15, the army troops advanced 60 kilometers deep into the enemy’s positions, defeating the 4th Austro-Hungarian army of Archduke Joseph Ferdinand and reaching the Stokhid River. The capture of Kovel, the most important center of communications for the Austro-German troops, became quite real in this direction. On the left flank of the troops of the 9th Army, General P.A. Lechitsky broke through the defenses of the 7th Austro-Hungarian Army, breaking it in a fierce battle, and, advancing 120 kilometers inland, on June 18 they took the well-fortified city of Chernivtsi - the “second Verdun”, as the Austrians called it. The 11th and 7th armies also broke through the front, but, having met fierce resistance from the Austro-Hungarians, they were forced to suspend the offensive.

However, the success of the offensive was clear and overwhelming. In the first days of the breakthrough, about 136,000 enemy soldiers and officers were taken prisoner, more than 550 guns and machine guns were captured, not counting other trophies. The entire southern flank of the Austrian front was hacked, the Russian units entered the operational space. The situation of the Austro-Hungarian troops (Chief of the General Staff K. von Götzendorf) turned out to be catastrophic. 2 German divisions were immediately transferred from the Western Front, 2 Austrian divisions from the Italian Front (which, in fact, the Allies from Russia wanted), a large number of units were also transferred from other sectors of the Eastern Front. On June 16, the Austro-German troops launched a counteroffensive against the 8th Army, but were defeated and driven back across the Styr River.

The success achieved had to be built on. This required a joint action with the Southwestern Front and other fronts, primarily the Western. However, the commander of the last A.E. Evert believed that his troops were not yet ready for a large-scale offensive. Meanwhile, the performance of the Russian troops, which had begun brilliantly, threatened to lose one of its main qualities - lightning speed. In addition, at the end of June, the Allied offensive began on the Somme, which made it possible to develop further success in the east. Under these conditions, the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (Chief of Staff M.V. Alekseev) agreed on a joint offensive by the troops of the Southwestern Front on Kovel, and the Western Front on Baranovichi, at the beginning of July. But the attack on Baranovichi was repulsed, resulting in huge losses for the Russian troops. The offensive actions of the Northern Front turned out to be just as unsuccessful.

As a result, on June 26 (July 9), the Headquarters made a belated decision - to entrust the conduct of the main attack to the Southwestern Front. He received reinforcements - the Special Army of General V.M. Bezobrazov, formed from the guards and the Trans-Baikal Cossacks (strategic reserve). The troops of the front were given the task of taking Kovel. On July 28 they launched a new offensive. And although Kovel and the fortified bridgehead around it could not be taken, significant successes were again achieved in other directions: the 11th army took Brody, the 7th army - Galich, the 9th army occupied Bukovina and captured Stanislav (now Ivano-Frankivsk) . At the end of August the offensive stopped.

Sources

Brusilov A.A. My memories. M.-L., 1929

Brusilov A.A. My memories. M., 1963

A major and successful offensive operation organized on the Southwestern Front by General Brusilov. During it, the Russian troops managed to break through the defenses of the Austro-German army on a wide front.

It became a difficult test for Russia. A technically backward power with great difficulty transferred its economy to a military footing. The war may have become the main reason both revolutions of 1917. But the situation on the fronts could have turned out quite differently, the morale of the Russian soldier would not have been so low by the beginning of 1917 if the front commanders had supported their most talented colleague from the Southwestern Front. Aleksey Alekseevich Brusilov became one of the few Russian generals of that time who showed himself from the best side. Yes, and foreign authors recognize Brusilov's outstanding merit. It was this Russian commander who managed to find an antidote for positional warfare, which the British, French and Germans were looking for so unsuccessfully at the same time.

* * *

He was appointed to the post of commander-in-chief of the armies of the South-Western Front (SWF) on March 16 (29), 1916. The general was one of the most honored military leaders in the Russian army. He had 46 years of experience behind him military service(including participation in the Russian-Turkish war of 1877–1878, training of the command staff of the Russian cavalry, leadership of large formations). From the beginning of the First World War, Brusilov commanded the troops of the 8th Army. At the post of commander during the battles of the initial period of the war, in the Battle of Galicia (1914), in the campaign of 1915, talent and best qualities Brusilov the commander: originality of thinking, courage of judgments, independence and responsibility in the leadership of a large operational unit, activity and initiative.

By the beginning of 1916, the warring parties had mobilized almost all of their human and material resources. The armies have already suffered colossal losses, but neither side has achieved any serious successes that would open up prospects for a successful conclusion to the war. The situation on the fronts was reminiscent of the initial position of the warring armies before the start of the war. IN military history such a situation is called a positional impasse. The opposing armies created a solid front of defense in depth. The presence of numerous artillery, the high density of the defending troops made the defense difficult to overcome. The absence of open flanks and vulnerable seams doomed attempts to break through, let alone maneuver, to failure. The extremely tangible losses during the breakthrough attempts were also proof that the operational art and tactics did not correspond to the real conditions of the war. But the war continued. Both the Entente (England, France, Russia and other countries) and the states of the German bloc (Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, etc.) were determined to wage the war to a victorious end. Plans were put forward, there were searches for options for hostilities. However, one thing was clear to everyone: any offensive with decisive goals must begin with a breakthrough in defensive positions, to look for a way out of the positional impasse. But so far no one has been able to find such a way out.

Numerical (and economic) superiority was on the side of the Entente: on the Western European front, 139 Anglo-French divisions were opposed by 105 German divisions. On the East European front, 128 Russian divisions operated against 87 Austro-German divisions.

As for the Russian army, on the whole, its supply has improved somewhat. The troops began to receive a significant number of rifles (although different systems), with plenty of ammo. Added machine guns. There were hand grenades. Worn tools were replaced with new ones. More and more artillery shells came in. The army, however, lacked heavy (siege) artillery, very few aircraft, and no tanks at all. The troops also needed gunpowder, toluene, barbed wire, cars, motorcycles, and more.

At the beginning of 1916, the German command decided to go on the defensive on the Eastern Front, and on the Western Front, to take France out of the war with an offensive.

The Allies also adopted a joint strategic plan. Its foundations were determined at the allied conference in Chantilly. A document was adopted that determined the methods of action of each of the armies of the coalition and included the following proposals: 1. The French army was to staunchly defend its territory so that the German offensive would break against its organized defenses; 2. The British army was to concentrate the largest part of its forces on the Franco-German front; 3. The Russian army was asked to exert effective pressure on the enemy in order to prevent him from withdrawing his troops from the Russian front, and also to begin preparations for going on the offensive without fail.

The strategic plan for the conduct of hostilities by the Russian army was discussed on April 1–2 (14–15), 1916 at Headquarters in Mogilev. Nikolai P. himself presided. Based on the tasks common and agreed with the allies, it was decided to the troops of the Western (commander - A.E. Evert) and Northern (commander A.N. Kuropatkin) fronts to prepare for mid-May and conduct offensive operations. The main blow (in the direction of Vilna) was to be delivered by the Western Front. According to the idea of ​​the Headquarters, the South-Western Front was assigned an auxiliary role, it was tasked to conduct defensive battles and tie down the enemy. The explanation was simple: this front was incapable of advancing, since it had been weakened by the failures of 1915, and the Headquarters had neither the strength, nor the means, nor the time to strengthen it. All reserves were given to the Western and Northern fronts. (By the way, the Allies objected to active operations on the Russian Southwestern Front, since an offensive here could lead to an increase in Russian influence in the Balkans.)

A. A. Brusilov at a meeting at Headquarters insisted on changing the tasks of his front. Wholly agreeing with the decision on the tasks of other fronts, Brusilov, with all conviction and determination, convinced his colleagues of the need for an offensive in the southwest as well. He was objected to by the chief of staff of the Headquarters Alekseev (until 1915 - chief of staff of the South-Western Front), the former commander of the South-Western Front N. I. Ivanov, Kuropatkin. (However, Evert and Kuropatkin did not believe in the success of their own fronts either.) But Brusilov managed to get permission to attack, however, with private, passive tasks and relying only on his own forces.

Brusilov's front had four armies: the 8th, commanded by General A. M. Kaledin; 11th Army under the command of General V. V. Sakharov; 7th Army of General D. G. Shcherbachev and 9th General P. A. Lechitsky. The latter, due to illness, was temporarily replaced by General A. M. Krylov. The troops of the front numbered 573 thousand bayonets and 60 thousand sabers, 1770 light and 168 heavy guns. Russian troops outnumbered the enemy in manpower and light artillery by 1.3 times; in severe, they were 3.2 times inferior.

Having abandoned the methods of breakthrough used at that time (on a narrow section of the front when concentrating superior forces in the chosen direction), the commander-in-chief of the Southwestern Front put forward new idea- a breakthrough of the fortified positions of the enemy due to the simultaneous application of crushing blows by all armies of a given front. At the same time, the largest possible number of forces and means should be concentrated on the main direction. This form of breakthrough made it impossible for the enemy to determine the location of the main attack; the enemy, therefore, could not freely maneuver his reserves. Therefore, the advancing side was able to fully apply the principle of surprise and tie down enemy forces on the entire front and for the entire duration of the operation. The successful solution of the task of the South-Western Front in the operation was initially associated not with superiority over the enemy in forces and means, but with the massing of forces and means in selected directions, achieving surprise (deception of the enemy, operational camouflage, operational support measures), skillful maneuver of forces and means.

Initially, Brusilov's plans were approved only by Sakharov and Krylov, and a little later by Shcherbachev. Kaledin, whose army was to act on the edge of the main blow, persisted the longest. But Aleksey Alekseevich managed to convince this general too. Soon after the meeting (April 6 (19), 1916), Brusilov sent "Instructions" to the army, in which he detailed the nature and methods of preparing for the offensive.

1. “The attack should be carried out as far as possible on the entire front, regardless of the forces available for this. Only a persistent attack with all forces, on the widest possible front, can really pin down the enemy, prevent him from transferring his reserves.

2. "The conduct of the attack on the entire front should be expressed in the fact that in each army, in each corps, to outline, prepare and organize the broadest attack on a certain section of the enemy fortified position."

The main role in the offensive of the Southwestern Front was assigned to the 8th Army, which was closest to the Western Front and, therefore, capable of providing the most effective assistance to Evert. Other armies were supposed to make this task as easy as possible, pulling over a significant part of the enemy's forces. Brusilov entrusted the development of plans for individual operations to the commanders of the armies, giving them the opportunity to take the initiative.

The operation was carried out in secret. The entire area where the troops were located was studied with the help of infantry and aviation reconnaissance. All enemy fortified positions were photographed from airplanes; photos are enlarged and expanded into plans. Each army chose a sector for its attack, where troops were secretly pulled up, and they were located in the immediate rear. Hasty trench work began, carried out only at night. In some places, the Russian trenches approached the Austrian ones at a distance of 200-300 paces. Artillery was imperceptibly brought to pre-planned positions. Infantry in the rear trained in overcoming wire obstacles and other obstacles. Special attention was given to the continuous connection of the infantry with the artillery.

Brusilov himself, his chief of staff, General Klembovsky, and staff officers were almost constantly in position, controlling the progress of work. Brusilov demanded the same from the commanders of the armies.

On May 9, the royal family visited the positions. Brusilov had a rather curious conversation with Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. Having called the general to her carriage, the empress, who was probably not unreasonably suspected of having links with Germany, tried to find out from Brusilov the date of the start of the offensive, but he answered evasively, saying that the information was so secret that he himself did not remember it.

While the Russian army was preparing for offensive operations, the superior forces of the Austrians suddenly attacked the formations of the Italian army in the Trentino region. Having suffered heavy losses, the Italians began to retreat. Soon the Italian command appealed to the Russian Headquarters with persistent requests for help. Therefore, on May 18, the troops received a directive in which the start of the offensive by the troops of the Southwestern Front was postponed for more early term, namely on May 22 (June 4). The offensive of the troops of the Western Front was to begin a week later. This greatly upset Brusilov, who attributed the success of the operation to the joint actions of the fronts. Brusilov asked Alekseev to set a single date for both fronts, but his requests were not heard.

* * *

A powerful artillery cannonade at dawn on May 22 marked the beginning of the operation on the Southwestern Front. The fire was very effective, since it was fired not at the areas, but at the targets. Artillery preparation lasted almost a day, and in some areas - up to 48 hours, after which the units went on the attack. The first (May 22) went forward the troops of the 9th Army. Wave after wave, chains of Russian infantry rolled through the wire obstacles scattered by shells. The 9th Army occupied the advanced fortified zone of the enemy and captured more than 11 thousand soldiers and. The interaction of artillery with infantry was well organized. For the first time, infantry escort batteries were allocated in battle and successive concentrations of fire were used to support the attack. Multiple false transfers of fire ensured the surprise and success of the infantry attack. The infantry units and subunits that made up the combat areas were built in the form of waves - chains - and attacked in rolls. The first wave took possession of the first and second trenches, and subsequent waves - the third trench and artillery positions.

On May 23, the 8th Army went on the offensive. By the end of that day, the corps of its strike force had broken through the first line of the Austrian defense and began to pursue the enemy, who was hastily retreating to Lutsk. On May 25, this city was taken by Russian troops. On the left wing of the front, formations of the 7th Army also broke through the enemy defenses. The first results exceeded all expectations. In three days, the troops of the Southwestern Front broke through the enemy defenses in the 8-10 km zone and advanced 25-35 km in depth. Already by noon on May 24, 900, more than 40 thousand soldiers were taken prisoner, 77 guns, 134 machine guns and 49 bombers were captured.

With the approach from the reserve of the Headquarters of fresh corps, Brusilov issued a directive to increase the force of impact. the main role was still assigned to the 8th Army, which was supposed to advance on Kovel. The 11th army advanced on Zlochev, the 7th - on Stanislav, the 9th - on Kolomyia. The attack on Kovel met not only the interests of the front, but also the strategic goals of the campaign in general. It was supposed to help unite the efforts of the Southwestern and Western fronts and lead to the defeat of significant enemy forces. However, this plan was not destined to come true. Referring to the rainy weather and the incompleteness of the concentration, Evert postponed the offensive, and the Stavka approved this decision. It was used by the enemy. The Germans transferred several divisions to the Eastern Front, and "the Kovel hole ... began to gradually fill up with fresh German troops."

Brusilov had to be ordered to stop the general offensive on his front and move on to a solid defense of the captured lines. By June 12 (25) there was a lull on the Southwestern Front. Brusilov contritely recalled how the “neighbors” and the high command let him down: “Reinforcements were slowly sent to me from inactive fronts, but the enemy did not yawn, and since he took advantage of the opportunity to quickly reorganize the troops, their number increased with a much greater progression than mine, and despite the huge losses of prisoners, killed and wounded, the enemy began to significantly exceed the forces of my front.

However, soon the Stavka ordered Brusilov to continue the offensive. On the South-Western Front, vigorous preparations were underway for the resumption of the attack. At the same time, commanders Kuropatkin and Evert constantly complained about the difficulties. The Stavka, convinced of the futility of its hopes for an offensive by the Western Front, finally decided to transfer the main efforts to the Southwestern Front. Brusilov ordered a general offensive to begin on June 21 (July 3).

After a powerful artillery preparation, the troops broke through the enemy defenses and a few days later reached the Stokhid River. The new offensive of the Russians extremely complicated the position of the Austrian troops. However, attempts to force Stohod on the shoulders of the retreating enemy did not bring success. The Austro-Germans managed to destroy the crossings in advance and prevented the Russians from crossing to the western bank of the river with their counterattacks.

Overcoming Stohod required the preparation of an attack and the concentration of fresh reserves. The general offensive of the Southwestern Front resumed on July 15 (28). But it was no longer as successful as the previous one. Only partial success has been achieved. The enemy managed to concentrate large reserves in the zone of the Southwestern Front and put up fierce resistance.

By this time, Brusilov had finally lost hope for active fighting Northern and Western fronts. It was not necessary to count on achieving tangible strategic results by the forces of only one front. “Therefore,” the general wrote later, “I continued fighting at the front no longer with the same intensity, trying to save people as much as possible, but only to the extent that turned out to be necessary to pin down the largest possible number of enemy troops, indirectly helping these our allies - the Italians and the French."

The fighting took on a protracted character. By mid-September the front had stabilized. The offensive operation of the troops of the Southwestern Front, which lasted more than 100 days, ended.

* * *

As a result of the operation, a significant part of the Austro-German armies that opposed the Southwestern Front was defeated. The Austro-Germans lost up to 1.5 million people killed, wounded and captured. The losses of Russian troops amounted to 500 thousand people. The troops of the South-Western Front advanced to a depth of 80 to 150 km. 25 thousand square meters were seized. km of territory, including the whole of Bukovina and part of Eastern Galicia. To eliminate the breakthrough, the enemy command was forced to withdraw 30 infantry and 35 cavalry divisions from the Western and Italian fronts. The Brusilovsky breakthrough had a decisive influence on changing the position of Romania. On August 4 (17), political and military conventions were signed between the powers of the Entente and Romania. Romania's entry into the war on the side of the Entente seriously complicated the position of the Central Powers. (However, according to some historians, it also fettered the actions of the Russians on the Southwestern Front. Soon the Romanian troops demanded urgent help from the allies.)

For the operation, the commander of the South-Western Front, A. A. Brusilov, received the St. George weapon, decorated with diamonds.

The success of the Brusilov offensive, however, did not bring decisive strategic results. The fact that the offensive of the South-Western Front did not receive further development, Brusilov blamed, first of all, the chief of staff of the headquarters, Alekseev. “Just to think that if in July the Western and Northern fronts had piled on the Germans with all their might, then they would certainly have been crushed, but they should only have fallen on the example and method of the Southwestern Front, and not on one section of each front,” the general noted.

The Brusilovsky breakthrough went down in military history as one of the few successful front-line operations of the Russian troops during the First World War.

Initially, it was called the Lutsk breakthrough or the 4th Galician battle. This was in keeping with the tradition that the battle was named after the place where it took place.

How the offensive was prepared

It was planned by the members of the Entente at the beginning of 1916. On the river The Somme was to be attacked by the British and French in early July. The strike of the Russian armies was supposed two weeks earlier. To this end, intensive training of troops was organized on the Russian Southwestern Front.

This association of four armies was commanded by General Alexei Alekseevich Brusilov. The personnel were actively trained in offensive actions. Well-equipped engineering bridgeheads were moved up to the Austrian positions. A detailed reconnaissance of the enemy's positions and his defensive potential was constantly carried out.

brusilovsky breakthrough photo

On the eve of the breakthrough, the armies of the front had a serious advantage over the enemy. They numbered more than half a million infantrymen and 60 thousand cavalrymen. Their actions in the offensive were to be supported by 168 heavy and 1770 light guns. In order to increase the superiority, during the month before the start of the offensive operation, a serious replenishment of combat subunits and units was carried out.

On the state of the enemy troops

Four Russian armies were opposed by one German and four armies of Austria-Hungary. The total number of their infantry units was 448 thousand bayonets, cavalry - 38 thousand. The number of heavy guns was almost three times that of the Russians. The enemy had 1301 light guns.

Against the armies of General A.A. Brusilov, a deeply echeloned, powerful defense was created. It consisted of three defensive lines with several lines of trenches.

Fortification of the Austro-German troops was provided by:

• support nodes, which were the basis of a line of well-equipped trenches;
• continuous trenches fired from the flanks between these nodes;
• located at heights, long-term firing points with special cut-off positions in which the attackers fell into the "bag"; special slingshots, wolf pits and notches installed in front of the trenches;
• powerful dugouts, multi-row wire barriers, minefields, etc.

The enemy command believed that the Russian armies could not break through these barriers.

Breakthrough, result

The armies of the front, with their decisive offensive actions, caught the Austro-German troops by surprise. The offensive began on May 22, 1916. and the battle lasted until 09/07/1916. In this case, a previously unknown form of breaking into enemy positions on a wide front was used. It consisted in the fact that all the armies of the front entrusted to General Brusilov were advancing at the same time.

brusilovsky breakthrough photo

The main blow was delivered in the direction of Lutsk, which was occupied by the Russian army on May 25. The result of the breakthrough was the decisive defeat of the Austro-Hungarian troops. At 80-120 km, enemy territory was captured, the territories of Volhynia and Bukovina, and partially Galicia, were almost completely occupied.

According to Russian sources enemy losses in manpower and various weapons were enormous. To stop the Russian offensive, the states that opposed the Entente troops were forced to urgently transfer more than 400 thousand troops to the places of fierce battles. The Brusilovsky breakthrough provided the Entente states with a complete strategic initiative in military operations.

• A four-meter-high bronze monument to A. A. Brusilov was erected in St. Petersburg.
• In Vinnitsa, where Aleksey Brusilov lived for some time with his family, his bas-relief is installed on one of the houses
• In honor of the glorious general, streets in Moscow and Voronezh bear his name.
• In 1923, Brusilov was appointed Chief Inspector of the Red Army Cavalry.
• The ancient Ukrainian town of Brusilov has nothing to do with the outstanding general.

In Soviet military history, it is emphasized that the Brusilovsky breakthrough became a harbinger of the outstanding offensives of the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War.

The article gives answers to the questions: what is the significance of language for building a civilization of creation; why the basis for building a civilization of creation in Russia is the Russian language; why the conscience and morality of the people depend on the language? The division of speech into the language of truth (the language of creation) and the language of lies (the language of destruction) is described, the significance of such a division is explained. The article is accompanied by a table distinguishing between the language of truth (the language of creation) and the language of lies (the language of destruction).

The Importance of Language in Civilization Building

It is impossible to build a creative society,
using destructive terms.

Every creator needs to improve in discrimination,
expose manifestations of the language of destruction
and spread the language of truth - the language of creation.

Language is a system that enables communication and transmission of information between people and even between generations separated by significant periods of time, for example, through writing, and now also through cinema and other forms of technical recording. In addition, language is also the medium through which information is processed.

Languages ​​differ by place of origin: Russian, English, French and others. Also, languages ​​are being created in the world for various fields of activity: the language of chemistry, physics, there is the language of programmers, medical workers, economists, bankers, there is the language of the underworld and others. These languages ​​do not live in isolation, and some concepts from narrow languages ​​gradually flow into the common speech of the majority of the population of a particular society.

Due to the system of concepts of any language, native speakers of this language have the opportunity to understand each other and unite in joint activities. There are also languages ​​that perform the function of hiding information, they are deliberately made incomprehensible to most people - they will be discussed below. In addition, the words of a particular language often convey moral assessments for the phenomena denoted by these words due to emotional coloring.

For example, according to the language of affirmation and preservation of Sobriety, actively used by the sober movement in Russia, alcohol intake is called "alcohol self-poisoning" - words with a negative emotional connotation. The same process in the language of the structures involved in taking away Sobriety is called "the use of strong drinks", "drinking beer, wine" and other positively colored words. As you can see, one and the same phenomenon can be described in a creative, truthful language, using the words "alcohol self-poisoning", but when using the language of lies (the language of destruction), you can hide the harmful effect of alcohol by hiding it with the words "drinking".

In turn, representatives of the civilization of creation take retaliatory measures to protect morality and increase the viability of society, developing a creative terminological apparatus. An example of this is the language of the affirmation and preservation of Sobriety, which became the basis for writing this work.

Thus, humanity has two encompassing languages: the language of lies (the language of destruction) and the language of truth (the language of creation). By spreading the language of lies (language of destruction) among the citizens

• impaired ability to understand surrounding events and predict their consequences,
• society's morality is declining,
• sobriety is taken away,
• destruction of natural family values,

which facilitates appropriation and acquisitiveness by narrow circles of a destructive-appropriating civilization. The language of lies (the language of destruction) reduces the viability of large sections of humanity.

The second language, the language of truth (the language of creation), is understandable, the words in this language truly reflect the usefulness or harmfulness of certain phenomena for humanity, thanks to which the use of the language of truth allows people to build a fair world order.

Words define morality

Each concept represents the relationship of a word and an image corresponding to the word. Moreover, what will be the image of the phenomenon in the minds of people, what will be the emotional, moral assessment of the phenomenon by people - largely depends on the word used. For example, the words “love”, “tenderness” have a soft, melodic consonance and these words form a favorable attitude towards the phenomena denoted by these words, but the words “muck”, “anger”, “abomination” subconsciously cause a negative assessment of the phenomena denoted by these words, this occurs largely unconsciously, due to the fact that these words have a sharp, rough sound. The words themselves help to understand our world on the basis of the wisdom of the people accumulated in the language. The emotional coloring of words is an important aspect of constructing a language of creation.

The leading strata of the destructive-appropriating civilization understand this, and the violation of society's understanding of reality plays into their hands. Most clearly, the substitution of concepts can be traced in the example of the promotion of sexual perversions. For example, according to the Vperyod, Citizens community in Moscow, VDNKh in 2018 suggested the early introduction of “sex education classes in schools,” which are inherently corrupting children. In these lessons, it is planned to introduce the concept of “gender” into the school curriculum instead of the usual concept of “sex”. Gender ideologists deny the concept of "sex" and introduce the concept of "gender" - something like "social sex", that is, a semblance of gender chosen by a person independently, but this word does not have a clear definition. Thus, with the help of substitution of concepts, the children of European countries are now being forced to doubt their gender, they are trying to push the same thing in Russia. Also in these lessons of sexual corruption, the concepts of “homophobia” and “transphobia” are introduced, by which people with natural family values ​​are equated with sick people. Instead of the concepts of "husband", "bugger", "sexual pervert", we are now being imposed with neutral or positively colored words, such as "gay", "homosexual" and others. Thus, representatives of a destructive-appropriating civilization change the morality of people. The destruction of natural family values, first of all, begins with a change in language.

When a word that faithfully depicts a phenomenon is replaced by another neutral or attractive word, according to the rules of Western science, this is called "euphemization". This word comes from the Greek. ἐυφήμη - "praise", but in reality the word "euphemization" is also a manifestation of the language of lies, because this phenomenon does not bring anything "good" to society. For example, to refer to the murder of children in the womb, the inexpressive, abstract word "abortion" is used. At the same time, an unborn person is called a “fetus”, thereby equating to inanimate objects (vegetables, fruits) and deprived of any legislative protection - this substitution of concepts helps to justify the admissibility of intrauterine murder of children. Destroyers in Western Europe and in the United States of America they go even further and propose to introduce the concepts of “postnatal abortion” and “postnatal abortion” into the legal field, covering up their proposals with these words to allow, at the request of parents, to kill already born, including healthy children.

Often now there is a replacement of the word "cohabitation" with the words "civil marriage". Initially, the expression "civil marriage" meant a marriage formalized in the relevant state authorities without the participation of the church. Cohabitation in fact is not a marriage, it is already a forgery. In addition, in order to preserve the morality and family values ​​of society, it is advisable that extramarital affairs be condemned in society, therefore, a word with a negative, condemning connotation should be used to designate them, therefore, it is unacceptable to call cohabitation “civil marriage”. Language is the basis of human morality.

Emotionally neutral, politically correct language, which is often replaced by creative concepts of different cultures and peoples, often serves to conceal the destructive effect of many phenomena and helps to spread these phenomena. Modern world-eaters have united and idealize their false language, calling it political correctness, while claiming the most blissful names for themselves and their henchmen. For example, it is not politically correct to call economic invaders invaders - now they are "investors". It is not politically correct to say “sexual perverts”, supposedly it is necessary to say “persons with a non-traditional sexual orientation”, “gays”. It is not politically correct to say “prostitute” or “whore” – now journalists call them “sex workers”, etc. By the way, the word “correctness” itself means tact, politeness, courtesy, but at the same time it means “accuracy, correctness, clarity. It turns out that if the use of a certain word is considered impolite in a certain circle of people, therefore, it is incorrect and “wrong”. It turns out that truth is not needed to determine what is politically correct - a word reflecting the truth can be declared incorrect if it does not correspond to the order adopted in a particular society. Therefore, it is better to use the concept of “correctness” instead of the concept of “correctness”. The word "correctness" is close in sound to the word "truth", therefore what is called correct must correspond to the truth (objective reality).

By imposing a false language on society, representatives of a destructive-appropriating civilization change people's thinking, systematically deprive people of the opportunity to understand what is good and what is evil, and as a result of the imposition of "political correctness", the intelligibility of information is generally reduced. For example, we are now replacing the concept of "pressure" or "coercion" with the concept of "sanctions". The word “sanctions” sounds soft, therefore, the means of forming public consciousness (SFOS) quite calmly talk about pressure measures (sanctions) from the United States of America, while calling them our “partners” - but this is a deception. Thus, with the help of lies, the weak, dependent position of Russia is hidden from us, and the true aggressive behavior of the United States of America is also retouched. Politicians are specially trained to “smooth out” popular indignation by substituting concepts, as well as by introducing new concepts into speech.

If it is necessary to make a mass layoff of employees, then in a destructive false language it is called the soft word "optimization", as a result of which the vigilance of the creators is muted.

Another example: the bankers of Russia and the world are puzzled to get people to borrow at a significant interest as much and as often as possible. For this, it is very convenient to use the concept of "credit" instead of the truthful concepts of "usurious debt", "interest-bearing debt" or "growing debt". In addition, the expression “loan product” is now spreading, with the help of which citizens have the feeling that lending money to a bank is not a service, but a kind of product or product. When using the expression "credit product", interest-bearers, usurers take on the appearance of creative people engaged in the production of their "products".

Understanding the properties of the emotional coloring of words allows everyone to understand and justify the belonging of a word to the language of truth (the language of creation), or the language of lies (the language of destruction). How to apply this knowledge for creative purposes is described in detail in the last section of this work.

The Russian language is the basis for building the language of truth (the language of creation) in Russia

The Russian language is the state-forming language of Russia, it is the basis for the preservation and development of the scientific, cultural, historical heritage of Russia and Soviet Union. The use of Russian words is important for citizens to realize the value of Russian culture and awaken love for the Motherland. The Russian language has many other advantages, in order to more accurately describe the meaning of the Russian language, let's compare it with English and with the so-called "international concepts".

The meanings of some Russian words are often more constructive than the meanings of English words. For example, instead of the concept of “Motherland”, like the fatherland, native country, the word “land” is used in English, that is, simply “land”.

Nowadays, the word “manager” is massively spreading. IN Russian Empire there was a profession called "manager", it would seem, why invent and replace Russian word foreign? The word “management” itself basically contains the root “rule”, close to the expressions “make right, correct, correct”. A similar root of "rights" is present in the words "righteous", "truth", "justice", "justice". A person called "manager" or "manager" may subconsciously feel that he must change reality to the correct state, and his subordinates will expect the same from him. When the creative Russian word is replaced by the English-language “manager”, the concept of the high mission of a manager is blurred in the minds of people, which subsequently hits the state of the whole society.

In addition to a more constructive meaning, Russian words are advantageous for building the language of truth (the language of creation) due to the fact that in Russian word formation is easily traced by words with the same root, for example: the words “research” or “investigation” come from the word “trace” - the same Thus, any complex Russian word has a simpler, and most importantly, understandable basis. In the English language, which is being actively promoted today, there is no systemic word formation, since many words in it are collected from Latin, Greek, French, Scandinavian and other languages. The continuity of word formation in the Russian language often allows us to figure out what this or that old or newly created word means, helps to realize the relationship between the phenomena of life - this quality must be preserved.

Undesirable is the excessive ambiguity of words, which is characteristic of the English language. There is also ambiguity in Russian, but in English it is an order of magnitude greater, it is typical for many English words, for example, the word “break”, according to the translator of the Google website, has 85 meanings, including “break”, “lay”, “disperse”, “train”, “train”, “weaken”, etc. Examples of English ambiguity can be given for a very long time.

In addition, many words in English have the same sound but different spellings. The rules for reading in English are extremely vague and there are many exceptions; therefore, in addition to writing, the student has to memorize the pronunciation of each word, for which it is customary to indicate transcription in dictionaries. For example, one creator of an English study guide for seven rules for reading the letter “u” in various letter combinations counted five exceptions. There is an English joke that it is only spelled "Manchester", but pronounced "Liverpool". The famous English linguist Max Muller rightly noted that English spelling is a national disaster. Partly because of this lack, dialects and dialects are multiplying in various parts of the world. in English which often makes communication difficult. Attempts are regularly made to change this situation, the most famous of which was undertaken by Bernard Shaw: he created a fund, with the funds of which a competition was announced to create a new English alphabet with a clear correspondence between writing and pronunciation. Such an alphabet was created, it has 40 letters, each of which corresponds to only one sound. Despite the advantages of B. Shaw's alphabet, they did not begin to change the usual, disordered English writing.

Due to the lack of clear reading rules, there is a decrease in the quality of transmission, reception of information and thinking based on the English language. The presence in the Russian language of clear rules for reading and pronunciation is of great value.

Russian is a figurative language - most Russian words in our minds have a clear relationship with the phenomena denoted by these words. For example, when teaching sciences stated in Russian, students rarely need dictionaries - Russian speech makes it easier to understand the meaning of what is written, the boundaries of the use of Russian words are often intuitively clear. The same cannot be said for learning based on international concepts, in which it is necessary to carefully memorize the definitions of words. Foreign words are often too abstract, which makes it difficult to associate a foreign word with its corresponding image. In this regard, many people who write texts use words whose meaning they do not always understand, or understand the meaning of words differently than readers understand these words, as a result of which the writer’s thought may come off the text he creates. Reading such texts sometimes brings nothing but a headache. In addition, due to speech that is incomprehensible to the majority, a significant part of the information becomes available only to a narrow circle of people who have long studied a set of concepts specific to a particular area. Thus, information is concealed from the uninitiated (from "non-specialists"), which helps to build a society in which narrow layers of a destructive-appropriating civilization will dominate. In addition to hiding information, representatives of a destructive-appropriating civilization often deceive people with words that do not have precise definitions, such as "gender", "tolerance", "democracy" and others. These words are introduced into laws, into sciences, but they do not have a clear definition, which opens up great opportunities for creating false ideals and other varieties of deception.

Communication in Russia at all levels, especially in the political environment, should be conducted in the Russian literary language, it is unacceptable to replace Russian words with foreign ones, because:

• Russian words are most often figurative, precise and understandable;
• the meaning of Russian words is fixed in dictionaries, therefore, based on Russian literary language communication of any level can be built;
• the approval of the rules of communication in Russian words in the political environment, in the economy and other areas greatly facilitates people's control over the activities of government officials, and also facilitates the passage of power to the indigenous peoples of Russia;
• communication in Russian words makes it difficult for foreign interference in Russian politics;
• many foreign words from managers, scientists and others through journalists, the education system, the Internet, television, etc., pass into the common speech of the whole society. This changes the system of life values ​​of people, brings up disrespect for the Russian language and culture of Russia. As the “tops” say, so many other people also strive to speak, therefore, it is precisely at the highest state level that communication should be conducted in Russian;
• language determines the system of values ​​and thinking. Thinking on the basis of the Russian language is more creative, in contrast to thinking on the basis of international concepts implanted in our country.

Watch out for office workers!

Some officials, in order to avoid answering questions that are inconvenient for them, often begin to tell the people a lot of unknown, as well as excessively abstract, confusing words and expressions. At the same time, there may be no meaning in the speaker’s speeches, but due to incomprehensibility, it will seem to many listeners that they have a “highly qualified specialist” in front of them, whom they cannot understand because of their lack of education and “misunderstanding of terminology”. A striking manifestation of the language of lies (the language of destruction) is office work. The apt word "clerk" was created by K. Chukovsky - it sounds like the name of the disease that affects our speech.

“So what is he, a clerk? He has very accurate signs, common to both translated and domestic literature.

This is the displacement of the verb, that is, movement, action, by participle, gerund, noun (especially verbal!), which means stagnation, immobility. And of all verbal forms, a predilection for the infinitive.

This is a heap of nouns in indirect cases, most often long chains of nouns in the same case - the genitive, so that it is no longer possible to understand what refers to what and what is being discussed.

This is an abundance of foreign words where they can be completely replaced by Russian words.

This is the displacement of active revolutions by passive ones, almost always heavier, cumbersome.

This is a heavy, confused structure of a phrase, unintelligibility. uncountable subordinate clauses, doubly ponderous and unnatural in colloquial speech.

This is dullness, monotony, obliteration, stamp. Wretched, meager vocabulary: both the author and the characters speak the same dry, bureaucratic language. Always, without any reason or need, they prefer a long word to a short one, an official or bookish one to a colloquial one, a complex one to a simple one, a stamp to a living image.

Such a speech was ridiculed by Ilf and Petrov:

“The task is, for example, the following:

- Sweep the streets.

Instead of immediately fulfilling this order, a strong guy raises a frantic fuss around him. He throws out the slogan:

It's time to start the fight to sweep the streets.

The fight is on, but the streets are not being swept. The following slogan takes things even further:

“Let's get involved in the campaign to organize the struggle to sweep the streets.

Time passes, a strong guy does not sleep, and new commandments are posted on the unswept streets:

“Everything to carry out the plan to organize a sweeping campaign.

And, finally, at the last stage, the original task completely disappears, and only passionate, shrill babble remains.

– Shame on the disruptors of the campaign for the struggle to carry out the plan for organizing the campaign of the struggle.

All clear. The job is not done. However, the appearance of desperate activity is preserved. And a strong guy leaves for Yalta to repair his loosened body.

This example is an exaggeration, but you and I are constantly given the appearance of violent and well-intentioned activity with the help of "international", "business" and "weighty" words.

Dry, confusing speech often helps dishonest officials, economists, bankers to deceive the people, trade the Motherland, while maintaining the appearance of constructive actions. For example, the most destructive laws in Russia, as a rule, have quite plausible names, in particular, the law, according to which in 2018 for the majority of Russian citizens the retirement was postponed by 5 years, has an ordinary, camouflage name: “Federal Law “On amendments to certain legislative acts Russian Federation on the appointment and payment of pensions "- millions of people will starve and beg because of this, but the title is only about" changes in certain legislative acts. Another example: the law of 2014 on the transfer of some Russian lands to foreign states for a pittance for a long time is called “On Territories of Advanced Socio-Economic Development in the Russian Federation”. Konstantin Paustovsky, in one of his articles, analyzes the influence of such a language and concludes: “... only our most cruel enemy could call this language Russian.” The chancery was built and is being built by means of a special system of sentences, and also largely on the basis of foreign words. Even Peter I, who zealously planted the European in Russia, was forced to restrain the introduction of foreign words and other manifestations of bureaucracy, demanded that his subjects write "as intelligibly as possible." He said to one of his ambassadors: “In your communications, you use many Polish and other foreign words and terms, behind which it is impossible to understand the case itself: for your sake, from now on, write your communications to us all Russian language without using foreign words and terms.

Scientists also talk at the office. By using various “terms” and a confused structure of sentences in scientific work, one can get the approval of professors, create the appearance of scientificity in its absence, but even if there is a useful innovation in scientific work, most compatriots will not recognize it. Instead of scientific luminaries, thus, "scientific darks" are often obtained. With the help of dry, semi-official speech with streamlined formulations, it is easy to engage in eyewash, but it will not work to turn to people, to kindle hearts for good deeds.

It is possible and necessary to speak simple and precise Russian words, create documents written in simple Russian, especially since the meaning of Russian words is enshrined in many dictionaries. In a number of cases, generalizing expressions of a clerk may be needed for bureaucratic and scientific speech, but even in business papers they should be used minimally, since clericalism in in large numbers lead to different speech errors and distortions, make the text difficult to understand, facilitate deception. Subsequently, through journalists, films, through school textbooks, etc., such stupefying dead speech becomes common. Unfortunately, now it is stationery everywhere: it is served to us through television screens, newspapers, radio, with the use of dry, dead speech, works of art and school textbooks are created. Often now you can hear how people, communicating in everyday life with their relatives and friends, instead of using the word “say” - “inform”, instead of just “do” - “take action”, instead of “opportunities” they say “functional”, instead of responding to something they react, instead of condemning they express criticism, instead of observing they monitor, instead of giving advice they give recommendations and advise, etc. Many foreign words introduced into the Russian language are a manifestation of a bureaucrat , as they give speech a detached, official sound, often make speech less understandable.

Previously, foreign words were used mainly among scientists, officials, among representatives of certain specialties in solving their work tasks, but the languages ​​​​of small groups do not live in isolation, so now Russians are being replaced by these foreign words in all types of communication. As a result of foreign innovations, the Russian language, with rare exceptions, is not enriched, but, on the contrary, becomes poorer. Bright, figurative, lively words can now not often be heard or read, for example, the words “caustically, caustically, caustically”, even the word “mockery” is now rare - they are replaced by the same word “irony”. The abundance of foreign substitutions in the language makes it difficult for people to understand what is happening with them and around them, for example, when a person is asked: “What is the matter with you?” he replies, "I'm depressed." The word “depression” is abstract, it sounds like the name of a disease and makes a person think that it is necessary to be treated for this “disease”, drugs are also produced for this case - antidepressants, as a result, sometimes the person himself cannot figure out what is happening to him, neither his interlocutor can help him. But if a person said instead of “depression” the expression “I am depressed ...”, or “what depresses me ...”, or the word “longing”, then this would be an occasion to think about who or what he yearns for, why he depressed, come to the cause of a difficult condition and eliminate it.

For many generations of our ancestors, Russian writers created a rich literary Russian language not for us to use dry, inexpressive, streamlined words. In the explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language Vladimir Dahl contains about 200 thousand words, instead of this wealth, we are offered to switch to a set of several thousand words and expressions, many of which are dry and abstract. To cleanse your thoughts and speech from the clerk, we advise you to read the book by Nora Gal "The Word of the Living and the Dead", as well as the chapter "The Office" from Korney Chukovsky's book "Alive as Life" and, of course, the classic works of Russian writers.

In order to build a society in a creative way, it is necessary to make information as accessible and understandable as possible for the people, this is especially important for the political and economic areas. If the speech of politicians, economists, bankers is filled with a lot of abstract, incomprehensible words, if a confused system of sentences of a clerk is used, then this creates opportunities for fraud, deception of the people, this deprives the majority of citizens of the opportunity to control the work of government bodies and influence it.

What to do?

We need to affirm and preserve in all areas of public life a simple, expressive, living creative language instead of a false and dead destructive language. To do this, you need to use mainly Russian words in your speech, remove manifestations of office work from speech. The concepts of the language of lies (the language of destruction) can also be created on the basis of the Russian language, but most often destructive concepts are introduced into our speech from foreign languages, therefore, often, in order to be expressed in a truthful, creative language, it is only necessary to translate destructive concepts into Russian. If there is no suitable Russian word, then you need to create it, but if this fails, then a foreign word can be used to build a creative concept, and it is important that it carries the correct emotional, correct moral assessment of the phenomenon it denotes.

“A word can kill, a word can save,
In a word, you can lead the shelves behind you!
V.S. Shefner

Language is the basis of human thinking. People think in words, in words they designate and generalize the phenomena of reality in their minds, give them assessments. Thus, the language is a computing system: if the language of truth is used, which accurately reflects the essence of phenomena, then humanity, on the basis of this language, will come to true, constructive conclusions and actions; if the language of lies is used, in which evil is exhibited as useful, and good is humiliated, then people will be led to erroneous conclusions and destructive actions.

For example, political correctness is now being imposed in the world. Political correctness is based on the ideal of using such words and expressions that, supposedly, will not offend any small or large associations by race, income level, sexual perversion and other signs. With this approach, the truth is made unnecessary, truthful words are forbidden to be spoken by the requirements of maintaining political correctness. In response to this, we, the creators, need to use the division of speech into the language of truth (the language of creation) and the language of lies (the language of destruction) - this good way to uphold the truth and creative ideas. The division of speech into the language of truth (the language of creation) and the language of lies (the language of destruction) is based on the ideal of truth, no matter how difficult and offensive for someone it would be. Honest people agree with the truth. Truth is a value for most. Therefore, if your interlocutor, for example, during a public discussion of something, says the word of the language of lies (the language of destruction), you need to point out to him that he used the word of the language of lies, explain why this word is false and destructive, then call on the interlocutor and others to use the appropriate word of the language of truth (the language of creation). By acting in this way, the creators will no longer have to make excuses for their lack of political correctness - other people will have to make excuses for using the language of lies and destruction.

Each of us needs to monitor our speech and the speech of others, we need to think about what images this or that word will form in the minds of people. It is impossible to build a creative society using the words of the language of lies (the language of destruction). It will not be possible to convey the truth to people with such words - it will be initially distorted, and therefore they will not understand it. For example, one cannot effectively assert Sobriety by calling alcohol a drink; it will not be possible to defend Russia, calling himself a quilted jacket; it will not be possible to defend family values ​​by calling yourself a homophobe, and homophobes as gays, etc. It is almost impossible to add your own meaning to the imposed destructive words: people will understand them in the same way as they used to before.

Often, people use destructive concepts not on purpose, but due to the fact that destructive language is persistently implanted in the surrounding information space, many people simply do not know how to speak correctly. Therefore, we must express our wishes for the use of the language of truth in a polite form wherever possible: in the guest book in any institution, under an article or video on the Internet, in personal communication, at mass events, etc. Translation of destructive information impacts into a simple, truthful, creative language almost always deprives them of their destructive power, so every creator needs to improve in discrimination, expose the manifestations of the language of destruction and spread the language of truth - the language of creation.

Table with examples of distinguishing between the language of truth (the language of creation) and the language of lies (the language of destruction)

In short, it is one of the most curious episodes of Russian military history. And an important event In this article, we will recall the main events associated with this heroic attack.

Briefly about the prerequisites

The first two years of the war were not particularly successful for the Russian army.

The defeats forced the Russians to retreat for several months, which led to the loss of a significant amount of the empire's territories. By 1916, the enemy moved far enough to the east, occupying part of the territories that today belong to Ukraine. Correct the situation and inflict a painful blow on the enemy, which would have thrown him back west of the front line and an operation was called in, later called the Brusilovsky Breakthrough. Briefly describing its course, paying attention to all significant events, is not so simple. However, let's try.

Brusilovsky breakthrough: a summary

On the eve of this well-known event, the entire enemy defense line was photographed from the sides of reconnaissance aircraft. This made it possible to put

specific tasks for each Russian regiment and battery. An important maneuver was the covert command and control of troops and uniform training of troops. This ensured the surprise of the offensive along the entire front line for the enemy commanders. To ensure successful attacks, all trenches were brought closer to the edge of the opponent's defense at a distance of up to a hundred steps. It was planned that the Russian army would begin its offensive on June 15 (the year was 1916). The Brusilovsky breakthrough, in fact, was started even earlier. The southwestern front, in connection with the rearrangements in the enemy camp, launched artillery fire already on June 4th. The repeated false transfers of fire ensured the widespread success of the Russian batteries and the constant advance of the infantry. And although the enemy had at his disposal quite strong positional fortifications made of reinforced concrete and barbed wire, which the Austro-Hungarian military leaders considered impregnable, the maneuvers used by the Russian army already gave excellent results in speed.

On the very first day of the Brusilov offensive, some enemy positions were captured in a number of sectors. In the next two days, the breakthrough was completely completed. As a result, more than 200 thousand officers and soldiers of the enemy were captured. Such a significant success of the armies of the Southwestern front was a complete surprise not only for the enemy, but also for the Russian supreme commanders. For further development of success, it was necessary to urgently replenish the reserves of the front. However, there were no such reserves in stock.

The sluggishness of the command led to the fact that the regrouping of forces took place only in July 1916. And this significantly slowed down his further success.

Brusilovsky breakthrough: briefly about the results

As a result of the breakthrough, the Russian troops defeated the Austro-Hungarian troops and managed to advance an average of 100 km deep into enemy territories. Now Brusilov's armies occupied almost all of Volyn, Bukovina and a significant part of Galicia. An important result of this operation, as well as the battle on the Somme (Western Front), was that the strategic initiative in this war finally passed to the states of the Entente.