Field Marshal Kutuzov as a problem for the Russian intelligentsia stratum
This article appeared as a result of the material submitted by our very old bbss reader.
WHOM DO WE HAVE MONUMENTS: THE TRUE DOCUMENTARY IMAGE OF MI KUTUZOV.
The essence is not new: another attempt to "correct" our history by pouring a tub of dirt. This time the object of "historical research" was Michael Illarionovich Kutuzov.
Kutuzov is largely a controversial personality. Yes, he got it from his contemporaries for the desire to break upward by any means. Including using coffee for Platon Zubov, a favorite of Catherine the Great. But Mikhail Illarionovich didn’t get into the story, not as a Duty barista, but as a warlord. But each of us has our own story.
I think you need to start with a small portrait of the judges. So to say, and who are the judges?
The main prosecutor is a certain Yevgeny Ponasenkov. He himself is a busy man, because groups in social networks are led by his unfading talent for him. But - judge for yourself what is written in the profiles.
"Director, singer (drama tenor), actor, TV host, producer, scholar-historian, political scientist, poet, writer and public figure. Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Arts (RuAN)."
And the reader, and the reaper, and the dude igrets. One wonders how one person can work fruitfully in so many fields. Well, a bunch of actor-director, poet-writer, lead-producer-director - this is understandable. But all in one bottle? You start to think about quality.
Academician Rouen - everything is simple. Enough to apply the search on the Internet, it becomes clear and understandable that the Rouan Academy is the same academy as some of our commercial universities.
“RuAN is an autonomous non-profit organization. Carries out research and development in the field of natural and technical sciences. She publishes journals, reference books and works on the history of science. The Academy was created by 11 February 2003 in order to support and develop Russian and international intellectual projects, as well as mutual support and upholding the interests of intellectuals in the following areas: Russian science, culture, business projects and their informational support. ”
In short, the cabal "for their". It is clear what kind of academicians there are. Their. Go ahead, there is nothing to comment on.
Director of 3 musical, 6 dramatic performances, as well as many poetic and musical performances.
Director and director of the Classical Music Program “House of Friends of the Olympiad” at the Russian Olympic Committee (director of performances in Beijing-2008).
Well, I will not lie, until now I have never heard anything about Ponasenkov as a director, so naturally, I didn’t rush to look for his masterpieces and get acquainted with them.
And then comes the most interesting.
The Man of the Year - 2003 of the Biographical Society at the US Congress and the nominee of the International Biographical Center (Cambridge) (also included in the 2000 of 21 outstanding intellectuals of the century). His biography has been published in the Who's Who: Russian Edition encyclopedias (reprinted starting from 2003 onwards).
Doot ... Already warmer. Not a single Russian award, not a word, but highly respected in the West. Recognition by a society feeding on the bounty of the US Congress - that says a lot. If a person is elected to the number of those about whom this sub-congress center writes - yes, this is a lump! Chelovechische!
Well, the encyclopedia "Who is who" we do not take into account, it itself Rauan and publishes. Themselves and praise.
Well, I'd add on my own that the favorite tribunes of Ponasenkov are “MK” and Radio Liberty.
So what is the output? And the output is nothing special. No, undoubtedly, Ponasenkov is a cultured and educated person; I do not dispute this. Here is just one question arises from the song: “Boys, whose will you be? Who is leading you into battle? ”The singer-actor-director-producer-poet-writer-academician ... Multiple chanter, in short. And also a historian. To really heap.
With the story, however, easier. Here we see the usual copy-paste written earlier by N. A. Troitsky. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Troitsky died in the 2014 year, so I am very brief about him. Born in Saratov and worked all his life at Saratov State University. He was considered the largest specialist in the history of political processes (courts) in Russia.
He opposed the idealization of many figures of pre-revolutionary Russia, got it from the Trinity and the Romanovs, and their subordinates (Stolypin, Witte and many others).
Author of books about Alexander I, Napoleon, Field Marshal Kutuzov. He was categorically against the "patriotic" mythology, believed that Barclay de Tolly made a greater contribution to the victory in the war than Kutuzov, an opponent of the view that Kutuzov was a more outstanding commander than Napoleon ("Napoleon is a world magnitude, Kutuzov is a national ").
In general, "against all." Troitsky's book “The Patriotic War of 1812, the History of the Theme” was republished in the USA on 1993. Numerous foreign scientists cited his works, from F. Venturi to R. Pipes.
Thanks largely to the work of Trinity, Saratov University received a grant from the Soros Foundation. But this is not customary to speak loudly. Although it would be worth it.
Trinity Kutuzov did not like. Good. And for some reason, Kutuzov did not like Ponasenkov. Perhaps because it was just something to push off. And, without going into details, as is customary in the creative intelligentsia, Ponasenkov simply took from the works of Trinity and (for a change, apparently) Pushkin’s memories all the most negative and began to sculpt.
The image turned out just a masterpiece. The court flatterer, a hypocrite, a womanizer, and an absolutely worthless warlord, who lost everything he could.
And Ponasenkov puts the question in his libel: but to those individuals, we put the monuments?
“In the past few weeks, scabies have been added to the“ memorial obsession ”... Yes, the real legislative scabies are to protect dates, names,“ heroes ”,“ victories ”(evils ...), and the like. All this immediately hints that much of the list could have been simply made up by propaganda! ”
What can I say? What a happiness that in a dull and incapable of correctly assessing the mass of the people is Ponasenkov! Which will open our eyes to TRUTH!
"I emphasize: every fact is based on a document, all of which are given in references and are well known to scientists, but not to a mass audience."
In the references in the text you can see as many as three names of scientists: A.N. Troitsky (undoubtedly), A.S. Pushkin (yes, a poet, a contemporary), and ... Ponasenkov himself! The second and third, sorry, I will put you in doubt.
Alexander Pushkin at the time of the events was 13 years. Alas, not the age when you can properly assess what is happening around, especially the war. The fact that Alexander Sergeevich recorded gossip and rumors around Kutuzov was yes, he could. But I think that Pushkin Ponasenkov added solely to give credibility. As well as the memories of Rostopchin and Lanzheron as presented by Ponasenkov himself.
In general, it's pretty funny: write libel, referring to himself in another libel.
Top of cynicism.
Let's return to Kutuzov. If you believe Ponasenkov, it turns out that he did not possess any talents, except for pleasing and kowtowing to his superiors. However, the real story begins.
According to Ponasenkov, “Before the 1805 war, which ended with the defeat of the Russians at Austerlitz, Kutuzov did not carry out the main command, but was merely an executive officer under the command of A.V. Suvorov and P.A. Rumyantsev. His main talent was the gift of a courtier, who in the eighteenth century could profitably replace all other abilities. ”
And here the key word is very simple and very Russian - Suvorov.
Alexander Vasilyevich (correct, if he became like Ponasenkov), he didn’t creep before anyone (the only one who could probably afford such things in that Russia) and didn’t tolerate sycophants.
Yes, Kutuzov served under the command of Suvorov.
Kinburn, Ochakov, Causeni, Akkerman, Bender, Ishmael. This is only the second Russian-Turkish war. It was about Kutuzov that Suvorov wrote: “... by setting himself a personal example of courage and fearlessness, he overcame all the difficulties he had encountered under the strong fire of the enemy; I skipped over the palisade, warned the aspirations of the Turks, quickly took off onto the shaft of the fortress, mastered the bastion and many batteries ... General Kutuzov walked on my left wing; but it was my right hand. "
Suvorov - I believe.
And in the mentioned war with Napoleon 1805 of the year, in which, according to Ponasenkov, there was only defeat at Austerlitz, Kutuzov took part in it as commander of the army. Yes, under Austerlitz was defeated. But for some reason, Ponasenkov "forgot" that the command of the army at Austerlitz was not Kutuzov, but Alexander. The Emperor. A battle plan was developed by the Austrians, beaten by both Napoleon and Suvorov. Politics…
And before being defeated at Austerlitz, the Russian army very confidently hung Murat near Amstetten (October 24 1805) and Mortier under Krems (October 30 1805).
Let me remind you that the battle of Austerlitz took place on December 2, at the insistence of the Austrian side. We just look at the dates, transfer to 200 years ago, and try to understand how easy it was to fight three times in a week with a not very weak opponent.
After this war, according to our “historian,” Kutuzov committed adultery in Romania. At the age of 64 years with 14-year-old local noblewoman. One can only envy the peasant, we all would be so.
But adultery was adultery, and the battles near Ruschuk and Slobodzeya in the rank of commander Kutuzov won and confidently brought the Turks to complete surrender. And 16 May 1812, in Bucharest, it was Kutuzov who made the peace, according to which Bessarabia with part of Moldova passed to Russia.
Not bad for a monsoblue and a saint, aren't you?
Go to the most important part. World War 1812 of the year.
It is worth reminding everyone that by this time Russia had been fighting almost without interruption for 40 and over:
Russian-Turkish war 1768 — 1774
Russian-Turkish war 1787 — 1791
Russian-Iranian War 1804 — 1813
The first campaign against Napoleon 1805
The second campaign against Napoleon 1806 — 1807.
Russian-Turkish war 1806 — 1812
Russian-Swedish War 1808 — 1809
And playing along with the “European team”, that is, the “army of two languages”, was problematic. It cannot be said that these wars have exhausted Russia, no. But it was very difficult to fight against the enemy forces superior at that time, led by excellent commanders.
Nevertheless, in Ponasenkov, it turns out that all the problems in the Russian army began at the very moment when Alexander put Kutuzov at the head. Until that time, everything was going just fine, "the thunder of victory was heard," and as soon as Kutuzov became commander-in-chief, everything began to fall apart. Place and time - under Smolensk, already left, August 1812 of the year.
Until then, the Russian army was retreating ... I don’t know how much Barclay de Tolly’s fault was here, but Kutuzov acted in much the same way as his predecessor. But de Tolly is a hero (according to Trinity and Ponasenkov), and Kutuzov is a slacker. Despite the fact that both did one thing. And they made it in the end.
Then I allow myself some quotes from hysterical pseudo-historical nonsense.
“The French live quietly in Moscow for 36 days (well, if they got a train with food, they would have lived until the Gorbachev thaw), but then the persecution of the Russian army begins again - the battle of Maloyaroslavets.”
O our oppositional intelligentsia! Only a person who really has a rich inner world and an educated person can paint such nonsense! And, turning everything inside out!
What is the "pursuit of the Russian army"? There was nothing to eat for the French in Moscow burned and ravaged! Almost 100 of thousands of soldiers and God knows how many horses! They had to be fed! Napoleon was not pursuing the Russian army, but he wanted to get to the provinces untouched by the war. Where it was possible to get hold of hay, bread and meat. Neither people nor horses fight without it.
But, apparently, the actor-historian who badly imagines military being is hard to understand. And because he continues to continue to compete Zadornov.
“The Russian troops that had supported their forces and rested in the camp (being in a fortified position in the city!) Lose, and Kutuzov orders us to retreat to the Linen Plants. Napoleon realizes that Kutuzov can, with the same level of military talent, run to Kamchatka, that the frost is approaching, that the country is not adapted to life - and decides to move in the direction where there is food (to the West). I note that in Europe, French soldiers, as decent, bought food from local residents for golden napoleonds, while in Russia there was nowhere to buy food. And not only to the French: instead of a market system, spirituality and collectivity, that is, there are no European stores as a class (except for the French hats boutique in Moscow). ”
Isn't it a masterpiece? The battle of Maloyaroslavets can be interpreted as anything, and as a tactical victory of the French, and as a strategic Russian. The fact is one thing: to the south, where it is warmer and more satisfying, Napoleon did not miss Kutuzov.
But the essence here is different. And about this Ponasenkov writes, but as it should be, through a stump-deck. And let's think about this. If the French were such nyashki, and paid with full-fledged napoleondory for all that was eaten, then God himself told them to go the way they went to Russia. Well, there they have already eaten everything. And grocery stores and supermarkets they all burned. For uselessness.
As for the fact that the French, familiar to culture, had no place to buy food in Russia - well, only this pearl is worthy of a prize from Sores. Barbarous country, what can I say ... there are no shops.
Ah, poor French! We searched for, searched for markets, from Brest to Moscow itself. And they did not find one. And the stupid population, who did not understand the European values, met and escorted Napoleonic warriors with axes and forks. Like invaders and robbers. Barbarians, one word.
And to the south, where it was still possible to plunder, Kutuzov did not let him go. Or Napoleon did not dare, because he realized that he had lost. It does not matter, honestly. The fact is that the French army had to go the same way, through looted and ravaged cities. Where they, except for the "golden napoleonorov", nothing shone.
And there were a few roads in that Russia ... One-two and miscalculated. Smolensk was without prospects, and it was necessary to go to Kiev through the stupid and cowardly Kutuzov.
The question arises, why did the smart and brave Napoleon not dare to defeat the Russian army, “ready to retreat to Kamchatka” and rush to Ukraine?
Something is not glued, do not find?
"Kutuzov does not go on the offensive, but goes on a" parallel march ", without even trying to seriously disturb the army of Napoleon."
Happiness! Happiness in the understanding that such as Ponasenkov to the army, if they get, then in small quantities. Of course, he would have led the regiments to the decisive offensive and Napoleon would have driven into the coffin under the same Smolensk!
A coward and a slacker Kutuzov is parallel to the French army. By unacked cities and villages where their own. All yours. And it just closes Napoleon south. The rest is made by frost, lack of food and those who are called partisans.
Why "accepted"? Just because, in our understanding, the partisan detachment is a militia armed with what. Peasants, townspeople ...
But Barclay de Tolly began organizing the partisan struggle, forming a "flying squad" from the Kazan Dragoons, three Don Cossacks and the Stavropol Kalmyk regiments under the general command of F. Vintsinerode. Guerrilla detachment of five regiments ... And he was not the only one. Kutuzov continued this practice. For example, the squad of V. Orlov-Denisov included 6 Cossack regiments, Nezhinsky Dragoon regiment and 4 guns of Don horse artillery.
Of course, these shelves did not disturb Napoleon. The brigade of the same General Augereau apparently disappeared herself, and Orlov-Denisov and Davydov stood side by side ... Smoked pipes ...
Yes, give Ponasenkovu battles, with tens of thousands who died on both sides. I do not know why. Kutuzov did everything very well. Dodging the general battles, brought the European team to a very deplorable state.
And a couple more words about Kutuzov's colleagues. About Bagration and Barclay de Tolly. Ponasenkov and Troitsky believe that the incompetent Kutuzov simply survived de Tolly from the position of commander. And de Tolly would have been more useful if he had remained on the post of commander in chief.
Here it is necessary to think carefully over a simple question: how much did Kutuzov need it? If you believe (which is stupid) Ponasenkov, Kutuzov hypocrisy and servility struck his way to the top. In the royal chambers. Well, so be it.
But would it not be easier for Kutuzov to take advantage of the fruits of his “labor” and stay at court? Where is quiet, dry and does not drip? What was bothering him? After all, if everything the unfortunate historian is talking about is true, then Kutuzov should have simply enjoyed his success. However, in May 1812 of the year he accepts the surrender of the Turks, and in August he was at war with Napoleon.
And I recall a small aspect. Kutuzov 65 years. Even in our time, this is already a solid age. And 200 years ago? Deep old age
However, this man goes to war again. And here Kutuzov-commander and Kutuzov-diplomat came in handy. By the way, if anyone is interested, read the terms of the Bucharest peace treaty 1812 of the year between Russia and Turkey.
Kutuzov, a diplomat appointed by Alexander the First Commander-in-Chief, became the force that united Bagration and Barclay de Tolly. And two excellent commander stopped squabble among themselves. For Ponasenkov, of course, the secret is that Barclay de Tolly showered reports and notes of the emperor, and Bagration did not lag behind, blaming all the failures of the "Gad German".
Kutuzov took on a huge responsibility. The army after a series of failures, a hard winter, reserves that will not come soon, talented generals who hate each other. Who can say whether Kutuzov was so stupid that he did not understand that he would pay for the defeat? And already no court tricks can save the situation. Yes, he understood perfectly.
It is a pity that this is not understood by the “historians”, who in life, if they made marches, then to the nearest market. And how gloriously the commanders like Ponasenkov have skillfully and correctly fought, we, people who know a little more singers and producers in history and military science, know.
Ponasenkov remembers the Polish lands in the 20s of the last century, and the Ukrainian and Russian lands in the 40s. Remember.
Russian land! How hard you are that you allow you to crawl on your own with such “accusers” and seekers of “historical truth” who, in fact, are only able to curse everything that is sacred.
I do not like Ulyanov, but he was right three times and nine times, saying his famous, albeit not quite cultural, phrase about the “layer”. She is taken aback, what they are, “stratified”, intelligent and all-knowing. With what ease they take to spit on everything they can reach.
One consolation: not so many of them. And this is our happiness. Until. And the happiness of Ponasenkov, that while they do not touch.
Here is a story. The trouble, of course, is that the shoemaker will start baking our pies, and the pastry maker will boot our boots. But the trouble is no less if the actor-poet-prose writer-writer-director-producer-academician and public figure also begins to think of himself as a historian. To the military.
Just trouble.
Our dear (dear, dear you cost us) from the layer! Well, do not wake the bear, do not touch with your dirty tongues what is dear to us and holy. Our patience is not endless after all.
Information