Military Review

To stand up for Alexander I, or the saga of historical gay misery

135



Where is our country heading? Now I can safely say: our long-suffering country. Well, there is no longer a corner left in stories. All dirtied.

But what is most interesting is that someone likes it. And this, in diplomatic language, is alarming.

And no less alarming is the fact of complete powerlessness of that seemingly “formidable force” under the black-yellow-white flag. Imperials, monarchists, ay! How would your beat ...

And the most shameful thing is who hits ...

I'll tell you. Well, almost a monarchist, for the father of one of his ideals is a sin not to intercede.

So, Alexander Pavlovich Romanov, he is Alexander the First, he is Alexander the Blessed.

He carried out moderate liberal reforms developed by the Secret Committee and M. M. Speransky. He led successful wars with Turkey (1806 — 1812), Persia (1804 — 1813), and Sweden (1808 — 1809). He annexed the territories of Eastern Georgia (1801), Finland (1809), Bessarabia (1812), and the former Duchy of Warsaw (1815) to Russia.

Smashed Napoleon. After World War II, 1812 led the anti-French coalition of European powers in 1813 — 1814. He was one of the leaders of the Vienna Congress 1814 — 1815 and the organizers of the Holy Alliance.

Everything is known, such a normal king of the Romanov dynasty.

So, this was nothing.

Here before you (all for 922 rubles at a discount) from Ozone is a miracle and a masterpiece of historical activity!

To stand up for Alexander I, or the saga of historical gay misery


From the publisher
Before you is a unique book: the true story of the 1812 war of the year! Russia's largest specialist in the Napoleonic era, a famous historian, Yevgeny Ponasenkov, studied tens of thousands of documents stored in the archives of Russia and Europe, as well as diaries and memoirs of participants in events - and managed to create a fundamentally new description of that grand campaign. Impeccable accuracy of scientific presentation is combined with a bright and elegant manner of presenting the material. For the first time, a detailed description of the life of all strata of Russian society is given, economic, diplomatic and cultural aspects of what happened are investigated. You will learn about the true plans and actions of Napoleon and Alexander I, about the civil war in Russia that occurred in parallel with the invasion, about backstage "battles" and the intrigues of the world of professional scholars and state propaganda. A graduate of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, the author of many scientific works, Evgeny Ponasenkov, today is considered to be the intellectual guru of the new generation. His merits include the creation of Russia's largest personal collection of books and objects of art of the Napoleon era. The second edition is equipped with advanced chapters and additional illustrations.

The publication, by the way, is the second. Augmented.
It seems that now normal readers will begin the familiar "buffoons, what are you doing?". Who knows me for a long time, he already understands that the tree, that is, I, just will not buzz like that.

"Moskovsky Komsomolets" St. Petersburg branch:
“Quite recently, the young but already well-known historian Yevgeny Ponasenkov published the book The First Scientific History of the 1812 War of the Year. This study caused a scandal and literally in a few days became a bestseller, breaking all records of sales of scientific literature. ”

In the name of the Romanovs, whom I respect and honor (with rare exceptions), I tried to read it.

And what is the result, ask?

Fine. Gulped shit so that the hippo would envy.

Tezisno, ok?

1. Alexander 1 since childhood was a stooped, balding, remote walking storage complex.
2. In addition, he was impotent.
3. He never had a relationship with his wife and had no heirs.
4. Alexander envied Napoleon, who was an example for painters and sculptors of Europe (ha-ha, this little man!), And therefore Alexander faithlessly attacked France.

The first and last time I quote the author of this "labor":

“In fact, Napoleon didn’t have as many women as a man of his temperament and position in society could afford. While still young, General Bonaparte became the star of Europe, he was called the ancient hero, compared to Alexander of Macedon, engravings from his portraits painted by Antoine Gros and Jean-Baptiste Izabey were decorated by the homes of very many Russian nobles. Bonaparte was phenomenally gifted and as a statesman. For several years he was able to create a new France. And Tsar Alexander was inept as a military man; he did not succeed in reforming Russia either.

As a result, the envious host of the “country of slaves, the country of gentlemen” organizes the anti-French coalition in 1805, but suffers a monstrous defeat at Austerlitz: the Russian army flees, the king himself loses retinue and later finds himself crying under a tree and suffering from diarrhea. The story of this diarrhea spread over Petersburg, and all further events are the revenge of the bald loser, who himself has dishonored himself. The blame for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives rests entirely with the envious Tsar Alexander I. ”


Then you can not continue, right?

When Judas Rezun dies in his British lair, he can do it calmly. Worthy bullshit he has. But Rezun would hardly have pressed a student follower to his chest and would have shook his hand.



Just a couple of facts.

Yes, this Ponasenkov, who for some reason is called by some as a “scientist,” even learned from Moscow State University. But, alas, did not finish ... The reasons are different, the essence is the same.

And only those who poorly understand the real meaning of this word can call him a scientist.

A scientist is a person who has learned something. Moreover, he worked on improving his scholarship by writing articles, defending dissertations, and so on.

And here? And then - zilch! Not even a diploma! Scientist…

But there are forces that do not get tired of telling us how gifted he is, this Ponasenkov.

“A film actor, director, producer, TV host, academic historian, musical performer, writer and political scientist - who this energetic young man is not. However, he achieved the greatest heights in historical sciences. Today, his popularity is extraordinary. Surely there is no such person who cannot answer the question - who is Yevgeny Ponasenkov? ”

I will not give a full quote from one very highly specialized site.

But quite calmly, I can answer why Zhenya suddenly spins up so hard in Russia. And at whose expense.

And everything is simple. Who does not believe - find at least one (I will not ask for two, it is impossible to find) photos of Zhenya with a girl ...



You will not find.

Yes.

But a huge number of articles and other rubbish signed by Ponasenkov are published by such a cute magazine like KVIR ...

What a sky blue ...

Dear, do not you think we came? We came to a certain Rubicon, for which only a rapid fall into the abyss, filled with shit?

Homosexual and pederastic rewrites our history. He says that Russia lost to Napoleon, that Kutuzov was a slacker, and Alexander was the first Ponasenkov.

I honestly do not know where to fall further. I knock on the bottom. The erect body of the KVIR-fan from history. The bottom is cracking and already giving way.

I have only one question: is this normal? Maybe I do not understand something?

It’s normal that the state doesn’t give a damn about the fact that the dropout is a homosexual who imagines himself a historian doesn’t hesitate to publish them, apparently, with money from the LGBT community, and don’t care about it?

"Komsomolskaya Pravda" calls him on the air, "Moskovsky Komsomolets" writes enthusiastic articles ... Along the way, Komsomol members of that ... Everything ... And a lot of talk shows, Zhenya even managed to pozhemanichat on "First".

We have no culture. We have no history. And, apparently, do not hope for recovery. If the libels, sucked, I don’t know where, they are recognized as “scientific” and presented as “true history.”

We arrived, dear. In the KVIR. To Rezun.

What we strongly congratulate.
Author:
135 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Deune
    Deune 29 March 2018 05: 40
    +11
    Well, about complexes and deafness, we can partly agree. If it was written there about the duplicity of Alexander I, then it’s quite a complex for itself, and it can be logically explained. So, Alexander, as an heir, was pulled by two people at once. Catherine II with her enlightenment, liberal ideas, etc., and Pavel Petrovich already with their military manners. Alexander loved both father and grandmother, therefore, he was eager to break between them. But the death of his father influenced him more, his shadow haunted until the very end of his reign. Alexander understood that he had actually come to power as a result of the “palace coup” and remembered this, hence his suspiciousness. Deafness is not congenital, he earned it at the shooting, he was deaf in one ear. This became the reason for many uncomfortable moments between Alexander and his entourage. As for the rest, the truth is. They took another king cheated. The author did not see the prize money left by Arakcheev for the best biographical work about Alexander I.
    1. Evdokim
      Evdokim 29 March 2018 05: 59
      +13
      Quote: DeRune
      They took another king cheated.

      The author of this opus (book) clearly suffers from scabies of rear-wheel drive, and homosexuality is an expensive pleasure, so it tries its best, and it does not matter whose money it is. hi
      1. Vard
        Vard 29 March 2018 06: 18
        +10
        About how many wonderful discoveries we are preparing here such woodpeckers work ...
        1. kapitan281271
          kapitan281271 29 March 2018 08: 48
          +1
          Quote: Vard
          About how many wonderful discoveries we are preparing here such woodpeckers work ...

          There is no labor, but their anus hi
        2. Rey_ka
          Rey_ka 29 March 2018 10: 28
          +1
          Well, the author of the article himself writes that the author of the book studied thousands of historical documents, both Russian and European. so it has the right
          1. demo
            demo 29 March 2018 16: 10
            +4
            Buffoons this leads with irony. Do I understand correctly?
            Indeed, the listing in the table of contents of the bibliography of references to the works of third-party authors is not yet a fact that this dark youth held in his hands at least one of the above.
            1. SAF
              SAF 29 March 2018 16: 59
              +2
              In publications it was previously obligatory (when quoting) to indicate the source in the form of digits in brackets. So as not to be branded plagiarized.
              At the end of the publication, a list of references was given - where under the above number was the source of citation.
              This rule was also necessary for the thesis - who wrote he knows.
            2. Vladimir 5
              Vladimir 5 31 March 2018 16: 46
              +1
              The era of Napoleonic explored in hot pursuit and meticulously, and in the first half of the 19th century. Modern works, especially by young authors, are clearly superficial (by the time of research and thorough knowledge of the era) but with a compulsory set of discoveries and which have been immature for two centuries by academicians-researchers ... To whom history is presented in the form of comics, and this work is more comprehensive than comics, but the essence the same - to cheat the reader, and with a hidden purpose, what is it, I will leave it for thought ...
              1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                Vasilenko Vladimir 31 March 2018 17: 17
                0
                Quote: Vladimir 5
                The era of Napoleonic explored in hot pursuit and meticulously, and in the first half of the 19th century

                you can argue with that, I have books in which the events of October 25, 2017, including the STORM of the Winter and Kerensky's ESCAP, are painted every minute, so that far from the fact that everything is "meticulous" and the "hot pursuit" investigated
                Moreover, I was an eyewitness to the events in Alma-Ata in '86, and so, in the presence of LIVE WITNESSES, they have already been turned upside down
                1. 72jora72
                  72jora72 April 1 2018 08: 34
                  0
                  you can argue with that, I have books in which the events of October 25, 2017 are constantly recorded, including the STORM of winter and Kerensky’s ESCAP,
                  Let me read it. repeat
                  1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                    Vasilenko Vladimir April 1 2018 18: 00
                    0
                    come ladieshi
          2. 72jora72
            72jora72 April 1 2018 08: 31
            0
            Well, the author of the article himself writes that the author of the book studied thousands of historical documents, both Russian and European. so it has the right
            PUBLISHER, the publisher writes in the annotations to the book. Read carefully so as not to look ridiculous.
        3. moskowit
          moskowit 29 March 2018 18: 39
          0
          Let me suggest you rearrange two words. The phrase will turn out more folding ...
          ..... such woodpeckers work ....
          1. dSK
            dSK 29 March 2018 21: 57
            +1
            Quote: moskowit
            such woodpeckers

            Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
            "TVNZ" calls him on the air "Moscow Komsomol" writes enthusiastic articles ... Along the way, the Komsomol members of that ... All ...
            What kind of change is growing up for Gennady Andreyevich? Poor "atheists", orphans ...
      2. Olgovich
        Olgovich 29 March 2018 09: 28
        +2
        Quote: Evdokim
        The author of this opus (book) clearly suffers from scabies of rear-wheel drive,

        Who is he?
        NO ONE and no way to call.
        It is not necessary to pay attention to him, and it is a pity to spend time.
        WHO read his "books"?lol Yes, no one. The novel is one of, I am sure, the few who have read (of which I sympathize with him from the heart)
        1. invisibility
          invisibility 29 March 2018 13: 19
          +6
          Quote: Olgovich
          Who is he?
          NO ONE and no way to call.

          Oh, come on! Olgovich, you’re the first collector of myths and filth about another era in history! About the Soviet era! Pot calls the kettle black!
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 30 March 2018 04: 53
            0
            Quote: invisible
            Oh, come on! Olgovich, you’re the first collector of myths and filth about another era in history! About the Soviet era!


            Can you at least refute something? No you notlol you can.
            So
            Quote: invisible
            Pot calls the kettle black!

            hi
            1. Fisher martin
              Fisher martin 31 March 2018 19: 08
              0
              Olgovich “Can you at least refute something? No, you can’t refrain.” “Yes, we can refute you more than once. Laugh further the monarchical fool.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich April 1 2018 08: 58
                0
                Quote: Fisher Martin
                Olgovich “Can you at least refute something? No, you can’t refrain.” “Yes, we can refute you more than once.

                NOBODY and NEVER. yes
                Quote: Fisher Martin
                Laugh on fool monarchical.


                T. Invisibility answered you
                invisibility =
                Pot calls the kettle black!
                lol
      3. Vend
        Vend 29 March 2018 09: 57
        +5
        Quote: Evdokim
        Quote: DeRune
        They took another king cheated.

        The author of this opus (book) clearly suffers from scabies of rear-wheel drive, and homosexuality is an expensive pleasure, so it tries its best, and it does not matter whose money it is. hi

        The author of the opus (book) also suffers from hatred of Russia and Russian history.
        1. Rey_ka
          Rey_ka 29 March 2018 12: 50
          0
          Well, so we have all the kings from God, and therefore do not make mistakes!
          1. Vend
            Vend 29 March 2018 13: 17
            +3
            Quote: Rey_ka
            Well, so we have all the kings from God, and therefore do not make mistakes!

            It's not about Alexander I, but about how the history of Russia is being muddied.
            1. Rey_ka
              Rey_ka 29 March 2018 13: 41
              +1
              Did you read? what bad did Ponasenkov say about Alexander? maybe he just brought a hundred documents and his opinion on that era? We kind of identity as the era of EBN is not much exaggerated?
              1. Vend
                Vend 29 March 2018 13: 51
                +1
                Quote: Rey_ka
                Did you read? what bad did Ponasenkov say about Alexander? maybe he just brought a hundred documents and his opinion on that era? We kind of identity as the era of EBN is not much exaggerated?

                Judging by the comment, you are his “fan”. Good luck.
                1. Rey_ka
                  Rey_ka 29 March 2018 14: 34
                  0
                  Well, the quotes are correctly set, so do not be offended. Actually, I wrote that you first need to read everything and then decide for yourself correctly or not. Well, if Roman read and somehow the book revealed the author’s orientation then ....
                2. The comment was deleted.
    2. alstr
      alstr 29 March 2018 07: 27
      +11
      About Alexander 1, it’s enough to recall Pushkin’s epigram:

      Raised under the drum,
      Our king was a captain:
      Under Austerlits he ran,
      In the twelfth year he trembled,
      But there was a professor of fruntov!
      But the hero is tired of the fruit!
      Now collegiate he is assessor
      Regarding foreign affairs!

      Therefore, part of the truth is that Alexander 1 was not a super duper king there. He was not a military genius (Austerlitz is his merit), he was not a good diplomat. But this is not the whole truth. There is another side to the coin. But the same civil reforms were quite in topic.

      Here, as usual, we will tell the truth about the bad, but keep silent about the good truth. And we get that everything is bad with us
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 29 March 2018 10: 24
        +4
        Unfortunately, now, like in other years of our 21st century, there are a lot of lying little books that are pestering our country, people lying and diarrhea. This is the lack of state ideology and CAPITACLISM !!!!!. Business, just business.
        What to say about OZON? I often order books there. There are works of our marshals: Bagramyan, Novikov, Konev, Eremenko and others. There are Shirokorad’s books, his articles are here .... Martirosyan, Sudoplatov, Atamanenko ..... Alexei Oleinikov, whose articles we read in. Some books are already at my place.
        What to read, what to believe ---- the choice is each. It is imperative to find out what kind of author is what he is “famous for” now.
      3. Monarchist
        Monarchist 29 March 2018 13: 28
        0
        Alstr, name who is the best? Everyone has a flaw, you kind of justify this author
        1. alstr
          alstr 29 March 2018 14: 55
          0
          In terms of the results of the reign, the best ruler of the Romanovs is Catherine 2.

          And yes, I agree with the author that the one-sidedness of providing information is evil.
          1. svd-xnumx
            svd-xnumx 29 March 2018 20: 15
            0
            In terms of the results of the reign, the best ruler of the Romanovs is Catherine 2.
            And then there is someone who will spit on you and say that she’s not Romanova, but the little prusachka Sophia Augusta Frederika Angalt-Zerbst. An ungrateful thing to argue with fools is to forbid them to open their mouths. So this rear-wheel drive should stupidly declare a boycott. in his book he gave false information that he is a scientist, that it’s necessary to judge the publishing house issuing science fiction as a scientific work. And let them understand the author.
          2. Vasilenko Vladimir
            Vasilenko Vladimir 29 March 2018 21: 01
            +1
            Quote: alstr
            In terms of the results of the reign, the best ruler of the Romanovs is Catherine 2.

            oh oh oh, the revolution of the 17th year is also its merit, it was she who completely turned the noble-serving class into a parasite class, so what about the best ruler, you can argue
  2. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 29 March 2018 05: 45
    +3
    the funniest thing is that, using the logic of opponents of official history, we must believe that this individual is broadcasting the truth! the truth hushed up by the power!
    but since, judging by the article and the citations from the book, our country is in this opus, the opponents of the official. stories will not present this "work" as the next discovery in the fight against the official "false science")) I suspect it is unpleasant to write it down in the "discovery"))
    1. Z_G_R
      Z_G_R 30 March 2018 13: 52
      0
      If you familiarize yourself with the opinions of opponents of history, you will generally be shocked by what you learn. But we will not raise a polemic about alternative people, here we are discussing the type of the next "from the torus" of science))) that is, another nonsense not worth discussing by sane people.
      1. Cxnumx
        Cxnumx 31 March 2018 04: 26
        0
        Quote: Z_G_R
        If you familiarize yourself with the opinions of opponents of history, you will generally be shocked by what you learn.

        Citizen Ponasenkov is a 100% alternative historian.
        1. Z_G_R
          Z_G_R 31 March 2018 12: 36
          0
          then you don’t understand what alt history is, sorry.
          1. Cxnumx
            Cxnumx 31 March 2018 14: 11
            0
            Quote: Z_G_R
            then you don’t understand what alt history is, sorry.

            Of course, I don’t understand))) but your words are 100% consistent:
            Quote: K0
            the funniest thing is that, using the logic of opponents of official history, we must believe that this individual is broadcasting the truth! the truth hushed up by the power!
            hi
            1. Z_G_R
              Z_G_R April 1 2018 12: 45
              0
              ok, I’ll explain it again. Ponasenkov is not an alto historian, he is just a clown that parasitizes on history, which was already invented. That's all. An alternative story is generally based on other concepts that have nothing to do with this ponasenkovym.
  3. eugraphus
    eugraphus 29 March 2018 06: 39
    +9
    From the article it is clear that Pkonasenkov is very unpleasant to Skomorokhov. And he directed all his anger at exposing his bad qualities. And since he is so bad, then he does not have any right to write, and even about such a contradictory one as the reign of Alexander 1. So what to comment? A book that we have not read, or its author? Maybe the era of Alexander? Or the right to someone to have an opinion?
    1. sxfRipper
      sxfRipper 29 March 2018 09: 36
      +5
      Victor Suvorov is very unpleasant to the author (sorry - Judas Rezun). But for years, the same author was tired of throwing about him. And then fresh! Sin is not to take advantage!
      Alex_59 (Alexey): Firstly, if the author of the opus about Alexander the 1st is a little in the wrong orientation, what does this have to do with the fact that he is an upstart and mediocrity? Why put it in a heap?
      It is to create that very heap that you yourself understand what.
      1. 72jora72
        72jora72 April 1 2018 08: 37
        0
        Victor Suvorov is very unpleasant to the author (sorry - Judas Rezun)
        I see that it is definitely close and pleasant .......
        1. sxfRipper
          sxfRipper April 1 2018 11: 29
          0
          Suvorov makes you think. Those who have what.
    2. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 29 March 2018 10: 20
      +5
      this is from the Soviet: did not read but condemn? I didn’t stand with a candle, but they started to sort the book and rolled down to the orientation of the author. so anyone who disagrees now can damn what
      1. Korax71
        Korax71 29 March 2018 18: 23
        +1
        Agree with you good even critics of this book cannot make a single verdict. Someone praises, someone scolds, someone up to the lamp. The book is quite interestingly written and as if the information was not taken from the ceiling either. It’s easy to agree with the author, maybe not, for example, to me , doesn’t greatly impress the author’s attitude to Napoleon, although he is a great man, but also with his cockroaches and flaws, with exactly the same hands to the elbow in blood. In general, the book is quite informative. As for the author’s orientation, it somehow influences on the quality of the presentation of the material? I think no. Macedonian also chattered boys, however, one of the greatest commanders. His orientation is his personal affair, if he was not imposed on anyone, even if he sleeps with aliens in bed.
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 30 March 2018 00: 59
          0
          Quote: Korax71
          even critics of this book cannot make a single verdict

          "Critics" - who is this? The same swaggering majors as the author?

          Scientists of this garbage graphomania have already given an assessment.
    3. mmaxx
      mmaxx 29 March 2018 14: 44
      +3
      Enough to die on the screen of this panasenkov. Just want to put a chair on his head
      On YouTube, this character is full of burps. The same ones like him and propagate his books.
    4. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 29 March 2018 21: 03
      +3
      Quote: eugraphus
      that Skororokhov is very unpleasant Ponasenkov

      you know he will be unpleasant probably anyone just needs to listen to his speeches, a daffodil at the same time not very smart
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 29 March 2018 21: 31
        0
        I looked and listened to the videos on YouTube about the history buff PONASENKOV !! His speeches --- identity. THEATER OF NONSENSE some !!!!!
  4. rkkasa xnumx
    rkkasa xnumx 29 March 2018 07: 16
    +3
    On YouTube there is a video by Oleg Sokolov about this Ponasenkov, and his writings.
  5. midshipman
    midshipman 29 March 2018 07: 24
    +6
    I wrote a story, The Forgotten Governor General. This is about M.A. Miloradovich, a friend and associate of Alexander I. After that, a monument was erected to him in St. Petersburg in 2015. My ancestors fought for Russia since 1812. On the father's side, received awards and titles. The family is proud of them.
    1. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 29 March 2018 10: 41
      +2
      judging by the article, you should provide a certificate from a proctologist, otherwise if someone doesn’t like your story, there’s a way to denigrate both the author and the book without even reading
  6. Per se.
    Per se. 29 March 2018 07: 35
    +14
    Anyway, the story was twisted by many, but, you can always distinguish two main branches in this. First, when there is no intent, but there is a lack of true facts, and, as a result, erroneous conclusions. The second is intentional falsification, manipulation under a political order or personal prejudice. What is there to discuss, gomosyatinu, as a phenomenon, and suspicion of Ponasenkov, that he became a pseudo-historian, exclusively from the "rear-wheel drive" ... Personally, I hate. If we talk about the personality of Alexander I, then yes, while the king was the invasion of Napoleon, who had previously offered Alexander a union against England, and which Alexander had refused. It is also a historical fact that Alexander I, voluntarily or involuntarily, became an accomplice in the murder of his father, Paul I, who had just begun to develop allied relations with France, up to and including the proposed joint campaign against the British in India. The prospect of such an alliance in many respects cost Paul his life; many saw the British trace behind his murder. It so happened that Paul I, you can throw mud, and after the tragic death, our church did not think to canonize as a martyr, unlike Nicholas II. The epoch of Paul I, and Alexander I, is the edge when Russia could change the world, make its own application for leadership, press the Anglo-Saxons. Pavel I couldn’t do anything, he wasn’t given anything, and Alexander I did not want, with the laurels of the winner of Napoleon, the opportunity to gain a foothold in Europe, to resolve the issue of the straits. And so it happened, they knew that the "Englishwoman shits", they understood that they were worse than the war with the Anglo-Saxons, only remove the friendship, but the alien Anglo-Saxon lobby continued secretly and obviously to steer the world at the royal court in Russia. We will be "grateful" from England for rescuing from Napoleon, in the form of the Crimean War, harassment and armament of Japan, followed by Tsushima ... Alas, for all of this, we again harness England for England, enter the Entente, against the Germans, having in the lives of Germans, queens and kings of Germans, half-blood ... The fall of the empire under Nicholas II, the final historical choice, happened what should have happened, after the noble concessions to Alexander I’s West, the unfulfilled opportunities of the king, in which the Russian army reached Paris . Everything else, from Panasenkova, probably, is not so important.
  7. Jerk
    Jerk 29 March 2018 07: 37
    +1
    But was Pushkin Ponasenkvy too? I remember that he didn’t digest Sasha either)))
    1. Net
      Net 29 March 2018 17: 26
      +1
      Pushkin is much worse than Ponasenkov - the most disgusting humanoid, the destroyer of Russian culture, on the neck of Russia, the Bolshevik idol of Russian parasites
      https://studopedia.ru/11_110233_epidemiya-grippa.
      html
      1. colotun
        colotun 29 March 2018 23: 25
        0
        And Pushkin is a landowner = oppressor of the working people, he had serf slaves = peasants, and only after 1917 the brilliant genius of the revolution = Leiba Trotsky banned him as a class enemy, but dictator Stalin appeared here and made an icon out of this Pushkin.
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 30 March 2018 01: 01
          +2
          And one more time, Pushkin changed into Gogol ...
  8. Cheldon
    Cheldon 29 March 2018 07: 39
    0
    Article smacks of advertising ponasenkova, in my opinion. There is always plenty of authors of an alternative story.
  9. parusnik
    parusnik 29 March 2018 08: 08
    +5
    If the Pasquili sucked up do not know where, they are recognized as “scientific” and presented as a “true story”.
    .... So since the 90s goes ....
    1. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 29 March 2018 10: 37
      +1
      And why does the libel author of the article himself write that thousands of documents have been studied, both local and foreign
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 29 March 2018 10: 58
        +6
        The ruler is weak and crafty, the bald dandy, the enemy of labor, accidentally warmed by glory, then reigned over us. . We knew him very humble, When not our two-headed Oryol cooks pinched ... A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"
        1. Operator
          Operator 29 March 2018 18: 19
          +1
          Why quote a clown, besides bald?


          If you are a bald writer and suffer from complexes, then write lyric verses, two-hole sniffs and do not rant about politics.
  10. Alex_59
    Alex_59 29 March 2018 08: 28
    +5
    Horses mixed in a bunch, people ...
    Firstly, if the author of the opus about Alexander 1 is a little in the wrong orientation, what does this have to do with the fact that he is an upstart and mediocrity? Why put it in a heap? Yes, even if he practices BDSM at his leisure (by mutual agreement of partners, of course), this is his own business, there is nothing to put emphasis on this. Pressure on the subject's orientation discredits the article, in which, it seems, the main thing is that he is not a historian, but a balabol.
    Secondly, if the quote from the book is as it is, then the author is really a bad person and deserves (in the diplomatic language) strong condemnation and contempt. I say this as an opponent of the monarchy, by the way.
    Thirdly, why should I write this author:
    And no less alarming is the fact of complete powerlessness of that seemingly “formidable force” under the black-yellow-white flag. Imperials, monarchists, ay! How would your beat ...
    Divide again on yours and not yours? Don’t you notice that it’s with this approach that you can make it possible to say
    our long-suffering country
    . That’s what “yours are beaten here for?" I am opposed to monarchy and imperialism, but I will not give my own history, be it Soviet or royal, with mud. Rather, I will do everything in my humble powers. But when they called me “not ours”, the precipitate was not pleasant.
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 30 March 2018 05: 34
      +1
      Monarchists and weeping-bakers all 30 years of harassing the USSR. And now, it was evidently surprised that the whole history of Russia is haunted by those whom they raised !!!!
  11. free
    free 29 March 2018 08: 55
    +1
    Where are the regulatory bodies, where is the reaction of the officials? Where is the state? Who is it beneficial for? This is it.It's time to stop asking and start demanding.
    1. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 29 March 2018 10: 32
      +1
      what to ask and demand? You forget, socialism ended immediately and all! just buy now, no money then ask.
  12. antiexpert
    antiexpert 29 March 2018 09: 17
    +4
    The sovereign is weak and crafty,
    A bald dandy, the enemy of labor,
    Unintentionally warmed by glory,
    Reigned over us then.
    I’m used to feeling
    And limited by reason,
    The vine of the fatherly baptized
    And enlightened with a drum -
    He is like an opponent of fanaticism
    Softened ancient arbitrariness
    And made a restructuring ..
  13. The comment was deleted.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 March 2018 10: 31
      +1
      Ahem ... what about Finland - better not. For it was thanks to Alexander I that the 6 Finnish provinces transferred by Sweden to Russia following the war suddenly turned into the Grand Duchy of Finland. And the Vyborg province of the Empire was granted to this VKF by him, which had previously been renamed the Finland province.
      1. Dashing
        Dashing 29 March 2018 10: 36
        +2
        But in fact in the composition of the Republic of Ingushetia, Alexey RA. This is, firstly, and secondly, as you have noticed, I do not discuss the subtleties of the policy of Alexander Pavlovich, but only support the ideas of the author of the article in general.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 29 March 2018 13: 53
          +1
          Quote: DARK
          But in fact in the composition of the Republic of Ingushetia, Alexey RA.

          Yeah ... with its Senate, bank, police, official language, while preserving the legislation of the All-Union Communist Party, left from Swedish times. When the VKF transferred the Vyborg province, a lot of problems arose because of this.
          In short, the VKF from the very beginning was a kind of "state in the state."
  14. sxfRipper
    sxfRipper 29 March 2018 09: 30
    0
    Komsomolskaya Pravda calls him on the air, Moskovsky Komsomolets writes enthusiastic articles ...

    And what did you want from the icterics? For them, he spit raspberries!
    According to sabzh - there have already been quoted classics, I will not repeat.
  15. Altona
    Altona 29 March 2018 09: 49
    +4
    I don’t even know who to stand up for. Both persons are peculiar, they have already stood up for Alexander, I will stand up for Napoleon, since I was born with him on the same day, but after exactly 200 years. Physically, he was not a dwarf — he was of medium height, and he was an outstanding person. His misconception is that he decided that he could confront the world alone. And in this blind conviction, the whole male color of France, two generations, burned in the war. As for kings and emperors in history. I think that such works of such "historians" should be marked with the stamp "artistic investigation". Because it is in its pure form a set of speculation, propaganda and its own interpretations. Here many quote Pushkin. And Pushkin, as a researcher, will be stronger than the insane, but the title of “historian” Alexander Sergeyevich never hung on himself, although he annealed the word be healthy and now penetrates his verb.
    1. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 29 March 2018 10: 36
      +3
      and a few words in defense of Bonoparte. After his death, his children got an old rusty sword, a komzol and something else from their belongings, and all the millions were given to the treasury by France!
      1. Dashing
        Dashing 29 March 2018 18: 42
        0
        Quote: Rey_ka
        After his death, his children got an old rusty sword, a komzol and something else from their belongings, and all the millions were given to the treasury by France!

        And in return, she took two generations of the French from her - hardly a good deal for the country.
        1. Rey_ka
          Rey_ka 30 March 2018 08: 18
          0
          Despite the fact that the French still adore him!
          1. Dashing
            Dashing 30 March 2018 12: 22
            0
            More they idolize no one. Between him and de Gaulle is a void.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 30 March 2018 12: 36
              0
              Quote: DARK
              More they idolize no one. Between him and de Gaulle is a void.

              Hehehehe ... but after all, France had one national hero in this interval. The father of the nation, the savior of the Fatherland, the Verdun winner ... even De Gaulle wrote that France owes much to this general for her victory in WWI.
              True, now the French are trying not to remember this person.
              1. Dashing
                Dashing 30 March 2018 13: 20
                0
                Neither Marshal Paten, nor Foch, nor Nivelles in the French can not be compared with Napoleon. Yes, they won, according to Derjam: "Victory, bleeding France to the blue." But Little Corporal created the France that they defended. General De Gaulle, in fact, did the same as Napoleon - created modern France.
    2. Net
      Net 29 March 2018 17: 38
      0
      Sir, are you aware that during the Patriotic War of 1812, Pushkin was nicknamed "Frenchman"? Similarly, how would you call the Second World War "fascist"? Maybe you will be glorifying all the traitors and villains and the current liberals?
      1. naidas
        naidas 29 March 2018 20: 07
        +1
        Pushkin was called French, because no one, not even Gorchakov, wrote or spoke French like him. Then all the translators during the Second World War call traitors and villains.
        1. Net
          Net 31 March 2018 17: 57
          0
          He was called a “Frenchman” for the abomination that he spread around him, starting with the Lyceum. By the way, in Russian, he learned to speak only at 11-12 years old (before that he studied only French pornography).
      2. Dashing
        Dashing 30 March 2018 13: 29
        0
        Net, Pushkin was nicknamed the "Frenchman" back in the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, and not in the Patriotic War of 1812. There are even wonderful poems about this:
        Big Jeanne Million Bonmo
        Speaks incessantly,
        And our Frenchman praises his taste
        And smacks of swearing.
        Big Jeanne is the nickname of Ivan Pushchin. And you are a "fascist". More thoroughly necessary
        1. Net
          Net 31 March 2018 17: 59
          0
          You are right, what else to expect from a “rotten Frenchman” from a nursery childhood, a pedophile and a student of drunks and gamblers-tutors ..
      3. Z_G_R
        Z_G_R 30 March 2018 14: 00
        +1
        let me remind you for a moment that all the nobility spoke French then) It was the language of salons and high society. The only question is why?) Oh yes, and also, why did Napoleon go to Moscow and not Petersburg, where Alexander was with the court and the capital?)
  16. Rey_ka
    Rey_ka 29 March 2018 10: 14
    +3
    Now, apparently, stands up for Bonoparte. It seems no one argues that man was brilliant for his time and a real statesman. those wars are the wars of the Empires of French Austrian, English and Russian. The entire European mess did not affect Russia much. But as one of the strongest economies in Europe, it was constantly drawn into the European showdown. They pulled in even under Paul, but Napoleon made one ally and simple knock from Paul instead of the enemy ally. After a successful conspiracy, the British removed the figure of Paul from the chessboard and the Anglophile Alexander 1 jumped onto the imperial throne of Russia. After the defeat at Austerlitz, a peace treaty was signed. Alexander violates it and receives it again from Bonoparte and again concludes a peace treaty with Tilsit, Alexander again violates and helps the Austrians and breaks the blockade agreement with England. Now it’s just a question. Did Napoleon know that he was being held for the “patience”? And it is logical that Bonopart begins the war of 1812 against Russia, as it were now called “peace enforcement” and therefore Napoleon does not go to the capital of the Russian Empire but to Moscow and patiently conquering it waits patiently for more than a month of union with Alexander.
    And of us, when we were studying, did anyone ask the teacher why Napoleon was going to Moscow and not to St. Petersburg?
    1. Antares
      Antares 30 March 2018 00: 30
      +1
      Quote: Rey_ka
      Now it’s probably worth standing up for Bonoparte

      this “upstart” made the whole of Europe move faster towards progress. His merits are very many, it’s very unfortunate that we treat him badly only because they remember the period of the 1812 wars, and not real changes in the course of history by one person.
      A brilliant man, an artilleryman from God and the best French progressor.
    2. Z_G_R
      Z_G_R 30 March 2018 14: 02
      0
      teachers don’t respond to this) And then we’ll have to talk about two states, which is a bit beyond)
  17. Conserp
    Conserp 29 March 2018 10: 53
    +3
    Just leave it here: oper.ru/video/view.php?t=2552

    Oleg Sokolov is a true scientist and world-leading leading specialist in the Napoleonic Wars, and at the same time a thermonuclear narrator.

    But Ponasenkov is just a shame and a nonsense. One name of scribble is enough to understand this.
    1. pafegosoff
      pafegosoff 29 March 2018 19: 55
      0
      I agree, Sokolov is just a fan of that era, in fact the founder of the historical restoration ...
      1. Korax71
        Korax71 30 March 2018 01: 10
        -1
        Of course a fan. wassat he and his modeled sidekick, Mr. Baturin, Mr. Churov. and if you look at the earlier work of Monsieur Sokolov, it’s in the style of a la Rezun Suvorov, everyone hates everyone. But for some reason everyone is trying to keep silent.
    2. Korax71
      Korax71 30 March 2018 01: 07
      -1
      That is, a person who appropriates the historical works of his subordinates, is directly a scientist laughing if you are not too lazy to read reviews and reviews about the works of Comrade Sokolov, then slightly change your opinion about him. He and Ponasenkov have enough facts, fabrications, and links not to documents, but to works of other authors. Bonopartist and even more famous Anglophobe. often his opuses are weighty biased, despite a bunch of degrees, tons of lectures.
  18. Alex66
    Alex66 29 March 2018 11: 17
    +5
    It’s normal that the state doesn’t give a damn about the fact that the dropout is a homosexual who imagines himself a historian doesn’t hesitate to publish them, apparently, with money from the LGBT community, and don’t care about it?
    It’s strange that your article was published here, I got the first and only ban on VO for the offer to call a spade a spade, and not come up with beautiful wrappers.
    1. sxfRipper
      sxfRipper 29 March 2018 17: 32
      0
      What is allowed to Jupiter ...
  19. Old warrior
    Old warrior 29 March 2018 12: 12
    +1
    Ponosenkova has a Clinic written on her face. He did not write - he must be treated ... for a long time and carefully.
  20. 96423lom
    96423lom 29 March 2018 12: 35
    0
    Tens of thousands of documents to find, read, it is thirty years old, and you are "blue", "blue" ...
    1. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 29 March 2018 12: 46
      0
      well, so "normal" men do not do such nonsense
  21. Curious
    Curious 29 March 2018 13: 19
    +4
    And why is the author of the article surprised? The dominance of amateurs to mock history? So, after all, their home site provides them with shelter and food. A certain conglomerate called "Samsonov" regularly, five times a week, gives out to the mountain heaps of historical nonsense, poisoning the environment no less than this Ponasenkov-Ponosenkov. I just don’t know whether the Samsonov homosexual or not. Anyway, those wishing to earn "on history" are now legion. And what difference does it make if they have diplomas or not. Fomenko and Klesov have scientific degrees.
    And only Ponasenkov got it.
    1. Monarchist
      Monarchist 29 March 2018 15: 05
      +2
      And tell me the period when there were no "historians" with diarrhea in my head. But in general, you have clearly attached
  22. gm9019
    gm9019 29 March 2018 13: 27
    +1
    It is in such an environment that you acutely yearn for censorship! Yes, yes, the very one that “stifles freedom of speech”, because we don’t need such words that spoil our Fatherland, spoil our history Only who will do this if everyone is busy making money ?! angry
  23. The point
    The point 29 March 2018 14: 18
    +2
    The bottom is cracking and is already giving in.

    Novel! Be strong and do not succumb to provocations. God forbid us to lose you. laughing
    And besides jokes, I would not even take tongs with tongs, in extreme cases I would thoroughly wash my hands.
  24. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 29 March 2018 14: 52
    +2
    There was no Alexander I! Alexander Pavlovich = Napoleon = Peter I (Dutchman, Jesuit and adventurer Peter), with European mercenaries attacked the Scythian state, burned Moscow (Troy) and destroyed the chronicles of Tartaria, in which the twenty-thousand-year history of the Slavs-Aryans is narrated.
    1. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 29 March 2018 15: 11
      +2
      Moscow = Troy !! ??? Schliemann was not looking there? Then Priam = Peter? then Priam (premium = first)?
      1. ALEA IACTA EST
        ALEA IACTA EST 29 March 2018 15: 24
        +2
        Real Fomenkovtsy are not so bent.
    2. Rey_ka
      Rey_ka 29 March 2018 15: 27
      +1
      I still understand when Hyperborea is attracted to Russia; at least something from modern scientific sources is there, and the authors themselves doubt it
  25. Monarchist
    Monarchist 29 March 2018 15: 01
    +3
    Mdaa Ponasenko's strength: 1) in my childhood I heard a lot about “bad kings”, but starting a war due to the fact that Napoleon's beauty is something phenomenal. Alexander has seen enough in the mirror and says “I’ll go Napoleon’s face to beat” 2) Alexander is impotent. He did not leave a legitimate heir, but had an extramarital affair. Read Zimin, Bell "Private life of Russian gendarmes." 3) "diarrhea" I read a lot of things, but NEVER about it. I once heard that back in the 80s, I don’t remember the author now, the military historian believed that Petrs1 and Alexander ¹1'st had strategic thinking, and how is this to be understood?
    Apparently, all full tunduks and one author are smart or you yourself know what to call it
    1. Curious
      Curious 29 March 2018 16: 47
      0
      You know how surprising this is, but all of your questions are best answered ... by reading a book.
      And it turns out, as in the old joke.
      - Izzy, do you like Fugue in D Minor?
      - No, sheer nonsense.
      “Where did you listen to her?”
      - Moishe whistled for me.
      Moreover, for some reason I’m sure that most of the “critics” not only did not read Ponasenkov, but very few people read about the war of 1812.
      But Ponasenkov, he is not writing a book in a vacuum.
      See who he has in the reviewers.

      So draw your own conclusions.
      1. Net
        Net 29 March 2018 17: 48
        +1
        Haha, "reviewers." Does it say "History of Russia until the twentieth century"?
        Got it. )) Another story from the series "Narnia", science fiction about the "Golden Horde" and Russophobic nonsense of Pushkin.
  26. DimanC
    DimanC 29 March 2018 15: 33
    +4
    Well, Roman Skomorokhov advertised. Recently, on a Goblin site, Oleg Sokolov was about to sue this "historian." In fact, this Ponasenkov just had to be ignored. And so, an advertisement is created for him, including the propaganda of homosexuality ...
  27. Alexander Dyakov
    Alexander Dyakov 29 March 2018 18: 17
    0
    The Lord didn’t give a horny cow a pity! This is me now to myself. I would have to become the general prosecutor for a day, a kind of Great Inquisitor, to bring out all the pederastic evil spirits in one moment. I would declare a great carnival for perverts of all breeds, and, with fun musical accompaniment, in rows and columns, under rainbow flags, my In a move, he sent them to develop the Kolyma permafrost-nails. Moreover, without the right to return, so that they would be foul in their appearance, and, all the more so, with wacky speeches and fabrications, they would not spoil the human race.
  28. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 29 March 2018 19: 48
    0
    Actually, the best special in Napoleon is Oleg Sokolov. So, one of those who could really describe Alexander ...
    1. Korax71
      Korax71 30 March 2018 01: 23
      -1
      It’s not worth it to cononize. And without his opuses, there is enough not biased material on the issues of the Patriotic War. I suggest you read the monograph by Albert Zakharovich Manfred “Napoleon Bonaparte”. Much more competent and interesting.
  29. Prometey
    Prometey 29 March 2018 20: 04
    +1
    If this is the first scientific history of the Patriotic War of 1812, then I am embarrassed to ask - what then did Tarle, Beskrovny, Zhilin and dozens of other historians write about?
  30. naidas
    naidas 29 March 2018 20: 29
    +1
    ... All estates were divided, no one wanted to "rally around the throne" (this fable was invented later), a palace coup matured in St. Petersburg, the peasants didn’t kill the landowners, the landlords cowardly abandoned their estates, the townspeople did not want to defend their cities (or rather, ashes - after all, settlements were destroyed by order of the Russian command). Peasants and Cossacks plundered the city of co-religionists, soldiers looted and even devastated Orthodox churches. The Russian generals managed to lose all battles to Napoleon: and that’s why not a single (!) Russian general-participant in the war wrote a book on its history! I repeat: it’s amazing, but my predecessors didn’t think about it - all hundreds of Russian generals and colonels (participants) events of 1812) stupidly hung portraits in the Military Gallery of the Winter Palace, but not one of them wrote a book on the war of 1812 (only M. B. Barclay de Tolly, who was "poisoned" for the army’s flight from the borders, was I am compelled to unsubscribe by an exculpatory brochure exclusively about my behavior in the first weeks of the campaign)! This is deafeningly interesting: neither the tsar himself gave the corresponding order, nor such a well-known ideologist as A.S. Shishkov (1754–1841), or favorite-manager of Russia A.A. Arak-Cheyev (1769–1834) - no one wrote a book, say, with the name “World War II”. This name, by which we know about those events, was lowered from above only later. None of the above, and all others, even ordered a historian, writer, or simply secretary to write the aforementioned work! Why?

    Wasn’t it all? Or the author, apart from himself, has not read anyone:
    “Notes” by N. A. Durova, F. N. Glinka, D. V. Davydov, N. N. Muravyov, A. P. Ermolov, A. Kh. Benkendorf, etc. A memoir by Nikolai Nikolaevich Muravyov (1794 –1866) about the Patriotic War of 1812.
    And this is from school: We retreated silently for a long time ..
    Wasn’t it all?
  31. Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 29 March 2018 20: 44
    +2
    Evgeny Ponasenkov

    Why discuss this fagot?
    listened to him several times in a box, a fool a fool, but a show off like an academician
    In the name of the Romanovs, whom I respect and honor (with rare exceptions)
    here it can be argued there, with rare exceptions, it’s just no one to respect
    Alexander envied Napoleon, who was an example for painters and sculptors in Europe (ha ha, this little one!)

    when writing articles, study the topic, Napoleon’s height is 169 cm, which even if not above average height is its upper limit for that time
  32. Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 29 March 2018 20: 58
    0
    And everything is simple. Who does not believe - find at least one (I will not ask for two, it is impossible to find) photos of Zhenya with a girl ...
    found three wassat


    1. borov_2
      borov_2 31 March 2018 20: 41
      0
      This best photo speaks for itself:
  33. spgg
    spgg 29 March 2018 22: 37
    0
    Many thanks to the author for the article! It is necessary to convey the truth to the people.
    In my opinion, he is far from being a cutter. He only imitates him.
    Ponasenkov is a rare boor and a bastard.
    The mud with which he fell upon Sokolov personally shocked me.
    I waited a long time for someone else to convict this villain.
    And the shops that distribute his books offer to boycott.
  34. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  35. Abracadabrus
    Abracadabrus 30 March 2018 00: 48
    0
    I sincerely sympathize with Skomorokhov. Here, one passage from this book is all cited, I read how I swam in shit, and Skomorokhov read the whole book, the poor fellow. Taking off my hat hi
  36. Rey_ka
    Rey_ka 30 March 2018 08: 52
    0
    here I hope the last of the academician’s recollections in the 60-70s of the last century: Once in a serious scientific audience I jokingly asked to vote: who is for Alexander I to die, and who is for leaving. Ninety-five percent voted to leave ...
  37. Imobile
    Imobile 30 March 2018 10: 35
    0
    I am categorically against hiding any facts, good or bad. If you do not agree with Alexander’s description, justify the facts, and it turns out that you have confirmed everything. And whether the ruler was good or bad, crooked or straight, the history of Russia will not become less great. It’s very bad that we are hiding, we are lying some moments. Sometimes you don’t understand causal relationships. I still do not understand why Napoleon attacked in the 18th century. I haven’t read the book because I don’t know if there are facts in the book, not speculation. If at least something scientific is, then I would read. I don’t divide the good and the bad, but I’m interested to see what good people did and what bad people did.
    1. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 30 March 2018 11: 31
      0
      Quote: Imobile
      I still do not understand why Napoleon attacked in the 18th century.

      why did Hitler understand?
      1. Imobile
        Imobile 30 March 2018 15: 18
        0
        Of course this is an assumption, but I think so. There are many reasons, but the catalyst, in my opinion, is that we screwed up on the Finnish front. I would still give many important reasons, but this does not even draw to the article, but to the book.
        1. Vasilenko Vladimir
          Vasilenko Vladimir 30 March 2018 18: 07
          0
          Quote: Imobile
          but i think so

          why Napoleon, do not you understand?
          so you can read something on the subject before writing
  38. Palagecha
    Palagecha 30 March 2018 14: 57
    +1
    When I read all this, my head starts spinning, my thoughts get confused and the light fades .... I know so much new things and don’t know what to do with it !!! It’s interesting, but the enemies, like Peter the Great once, could not replace our President abroad for a double? Because many years ago Vladimir Putin promised a lot of things, and this one promises the same thing ... It turns out that they didn’t give that one, but this one will not do anything ...
  39. an_ursus
    an_ursus 31 March 2018 13: 01
    0
    Judging by the comments below on the list of Ponasenkov, a wide-format person with a wide coverage of everything and everyone! Someone did not even dream. Genius, and only! .. Ah yes, Ponasekov, oh yes, son of a bitch! It's amazing how he lives among us! Surpassed Tarle himself! ..just not having graduated from Moscow State University, being already an actor and political scientist. There is only one crying question! It is necessary to save the story, and then with such cheaters will soon begin to find meteorites with fingerprints of Martians.
    1. Hikker
      Hikker 29 September 2018 11: 14
      0
      As my teacher said, political scientists are undereducated historians) I was right to see)
  40. Snoop
    Snoop 31 March 2018 16: 32
    0
    It is a logical continuation. If earlier everything was Soviet, Stalin, etc. Now they have switched to the Romanovs. Not at all surprised. It has long been written to many lovers of "Russia that they lost" that he is not just anti-Soviet, but it comes from Russophobia and anti-statehood. Here even many objected to me. In this logic, there will be books about the vile Peter I, the vampire Ivan the Terrible, etc. Although, in my opinion, Ivan the Terrible has already been rolled. The point is to slander Russian statehood as a whole, regardless of its format, monarchy or socialism. And many lovers of the monarchy, I apologize for the French ... joyfully supported the anti-Stalinists, etc., not realizing that the line would reach their beloved Romanovs, etc.
    1. kan123
      kan123 April 1 2018 06: 51
      0
      Stalin supported the version of “statehood” until 1812 — there were two schools of history, he chose the “tsarist” version — about a difficult heroic battle, with the strongest army in the world, but not of the Romanovs, but of the people. If the people hadn’t rested their horn, Bonaparte would have reached Vlad, he would have carried bread and salt, like our Slavic brothers - Poles, the nation's prostitute warehouse. What does the Romanov have to do with it? On all of them, except for the rarest exceptions - Peter, Ivan, there’s simply nowhere to put stigmas on criticism. But they are not related to statehood - this is an invention of priests when they "all in general" developed RI. In a war, everything is simple - the people confront - wins, and vice versa. The same thing, Lenin all the time turned to this "what the people will say," and Stalin, by himself, associated himself with the party, which was then the people, really represented him. The Romanovs, in general, is a shameful spot in Russia. Kings and the nobility. These were the dumbest lordly tasks, and the harsh colonization of their own peoples.
  41. vladasyar
    vladasyar 31 March 2018 18: 07
    +1
    Quote: Curious
    oper.ru/video/view.php?t=2552

    Reviewers themselves do not know what reviews left, they are shocked by this false scientist
  42. V. Ushakov
    V. Ushakov April 1 2018 04: 13
    0
    Everyone writes, at least many ...
    And what, the comp - is, "Word", although it is stolen, but plows, "In design", also through the tracker, it’s on the computer - typeset, I don’t want (for a couple of evenings, if you don’t feel sorry for the time, you can learn), do the mockups . And if you have your own printing house (it’s very easy and fairly cheap to create (along with a computer, no more than 400 000 r), then in general - no problem ...
    So they write, no one getting, no getting.
    Technics!..
    Another thing, not everyone will read any nonsense.
    They pick up a book, look at the price, leaf through, read the page, and again on the shelf ...
    The fate of most of these "writers" is that before me, it’s the first time I hear about this "guru" ... I am like that - a dark provincial ...
  43. kan123
    kan123 April 1 2018 06: 37
    0
    The war was being reviewed, already during the life of the Importer, a conspiracy in the Southern Army (the Decembrists), was devoted to the fact that during the Napoleonic deportations opened throughout Europe, Europe laid industrialization, and after the “victory of the Tsar-Liberator” - except for the scorched Heb. parts of the Republic of Ingushetia, and thousands of ruined families, and humiliation from customers - England, could not get anything. According to Kutuzov, this Ponosenko walked in vain, probably for showmaking for the sake of Suvorov, who described Kutuzov, because he was already a captain, if he found himself somewhere, then Suvorov was calm for this direction. Kutuzov was friends with reality more than anyone else, and it consisted in the fact that his serf army, against the republican, Bonaparte, was capable of only filling up the pit bodies so that the guns could be transported. The Guard, the only force of the Russian army, lost to the "cattle" - in those terms, the "cannon fodder" - to Napoleon’s soldiers. Kazakov — their entire Lava — was restrained by one company of Napolen Voltigeurs — a total review of military operations took place — and the Russian army was no longer suitable — it was necessary to renew it, and without political reforms — it would lose everything, even with armadillos, three-rulers, and maxims — right down to until the moment when the same reforms were carried out as in France, a hundred years ago. Then they all began to win, then these reforms were canceled, and they all started to lose.
  44. andrey-ivanov
    andrey-ivanov April 1 2018 10: 28
    +1
    This study caused a scandal and literally in a few days became a bestseller, breaking all records of sales of scientific literature. ”

    Keywords - scandal, bestseller, sales records. Scientific literature is generally not here sideways. Plot, unwound, loot in your pocket. What story? What are you speaking about?
  45. Kelwin
    Kelwin April 1 2018 11: 46
    0
    And history is not a science at all. Selling girls are much more interesting, and by the way, cleaner.
  46. kurator college
    kurator college April 1 2018 16: 38
    0
    One thing alleviates the situation: if in the "most reading" USSR they published something like that, it would cause some kind of brainwave (as shit-publications from the time of "perestroika" caused). And now it’s published so much that it’s impossible to read everything. Therefore, the majority of the population will not read these opuses. And this is probably pleasing.
  47. evgeny68
    evgeny68 April 1 2018 17: 37
    0
    Highly motivated unskilled specialist. Ilyin wrote about such, semi-educated, the scourge of our time.
  48. bone1
    bone1 April 13 2018 21: 47
    0
    Better than A.S. Pushkin, nobody said about Alexander 1. (if you remember?), but if he, in your opinion, “defeated Napoleon,” then of course. laughing
  49. Hikker
    Hikker 29 September 2018 11: 12
    0
    I came across this article, and I could not resist, this "historian" "director" "hero of the war of 1812" and others, the most impudent upstart whom I have ever come across. Having some historical education, I, like any of the students in this profession, can immediately say that this is not a historian at all, this is an arrogant clown who is listened to by not very smart people. Wrote "The First Scientific History of the War of 1812"? Yes, realizing the scale of the materials, how many documents, memoirs, orders and orders of that period exist, some underachieved cannot study them all, even many historians often cannot master so many huge amounts of information, and these arrays must also be analyzed and made from their conclusions. Moreover, it is not enough to know all the terms used during that period. Therefore, such works can be written by a few, moreover, already at the age of 50-60 years, since the study of everything will take very many years, if a monograph on one small topic is written for 6-7 years, then such volumes will take many years. Moreover, in passing, there remains a huge trace from the study of such volumes, in the form of articles, speeches at scientific conferences, some kind of small monographs. And then one person decided that he could just blatantly lie, humiliate people who had devoted their whole lives to studying history, and consider himself a genius historian, having nothing behind his back, not even an elementary education. It’s like one person in the 10th grade of school will build a nuclear reactor in a barn. It’s simply impossible. And it is strange that such new Munchausen are not held accountable for their deeds, because this is a foul of the brains of those who believe in these tales of his.