Military Review

Russian penal battalion. Why did Russia fight for European stability

106
Russian penal battalion. Why did Russia fight for European stability

"Suvorov's crossing over the Alps". Painting by Vasily Surikov, painted in 1899


Attempts by Russia to interfere in European affairs did not bring anything good to the Russians. No matter what coalition we find ourselves in, whoever we fought with, in the end the West won, and we suffered losses.

Russian "cannon fodder" in the interests of the West


It should be noted that we are proud of Russian victories, Russian fighting spirit. In numerous wars of tsarist Russia, our commanders, officers and soldiers showed high military art, wonders of courage, fortitude, self-sacrifice and ingenuity. Under the command of great leaders, generals and naval commanders, we beat the most powerful opponents at that time, who terrified all neighbors.

However, it should be honestly and impartially noted that after Catherine the Great, who solved the great national tasks of reuniting the Russian lands and the Russian people (the annexation of Little and White Russia), the return of the lands of the Northern Black Sea region to Russia, our state was often drawn into unnecessary, alien to us wars. The Russians began to fight in the interests of European equilibrium, for the interests of Vienna, Berlin, London and Paris. In much of the wars, the Russians did not fight for national interests. Since that time, a negative pattern has been developed: as soon as Russia entered the war in Europe, driven by chivalrous and noble ideals, an allied duty, this turned out to be a lot of blood for our people, terrible irrevocable and meaningless human and material losses. Such wars only at first seemed profitable and glorious, but as a result, the exploits of Russia were quickly forgotten, the former allies betrayed us and sold us.

For example, the Northern War with Sweden was indisputably correct, in the national interest. We have regained access to the Baltic, our Baltic outskirts. All wars with Turkey and Persia, the war in the Caucasus and the annexation of Central Asia (Turkestan) - all wars are in the interests of the state and the people. We returned the fertile lands of the Black Sea and Azov regions to the state. They reached the natural borders of the empire: the Black Sea, the Caucasus Mountains, the mountains of Turkestan and the Pamirs. They pacified the semi-savage tribes of the Caucasus and Turkestan, introduced them to the high spiritual and material culture of Russia.

However, the Romanov dynasty took a course towards Europeanization, which negatively affected the country and the people. Petersburg tried very hard to become a part of Europe. Therefore, Europe was the main direction of Russia's policy. Russia has agreed to be a stabilizer for the West. At the height of this policy, she was called the "gendarme of Europe." The ruling elite of Russia was more interested in the affairs of Berlin, Vienna, Paris, Rome and London than in Ryazan or Vologda. As a result, the forces, resources (including human resources) and the time of the Russian Empire were spent on resolving European conflicts. And the development of Siberia and the Far East, for example, remained without much attention.

Attempts by Russia to interfere in European affairs did not bring anything good to the Russians. No matter what coalition we find ourselves in, whoever we fought with, in the end the West won, and we suffered losses. A striking example is the Seven Years War. The Europeans shared power on the continent. We had nothing to do there. The Russians showed miracles of heroism. They defeated the Prussian army, the strongest in Western Europe, and took Königsberg and Berlin. And got nothing. Russia has shed blood for the interests of Austria for years. In doing so, we have won the hatred of almost all of Europe. England fought in an alliance with Prussia and maintained her army, which did not prevent her from trading with Russia. The Austrian women were our allies, but in every possible way they interfered with the Russian army, they were afraid of our victories and feared the strengthening of Russia. France, which was also an ally of Russia in the war with Prussia, also feared the strengthening of Russia in Europe. It is worth noting that France and England have been setting all of our neighbors against us for two centuries. They were behind Poland, Sweden, Prussia, Turkey and Persia.

Russian blood for the stability of Europe


We fought long and hard with France. Although we did not have fundamental contradictions, neither historical, neither dynastic, nor territorial, nor economic. Wars were fought from 1799 to 1814. A lot of blood was shed. We all remember the heroic deeds of Suvorov in Italy and Switzerland. But why? For the interests of Austria and England! In gratitude, the Austrians set us up, first the Rimsky-Korsakov corps in Switzerland was destroyed, then they almost killed the miraculous heroes Suvorov. The Suvorovites were saved, but at the cost of overcoming incredible difficulties, showing the wonders of Russian courage and ingenuity. The great Russian commander himself fell ill after this campaign and soon left for the heavenly squad. The British used the Russian corps in Holland (Dutch expedition in 1799), exposing it to the attack of the French and capturing the Dutch fleet.

The Russian Tsar Pavel the First, having understood the situation, decided to destroy the vicious practice. I realized that the main enemy of Russia is England, not France. I decided that let France confront England in Europe, and we go to Asia. It was a perfectly reasonable choice: Russia at this time could achieve great success in the south and east. At the same time, in the confrontation with England, Russia could hide from the western direction with France and Prussia (Germany). An alliance of Russia, Sweden and Denmark was also concluded, directed against British hegemony at sea. Pavel was preparing an expedition to India. She was ready to support Napoleon, who dreamed of an Indian campaign. It was a blow to the heart of the British colonial empire: the British could lose their main economic base. At the same time, in the process of confrontation with England, we could solve the problem of the straits, take Constantinople. As a result, the Russians got access to the Mediterranean Sea and closed the entrance to the Black Sea for all potential enemies. Received a powerful economic incentive - free passage in the Mediterranean. But Paul was killed with the help of English gold by conspiratorial nobles (The myth of the "mad emperor" Paul I; Knight on the throne. Foreign policy and military activities of Paul I; The murder of a Russian knight on the throne). His son Alexander the First could not continue his father's policy, apparently, his will was suppressed by the murder of Paul.

Russia again began a war with France to the delight of the British and Austrians. The Patriotic War was an exception, we repulsed enemy aggression - a campaign of almost all of Europe led by France. Including our former allies: the Prussians and Austrians. We did not receive any serious territorial increments, except for a part of the Duchy of Warsaw (having received a problem - the Polish question). We did not take any contributions from the French. Having defeated the Great Army of Napoleon, they went to liberate ungrateful Europe. Kutuzov begged not to do this, let the Germans, Austrians and British fight Napoleon. At this time, we will be able to solve our problems, in particular, it was possible, in the wake of European turmoil, while everyone is busy, to occupy the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, Constantinople. As a result, we sacrificed thousands of lives, spent millions of rubles, won several battles (which were quickly forgotten in Europe), suffered several defeats from the French and entered Paris. We ended the war beautifully.

Who won? Vienna, Berlin and most of all London are our most insidious and cruel enemy on the planet. England was at war with France (the struggle for leadership in the Western world) by proxy. Mostly Russians. The British themselves were engaged in the establishment of their positions in the oceans, in the colonies, fabulously rich, supplying the belligerents weapon, ammunition, equipment and goods. Taking advantage of the fact that Napoleon invaded Spain, the British "helped" the Latin Americans to revolt and secede from Madrid. As a result, Britain received a new sphere of influence, new huge markets and sources of raw materials. While the Russians were performing feats in the war with France, the British fleet captured Malta, which was the "fiefdom" of the Russian Tsar Paul, the head of the Order of Malta. This gave the British a strategic position in the Mediterranean. While the Russians fiercely fought with Napoleon, the British seized South Africa (previously a Dutch colony). While the Russian army, to the great joy of London, crushed Napoleon's empire in Europe, the British defeated other European colonists, including the French, and completed the conquest of India. British India became the richest colony of Britain, the basis of its prosperity, the strategic foothold of the British in South Asia.

In the very days when Napoleon went to Moscow and the Russians were bleeding to death in the Borodino field, the British, helping us in Europe against France, at the same time set Persia against us. British instructors, gold, guns and rifles were in the Persian army (war 1804-1813). So Britain stopped the dangerous, in her opinion, advancement of Russia in the Caucasus and the possible breakthrough of the Russians to the warm seas of Persia and India.

Thus, while Russia was fighting to the death with France, Britain was creating its own world empire. The Russians in the fields of Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Prussia and along the bloody path from Moscow to Paris helped Britain become the leading power in the West. Even under Nicholas II, the Russian general, intelligence officer and geopolitician Alexei Efimovich Vandam (1867-1933) wrote about this well. He quite rightly noted: "Worse than a war with the Anglo-Saxon can only be friendship with him." Willy-nilly, it was Russia, by crushing the empire of Napoleon (Britain's main rival in Europe), that helped England become the world colonial, naval and economic power of the XNUMXth century. We, acting as British "cannon fodder", helped Britain become the richest power of the time. England after a cycle of anti-French wars became the leader of the West and the whole world.

Austrian thanks


Austria and Prussia benefited. Only Russia gained fame, which quickly faded and was forgotten in the West. The recent liberators were soon called "gendarmes" and "barbarians". A similar situation is now observed with the history of World War II. Until recently, historically, Soviet soldiers were noble liberators, but now they are "occupiers and rapists."

Russia saved Austria from the Turks and the French, then helped suppress the Hungarian uprising, which nearly destroyed the Habsburg empire (Hungarian trekking How the Russians saved the Habsburg Empire; The pacification of Hungary). How did the grateful Austrians repay us? Already in 1815, post-Napoleonic France, Austria and England, fearing our strengthening, concluded a secret alliance against Russia. At the same time, the Austrians were listed as our allies within the framework of the Holy Alliance. Austria, like England, during the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-1829. adhered to a policy hostile to Russia. The Austrians and British feared that the Russians would strengthen their positions in the Balkans, occupy the Strait zone and Constantinople. Therefore, England sent a fleet to the Dardanelles, and Austria concentrated its army in Transylvania. To fend off a possible Austrian threat, we had to assemble an auxiliary army in the Kingdom of Poland. And these troops were needed in the Balkans. As a result, St. Petersburg, under pressure from Austria and England, did not dare to occupy the Bosphorus and Constantinople, although it had all the possibilities for this (Adrianople is ours! Why the Russian army did not take Constantinople; Constantinople at the feet of the Russian Tsar).

A similar situation was during the Crimean War, when the leading powers of Western Europe opposed us. Austria threatened us with war, pinning down our troops in the Danube theater and in the western direction. As a result, we were unable to first attack the Turks with all our might, break through to the straits and block them. Withdrawn troops from Moldavia and Wallachia. Then the Austrian army on the border prevented us from transferring additional forces to the Crimea. The war was lost. Then the situation of 1828-1829. repeated in the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. The position of Austria and England did not allow St. Petersburg to take Constantinople with a spear. To create a completely independent, pro-Russian large Bulgaria. Sovereign Alexander the Liberator was afraid to go into conflict with the Austrians and the British, gave in. The Bulgarians took offense and went over to the side of the Second Reich (then Hitler and NATO).

So was it worth saving Austria several times? After all, the collapse of the Habsburg empire was beneficial to our state and people. We could support Hungary's aspirations for independence and thus bind the rest of Austria. The collapse of the Austrian Empire made it possible to return Galician and Ugrian Rus (Carpathian Rus), to establish itself in the Balkans, taking Christian and Slavic peoples into its sphere (the dream of the Slavophiles), to place their bases in friendly Montenegro and Serbia. Complete the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, expanding Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia in their interests (including them in its sphere of influence). Occupy the straits and Constantinople-Constantinople.

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/
106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Picus
    Picus 30 July 2020 06: 02 New
    +2
    Well, it's a mess in the author's head ...
    "While the Russians were performing feats in the war with France, the British fleet captured Malta, which was the" fiefdom "of the Russian sovereign Paul - the head of the Order of Malta."
    No, well, that's how it is, but the sequence ...
    1. Varyag_0711
      Varyag_0711 30 July 2020 06: 39 New
      16
      Picus (Alexander)
      Well, it's a mess in the author's head ...
      Here it has been said more than once that several people write under the pseudonym "Alexander Samsonov" because the writing styles are different.
      Well, the fact that Britain was, is and will be our worst enemy is no secret to anyone.
      1. Insurgent
        Insurgent 30 July 2020 08: 52 New
        +3
        While the Russians were performing feats in the war with France, the British fleet captured Malta, which was the "fiefdom" of the Russian Tsar Paul, the head of the Order of Malta.

        Call fiefdom the Russian emperor (even in quotation marks) Malta is somehow absurd.
        Fiefdom (from the word father) - hereditary land ownership.

        After all, it is clear that this amusing "chivalry" was offered to the vain emperor as a way to attract Russia to an alien showdown, which, by the way, the author himself dedicated this article yes
      2. Engineer
        Engineer 30 July 2020 09: 40 New
        +3
        Styles may be different, everyone has the same mess in their heads
        1. Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
          Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov 30 July 2020 11: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: Engineer
          Styles may be different, everyone has the same mess in their heads

          Everything is better than like a leaky Panasenkov or Nikonov ...
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 30 July 2020 09: 08 New
      -1
      Quote: Picus
      Well, it's a mess in the author's head ...
      "While the Russians were performing feats in the war with France, the British fleet captured Malta, which was the" fiefdom "of the Russian sovereign Paul - the head of the Order of Malta."

      The author, alas, simply does not know history: this ardent patriot of Malta (also the emperor of Russia) fought against France in alliance with England precisely because Malta was captured by Napoleon.
      As soon as England seized it, he, together with Napoleon, fiercely rushed to ... England. Up to the wildest direction of Platov's Cossacks for them to conquer ... English India. Along the way ..., having conquered Central Asia.

      A brighter example of unnecessary and senseless wars and Russian victims, yes, it is difficult to imagine, although it is their author who ... justifies

      after Catherine the Great, who solved the great national tasks of reuniting the Russian lands and the Russian people (the annexation of Little and White Russia), the return of the lands of the Northern Black Sea region to Russia, our state was often drawn into unnecessary, alien wars. The Russians began to fight in the interests of European equilibrium, for the interests of Vienna, Berlin, London and Paris.

      It's just that Russia became a LEADING European and world power and its interests were appropriate and it could not help but participate in the affairs of Europe.

      As for the "unnecessary wars, the author can be reminded that if in 1938 the conscientious troops were able to pass through Poland and help Czechoslovakia against Hitler (far from their borders), then the Second World War would not have happened."

      The same with Napoleon: it would have been possible to stop him in the early 1800s outside Russia - there would have been no OV in 1812

      it was Russia, by crushing the empire of Napoleon (Britain's main rival in Europe), that helped England to become the world colonial, naval and economic power of the XNUMXth century. We, acting as British "cannon fodder", helped Britain become the richest power of the time.

      Russia crushed the ghoul, which has become much larger, more dangerous and stronger than England (see its possessions in Europe, this is almost all of Europe), strengthened its status as a leading European power and stopped wars in Europe for decades.

      As for the "meat": the USA became the USA after WWII. And what is the conclusion, according to the author?
    3. iouris
      iouris 30 July 2020 13: 10 New
      0
      Quote: Picus
      While the Russians were performing feats in the war with France, the British fleet captured Malta, which was the "fiefdom" of the Russian Tsar Paul, the head of the Order of Malta. "

      As you know, England made a coup in Russia, as a result of which Paul I was killed, and paid for the war of Astro-Hungary and Russia against Napoleon. And who is eating the girl ...
  2. Kwas
    Kwas 30 July 2020 06: 17 New
    +8
    In general, of course, that's right, just don't sing about the Indian campaign. A gamble of adventures, for the benefit only of Napoleon, who could agree with England. Evaluate the logistics, our army would have simply perished there - thousands of kilometers without roads, in an unfriendly country, therefore there is no ammunition, no equipment, no food! And the British would easily have brought everything up by sea, each ship is like several caravans. Did the Hindus hate the British? Perhaps, but why should they love me and the French? Okay, let's say they would have defeated, but how to keep it? No way. So they would again work for Napoleon's uncle. Okay, let's say we would just "release" them. But then it was just a bunch of principalities, they would all fight again. And who needs it, Russia? The variant of "liberation" was real only under Stalin, and he solved it without sending a single soldier there!
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 30 July 2020 15: 38 New
      +2
      Quote: Kwas
      In general, of course, that's right, just don't sing about the Indian campaign. A gamble of adventures, to the benefit only of Napoleon, who would be able to negotiate with England. Evaluate the logistics, our army would simply perish there - thousands of kilometers without roads, in an unfriendly country, therefore there is no ammunition, no equipment, no food!

      Duc ... still have to get to India. And how to go? Through Persia, with which they fought back in 1796? Or even cooler - across the whole of Central Asia and Afghanistan? How many years did it take for Russia to bring the Central Asian khanates under its arm?
      And the most relish begins when questions arise about the security of the rear (and not only from various gangs that threaten warehouses and communications, but also from large formations of regular forces - the undead and allies of the defeated khanates). Immediately I remember - with what Napoleon entered Russia and with what he reached Borodino. smile
    2. Tavrik
      Tavrik 31 July 2020 21: 49 New
      0
      In general, there was nothing fantastic in such a trip. If Alexander the Great reached India, and the Mongols reached Europe, then why couldn't ours, together with the French, reach?
      The British somehow held India until the middle of the 20th century. The French have their colonies too. When was Algeria liberated? Therefore, technically, the liberation of India from the British was real. Perhaps they would even receive some "bonuses" from this. But it is not strategically clear what to do with this India ?? From the series "do you need it"?
  3. Deniska999
    Deniska999 30 July 2020 06: 39 New
    +2
    It was necessary to do as Kutuzov suggested: stop at the border of the empire and not go to Paris. We would agree with Napoleon.
    1. Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
      Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov 30 July 2020 08: 49 New
      -1
      Quote: Deniska999
      It was necessary to do as Kutuzov suggested: stop at the border of the empire and not go to Paris. We would agree with Napoleon.

      I agree completely! It is possible that in 44, having restored the pre-war borders, the USSR should have stopped ...
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 30 July 2020 09: 30 New
      -2
      Quote: Deniska999
      It was necessary to do as Kutuzov suggested: stop at the border of the empire and not go to Paris. We would agree with Napoleon.

      December 21, 1812 (January 2, 1813) Kutuzov, in an order for the army, congratulated the troops on the expulsion of the enemy from the borders of Russia and urged them to "complete the defeat of the enemy in his own fields"

      E.V. Tarle:
      It is very instructive to note that Kutuzov in November 1812 on the battlefield near Krasnoye was already thinking the overthrow of Napoleon's power in France as the only possible and desirable outcome of the war... He didn't think so the outcome is only exile aggressor from Russia.
      1. Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
        Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov 30 July 2020 11: 58 New
        +1
        Quote: Olgovich
        Quote: Deniska999
        It was necessary to do as Kutuzov suggested: stop at the border of the empire and not go to Paris. We would agree with Napoleon.

        December 21, 1812 (January 2, 1813) Kutuzov, in an order for the army, congratulated the troops on the expulsion of the enemy from the borders of Russia and urged them to "complete the defeat of the enemy in his own fields"

        E.V. Tarle:
        It is very instructive to note that Kutuzov in November 1812 on the battlefield near Krasnoye was already thinking the overthrow of Napoleon's power in France as the only possible and desirable outcome of the war... He didn't think so the outcome is only exile aggressor from Russia.

        In hearing, Kutuzov only relayed the position of Shurik I, whom the Anglo-Saxons were tightly holding "on the hook" with the compromising evidence of his actual complicity in regicide / parricide.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 30 July 2020 12: 16 New
          -2
          Quote: Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
          Out loud Kutuzov only relayed the position of Shurik 1st

          voice, please, that he said "to himself". Yes, and the way of communicating with him is the same.

          Academician E.V. Tarle about the position of Kutuzov (recorded by a French prisoner of war in the Reds in November 1812 during interrogation):
          overthrow of Napoleon's rule in France as the only possible and desirable outcome of the war... He did not at all consider only the expulsion of the aggressor from Russia as such an outcome.
          1. Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
            Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov 30 July 2020 13: 26 New
            -2
            Quote: Olgovich
            Quote: Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
            Out loud Kutuzov only relayed the position of Shurik 1st

            voice, please, that he said "to himself". Yes, and the way of communicating with him is the same.

            Academician E.V. Tarle about the position of Kutuzov (recorded by a French prisoner of war in the Reds in November 1812 during interrogation):
            overthrow of Napoleon's rule in France as the only possible and desirable outcome of the war... He did not at all consider only the expulsion of the aggressor from Russia as such an outcome.

            Okay, where is Tarle about what Kutuzov had in mind exactly Russian soldiers as "overthrowers" of Buonaparte's power? Or this French skier? laughing
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 30 July 2020 14: 23 New
              -1
              Quote: Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
              Okay, but where does Tarle say that Kutuzov meant exactly Russian soldiers as "overthrowers" of Buonaparte's power?

              tuta: tarle:
              December 12 Kutuzov not only knew about the inevitability of a trip abroad, buthe began to make appropriate orders: “Nowadays a general action is being taken on Prussia, if it is convenient to do this. It is already known that the remnants of the French army retreated in that direction, and therefore only pursuit there can only be useful, "- wrote Field Marshal Chichagov on December 12 (24), that is, even before the Vilna disputes with Alexander. This irrefutably proves that the controversy itself concerned not at all the essence of the question of a trip abroad, but only the timing, that is, whether to cross the border immediately or later. Not more! The very same question was resolved by Kutuzov in the affirmative. The quoted letter resolves and clarifies everything: Kutuzov wanted the liberation of Europe and clearly considered the work of victory to be unfinished, while Napoleon was in charge in Europe, but he wanted the Germans to be actively involved in their own liberation.
              Kutuzov knew that the complete overthrow of the French Empire would require a lot of Russian blood. ABOUThe set the ultimate goal of the war complete destruction of Napoleonic rule, but he wanted to give the Russian army at least a little rest and more time for replenishment.
              Kutuzov knew no less than Alexander that the final elimination of the military threat from imperial France was possiblee on the Neman, and on the Seine, and this is proved by his conversation with de Puibus, cited below, but he wanted this victory to be won after sufficient military, and most importantly, diplomatic preparation, with the necessary bloody sacrifices not only of Russia, but also of the "allied" powers. This is evidenced by all his behavior from December 1812 until his death.
              1. Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
                Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov 30 July 2020 16: 50 New
                0
                Quote: Olgovich
                Quote: Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
                Okay, but where does Tarle say that Kutuzov meant exactly Russian soldiers as "overthrowers" of Buonaparte's power?

                tuta: tarle:
                December 12 Kutuzov not only knew about the inevitability of a trip abroad, buthe began to make appropriate orders: “Nowadays a general action is being taken on Prussia, if it is convenient to do this. It is already known that the remnants of the French army retreated in that direction, and therefore only pursuit there can only be useful, "- wrote Field Marshal Chichagov on December 12 (24), that is, even before the Vilna disputes with Alexander. This irrefutably proves that the controversy itself concerned not at all the essence of the question of a trip abroad, but only the timing, that is, whether to cross the border immediately or later. Not more! The very same question was resolved by Kutuzov in the affirmative. The quoted letter resolves and clarifies everything: Kutuzov wanted the liberation of Europe and clearly considered the work of victory to be unfinished, while Napoleon was in charge in Europe, but he wanted the Germans to be actively involved in their own liberation.
                Kutuzov knew that the complete overthrow of the French Empire would require a lot of Russian blood. ABOUThe set the ultimate goal of the war complete destruction of Napoleonic rule, but he wanted to give the Russian army at least a little rest and more time for replenishment.
                Kutuzov knew no less than Alexander that the final elimination of the military threat from imperial France was possiblee on the Neman, and on the Seine, and this is proved by his conversation with de Puibus, cited below, but he wanted this victory to be won after sufficient military, and most importantly, diplomatic preparation, with the necessary bloody sacrifices not only of Russia, but also of the "allied" powers. This is evidenced by all his behavior from December 1812 until his death.

                This, as I understand it, from the article "Kutuzov commander and diplomat". I read Tarle's book "Napoleon" - there was nothing like it in it. In the book of Manfred "Napoleon Bonaparte" the postulate about "thirst" of Kutuzov "to finish off" the Corsican is also absent. Obviously, something else - this follows from the entire operation at Berezena: Kutuzov, in fact, "rescued" the Corsican from a mousetrap and clearly not with the aim of "walking" then to Paris. Unfortunately then RI ruled "The ruler is weak and crafty ..." hi
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 31 July 2020 08: 06 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
                  Obviously, something else - this follows from the entire operation at Berezena: Kutuzov in fact "rescued" the Corsican from a mousetrap and clearly not with the aim of "walking" then to Paris

                  Saved him Chichagov and Wittgensteinwho did not follow the instructions of Kutuzov.
                  Quote: Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
                  Unfortunately then RI ruled "The ruler is weak and crafty ..."

                  Well, what are you:
                  You, our brave king, praise, thanks!
                  When the enemy shelves covered the distance,
                  Riding in armor, laying down a feathered helmet,
                  Kneeling before the high altar,
                  You took a swearing sword and took an oath to the saint
                  From the yoke to protect his native country.

                  He took Paris, he founded the Lyceum.
                  hi
              2. Tavrik
                Tavrik 31 July 2020 22: 01 New
                -1
                And Tarle is the ultimate truth? Read when and in what conditions Tarle wrote. Many years passed after him and historical science did not stand still.
                Kutuzov "kept his nose to the wind", as befits an experienced courtier. As the king says - so he will do.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 1 August 2020 06: 53 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Tavrik
                  And Tarle is the ultimate truth? Read when and in what conditions Tarle wrote. Many years passed after him and historical science did not stand still.

                  And who is the truth?

                  Where science has gone, tell me, yes.
                  1. Tavrik
                    Tavrik 2 August 2020 19: 42 New
                    -1
                    The archives of France, Russia, Germany contain thousands and thousands of documents from that era. Military, diplomatic, financial, government, etc. etc. This is not a memoir that usually lies. These are synchronous documents that were worked out "in hot pursuit". Documents that under Tarl had not yet been introduced into scientific circulation. Not studied. Well, neither Tarle nor Manfred could work in the Western archives. Just like Western scientists hardly worked in ours. Plus, the pressure of ideology. Thus, in the era of the Cold War, the events of the Napoleonic era were covered in one-sided manner. What we have, what they have. It was only after 1991 that conditions arose for an objective study of that era. In any case, in Russia. This is where it began ...
                    As an example, I will cite the Battle of Austerlitz. The canonical version says that Napoleon, as befits a genius, planned in advance to break through the Allied center. But if you read the disposition (order) of the French army on the eve of the battle, it turns out that the plan was completely different. It was the allies' actions that forced Napoleon to quickly change the rules of the game. So the disposition was first published in his work by OV Sokolov. I strongly suspect that he was the first Russian researcher to study it. This is how the truth breaks through myths and legends.
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 3 August 2020 07: 09 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Tavrik
                      The archives of France, Russia, Germany contain thousands and thousands of documents from that era. Military, diplomatic, financial, government, etc. etc. This is not a memoir that usually lies. These are synchronous documents that were worked out "in hot pursuit". Documents that under Tarl had not yet been introduced into scientific circulation. Not studied. Well, neither Tarle nor Manfred could work in the Western archives. Just like Western scientists hardly worked in ours. Plus, the pressure of ideology. Thus, in the era of the Cold War, the events of the Napoleonic era were covered in one-sided manner. What we have, what they have. It was only after 1991 that conditions arose for an objective study of that era. In any case, in Russia. This is where it began ...
                      As an example, I will cite the Battle of Austerlitz. The canonical version says that Napoleon, as befits a genius, planned in advance to break through the Allied center. But if you read the disposition (order) of the French army on the eve of the battle, it turns out that the plan was completely different. It was the allies' actions that forced Napoleon to quickly change the rules of the game. So the disposition was first published in his work by OV Sokolov. I strongly suspect that he was the first Russian researcher to study it. This is how the truth breaks through myths and legends.

                      Didn't answer anything:
                      Again:
                      And who is the truth?

                      Where science has gone, tell me, yes.
                      - on the issue with Kutuzov, which we are discussing.
                      1. Tavrik
                        Tavrik 3 August 2020 11: 54 New
                        -1
                        I gave you a detailed answer to the question "where has science gone?"
                        About the truth - below is a quote from Kutuzov.
                        Tarle did not know everything and could not write everything. No, he could write, but no one canceled the censorship.
                      2. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 3 August 2020 13: 14 New
                        0
                        Quote: Tavrik
                        I gave you a detailed answer to the question "where has science gone?"

                        With Kutuzov and his role - WHERE did science go, I ask for the third time!
                        Quote: Tavrik
                        Tarle did not know everything and could not write everything. No, he could write, but no one canceled the censorship.

                        Did Tarle tell you personally that you speak so confidently?
                      3. Tavrik
                        Tavrik 3 August 2020 13: 55 New
                        0
                        Did Tarle tell you personally that you speak so confidently?

                        Yes, Tarle told me personally .. Through his labors. But I not only read his "Napoleon", but also more modern studies.
                        With Kutuzov and his role - WHERE did science go, I ask for the third time!

                        Over the past two decades, according to the results of a study of documents, the image of Kutuzov as a great commander and a good-natured grandfather has been significantly corrected. In the Soviet era, they did not remember that Kutuzov was one of the richest people in Russia. They kept silent about his role as a cunning, flattering courtier. His diplomatic deeds on the Danube were ignored. And then questions began to arise: what battles did the great commander win?
                      4. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 3 August 2020 16: 18 New
                        0
                        Quote: Tavrik
                        Yes, Tarle told me personally .. Through his labors.

                        On the table are his revelations, please, which have only been revealed to you.
                        Quote: Tavrik
                        His diplomatic deeds on the Danube were ignored.

                        Tarle to help you.
                        Quote: Tavrik
                        And then questions began to arise: what battles did the great commander win?

                        I do not see any new discoveries of historical SCIENCE, promised by you, for the fourth time I remind you.
                      5. Tavrik
                        Tavrik 3 August 2020 18: 18 New
                        -1
                        I answer for the fourth time.
                        Take the "Battle of the Two Emperors" OV Sokolov. Take "Napoleon" Tarle. Study carefully. You are making a summary. Comparing. You will learn a lot about those episodes from the life of Kutuzov and other figures that were briefly presented above.
                      6. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 4 August 2020 07: 39 New
                        0
                        Quote: Tavrik
                        I answer for the fourth time.
                        Take the "Battle of the Two Emperors" OV Sokolov. Take "Napoleon" Tarle. Study carefully. You are making a summary. Comparing. You will learn a lot about those episodes from the life of Kutuzov and other figures that were briefly presented above.

                        For the FIFTH time I suggest that you confirm YOUR statement about the new word of historical science about Kutuzov (regarding Tarl).

                        In response, idle chatter.

                        The psychotic mutilator is a "good example, yeah ...
                      7. Tavrik
                        Tavrik 4 August 2020 09: 27 New
                        0
                        I gave you a detailed answer and the necessary literature. Then study it yourself. I do not have the opportunity to continue to engage in educational programs with you and briefly retell other people's works. Any fact that runs counter to your opinion is perceived by you as chatter, so we conclude the discussion.
                        The psychotic mutilator is a "good example, yeah ...

                        Before becoming a suspect, he was (and is) the largest specialist in the Napoleonic era. All that happened does not in the least detract from the significance of his works.
                      8. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 4 August 2020 11: 37 New
                        0
                        Quote: Tavrik
                        I gave you a detailed answer and the necessary literature. Then study it yourself. I do not have the opportunity to continue to engage in educational programs with you and briefly retell other people's works.

                        You have NOTHING to say in defense of your statements, which is what we are fixing.
                        instead of the specific "discoveries" you declared about Kutuzov, there is an empty BOLTOVNYA.
                        Quote: Tavrik
                        Before becoming a suspect, he was (and is) the largest specialist in the Napoleonic era. All that happened does not in the least detract from the significance of his works.

                        How it belittles!
  • Ryazan87
    Ryazan87 30 July 2020 14: 07 New
    +4
    “I am by no means sure that the complete destruction of the Emperor Napoleon and his army would be such a boon for the whole world: the primacy will go not to Russia or some other continental power, but only to the one that is already the queen of the seas, whose dominion will then become unbearable "
    M.I. Kutuzov
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 30 July 2020 15: 08 New
      -3
      Quote: Ryazanets87
      “I am by no means sure that the complete destruction of the Emperor Napoleon and his army would be such a boon for the whole world: the primacy will go not to Russia or some other continental power, but only to the one that is already the queen of the seas, whose dominion will then become unbearable "
      M.I. Kutuzov

      This was said after Maloyarosavets. Kutuzov considered Napoleon an open enemy of Russia, and Great Britain - a secret enemy, also striving, albeit in other ways, but just as stubbornly, to world domination.

      But it was necessary to put an end to Narlen: Tarle:
      the first four months of 1813 give a lot to characterize Kutuzov's strategy and show how the counter-offensive went over to a direct offensive with the precisely set goal of destroying the aggressor and later on [b] the eruption of Napoleon's grandiose predatory "world monarchy"

      On December 12, Kutuzov not only knew about the inevitability of a foreign campaign, but began to make appropriate orders: “Now a general action is being taken on Prussia, if it is convenient to do this. It is already known that the remnants of the French army retreated in that direction, and therefore only pursuit there can only be useful, "- wrote Field Marshal Chichagov on December 12 (24), that is, even before the Vilna disputes with Alexander. This irrefutably proves that the disputes themselves concerned not at all the essence of the question of a foreign campaign, but only the timing, that is, whether to cross the border immediately or later. Not more! The very same question was resolved by Kutuzov in the affirmative. The quoted letter decides and clarifies everything: Kutuzov wanted the liberation of Europe and clearly considered the victory to be unfinished while Napoleon was in charge in Europe, but he wanted the Germans to be actively involved in the cause of their own liberation.
      Kutuzov knew that the complete overthrow of the French Empire would require a lot of Russian blood. He set the ultimate goal of the war to completely destroy Napoleonic rule, but he wanted to give the Russian army at least a little rest and more time for replenishment.
      Kutuzov knew no less than Alexander that the final elimination of the military threat from imperial France was possible not on the Neman, but on the Seine

      1. Ryazan87
        Ryazan87 30 July 2020 15: 47 New
        +1
        You will remember when and in connection with what Tarle wrote this, much will become clearer.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 30 July 2020 15: 54 New
          -2
          Quote: Ryazanets87
          You will remember when and in connection with what Tarle wrote this, much will become clearer.

          Orders of Kutuzov-Tarle drew?
  • sanya
    sanya 30 July 2020 07: 58 New
    +4
    And how can one fight for national interests if there is no nationally oriented leadership?
    1. Beringovsky
      Beringovsky 30 July 2020 09: 05 New
      +6
      To the point.
      And where would this leadership come from, with a dense autocracy with a backward agrarian serf economy? Where will the elite come from that is able to form the views corresponding to the times?
      But the ruling bourgeoisie in England, merchants, industrialists and bankers knew exactly their benefits and goals. Which resulted in the corresponding policy.
      And what kind of "international" economic interests could the Russian landowner serf-owner have? Yes, almost none, and if anyone did, there was no way to realize them. Because the monarchy, the tsar is a sovereign of "all-European" origin with a crowd of German courtiers, etc. etc. The Tsar knows better, and you just sit still ...
      So they shed blood in adventures unnecessary for Russia and in the breaks they hung out in the same Europe, littering with money squeezed out of Russian peasants.
      Alas, for backwardness, both economic and socially social, you have to pay, and we paid such a price, and we still pay.
      1. sanya
        sanya 30 July 2020 09: 33 New
        -5
        And the USSR was even worse in this regard ...
      2. Ryazan87
        Ryazan87 30 July 2020 14: 17 New
        +2
        with a backward agrarian serf economy?

        You may be surprised, but then the level of military production in Ingushetia was not inferior to France.
        Where will the elite come from that is able to form the views corresponding to the times?

        Are these any relevant views? "Liberte, egalite, fraternite"?
        And what kind of "international" economic interests could the Russian landowner serf-owner have?

        Read something about the structure of RI's exports, trade with England, and why the elite "had no international economic interests" were so nervous about keeping the continental blockade.
        The Tsar knows better, and you just sit still ...

        Peter III and Paul I probably thought so. In vain. Alexander I was not eager to share their fate (by the way, he was hinted a couple of times in acute situations).
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 30 July 2020 15: 42 New
          +2
          Quote: Ryazanets87
          Peter III and Paul I probably thought so. In vain. Alexander I was not eager to share their fate (by the way, he was hinted a couple of times in acute situations).

          It's just that Alexander I had the experience of participating in a similar situation. True, on the other hand scarf and snuffbox.
      3. Tavrik
        Tavrik 31 July 2020 22: 21 New
        0
        Correctly written, plus. We underestimate the foreign origin of the "Russian" tsars. I will add that the economic state of Ingushetia, our economic interests, incl. external ones are well described in "The Battle of Two Empires" by OV Sokolov.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 30 July 2020 09: 09 New
    +5
    Another bucket of delirium from Samsonov. The author does not even bother himself with even keeping the chronology of events.
    While the Russians were performing feats in the war with France, the British fleet captured Malta, which was the "fiefdom" of the Russian Tsar Paul, the head of the Order of Malta.
    Two years earlier, in 1798, the French invaded Malta. So there was no patrimony of Paul the First.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 30 July 2020 11: 50 New
      -3
      Quote: Undecim
      In two years before that, in 1798, the French invaded Malta. So no fiefdom of Paul the First there did not have.

      In 1800 was: Pavel November 29 1798 took over the title of Grand Master of the Order of Malta
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 30 July 2020 12: 15 New
        +1
        On June 18, 1798, the Knights of Malta were expelled from Malta by the French and sought refuge throughout Europe, including Russia. The Hospitallers returned to Malta only in 2001. And the fact that someone there took something, no one bothered. At this point, Malta had already been taken away from the knights.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 30 July 2020 12: 48 New
          -2
          Quote: Undecim
          On June 18, 1798, the Knights of Malta were expelled from Malta by the French and sought refuge throughout Europe, including Russia. The Hospitallers returned to Malta only in 2001. And the fact that someone there took something, no one bothered. At this point, Malta had already been taken away from the knights.

          As elected Master by the legitimate authority of Malta - Paul formally had this "patrimony".
          And he fought with France because of her (among other reasons). No one cares about the opinion of the occupiers

          Moreover, the European countries did not dispute the legitimacy of the choice new grandmaster of the order. English Admiral Nelson, approaching with the fleet to Malta, turned to the emperor Paul as the Grand Master with a notice of the impending appointment of Captain Bell as commandant of the island. The admiral requested that this appointment be considered temporary until Paul appoints someone at his discretion to this post. Consent was obtained, and moreover, Paul conferred on Captain Bell the title of Commander of the Order of Malta.


          Quote: Undecim
          The Hospitallers returned to Malta only in 2001 year.

          Already with 1998 Years, the Order owns Fort Sant'Angelo (Malta), which has an extraterritorial status.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 30 July 2020 13: 02 New
            +2
            Moreover, European countries did not dispute the legitimacy of the choice of the new grandmaster of the order. British Admiral Nelson, approaching Malta with a fleet, addressed Emperor Paul as Grand Master with a notice of the upcoming appointment of Captain Bell as commandant of the island. The admiral requested that this appointment be considered temporary
            Yes, I presented it with a fact. I might not have reported. And the temporary stay of the British stretched out for 164 years.
            By the way, de jure Paul the First was never a Master of the Order of Malta. Therefore, the European countries did not dispute anything.
            Since 1998, the Order has owned Fort Sant'Angelo
            Not all fort, but part. And the 1998 treaty was ratified in 2001. Then it took effect.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 30 July 2020 13: 30 New
              -4
              Quote: Undecim
              By the way, de jure Paul the First was never a Master of the Order of Malta, which is why European countries did not dispute anything.

              ... English Admiral Nelson, approaching Malta with a fleet, appealed to Emperor Paul as to the grand master with a notice of the impending appointment of Captain Bell as commandant of the island. Admiral requested consider ...

              Therefore, they did not dispute.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 30 July 2020 13: 36 New
                +3
                Olgovich, I know perfectly well that logic is alien to you and to prove something to you is empty work. Therefore, I wrote for those who read your comments. Since the topic has been exhausted and there is nothing to tell you, we will say goodbye. All the best. Thanks for the company.
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 30 July 2020 14: 29 New
                  -5
                  Quote: Undecim
                  Olgovich, I know perfectly well.
                  Undecim (aka Curioz, etc.), I
                  Quote: Undecim
                  I know perfectly well that logic is alien to you and to prove something to you is an empty work. Therefore, I wrote for those who read your comments. Since the topic has been exhausted and there is nothing to tell you, we will say goodbye. All the best. Thanks for the company.
                  yes
  • Yaik Cossack
    Yaik Cossack 30 July 2020 09: 24 New
    +7
    The Russian empire evolved too slowly from a universalist medieval monarchy towards the creation of a modern nation-state. The processes of the formation of the Russian nation were deliberately slowed down. The Russian elite, in which the role of the Eastsee Germans and other national minorities (objectively hostile to Russian tasks) was strong, was poorly aware of, and sometimes openly ignored, national interests.

    Russian monarchs in the 1848th century, perhaps apart from Alexander III, were highly dependent on their environment. Under Alexander I (a parricide commissioned by the British), these were the Czartorians (fanatical Polish nationalists). Under the close-minded soldier Nicholas I, Russian foreign policy was in fact determined by the cunning Nesselrode, who generally spoke Russian poorly and hated Russians. The strategic mistake of Nicholas I with the salvation of Austria in XNUMX gave Russia then the Crimean War.

    Alexander the Liberator was better, but even there the role of the Anglomaniac Gorchakov is destructive. “Everything that the Russian army conquered was then surrendered by Russian diplomacy” - this has not begun now. Suffice it to recall the shameful concessions after the Russian-Turkish war.
    1. Yaik Cossack
      Yaik Cossack 30 July 2020 09: 34 New
      +3
      By the way, it was Nesselrode who defended the interests of Austria in every possible way at the expense of the Russians. He was the initiator of the transformation of the Russian Empire into "cannon fodder" for the protection of European monarchs and the suppression of the Hungarian uprising. He torpedoed all Russia's attempts to finish off Turkey, intimidating the dim-witted Nicholas I with a European bogey. Inside the country, he categorically opposed the abolition of serfdom from the Russians.
      In general - a mixture of Kozyrev and Chubais (also ethnically non-Russian, by the way).
      1. Kronos
        Kronos 30 July 2020 10: 10 New
        -1
        In terms of Turkey, he was the Europeans showed it in the Crimean war.
        1. Yaik Cossack
          Yaik Cossack 30 July 2020 10: 27 New
          +2
          I apologize, but you are not in the subject about the Eastern question. In 1829, no Anglo-French coalition against Russia was physically possible. After 1833, Russia began, beyond all logic, to act as the guarantor of the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, instead of encouraging its collapse.
          And in 1840 a radical turn took place. Nesselrode pushed the king to the London agreement, according to which Russia lost its dominant rights and influence in Turkey. England and France, with the consent of Russia, also became guarantors. Thus, all previous efforts went down the drain.

          However, in reality, the Anglo-French military alliance could take place only after Napoleon III came to power. England, even with a dominant fleet, would not have pulled it without the French, whose army was a striking force in the Crimea.
          1. Yaik Cossack
            Yaik Cossack 30 July 2020 10: 37 New
            +2
            It was Nesselrode's two-faced policy and the monarch's narrow-mindedness that led to the emergence of a hostile alliance against Russia. And Russia itself, from the recognized hegemon of Europe, has become an outcast.
            An alternative geopolitical course was quite possible and beneficial for Russia. The disintegration of Austria would strengthen Prussia and stimulate its struggle for the unification of Germany. Soon such a round of Franco-Prussian-Austrian contradictions would begin in Europe that Russia could well not have been afraid of interference in its affairs in the East. So the "Greek project" of Catherine the Great could well have taken place. After all, then the Greeks were still the majority of the population in the Straits and Constantinople.
            1. Kronos
              Kronos 30 July 2020 11: 14 New
              -3
              It is clear - infinite expansion, we will capture everything we can.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 30 July 2020 15: 46 New
            -1
            Quote: Yaitsky Cossack
            After 1833, Russia began, beyond all logic, to act as the guarantor of the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, instead of encouraging its collapse.

            It was simply believed that the collapse of the Ottoman Empire 100% would lead to the fact that Britain or France would occupy the Straits. Therefore, the sultan is better than such happiness.
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 30 July 2020 10: 39 New
    0
    what are the Romanovs? after Catherine II there is solid German and Danish blood. And this is the main thing in Europe to show off
  • Kolin
    Kolin 30 July 2020 11: 00 New
    -1
    And as a result, Germany would have emerged with access to the Adriatic Sea ... Well, just a "wonderful" plan.
    1. Yaik Cossack
      Yaik Cossack 30 July 2020 11: 16 New
      +2
      Stupidity. Even after defeating Austria-Hungary in 1866, Prussia did not annex it. The contradictions were too strong.
      And so)))) the German state (which was Austria) and so had long access to the Adriatic. During this period of the XNUMXth century, not only Trieste and Zagreb were Austrian, but also Venice.
      Secondly, why is the local exit of Germany to the Adriatic so catastrophic for Russia? This is rather a headache for France.
      Here in the first world German submarines were based in the Field, so what? And the German battle cruiser is in Istanbul. And in addition, Turkey, which was not finished, became a German satellite. Is it better than the Russian Straits and Constantinople, with the Russian dynasty on the throne of the rest of Greece? Really?
      1. Kolin
        Kolin 30 July 2020 15: 39 New
        0
        Whole Austria was not annexed, but lumpy, quite the opposite.
        Italy is now unlikely to be for the Entente, it is good if it remains neutral. In the event of an unfavorable development of events, the existing French fleet would be in a complete ass, which means that the French, trying to avoid this, will build a larger fleet, while the French army will receive less.
        As for the straits, "he will eat something, but who will give him so much?"
  • Kwas
    Kwas 30 July 2020 11: 46 New
    +2
    Quote: Kronos
    It is clear - infinite expansion, we will capture everything we can.

    Only the Americans suffer endlessly, and the capture of the straits, in the first place, would secure our entire Black Sea coast.
  • Kwas
    Kwas 30 July 2020 11: 51 New
    +1
    Yes, about the title. Is fomenting a European fight a contribution to European stability?
  • Kwas
    Kwas 30 July 2020 11: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
    It is possible that in 44, having restored its pre-war borders, the USSR should have stopped.

    Do not mix flies with cutlets. Napoleon, unlike Hitler, did not arrange concentration camps in our country, did not drive the population into slavery, did not starve prisoners, and did not take civilians hostage, and did not shoot them. Is that just a little - isolated cases, and that's a question. So Hitler had to be crushed!
    1. Ryazan87
      Ryazan87 30 July 2020 14: 31 New
      +2
      he did not take civilians hostage, nor did he shoot them.

      He took and shot, without even really hiding. Well, the scale was not the same, of course, but the campaign of 1812 was quite short.
      I did not starve prisoners

      well, they were often simply killed, however, it was mutual, even with regard to the regular army.
      did not suit us in concentration camps, did not drive the population into slavery

      Nevertheless, the war of 1812 (less than 6 months) cost Russia 1.5-2 million people (more than 3/4 - civilians), about 1/20 of the total population. Nothing this pace.
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 31 July 2020 22: 26 New
        +1
        well, they were often simply killed, however, it was mutual, even with regard to the regular army.

        He took and shot, without even really hiding. Well, the scale was not the same, of course, but the campaign of 1812 was quite short.

        Well, some episodes, maybe where they were. In Moscow, arsonists were caught. On the part of the Poles, for example, I admit, there were excesses. But so that it was organized, by order of the emperor - no, this was not. And from our side too.
  • Kwas
    Kwas 30 July 2020 12: 05 New
    +3
    Quote: Olgovich
    The same with Napoleon: it would have been possible to stop him in the early 1800s outside Russia - there would have been no OV in 1812

    Something I have not heard any statements by Napoleon of those years in the intentions to go to Russia. And what did he forget with us? Do not follow the lead of those who portray Bonaparte as paranoid. He flogged to us just because we were too active on the side of England there.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 30 July 2020 16: 17 New
      -4
      Quote: Kwas
      ... He came to us only because we were too active on the side of England there.

      he walked to us with 1810 years: see his successive captures in our direction during this period.
      1. Tavrik
        Tavrik 31 July 2020 22: 31 New
        -1
        Why did he need us ?? What has he captured there since 1810? In the south, Austria was once again defeated in 1809. Prussia in 1806, moreover, Prussia itself began. In 1807, we again “fit in” with our European relatives and “got into trouble”, after which Napoleon went practically to the Russian border. They let our people go beyond the Vistula, and they themselves did not cross the Vistula, so as not to anger the tsar.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 1 August 2020 06: 58 New
          +1
          Quote: Tavrik
          Why did he need us ?? That he captured there since 1810?

          See the history of the Napoleonic wars - he walked and reached our borders.
          1. Tavrik
            Tavrik 2 August 2020 19: 20 New
            -1
            Well yes. Russian tsarism got involved in anti-French coalitions three (!) Times. on our own initiative, when nothing threatened us at all. They were defeated three times, each time Napoleon was getting closer to our borders. After that, they began to actively prepare for another offensive war. And who is the aggressor?
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 3 August 2020 07: 05 New
              +1
              Quote: Tavrik
              And who is the aggressor?

              In elementary school, they will explain to you - along with the lesson OV 1812.

              At the same time, you will learn that there were no acts of aggression against French territory by Russia.
              1. Tavrik
                Tavrik 3 August 2020 12: 07 New
                -1
                Events outside the primary school curriculum are the subject of this discussion. Therefore, you need to broaden your horizons.
                It was Russia that declared war on France as part of coalitions in 1805 and 1807. It also actively formed coalitions. In order to somehow justify the aggressive policy of Russian tsarism and its desire to "rule" European politics, the thesis was invented that Napoleon simply "slept and saw" the conquest of Russia. Why - it was not explained in any way. There are no documents that somehow indirectly confirm this.
                Well, in 1798 they also got into the second coalition. Because of which? Because of Malta! That's really, primordially Russian territory!
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 3 August 2020 13: 21 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Tavrik
                  Events outside the primary school curriculum are the subject of this discussion. Therefore, you need to broaden your horizons.

                  They also write about the AGGRESSIVE wars of Napoleon, as well as the battles of Russia against this invader of Europe.
                  Quote: Tavrik
                  It was Russia that declared war on France as part of coalitions in 1805 and 1807. It also actively formed coalitions. In order to somehow justify the aggressive policy of Russian tsarism and its desire to "steer" European policy,

                  It is a noble goal to stop the Corsican monster, which is flooded with blood to Europe and Africa.
                  Quote: Tavrik
                  Napoleon simply "slept and saw" the conquest of Russia.

                  See OV 1812
                  Quote: Tavrik
                  Well, in 1798 they also got into the second coalition. Because of which? Because of Malta! That's really, primordially Russian territory!

                  This is Paul, this is another story of the unfortunate man ... He climbed over Malta and into Angla ...
                  1. Tavrik
                    Tavrik 3 August 2020 13: 43 New
                    -1
                    They also write about the AGGRESSIVE wars of Napoleon, as well as the battles of Russia against this invader of Europe.

                    It is a noble goal to stop the Corsican monster, which is flooded with blood to Europe and Africa.

                    What an exemplary set of "stamps"! The generalized sequence of events after the revolutionary wars was as follows. Another anti-French coalition declares war on France. France (Napoleon) wins, receives an indemnity, places its garrisons, which causes outrage and the formation of a new coalition. Then a new victory for Napoleon, new contributions, garrisons. New irritation and indignation in England and Russia ... And a new war. And so in 1798, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1809. Isn't it a lot? Well, for the "general public", of course, it looks like monstrous aggression.
                    In reality, France started the war two times: in 1808 in Spain and in 1812 in Russia. Moreover, what preceded 1812 is also very interesting and ambiguous.
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 3 August 2020 16: 14 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Tavrik
                      ... France (Napoleon) wins, receives an indemnity, places its garrisons, which causes outrage and the formation of a new coalition. Then a new victory

                      Exclusively defending himself, he captured all of Europe and even got to Africa, appointed and overthrew kings and states.

                      All-during defense lol
                      1. Tavrik
                        Tavrik 3 August 2020 18: 28 New
                        -1
                        Exceptionally defensive, captured all of Europe

                        Well, something like that ... I don't like comparisons with the 20th century, but I can't resist ... So the USSR, defending itself, also created the belt of the Warsaw Pact countries. And nothing.
                        overthrew kings and states.

                        The Prussian king and the emperor of Austria remained in their places, even after being "raked" several times. Poland, in a truncated form, and then restored (remind, who liquidated it before that?). And also, (oh horror!) Created republics in northern Italy. It’s not a crime to restore absolute monarchies, a crime, nothing else!
                        Why Napoleon came to Africa - study. The USSR also ended up in Iran during the war. And he did the right thing.
                      2. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 4 August 2020 07: 33 New
                        0
                        Quote: Tavrik
                        Well, something like that ... I don't like comparisons with the 20th century, but I can't resist ... So the USSR, defending itself, also created the belt of the Warsaw Pact countries. And nothing.

                        Don't like it correctly: horseradish (root vegetable) only looks like a finger, yes ...
                        Quote: Tavrik
                        The Prussian king and the emperor of Austria remained in their places, even after being "raked" several times. Poland, in a truncated form, and then restored (remind, who liquidated it before that?). And also, (oh horror!) Created republics in northern Italy. It’s not a crime to restore absolute monarchies, a crime, nothing else!
                        Why Napoleon came to Africa - study. The USSR also ended up in Iran during the war. And he did the right thing.

                        Ve this is not France and not his dog business.
  • Kwas
    Kwas 30 July 2020 12: 09 New
    +2
    Quote: Olgovich
    It's just that Russia became a LEADING European and world power and its interests were appropriate and it could not help but participate in the affairs of Europe.

    Russia has become such since Kunensdorf that it did not stop Catherine from solving ours, and not others' problems.
  • Operator
    Operator 30 July 2020 13: 04 New
    0
    Who prevented Peter III from returning East Prussia to Frederick?

    Who prevented Paul I not from butting with Britain in India, but to include Central Asia into the Russian Empire back in 1800?

    Who prevented Alexander I from getting involved in the war with Napoleon, but receiving free buns in the form of the joint dismemberment of Austria-Hungary and the inclusion of Red Russia and Transcarpathia into the Russian Empire?

    Who prevented Nicholas I from destroying the Ottoman Empire in its roots back in 1831 and annexing the Black Sea Straits (and not only) to the Russian Empire, simply by supporting the Egyptians under the leadership of Muhammad Ali, who by that time had conquered Arabia, Palestine and Syria and were ready to invade Anatolian Peninsula?

    Low imperial IQ, no?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 30 July 2020 15: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      Who prevented Nicholas I from destroying the Ottoman Empire in its roots back in 1831 and annexing the Black Sea Straits (and not only) to the Russian Empire, simply by supporting the Egyptians under the leadership of Muhammad Ali, who by that time had conquered Arabia, Palestine and Syria and were ready to invade Anatolian Peninsula?

      It is likely that the uprising of Mehmet Ali already had a sponsor. And that was France. Russian support for Egypt would simply lead to the arrival of France in the Straits on Egyptian bayonets.

      According to Nicholas I, there is a better question - what plant did he climb to save Austria-Hungary?
      No, measure is patience,
      There is also a measure for shamelessness! ..
      I swear by his sacred shadow
      Not everything can be transferred!
      And how does it not burst from everywhere
      One universal cry of longing:
      Away, away from the Austrian Judas
      From his grave board!
      Away with their treacherous kiss,
      And all their apostolic race
      Be branded with one nickname:
      Iscariot, Iscariot!
      © F. Tyutchev. On the occasion of the arrival of the Austrian Archduke to the funeral of Emperor Nicholas.
      1. Kronos
        Kronos 30 July 2020 19: 34 New
        -2
        Because if the uprising was successful, the Russian empire would start to crack, where there were enough people willing to raise the uprising.
      2. Operator
        Operator 30 July 2020 20: 54 New
        -1
        The French sponsor turned out to be untenable - Muhammad Ali had to return to Egypt. Just the case when Nicholas I had to make the Egyptians an offer that they could not refuse: the straits - to Russia, Egypt - sovereignty (France - thanks in the order).
  • deddem
    deddem 30 July 2020 13: 07 New
    0
    It's funny that at the beginning there are moans about the Polish question, about the insidious British and French - and at the end the author happily dreams of Constantinople, which the "allies" decided in 1916 not to give to the Russians.
    And if we did, then with him we got such a bunch of problems (relations between communities, Jews, Turks, always dissatisfied Greeks) that Poland would seem like a kindergarten.
    Although, in my communication with our Dardanelles, Great Russians, I have a strong feeling that they plan to take Constantinople, at least, Islamishefray and Judenfray.
    1. Kwas
      Kwas 30 July 2020 20: 06 New
      +1
      Of course, Constantinople would become a problem, and it was not easy to take it, both from the military and from the political side, but only one bonus in the form of the security of the Black Sea (now internal), gave an unequivocal geopolitical and even financial benefit!
      Well, the freedom of trade, for the export of grain, etc. - these are already goodies for specific beneficiaries.
    2. Tavrik
      Tavrik 3 August 2020 12: 11 New
      0
      "Good is when I stole a cow from a neighbor. Evil is when a neighbor stole a cow from me." Something like this is the opinion of the hurray-patriots. Therefore, the partitions of Poland are "the return of the ancestral lands."
  • awdrgy
    awdrgy 30 July 2020 16: 37 New
    0
    And because the headquarters of the agents of influence at the head of our empire were And how they began to kill them, different terrorists began to kill them In the end, and finally the empire was able to destroy
  • vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 30 July 2020 17: 20 New
    +2
    Quote: Dmitry Nikolaevich Fedunov
    Quote: Deniska999
    It was necessary to do as Kutuzov suggested: stop at the border of the empire and not go to Paris. We would agree with Napoleon.

    I agree completely! It is possible that in 44, having restored the pre-war borders, the USSR should have stopped ...

    And..will agree with Hitler? Well, this is overkill! am
    In my opinion, we did not go to liberate Europe in 44-45. It was a side task. We needed to create buffer states loyal to us. And that was done!
  • Kwas
    Kwas 30 July 2020 19: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: ivach
    And about the "liberation of Poland", this is generally a pearl. It is a pity that the Poles do not know that Russia has liberated them.

    Poles know only that they are blown into their ears. I advise you to read their history textbook. I've read it.
  • Kwas
    Kwas 30 July 2020 20: 11 New
    -2
    Quote: ivach
    German agents Bolsheviks in January 1918, the Russian Empire was not even destroyed, but finished off. The Russians tried to save her for another 3 years.

    Damn, some kind of weirdness. German agents - but they did collect the empire, the Russian noblemen (in many respects the Germans) wanted to save (noble land tenure) - but the people for some reason were against it. And the Russian patriot Wrangel in general fought for Poland against Russia!
  • Kwas
    Kwas 31 July 2020 07: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: Ryazanets87
    Nevertheless, the war of 1812 (less than 6 months) cost Russia 1.5-2 million people (more than 3/4 - civilians), about 1/20 of the total population. Nothing this pace.

    Can I be curious about where the numbers come from? And how did he manage without concentration camps? Did Napoleon have a plan for the Ost too?
    1. Ryazan87
      Ryazan87 4 August 2020 13: 36 New
      0
      According to revision tales, they roughly determine (approximately - because there is only a record of male souls) + data on births, recruitment sets.
      And yes, most of the deaths are due to hunger and disease. For example, in 1912 the book "Smolensk and the Gubernia in 1812" says (according to calculations made in 1814) that "from war, pestilence and hunger", only the male part of the population of the Smolensk Gubernia decreased by 100 thousand people.
      According to only the Moscow, Kaluga, Smolensk, Minsk, Mogilev and Vitebsk provinces, after the end of hostilities, more than 430 thousand human corpses were burned.
      Well, one more figure (the difference between births and deaths)
      1812 + 291 234
      1813 - 2 749
      You can read Victor Bezotosny, for example.
      I think you also understand that the walk of the half-million enemy army to Moscow and back was, shall we say, not painful. for the local population. They didn't have to kill - it was enough to devour and ruin everything. No plan "Ost" is needed.
  • Prometey
    Prometey 31 July 2020 09: 45 New
    +1
    With one I can partially agree - the most perspicacious was Catherine II. Although she was German, she did not throw Russian soldiers into the wind. If she fought only on her borders and for state interests. The rest are all degenerates. They got involved in alien showdowns, while burying tens of thousands of Russian lives in unnecessary wars. One jackal Sasha I is worth something, who killed hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers because of his ambitions.
    1. Ryazan87
      Ryazan87 4 August 2020 13: 21 New
      0
      One jackal Sasha I is worth something

      The jackal annexed Finland (ensuring the security of the capital of the empire), Bessarabia (giving access to the mouth of the Danube), Dagestan, Georgia and northern Azerbaijan (securing positions in the Caucasus + monopoly on the navy in the Caspian Sea) and established control over Poland (now any invasion from the west would start west of Lodz, and the capital of one of Russia's key rivals became a Russian city for a hundred years). Finally, he built a security system that ensured 40 years of Russian domination in central Europe.
      All of the above, of course, is "contrary" to state interests.
  • Petrik66
    Petrik66 31 July 2020 10: 19 New
    0
    Peter 1 fought for the legacy of his ancestors? He got up in the morning after the next battle "with Bacchus" and was so twisted by the fact that some Swedes trample the Russian lands of their ancestors with their feet, he felt such a personal dislike for Karl 12 that he could not eat. I thought about it and let's fight. For 23 years he fought and returned the Russian lands, pushing the Chukhon lands to a heap with his new wife. In reality, Russia and the Romanovs understood the harsh need for direct trade routes, without intermediaries and constant sanctions from Poles and other bastards, to carry out export and import operations with the financial and industrial center of the world - Europe. Russia sold its natural resources (bread, hemp, timber, linen, etc.), and in return imported luxury goods for the courtyard and oligarchs, as well as the means of scientific and technological progress for militarism. As it is now - Nord Stream 1 and 2. But ports alone are not enough, political weight is needed, which is achieved only by military means, both then and now. Let's remember the beginning of the 20th century, when we were friends with the Hans and fed them with the products of our agriculture, and they took and put forward such conditions for us that from such friendship we went to other guys, from the city of Paris, and then the British pulled themselves up. And why? so peaceful we were. Everyone should have understood that if he stepped on our interests, the Cossacks would soon pay him a visit, taking with them a couple more grenadier regiments, for company. So now, the option to get a "caliber" in the bedroom window, forces malicious characters to behave more carefully, showing off more in newspapers and the internet. The kings and their entourage were smarter than us, judging by the weight of Russia and its territorial acquisitions in the 18th and 19th centuries. And clever commentators belong precisely to the generation that brought Russia back to the borders of the early 17th century, all from a great mind.
  • serg v zapase
    serg v zapase 30 August 2020 22: 50 New
    0
    I am afraid to read such opuses, it’s suddenly contagious. To identify myself with people who lived two or three centuries ago. At the same time, point out the mistakes of the rulers and the fact that they were always deceived by all and sundry. What a fool, it turns out, the half of the globe has been crushed by itself!