Military Review

How England killed Russian sovereigns

84

Assassination of Emperor Paul I. French engraving


Accusing Russia of
"Crimes against the state"

England is displaying monstrous hypocrisy.

England has been Russia's worst enemy over the past 300 years. And only by the middle of the XNUMXth century did it share this place with the United States. The British are behind the untimely deaths of several Russian tsars. And the English trace can be noted in almost all the wars of Russia that our country has waged over the past centuries.

Russia and England did not have disputed territories, historical traditions of enmity. Like, for example, the British and the French or the French and the Germans. Both powers could live in peace. And, if not in agreement and cooperation, then at least not noticing each other. As, for example, Russia and the Spanish colonial empire.

However, Britain was behind almost all wars, conflicts, uprisings, revolutions. And behind the famous murders directed against Russia (such as the murder of Tsar Paul I and Nicholas II, Grigory Rasputin).

The fact is that Britain claimed to be dominant in the world. And she constantly pitted her competitors.

With the help of Russia, the British eliminated the threat from France and Germany.

At the same time London was striving with all its might to solve the "Russian question" - to dismember and destroy Russian civilization.

Sweden and Russia: play off!


After the "discovery" of Russia by the British under Tsar Ivan the Terrible, relations between the two powers were built mainly on the foundation of trade and economic relations. The British first sought a northeastern passage to China and India. Then they tried to monopolize the Volga-Caspian route to Persia. As a result, England gradually took first place in Russia's foreign trade.

Under Peter I, Russia became an empire and one of the leading powers in European politics. From that time on, the British began to pit the Russians against other European peoples, trying to oust us from the Baltic.

Thus, Britain supported Sweden's efforts to drive Russia off the shores of the Baltic Sea in the wars of 1700-1721, 1741-1743, 1788-1790.

True, this ended with the fact that Russia only strengthened itself on the shores of the Varangian Sea, returning the Baltic states to its sphere of influence.

From the same XNUMXth century, the British began to incite Turkey against Russia.

The Russians were returning their ancient lands on the shores of the Northern Black Sea region (including the Crimea). Britain was not threatened by this process.

However, London from that time to the present day (London's contacts with the "Sultan" Erdogan) has been trying to incite Turkey against Russia.

To prevent the Russians from gaining a foothold on the northern and Caucasian shores of the Black Sea, to free Constantinople-Constantinople, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles from the Ottomans, to include the Balkan Peninsula in their sphere, to return the historical lands of Greece, Georgia and Armenia.

For all the Russian-Turkish wars of the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries. you can see the British footprint.

In the southern direction, preventing the Russians from breaking through to the southern seas, Britain also began to incite Persia - Iran (1804–1813, 1826–1828) against Russia.

It is interesting that the wise Empress Catherine II was well aware of the role of England in Europe and the world.

When the British wanted to hire Russian soldiers to suppress the revolt in the American colonies (War of Independence), Petersburg refused. Moreover, Russia in 1780 initiated the creation of a large bloc of powers, in essence, directed against politics.

"Mistress of the seas"

Britain.

In 1780, Russia declared armed neutrality. Denmark and Sweden joined him, in 1781 - Holland, Prussia and Austria. Its principles have been recognized by Spain, France and the United States. Thus, the European powers expressed their readiness to defend their maritime trade by armed means from possible attacks by England.

The US naval blockade was broken, England had to retreat.

Thus, the Russians had a hand in the emergence of the United States.

France and Russia: play off!


After the French Revolution on the continent, a new threat arose for England - revolutionary France. And then the empire of Napoleon.

The French began to create a "European Union" led by Paris. It is clear that the British did not like this. They themselves could not appease the French. They began to look for "cannon fodder". The best solution was to confront Britain's two most dangerous adversaries: Russia (although the Russians did not threaten London) and France.


Emperor Paul I, following the idealistic chivalric ideals, in the fight against the revolutionary infection, sent troops to Holland, Switzerland and Italy to help his "allies" - the British and Austrians.

But it soon became clear that the "partners" were using Russia's disinterested aid to expand their sphere of influence.

At the same time, the Austrians and British were afraid of the Russians, their successes in the same Italy. The Russian corps were exposed in Holland and Switzerland.

Our genius commander Alexander Suvorov saved the army with incredible moral and physical efforts (and finally undermined his health).

Paul I realized the stupidity of this war.

Russia and France had nothing to share. The Russians fought in the interests of England and Austria. When the "partners" decided that the days of revolutionary France were numbered, they tried to deprive the Russian laurels of victory.

The brilliant victories of Suvorov and Ushakov gave Russia nothing.

But they helped the Austrian Empire to return to Italy.

Interestingly, they also benefited General Napoleon. Having conquered Egypt, the French general could not take the Syrian fortress of Akru and retreated. British Admiral Nelson burned down the French fleet. The British deprived the French army in Egypt of its connection with the mother country. Napoleon, without reinforcements, supplies and support fleet on the coast, could hold out for several months, then - a shameful surrender.

Now Napoleon could safely return to his homeland and overthrow the decayed Directory, which had lost the war in the European theater.

The population of France is tired of endless war, instability, theft of the new government, the stupid policy of the Directory. The French wanted a strong hand and got it in the face of Napoleon.

"Died of an apoplectic stroke with a snuffbox in the temple"


Paul I withdrew Suvorov's troops.

Having become the first consul, Napoleon Bonaparte immediately drew attention to the stupidity of the situation: Russia was at war with France without having common borders. And, in general, no controversial issues, except for ideology (monarchy and republic).

Napoleon expressed a desire to make peace with Russia. The same thoughts entered the mind of Emperor Paul I.

On a report dated January 28, 1800 by the Russian envoy to Prussia, Krüdner, who reported on the peace signal of France that was passing through Berlin, the emperor wrote:

"As for the rapprochement with France, I would not want anything better than to see her come running to me, especially as a counterbalance to Austria."

Meanwhile, a French garrison in Malta surrendered to the British in October 1800.

Petersburg immediately demanded permission from London to land Russian troops on the island. Paul I was the Master of the Order of Malta, the sovereign master of his domains.

London ignored this appeal.

In response, the Russian sovereign imposed a sequestration on English goods in the country, stopped debt payments to the British, and ordered the appointment of commissars to eliminate debt settlements between Russian and English merchants.

In December 1800, Petersburg signed treaties with Prussia, Sweden and Denmark, which renewed the system of armed neutrality in 1780.

In response, the British tried to bargain with Petersburg.

They reported that England had no views of Corsica. And the conquest of Corsica would be of great importance for Russia.

That is, the British proposed replacing Malta with French Corsica. And along the way, infuriate the first consul of France - the Corsican Napoleone Buonaparte (from Italian Napoleone Buonaparte).

The Russian Tsar-Knight Paul I was not led to this provocation by the English traders.

In December 1800, the Russian emperor wrote to Bonaparte:

“Mr. First Consul.

Those who have been entrusted by God with the authority to govern nations should think and care for their welfare. "

Addressing Napoleon directly and recognizing his authority was a sensation in Europe.

Direct correspondence between the two heads of state meant, in fact, the establishment of peace between the two powers. It was also a complete violation of the principles of legitimism, for which the weak successor of Paul I, Alexander I, would lay a lot of Russian heads on the battlefields of Europe to the joy of Vienna, Berlin and London.

In February 1801, Napoleon began to study the possibility of a joint Russian-French campaign in India. And Pavel I already in January 1801 sent the ataman of the Don Army Orlov an order to start a campaign in India. The Cossacks have already begun the campaign, they left the Don for 700 miles. The campaign was poorly organized, but it showed the whole world that one word of the Russian tsar is enough - and the Cossacks will enter India.

London responded by organizing regicide: on the night of March 11-12, 1801, the Russian Tsar Paul I was killed by a group of conspirators at the Mikhailovsky Castle.

The English ambassador Charles Whitworth played a very active role (possibly leading) in this murder.

In particular, Whitworth was the lover of Olga Alexandrovna Zherebtsova, the sister of Platon Zubov. It was Zubov who was the direct murderer of the sovereign, having pierced his head with a gold snuffbox.

British gold and instructions went through Zherebtsova to the conspirators.

Curiously, Napoleon immediately realized who was behind the assassination of Paul I.

He fell into a rage and blamed England for everything:

“They missed me ...

But they hit me in St. Petersburg. "

Tsar Alexander I became a figure in London's great game


The new emperor Alexander I immediately faced the British threat.

The British government ordered the seizure of all Russian ships in British ports. The British treacherously attacked our allies, the Danes, destroying and capturing their fleet in Copenhagen. At the same time, Denmark adhered to strict neutrality in the war going on in Europe.

In May 1801, the English fleet reached Revel.

But it didn’t come to war. Tsar Alexander I actually capitulated to England. The Don Army was called back. England was not called to account for the death of Paul I.

The "English Party" in Russia itself was not cleaned out. The embargo was immediately lifted on British merchant ships and goods in Russian ports. The principle of armed neutrality was violated.

But the worst thing was that the "true Byzantine" Alexander I again involved Russia in the war with France. The Russians became England's cannon fodder in the war against France.

This war did not correspond to the national interests of either the French or the Russians. And it was conducted exclusively in the interests of the British and Germans, who lived in Austria and Germany.

The "English and German" parties in St. Petersburg dragged us into a criminal, anti-national war with France. At this time, almost all the forces, energy, resources (including human resources) of Russia were spent on the war with Napoleon's France.

For a whole generation we have lost the magnificent opportunities that opened up to Russia in the southwest (the Balkans and the region of Constantinople), south and east.

Strategically, the alliance with Napoleon promised enormous benefits. For example, even a short-term alliance between Alexander I and Napoleon after Tilsit allowed us to annex Finland and completely resolve the issue of the security of the capital and the north-western strategic direction.

Thus, with the cordial agreement between Petersburg and Paris, which was planned under Paul I, we could crush Britain's hopes for world domination. At the same time, keeping England as a counterweight to France and the German world.

They could reach the southern seas, gain a foothold in Persia and India. Completely solve the Caucasian problem. Get Constantinople, the Strait Zone, making the Black Sea, as of old - Russian. Restore the Christian and Slavic powers in the Balkans, taking them under our wing. To direct forces and resources to strengthen the Far East and Russian America.

Alexander I (and his entourage) preferred the European vector, to get headlong into the affairs of Germany.

We were drawn into a new anti-French coalition. Petersburg set a goal - to restore the Bourbon dynasty in France. Why does the Russian state and the people need Bourbons?

A Russian peasant paid for British and German interests. Big blood.

The Russian army suffered heavy losses in Europe, near Austerlitz and Friedland.

Due to the mediocre policy of St. Petersburg, the Russian Baltic and Black Sea fleets have lost the best ships in the Mediterranean.

It all ended in a bloody Patriotic War, when all the people had to pay for the mistakes of the tsar and his entourage.

France was "pacified". The Russian army entered Paris. Napoleon was sent into exile.

But who appropriated almost all the fruits of victory?

England, Austria and Prussia.

And Russia was gratefully named

"Gendarme of Europe"

instructing to crush new revolutions.

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 18 February 2021 04: 59
    +13
    "An Englishwoman crap" is a succinctly formulated expression in Russian, reflecting the essence of Britain's foreign policy towards Russia
    1. Destiny
      Destiny 18 February 2021 05: 35
      +19
      This is the enemy, let's call things by their proper names. Enemy # 1. The enemy is cruel, unprincipled, arrogant and treacherous. An enemy who more than once entered into an alliance with Russia for his own benefit and each time sold and betrayed her. However, not only we, the whole world suffered and suffers from their greed and treachery.
      1. Tatyana
        Tatyana 18 February 2021 08: 18
        +15
        Quote: Destiny
        This is the enemy, let's call things by their proper names. Enemy # 1. The enemy is cruel, unprincipled, arrogant and treacherous. An enemy who more than once for his own benefit entered into an alliance with Russia and each time sold and betrayed her. However, not only we, the whole world suffered and suffers from their greed and treachery.

        And after WWII nothing changed in Great Britain's relations with Russia.
        Even when Gorbachev came to power in the USSR on March 15, 1985, his foreign patroness in the West, Margaret Thatcher, declared in December 1991 that it was enough to leave no more than 15 million people in Russia.

        Thatcher: The population of Russia should not exceed 15 million! • Jan 7. 2014
        1. smaug78
          smaug78 18 February 2021 09: 00
          .
          a lie repeated a thousand times becomes true
          1. Tatyana
            Tatyana 18 February 2021 10: 06
            +18
            Quote: smaug78
            a lie repeated a thousand times becomes true
            However, with Thatcher and Madeleine Albright, this is not the case.

            I had a friend who was far from politics. Her divorced daughter and child married an American and has lived in the United States ever since. An acquaintance of her daughter in the United States periodically visits.
            And then one day - in my opinion, it was in 2010 - she told the following that she was simply amazed there in the USA.
            Before the new school year, her granddaughter, a schoolgirl, boasted to her of her new school textbooks and an atlas for the new school year. A friend decided to show her in the atlas of St. Petersburg, in which she was born. I opened the political map of the world in the atlas - and was stunned with surprise! Russia on the map was painted green and without any indication of cities at all (even points of cities were not indicated!) And without the name of the country, that this is Russia! Moreover, even the most dwarf states in Europe are indicated with the names of the country and cities.
            She says that the first thing she thought was that one of the schoolchildren was acting up - painted over everything. I looked closely: nothing of the kind! The atlas was completely new and that was how they printed it at their state's printing house. Well, she showed all the same the place where St. Petersburg is located.
            And the granddaughter began to object: "No, grandmother is not there!" - "How not ?! Here is the city in which you were born. And this is the country in which you used to live!" - "No, grandma is no country here! This is an empty place. Nobody lives there." - "Who told you that ?!" - "Teacher! She also said that when we graduate from school, we will have to develop these lands ourselves."
            Her granddaughter was supposed to graduate from school in 2018.
            1. smaug78
              smaug78 18 February 2021 12: 15
              .
              Clearly, said a friend ... And we are talking about a hooray lie about Thatcher. You can't argue with cheers and a friend laughing
              1. Tatyana
                Tatyana 18 February 2021 12: 56
                +15
                Quote: smaug78
                Clearly, said a friend ... And we are talking about a hooray lie about Thatcher. You can't argue with cheers and a friend laughing
                You didn't make a scout and a military-political analyst, and you certainly won't.

                So what do you think is wrong about the relationship of Thatcher, Albright, the United States and Great Britain to the USSR / Russia?
                Gather information and prove to us otherwise! Only with evidence-based examples from real politics, when did Great Britain do something in favor of the USSR / Russia at least after 1945?
                It seems that you are either an anti-Russian Anglophile, or the policy of Great Britain and the United States towards the USSR / Russia over the years, you do not know at all.

                It is a pity that the flags of the country of which you are a citizen have been removed on the VO website next to the participant's nickname. And now you will begin to pretend that you are a Russian. There is no trust in you.
                So come "to the barrier"! The floor is yours! Prove to us that you are right!
                1. Tatyana
                  Tatyana 18 February 2021 13: 43
                  +12
                  By the way. If we talk in general about the morals of the Anglo-Saxons, then interesting information has just come out on the election campaign of US President Joe Biden.

                  Report that Baydan Democrats admitted that Baydan's VICTORY over Trump was indeed FALSE !. The participants and the technologies they used to falsify the results of the presidential elections in the United States, as a result of which Joe Biden won, were named.
                  At the same time, the Baydanists of the US Democratic Party openly declare to the Americans: "Yes, we falsified the elections, but this is for your own good!"

                  For the whole world, a similar coming out - it is a symptom of the rapid MORAL DEGRADATION of American politics.
                  Once simple-minded people around the world could truly and unselfishly drown for the interests of the United States - even to the detriment of their own country. They really had some ideals, shining hail on the hill, that's all.
                  Serving the interests of the American elite in its current form can only be done by calculation. And even then it is risky - the authorities, which do not recognize any rules and laws within their country, will easily pass over any foreign counterparty.

                  See in detail - "Yes, we falsified the elections, but this is for your own good" dated 16.02.2021 - https://ria.ru/20210216/falsifikatsiya-1597537310.html?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=desktop
                2. smaug78
                  smaug78 18 February 2021 14: 27
                  -7
                  What should I prove to you?
                  Thatcher: The population of Russia should not exceed 15 million! •
                  Your words, so prove them with links to primary sources. And the rest is your attempts to ascribe to me your thoughts and so on ...
                3. skullcap
                  skullcap 19 February 2021 15: 08
                  +4
                  Quote: Tatiana
                  It seems that you are either an anti-Russian Anglophile, or the policy of Great Britain and the United States towards the USSR / Russia over the years, you do not know at all.

                  Most likely he is a paid agent of the western owners. Eighty years ago, such people with zeal went to the capos in concentration camps, sending the "inferior" to crematoria, among whom he was so unlucky to be born.
                  Such articles are an excellent indicator of site contamination by lackeys from the fifth column.
          2. Lycan
            Lycan 29 March 2021 13: 41
            0
            Quote: smaug78
            a lie repeated a thousand times becomes true

            for the very repetitive. But the repeater becomes a "brainwashed person."
        2. indy424
          indy424 18 February 2021 18: 28
          -6
          I love how the same fake excites so many patriots every new time
        3. Avior
          Avior 18 February 2021 23: 37
          -1
          sorry, but thatcher's alleged phrase is fiction
          The original source of this invention is this book.
          Parshev A.P. Why Russia is not America. A book for those who stay here. - M .: Krymsky Most-9D, Forum, 2001 .-- 416 p. - (Great opposition). - 10 copies. - ISBN 000-5-89747-017.
          This source has never been translated into Russian. Although talk about him has been going on for a long time. Someone mentions the figure 15 million, someone - 50 ... But the point is this. This statement is quite old and does not refer to Russia, but to the Soviet Union, because Thatcher was prime minister when the Soviet Union still existed. This was her speech on foreign policy. I heard it on sound recording. It did not directly say that 15 million people should be left in the USSR, but it was said more cunningly: they say, the Soviet economy is completely ineffective, there is only a small effective part, which, in fact, has the right to exist. And in this effective part, only 15 million people of our population are employed. This is the meaning of Thatcher's statement, which was then interpreted in different ways. But the point is that from the point of view of modern politicians, who do not always speak out as frankly as the "iron lady", the existence of only those people who are employed in an efficient economy is justified. And this is a very bad call for us, because our economy is ineffective by Western criteria. "

          hi
          1. Tatyana
            Tatyana 19 February 2021 02: 18
            +4
            Quote: Avior
            It did not directly say that 15 million people should be left in the USSR, but it was said more cunningly: they say, the Soviet economy is completely ineffective, there is only a small effective part, which, in fact, has the right to exist. And in this effective part, only 15 million people of our population are employed. This is the meaning of Thatcher's statement, which was then interpreted in different ways. But the point is that from the point of view of modern politicians, who do not always speak out as frankly as the "iron lady", the existence of only those people who are employed in an efficient economy is justified. And this is a very bad call for us, because our economy is ineffective by Western criteria. "
            You are on your own, and you have confirmed the announcer's statement on the video.
            This is fully consistent with the ideology of American economist Milton Friedman about monetarism (the pursuit of profits), which he outlined in his book "Capitalism and Freedom" on the first 20 pages and for which he received the Nobel Prize.

            Why was Thatcher nicknamed the "Iron Lady"? It is for the monetarist reforms in the country and the merciless pursuit of profits and that there are no social programs for workers in ineffective industries and the unemployed. Even the British parliament reared up because this meant a massive closure of production and massive unemployment in the country without social compensation. All of them become "superfluous" people for the "golden billion", because they do not need such an amount - they do not bring the "golden billion" profit, but only waste natural resources on themselves and live, and therefore are subject to "biological utilization". Which way? Yes, the most diverse! From childlessness to war.!

            In addition, it very much fits into the strategy of globalists to reduce the population on earth in favor of saving and preserving vital natural resources to maintain a high standard of living of the "golden billion"!
            Do you agree with this statement of the explanation of the essence of the hints in Thatcher's statement about the sufficiency of the 15 million population in the USSR ?! After all, it is this hidden meaning that is contained in Thatcher's statement.
            So I believe that the announcer in his own words expressed the meaning of Thatcher's speech in his own words.

            And how this is implemented and looks in Ukraine, then Igor Berkut would better say about it.

            Ukraine will have enough 5 million inhabitants, the rest will be disposed of by Igor Berkut. October 1, 2014
    2. Civil
      Civil 18 February 2021 06: 51
      -4
      Oh, that's who kept the Russian people in serfdom for hundreds of years ...
      This is who made 2 Russian revolutions ...
      Not 0,2% of the population - the nobles brought the country to a riot ... no, it was the British with the fifth column who sponsored the hunger riots ...
      All the peasants crunched French rolls and staged balls ... were treated in Baden-Baden ...
      And then all the workers and peasants were bought by the British to make the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army ...
      But what can I say, now the Anglo-Saxons are raising prices for food, gasoline, housing and communal services, on the sly they bought youth through Provalnoye and are leading to a riot after forgiving the Holy People.

      The article seems to draw historical parallels ... The Anglo-Saxons are to blame for the problems of foreign and domestic policy ... and the locals have nothing to do with it.
      1. lucul
        lucul 18 February 2021 08: 10
        +7
        Oh, that's who kept the Russian people in serfdom for hundreds of years ...

        A Russian peasant, in serfdom, had his own house, with an economy, and in "enlightened" London, back in the 20th century, to sleep on a rope (!!!), you had to pay 2 pence per night, that's how it is " happiness "looked like in the photo. The police simply did not let people sleep on the streets "for nothing"

        And Samsonov, it would not hurt to write about fencing in England ...
        1. Civil
          Civil 18 February 2021 08: 22
          +1
          Quote: lucul
          Russian peasant, in serfdom, had his own house, with an economy

          If his master has not lost at cards or drank lol
          Yes, yes, I used to sell it along with the cottage))))) cheaper than a pregnant cow, but still with a pool laughing
          1. lucul
            lucul 18 February 2021 09: 22
            +6
            If his master did not lose at cards or did not drink lol
            Yes, yes, I used to sell it along with the cottage))))) cheaper than a pregnant cow, but still with a pool

            So now the plant / enterprise can also be sold, together with the people - the owner is called changed. And it is the same all over the world.
            Will you argue? )))
            1. Civil
              Civil 18 February 2021 09: 59
              -5
              Quote: lucul
              So now the plant / enterprise can also be sold, together with the people - the owner is called changed. And it is the same all over the world.
              Will you argue? )))

              Not in any way, bourgeois rule again. We returned to the broken trough again. Again the people are losing.
            2. Terran ghost
              Terran ghost 19 February 2021 11: 18
              +2
              So now the plant / enterprise can also be sold, together with people - the owner is called changed

              There are only a few "small" nuances:
              - an employee can leave the enterprise at any time by notifying the employer 15 days before the date of dismissal
              - the object of sale, always the enterprise itself - its physical assets, rights and obligations under contracts, while serfs were sold even without the land they occupied, like slaves
              - when selling an enterprise to a new owner, the rights of its employees under already concluded labor contracts are preserved
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 19 February 2021 13: 13
                0
                Quote: Terran Ghost
                - when selling an enterprise to a new owner, the rights of its employees under already concluded labor contracts are preserved

                Who told you this? Even property can be taken away and given to other owners for a partial value if the enterprise was owned in small shares by other owners. All old contracts are no longer valid due to the fact that the new owner did not sign under them, which is why new contracts will be concluded, and on what conditions he himself will decide.
                1. Terran ghost
                  Terran ghost 19 February 2021 15: 02
                  +2
                  All old contracts are no longer valid due to the fact that the new owner did not sign under them, which is why new contracts will be concluded, and on what conditions he himself will decide.

                  What?
                  Quote: Labor Code of the Russian Federation, article 75
                  If the owner of the organization's property changes, the new owner, no later than three months from the date of the emergence of his ownership right, has the right to terminate the employment contract with the head of the organization, his deputies and the chief accountant.
                  A change in the owner of the organization's property is not a basis for terminating employment contracts with other employees of the organization. "
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 19 February 2021 15: 29
                    0
                    Quote: Terran Ghost
                    What?
                    Quote: Labor Code of the Russian Federation, article 75

                    Togo - you yourself confirmed it that the new owner has such a right:
                    new owner no later than three months from the date of his ownership has the right to terminate the employment contract with the head of the organization, his deputies and the chief accountant.

                    Quote: Terran Ghost
                    A change in the owner of the organization's property is not a basis for terminating employment contracts with other employees of the organization. "

                    Have you ever found yourself in such a situation yourself?
                    The reason to demand to conclude a NEW contract will be the appointment of a NEW manager, because he will not be responsible for the execution of the old contract concluded with the predecessor.
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 18 February 2021 11: 05
          +3
          Quote: lucul
          Russian peasant, in serfdom, had his own house, with an economy

          Here at the forum, one of the modern "historians" - a cliche, brazenly argued that at that time there was slavery in Russia, and several tens of thousands of slaves with weapons went to the Battle of Borodino to defend the rights of their slave owners. True, why they did not run away even in Europe, this subject somehow did not intelligibly explain. Although who knows the history, they remember that even in Germany there were Russian villages where our compatriots lived. In general, the history of Russian serfdom reminds me in some way of the current squeals that Stalin created collective farms in order to make free peasants slaves - nowadays you can not even hear that from modern "educators".
          1. Kronos
            Kronos 18 February 2021 11: 15
            +2
            Serfs were not much different from slaves
          2. Terran ghost
            Terran ghost 19 February 2021 11: 42
            +5
            In general, the history of Russian serfdom reminds me of something

            In general, the history of serfdom in the Russian Kingdom and the Russian Empire should be divided into several main stages.
            At the first stage, before the reign of Peter I, serfdom meant only the attachment of the peasant to the land of this or that noble landowner. Moreover, this was compensated by the fact that the landlord had the obligation to personally carry out military service, while the peasant did not carry the duty of military service at all. Such is the social contract, yes.
            Under Peter I, peasants began to be recruited to carry out military duties, and at the same time the practice of attaching peasants to factories appeared, to use their free (slave) labor there (the measure is very likely temporary and extraordinary, but like everything temporary, alas, it has become permanent ... which led to the real catastrophe of the industry of the Russian Empire in the late 18th - early 19th centuries), but at the same time, no one removed the duty of personally serving the nobility.
            The third stage is after the so-called. "Manifesto on the Liberty of the Nobles". This manifesto of Emperor Peter III removed from the nobility the obligation to serve. On the good, at the same time serfdom should have been abolished (most likely, this could have happened in the form of granting personal freedom without providing landlord's land with the transformation of the serf into a peasant tenant of the land), but this did not happen. The opposite happened - the tightening of what had no sense anymore, apart from satisfying the narrow class interest of landlordism, serfdom, which had turned into a parasitic class, with the sale of peasants without land, the appearance of a "month" (that is, full-fledged slavery), etc.

            Moreover, it is necessary to make a reservation - this situation was not unique for the Russian Empire. The 17th and 18th centuries were characterized by the "second edition of serfdom" in many European countries. England is a noticeable exception here, but not because of the "unique love of freedom", but because there was no special need for serfdom - Great Britain is an island state, and the peasant, as a rule, did not have the physical opportunity to move into the possession of another landowner (there already "everything places "were usually occupied) or on" no one's free land ".
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 19 February 2021 13: 08
              0
              Quote: Terran Ghost
              In general, the history of serfdom in the Russian Kingdom and the Russian Empire should be divided into several main stages.

              You can assess serfdom in Russia as you like, but you will in no way be able to connect it with slavery, because serfdom did not exist throughout the Empire, and this is a fact.
              And second, you will never explain why the "slaves" were entrusted with weapons, including the maintenance of weapons, which they could turn against the landlords. Not to mention the fact that our territory generally allowed the serfs to escape to the same south or to Siberia. I don't even remember the serf millionaires - they were there too. If you look at the very system of management in the areas of risky agriculture, then it was serfdom that guaranteed survival after several crop failures with those methods of farming.

              Quote: Terran Ghost
              the practice of attaching peasants to factories to use their free (slave) labor there

              Explain then, and who fed the families of these attached workers? What makes you think that they worked there for free?
              1. Terran ghost
                Terran ghost 19 February 2021 18: 41
                -2
                but you will never be able to connect it with slavery, because serfdom did not exist throughout the Empire, and this is a fact.

                Not to mention the fact that our territory generally allowed serfs to escape to the same south or to Siberia

                "Cool" argumentation. But they were not interested in what percentage of the total population of the Russian Empire until 1861 lived in those regions where there was no serfdom?
                As for "running away", somewhere from the 1710s - 1720s maximum this "shop" was "covered" for peasants in serf bondage - the Sobornoye Ulozhenie of 1649 established an indefinite search for runaway peasants, and the possibility of their entry into the ranks of the Cossacks was also closed to them.
                Well, yes. Serfdom in the Russian Kingdom / Russian Empire was not something that existed unchanged from 1649 to 1861. This institution has evolved over time.
                But in general, as of September 1767 to 1797-1798, formally and in 1832-1833, in fact, we can say that serfs in the Russian Empire were in the position of slaves.
                The reason is in the decrees "On granting landowners the right to send peasants to hard labor" (January 1765) and "On prohibiting peasants from complaining about landlords" (August 1767), which opened the way for the arbitrariness of landowners against peasants, unrestricted by state law.
                you will never explain why the "slaves" were trusted with weapons, including the maintenance of the guns, which they could turn against the landlords.

                What other slaves? Those recruited into soldiers were no longer considered serfs. True, they had to serve first for life, and then - 25 years.
                Explain then, and who fed the families of these attached workers?

                Owner and fed. But this is no different from the slave position if that. Possessional peasants worked for free, they could not refuse work and move to another place.
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 20 February 2021 16: 33
                  0
                  Quote: Terran Ghost
                  "Cool" argumentation.

                  This does not contradict Marxism - "Karl Marx (1818-1883) believed that economic development plays a decisive role in the political development of society."
                  Serfdom at that time best suited the development of society, not the slavery that existed in the United States.

                  Quote: Terran Ghost
                  But in general, as of September 1767 to 1797-1798, formally and in 1832-1833, in fact, we can say that serfs in the Russian Empire were in the position of slaves.

                  This is a primitive lie, and it is easy to refute it by the judicial practice of those years:
                  Since the time of Elizaveta Petrovna, nobles have received the right to punish serfs by exiling them to Siberia, and this was a widespread practice. In 1827-1846 the landlords exiled almost four thousand people to Siberia. The exiled were counted as recruits, that is, the landowner was free to "cleanse" his possessions from those who did not like him, and still not lose anything.
                  Corporal punishment of serfs (especially flogging) was a widespread practice. The Code of Laws of 1832-1845 mitigated possible punishments for serfs - the landlords were left with the following: rods - up to 40 blows, sticks - up to 15 blows, imprisonment in a rural prison for up to 2 months and in a restraining house for up to 3 months, delivery to prison companies for up to 6 months, as well as recruits and permanent removal from the estate with the provision at the disposal of the local state administration.
                  The state punished landlords for abuse of power and peasants for disobedience on approximately the same scale - in 1834-1845, 0,13% of the peasants and 0,13% of the landowners of the total number of both in the country were convicted throughout Russia.

                  Where have you heard of slave owners being punished in other countries?
                  Quote: Terran Ghost
                  Those recruited into soldiers were no longer considered serfs. True, they had to serve first for life, and then - 25 years.

                  Service is even more difficult for any serf occupation, and even more connected with his own death on the battlefield. What kept such "slaves" in the army, for example, in foreign campaigns? Why was there no mass desertion from the Russian army?
                  Quote: Terran Ghost
                  Owner and fed.

                  Where could he get the funds for this, if there was no serfdom to take part of the harvest from other peasants?
                  You seem to have a vague idea of ​​what was the economic basis for the existence of the Russian Empire at that time.
                  Quote: Terran Ghost
                  As for the "run away", somewhere from the 1710s - 1720s maximum, this "shop" was "covered" for peasants in serf bondage - the Sobornoye Code of 1649 established an unlimited search for runaway peasants,

                  Is it okay that Old Believers in our entire settlements fled to Siberia and even to Alaska? And who caught them there, I wonder?
                  1. Terran ghost
                    Terran ghost 24 February 2021 13: 58
                    0
                    Serfdom at the time best suited the development of society, not the slavery that existed in the United States

                    In half of the territory of the United States (and in which about half of the population of the same United States lived), there was no slavery at all.
                    Besides, how do you understand then what is the difference between slavery and serfdom? Especially in the case of the same "month" or "possessory peasants" who worked in factories?
                    This is a primitive lie and can be easily refuted.

                    Well, let's read your "refutation"
                    Quote: "Since the time of Elizaveta Petrovna, noblemen received the right to punish serfs by exiling them to Siberia, and this was a widespread practice. In 1827-1846, landowners exiled almost four thousand people to Siberia. Those exiled were counted as recruits, that is, the landowner was free "His possessions from those he did not like, and yet nothing to lose."
                    that is, SUDDENLY, the landowner had, since 1765, had the right to send a serf who did not like him to hard labor simply according to his wish. For this, a serf did not have to commit a crime punishable by hard labor in accordance with state law. Oops. So this is exactly what I said.
                    Where have you heard of slave owners being punished in other countries?

                    In fact, formally punishments for cruel treatment of slaves existed, and from the time of the Roman Empire to the same USA in the 1850s. The question is how often these laws were applied in practice, when there were facts of their violation by the slave owners.
                    The state punished landlords for abuse of power and peasants for disobedience on approximately the same scale - in 1834-1845, 0,13% of the peasants and 0,13% of the landowners of the total number of both in the country were convicted throughout Russia.

                    There is just one "little nuance". These are the penalties imposed by the state court. While the landowner had the right to punish his serfs with rods / lashes for disobeying his orders independently, without any trial. And the facts of the use of such punishments "did not go into statistics."
                    In practice, the requirements, for example, of the same "Manifesto on the Three-Day Corvee" of 1797, which were later repeated in the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, were actually ignored by landowners quite often. And they never punished SUDDENLY for this.
                    What kept such "slaves" in the army

                    I will repeat myself. The recruit was no longer considered a serf. Moreover, after 25 years of service, he became free. His wife and children also received freedom.
                    In addition, it should be noted that the risks and hardships of military service were typical for most of the then European armies. That is, for a soldier of the army of Prussia or Great Britain, they were also available.
                    Equally, there were punishments for desertion and motivation to continue serving on the part of patriotic convictions (they were encouraged by the command everywhere and always, for obvious reasons) and religious norms (an oath of loyalty when entering the service).
                    Where could he get funds for this?

                    Buying food at the expense of some part of the income received from the sale of the products of the manufactory, on which the persecution peasants worked. SUDDENLY, yes.
                    You seem to have a vague idea of ​​what was the economic basis for the existence of the Russian Empire at that time.

                    I will repeat myself. In fact, the use of free (slave) labor of the possession peasants led in the late 18th - early 19th century the industry of the Russian Empire to a complete disaster. It (the industry) simply collapsed.
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 24 February 2021 19: 14
                      0
                      Quote: Terran Ghost
                      that is, SUDDENLY, the landowner had, since 1765, had the right to send a serf who did not like him to hard labor simply according to his wish.

                      Why do you think that all serfs were saints and did not commit offenses or crimes that could not go unpunished?
                      Quote: Terran Ghost
                      While the landowner had the right to punish his serfs with rods / lashes for disobeying his orders independently, without any trial.

                      The peasant got drunk and burned half the village - what to do with lynching?
                      Quote: Terran Ghost
                      I will repeat myself. The recruit was no longer considered a serf. Moreover, after 25 years of service, he became free.

                      Of course, he did not count - he could be punished even more severely in the army for his misdeeds, and he was forced to go under bullets. He had even more chances of suffering, but for some reason there was no mass desertion. And the presence of weapons in his general would put the nobles in a difficult situation, because those who, according to you, were a slave could shoot him in the back.
                      Quote: Terran Ghost
                      ... In fact, the use of free (slave) labor of the possession peasants led in the late 18th - early 19th century the industry of the Russian Empire to a complete disaster. It (the industry) simply collapsed.

                      First, free labor represented only a fraction of the serf's working time.
                      Secondly, there was no industrial disaster at the beginning of the 19th century, but there were severe wars in Europe and the invasion of Napoleon. There were no deductions to the development fund, as the political economy of Marxism teaches, this served to restrain the growth of industry. I do not see any other reasons, especially since the personality of the monarch also played an important role.
    3. Pravodel
      Pravodel 18 February 2021 07: 03
      +5
      "The Englishwoman crap"

      Not just crap, but constantly, disgusting and dirty everywhere crap Russia. For the Englishwoman, Russia is the main enemy and the source of all the troubles of the Englishwoman. The destruction of Russia is the main goal of the Englishwoman.
      In addition to the political assassinations of Russian sovereigns, add here the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Persia, Griboyedov, who was also backed by the British, all the Russian-Turkish wars, which were also backed by the British, the Russo-Japanese war at the beginning of the 40th century, which was also supported by the British. Then Basmachi until the beginning of the 50s. Then, until the beginning of the XNUMXs, the green brothers in the Ukraine and the Baltic states, here the British acted together with their brothers, the Anglo-Saxons - the United States. The list goes on.
      In drawing Turkey into the war in the Caucasus with Russia, you also need to look for the trail of the Englishwoman, who is now crap even here.
      1. skullcap
        skullcap 18 February 2021 22: 00
        0
        Quote: The Truth
        In addition to the political assassinations of Russian sovereigns, add here the assassination of the Russian Ambassador to Persia Griboyedov

        I would remind you of another incredible coincidence.
        During the Seven Years War, the Russian army defeated the Prussians. One could celebrate the victory of Russia, Austria and France over Prussia and England.
        But then, somehow suspiciously very timely, the Russian Empress Elizabeth died, and her successor Peter 3 went over to Frederick's side. As a result, Russia did not receive anything, and England - the French colonies in North America, as a result of which this America now speaks English.
        I will not argue with those who believe that this is really a lucky accident for the British, I personally do not believe in such accidents.
        1. Pravodel
          Pravodel 19 February 2021 07: 56
          +1
          I will not argue with those who believe that this is really a lucky accident for the British, I personally do not believe in such accidents

          You are absolutely right! There are no accidents in history. In every chance it is necessary to look for a regularity or what leads to this accident. Even if suddenly at the reception the English queen has done herself, then in this accident you need to look for a reason.
          As Woland said, a brick does not accidentally fall on the head.
    4. Bar1
      Bar1 18 February 2021 08: 38
      +3
      all such superficially flat analyzes do not give any idea what was hidden behind these seven European wars, but if you call a spade a spade, then everything will fall into place. What was England like? This is a country under control
      -German Saxe-Kobur-Gotha dynasty.
      Who are the Romanovs? it
      -Germans Goldstein -Gottorp.
      -Austro-Hungary -Germans Habsburgs.
      -Romania -Hogenzeulern-Sigmaringen.
      -Bulgaria-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty.
      -Greece -Glucksburgs.
      -Spain-Habsburgs
      -France - mostly Germanic roots of the rulers.
      Perhaps only the Sovereign-King of Yugoslavia was not a German but a Slav-Karageorgievich, for this that in the 1st century. that in 2m.v. the Yugoslavs suffered the most from the war.
      So in the 18th century, all large countries are rulers of the Germans, and since the 19th century, in general, all countries are under German rule.
      It would seem, why would the Germans constantly fight the Germans, what are the reasons, say, the Napoleonic wars, when ALL countries under German rule Russia, England, Austria, Prussia-Germany attacked one non-German king Napoleon and crushed him. Germans / Europe united to defeat other rulers in Russia, not Germans? Say the Tartar khans? This is more like the truth.
      Then comes a series of European wars, when countries under German rule are at war with countries also under German rule. The Germans pitted peoples and destroyed the peoples of Europe, mainly the white race.
      An indicative war between China / ichthuans and the rest of the world in 1900, when ALL the strongest countries of the world suddenly fell on the "weakly backward" state of China. This suggests one thing that the rest of the world was not at war with weak China, but with a strong Tartar state.
  2. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 18 February 2021 05: 05
    +4
    You might think France and Prussia would have been angels in those days ... The same jackals as England, they were not averse to snatching a piece of territory fatter for themselves, including from the Russian Empire.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 18 February 2021 08: 17
      -1
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      You might think France and Prussia would have been angels in those days ... The same jackals as England, they were not averse to snatching a piece of territory fatter for themselves, including from the Russian Empire.

      I dare to add, EVERYONE was not averse to something from someone for snatching.

      It's just that someone had the strength and the means for this, while someone was powerless to blame the "injustice". But as soon as any strength appeared, instantly they forgot about justice ...

      А objectively the most terrible enemy of Russia turned out to be UNITED Germany: with its appearance, Russia suffered many, many tens of millions of lives.

      И spit it was Germany to "incite" England, she MOST needed huge resources and territory of Russia.

      She is dangerous today. And the stupidest were the decisions of the traitors marked and EBN-about the unification of Germany and the withdrawal of troops.
      1. Pravodel
        Pravodel 19 February 2021 08: 06
        0
        objectively the worst enemy of Russia was UNITED Germany

        It’s hard not to agree with this. Indeed, Russia suffered the heaviest losses precisely in the war with Germany, and the unification of Germany marked, God marks a rogue, is a betrayal of Russia, then the USSR.
        But here the matter is somewhat different. The unification of Germany took place in the second half of the XNUMXth century, after which Germany began to pose a threat to Russia, but this was from the end of the XNUMXth century. But the Englishwoman shit and shit until the XNUMXth century, and shit very badly. That's what the article is about.
    2. smaug78
      smaug78 18 February 2021 08: 52
      -6
      You might think France and Prussia would have been angels in those days ... The same jackals as England, they were not averse to snatching a piece of territory fatter for themselves, including from the Russian Empire.
      Will you please with examples and links?
  3. Destiny
    Destiny 18 February 2021 05: 31
    +5
    The Russian army entered Paris. Napoleon was sent into exile, but who appropriated almost all the fruits of the victory?
    England
    And then and then it continued to do so. What is typical, on the eve of both the First and Second World War, Britain had tense, on the verge of a military conflict, relations with Russia. But she always fought with us in one coalition, solving its geopolitical problems at the expense of Russia and Russian hands.
  4. napalm
    napalm 18 February 2021 05: 34
    +7
    Why was Griboyedov not mentioned?
    1. Richard
      Richard 18 February 2021 19: 57
      +4
      The British tried to kill Lenin too. The plot was initiated by the head of the British diplomatic mission, Bruce Lockhart. The British established contact with Jan Buikis and Jan Sprogis, who, on their instructions, recruited Eduard Berzin, who introduced himself as the commander of the red Latvian riflemen guarding the Kremlin. For 6 million rubles, Berzin agreed to carry out the task of British intelligence: to raise the Latvian riflemen to a riot, capture the Kremlin, kill Lenin and Trotsky, and then go to Vologda to join up with the British troops that had landed in Arkhangelsk. It was also supposed to blow up the bridge across the Volkhov in order to stop the supply of food and cause famine in Petrograd.
      Lockhart did not even suspect that all three Latvians were actually Chekists, and even paid an advance of 1,2 million rubles. On August 31, 1918, he was arrested in Moscow, and in Petrograd, naval attaché Francis Cromie, trying to give his colleagues time to destroy documents, opened fire from a pistol at the Chekists who entered the embassy. Kromie was killed by return fire, and Lockhart was later exchanged for Soviet representative Maxim Litvinov, who was arrested in London.
      The British authorities have for many years denied organizing this assassination attempt. It wasn't until 2011 that Bruce Lockhart's letters were found in the archives asking for funding for the conspiracy. He also found his note to Lord Curzon, where he writes: "According to the plan - with the intervention of the Entente - the Bolshevik barons will be killed and a military dictatorship formed." In addition, Professor Robert Service discovered letters from Bruce Lockhart's son, Robin, in which he tells what his father told him about the preparation of the murder of Lenin.
  5. parusnik
    parusnik 18 February 2021 06: 13
    -1
    The article does not mention the "fifth column", which is a pity. laughing
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 18 February 2021 06: 53
      -2
      Quote: parusnik
      The article does not mention the "fifth column", which is a pity. laughing

      Yes, and on the site, the minus player "crap" on the small, quietly, for the beloved, "cultural and civilized" England, offended. V. Shpakovsky to help him.
  6. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 18 February 2021 06: 49
    -1
    And behind the famous murders directed against Russia (such as the murder of Tsar Paul I and Nicholas II, Grigory Rasputin).
    And the "not famous" Ivan the Terrible, Boris Godunov, but the tsarevich ........ recourse

    The fact is that Britain claimed to be dominant in the world.
    And now it claims. angry
  7. Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 18 February 2021 07: 19
    +3
    "England has no eternal allies and permanent enemies - her interests are eternal and constant." From a speech in the English House of Commons (March 1, 1858) by the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister (1855-1858; 1859-1865) of Great Britain, Viscount Henry John Temple Palmerapon (1784-1865). He delivered this speech during a parliamentary debate on British foreign policy.
  8. Undecim
    Undecim 18 February 2021 08: 34
    +4
    ... Britain was behind almost all wars, conflicts, uprisings, revolutions. And behind the famous murders directed against Russia (such as the murder of Tsar Paul I and Nicholas II, Grigory Rasputin).
    A natural question arises, which for some reason is diligently bypassed by "historians" like Samsonov and the violent audience to which his throws are designed - and what prevented Russia from responding to Britain with the same coin? What was lacking in order to adequately respond to the main enemy and discourage "crap"?
    It turns out that Britain "exposed" Russia for centuries, while Russia has meekly "exposed" for centuries? What is the reason for this situation, "historian" Samsonov?
    1. ximkim
      ximkim 18 February 2021 08: 42
      +2
      It's probably about the money. The kings kept gold in England. (Which the communists could not return). You can't go against a wallet ..
    2. smaug78
      smaug78 18 February 2021 08: 51
      +3
      What is the reason for this situation, "historian" Samsonov?
      inferiority complex of the Samsonovs and others, as well as the desire to find someone to blame for their own problems laughing It's like now - the West and the liberals are to blame for everything. hi
    3. Bar1
      Bar1 18 February 2021 08: 55
      +2
      Quote: Undecim
      and what prevented Russia from responding to Britain with the same coin?


      Yes, because a German cannot eat his eyes. The Romanovs-Germans together with the Saxe-Coburgs by the Germans exterminated the Russian people and other white / Slavic peoples around the world.
      1. vladcub
        vladcub 18 February 2021 18: 06
        0
        "destroyed the Russian people and the rest of the whites" are not all Slavs - blacks?
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 18 February 2021 19: 02
          +1
          Quote: vladcub
          "destroyed the Russian people and the rest of the whites" are not all Slavs - blacks?


          I believe that many peoples (Germans, Danes, Swedes, Poles, Indians, Ainu) and many others descended from the Russians.
    4. Pane Kohanku
      Pane Kohanku 18 February 2021 10: 07
      +1
      What is the reason for this situation, "historian" Samsonov?

      It seems that we had to create not just an empire, but a super-super-empire. Interestingly, would you digest?
      They could reach the southern seas, gain a foothold in Persia and India. Completely solve the Caucasian problem. Get Constantinople, the Strait Zone, making the Black Sea, as of old - Russian. Restore the Christian and Slavic powers in the Balkans, taking them under our wing. To direct forces and resources to strengthen the Far East and Russian America.

      In short, great-power nonsense, but the "patriots of Hyperborea" will be glad.
      And here is a gross mistake!
      In particular, Whitworth was the lover of Olga Alexandrovna Zherebtsova, the sister of Platon Zubov. It was Zubov who was the direct murderer of the sovereign, having pierced his head with a gold snuffbox.

      The blow with the snuffbox was struck not by Plato, but by Nikolai Zubov. stop Plato then kicked and strangled the already lying king.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 18 February 2021 12: 11
        +6
        The trouble is that all this "exposed" crowd, both "writers" and their "adepts", categorically do not want to study the cultural heritage of the country in which they live and where they are like "turbopatriots".
        Several quotes from the distant XNUMXth century.
        Famous Russian publicist Nikolai Vasilievich Shelgunov in "Sketches of Russian Life".

        "Undoubtedly, somebody crap at us, now a German, now a Pole, now a Jew. It really would be time to end with such infancy and schoolchildren, perhaps our affairs would go better."
        Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky: “Everything is a Frenchman crap. It seems French, and maybe an Englishman.
        But this, perhaps, does not matter, because absolutely everyone crap for us, except ourselves, of course. By ourselves, we are so pure, so pure - "purer than the snow of the alpine peaks"; pure and, moreover, humble, complacent, although formidable to enemies. It is even difficult to understand why, under such completely unfavorable conditions, everyone still crap: they do not value our purity, they are not afraid of thunderstorms ... "
        So Samsonov has a lot of work to do. Just change the name of the country in the title, and then - as a carbon copy - how everyone crap and expose.
        1. Pane Kohanku
          Pane Kohanku 18 February 2021 12: 32
          +3
          So Samsonov has a lot of work to do. Just change the name of the country in the title, and then - as a carbon copy - how everyone crap and expose.

          Crying Yaroslavna? An endless theme for attendants on a bench or "pique vests". The classics say everything about such a discussion. Just now on our forum it will be carried out with special obstinacy ... And the most "patriots" will also be rude! For some reason, they are always rude ... negative
          - Read about the conference on disarmament? - addressed one pique vest to another pique vest. - Speech by Count Bernstorf.
          “Bernstorf is the head!” - asked vest answered in such a tone as if he was convinced on the basis of many years of familiarity with the graph. “Have you read what speech Snowden made at a meeting of voters in Birmingham, this stronghold of conservatives?”
          - Well, what to say ... Snowden is a head! Listen, Valiadis, - he turned to the third old man in Panama. - What do you say about Snowden?
          “I will tell you frankly,” replied Panama, “Don't put your finger in my mouth.” I personally would not put my finger.
          And, in no way embarrassed that Snowden would not have allowed Valiadis to put a finger into his mouth for anything, the old man continued:
          - But whatever you say, I will tell you frankly - Chamberlain is also the head.
          Pique vests lifted shoulders. They did not deny that Chamberlain was also a head. But most of all, Briand consoled them.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 18 February 2021 13: 07
            0
            "Subjected" fiercely minus! Apparently "exposed" places itch, do not give rest.
            1. Pane Kohanku
              Pane Kohanku 18 February 2021 13: 09
              +4
              "Subjected" fiercely minus! Apparently "exposed" places itch, do not give rest.

              With such "patriots" and enemies are not necessary. Unfortunately.
        2. Bar1
          Bar1 18 February 2021 13: 16
          +1
          Quote: Undecim
          Famous Russian publicist Nikolai Vasilievich Shelgunov in "Sketches of Russian Life".


          very similar to the current historian Panasenkov, this one also says that: "Europe is before, and Russia is the back."
          But as a rule, such "scientists" are always paid for, on the maintenance of the owners of palaces on the Black Sea, and the main technique in dealing with sources: "... I see this, and we will withdraw this from circulation"
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 18 February 2021 13: 23
            -1
            This is called "looking in the book - we see a fig". Where is there about the front and back? It is about the fact that the cause of one's own problems must be sought in oneself.
            1. Bar1
              Bar1 18 February 2021 13: 33
              +3
              Quote: Undecim
              This is called "looking in the book - we see a fig". Where is there about the front and back? It is about the fact that the cause of one's own problems must be sought in oneself.


              I did not read the book, I looked at Wikipedia and there is this:
              In 1849 he was sent to the Simbirsk province to arrange a forest dacha and was left at the provincial administration of state lands, located in Samara. Shelgunov met here with P.P. Pekarsky. In Samara, Shelgunov attended evenings, played in amateur concerts on the violin and cornet, even conducted an amateur orchestra and wrote light musical pieces (he inherited a passion for music from his father). At the same time, he worked on his great work on the history of Russian forest legislation. For this work, he received an award - a diamond ring and an award from the Ministry of State Property. In 1850 he married his cousin Lyudmila Petrovna Michaelis, who lived with the publisher of "Son of the Fatherland" KP Masalsky.


              those. the guy was not from our circle, but close to the body. Therefore, he looked at life not with his own eyes, but with strangers.

              This article says that the Angles harmed Russia / Russia and this is so. And you say that they did not harm, but harmed themselves, but this is not so, it is enough to look at the number of non-Russian academician historians from Peter to the middle of the 19th century and it will become it is clear that we / the Russians could not even harm ourselves, because there was no possibility, everything was offended by non-Russians.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 18 February 2021 13: 40
                0
                I haven't read the book
                That was enough, the rest could not be written.
                1. Bar1
                  Bar1 18 February 2021 14: 33
                  0
                  Quote: Undecim
                  I haven't read the book
                  That was enough, the rest could not be written.


                  like Bulgakov:
                  - Have you read my poems?
                  -What does it matter if I haven't read others?
    5. vladcub
      vladcub 18 February 2021 18: 20
      +1
      "what prevented Russia from responding to Britain with the same coin?" So in Russia the ruling dynasty was: the Romanovs, and if the "Samsonovs" then Russia would rule the world. And the Romanovs they are some kind of malachol, obviously degenerated, the Tolya case "Samsonov-Kharluzhny" are superpatriots and they are not threatened with degeneration
  9. smaug78
    smaug78 18 February 2021 08: 48
    0
    England has been Russia's worst enemy over the past 300 years.
    The author is immediately clear as the meaning and message of the article laughing
  10. BAI
    BAI 18 February 2021 10: 22
    +1
    1.
    Assassination of Emperor Paul I. French engraving

    Where is the snuffbox?
    2. If we are to refer to history, speaking about the sabotage of England, then we must at least be guided by some documents.
    For example, a letter from the British ambassador to the Russian Foreign Minister in 1915:
    Sir E. Gray hopes that Mr. Sazonov gives himself
    the report is that the government of the e. Vel-va does not have the ability
    give more proof of friendship than that which is given
    content of the aforementioned aide memo. This document
    testifies to a complete revolution in traditional politics
    government of E. Vel-va and is in direct conflict with
    views and feelings, at one time completely dominated in
    England and not yet extinct
    .

    They openly admit that they have been sabotaging for centuries.
    The "memo" dealt with the benefits of Russia based on the results of WWI.
    By the way, the archives of the British Foreign Office relating to the relationship with Emperor Paul are still classified.
  11. hermit
    hermit 18 February 2021 10: 42
    +5
    Well, let's bang Baba Lisa. So that it doesn't hurt.
    1. Pane Kohanku
      Pane Kohanku 18 February 2021 13: 03
      +6
      Well, let's bang Baba Lisa. So that it doesn't hurt.

      Baba Liza will outlive us. For some reason it seems to me ... lol
  12. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 18 February 2021 11: 05
    0
    For all the Russian-Turkish wars of the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries. you can see the British footprint.

    The British footprint is especially visible on the First Archipelago Expedition, which only reached Mediterranean with British aid. smile
    1. andrew42
      andrew42 April 19 2021 18: 33
      0
      Digging through episodes should not discard conceptual confrontation. the Americans over there literally yesterday through Ulyanovsk to Afghanistan transported cargoes by air, and on our RD-shkakh they were scalded into space, so what? - Allies? At that moment, the English were profitable, so they went to the Archipelago, and eventually worked for Britain. Has Russia gained many benefits? - Well, the Turks were cleaned up, the French were moved, the British influence on the Porto was strengthened, so who got the geopolitical benefit from the results? - Britain. And more than once. The berries are ripe for the Crimean War. Gentlemen they are, they plan in many ways and at a good time depth. Business!
  13. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 18 February 2021 12: 16
    +3
    smile For some reason, the Russian sovereigns were killed, their own, and not sent "English" terrorists.
  14. smaug78
    smaug78 18 February 2021 12: 19
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    Although anyone knows the history, they remember that even in Germany there were Russian villages where our compatriots lived.

    Interestingly, the tradition of sending Russian soldiers to the Prussian Guard was revived by 1813. It was then that the joint struggle with Napoleon brought Alexander the First and King Friedrich-Wilhelm closer together. The Russian tsar sent a choir of military musicians and singers "as a sign of friendship" with the Prussians, who were to perform Russian and Prussian military marches and songs at parades. For the Russians, they even built a special village in Potsdam, which survived until the end of the 19th century.
    But do you continue or do you want Merkel to give you?
  15. iouris
    iouris 18 February 2021 12: 42
    +3
    "... Autocratic Villain! You, your throne, I hate
    I see your death, the death of children, with cruel joy ... "
    It's not me!!
    Guess the author
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 18 February 2021 13: 45
      +7
      A question for schoolchildren.
      The author is Pushkin, and the "autocratic villain" is Napoleon. The ode "Liberty" was held at school. Earlier - in the 9th grade, now - I don't know, maybe they don't teach at all. Perhaps that is why the ignorant believe that Pushkin wrote about the tsar.
  16. vladcub
    vladcub 18 February 2021 17: 53
    +3
    Knocking Russia off the shores of the Baltic Sea "comrades, I always believed that Peter 1" broke through "a window to Europe", because before Peter, Russia had no access to the Baltic Sea. It turns out that Russia controlled the shores of the Baltic Sea!
    Live and learn?
    Lenin and the Bolsheviks were called: "German spies", and now: "the murder of Tsar Paul 1 and Nikolai 2, Grigory Rasputin." In fact, Rasputin was liquidated by the monarchists led by Purshkevich, and now it turns out that the British killed Rasputin and sat in the Yekaterinburg Revolutionary Committee
  17. Rakovor
    Rakovor 18 February 2021 19: 24
    -3
    Lord, how long it is already possible to procrastinate this topic about the evil and insidious "naglichan" who constantly do nothing but "crap" white and fluffy Russia.
    1. iouris
      iouris 19 February 2021 11: 35
      0
      looking from London?
      Yes! We are white and fluffy.
  18. Terran ghost
    Terran ghost 19 February 2021 11: 11
    0
    And behind the famous murders directed against Russia (such as the murder of Tsar Paul I and Nicholas II, Grigory Rasputin).

    That is, as I understand it, in your opinion, dear author, the RSDLP (b) headed by Comrade. Lenin acted in the interests of Great Britain?
    And it was also Great Britain that apparently tried to save the authority of the Russian monarchy from the harm that the activities of Grigory Rasputin caused him. In those days, he was widely known throughout the Russian Empire for the outstanding immorality of his behavior.
    England has been Russia's worst enemy over the past 300 years.

    Enchanting delirium. Or rather, a blatant lie. Because against such a theory - a bunch of wars in which Russia and Great Britain were allies, active trade relations between the two countries, the fact that Great Britain was one of the largest investors in the economy of the Russian Empire.
    =
    But the essence of such statements is different. In the next attacks on the fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen from the admirer of "autocracy and the whip", which, as I assume, is the author of this article.
    That's just, there is one little detail. Those who deny human rights always deny them for others. If they turn around so that they themselves are "pressed by their personal tail", "completely different songs" begin ...
  19. Alexander Morozov
    Alexander Morozov 19 February 2021 17: 55
    0
    Situational enemy situational ally, the British Empire has no enemies and allies, but rather had permanent interests. But England was never the most terrible enemy, she did not seek not to destroy our state, and not to destroy our people. And so the expression "Englishwoman crap" is consistent with what they were doing.
  20. Nikon OConor
    Nikon OConor 19 February 2021 21: 40
    +2
    Both powers could live in peace. And, if not in agreement and cooperation, then at least not noticing each other.

    Could not. Since the time of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, the Russian-English company acquired a monopoly on the purchase of Russian goods. As a result, Russian merchants (and therefore producers) suffered huge losses. Blubber, honey, furs, tar, hemp, etc. were bought at meager prices (up to 10 times cheaper). Consequently, the impoverishment of the producer and the domestic merchant.

    And behind the famous murders directed against Russia (such as the murder of Tsar Paul I and Nicholas II, Grigory Rasputin).

    the charlatan has now been equated with the Emperors? The author is not in the subject or a mistake?
    For all the Russian-Turkish wars of the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries. you can see the British footprint.

    The most ardent and loyal ally of the Ottoman Empire (and not Turkey) was at that time France, and England and France were then irreconcilable enemies.
    In general, comrades, I did not read the article further, the author is clearly not in the subject. With propaganda, we already know where to get enough.
  21. Pavel57
    Pavel57 20 February 2021 11: 21
    -1
    Paul's mistake is that he did not clean up the English party.
  22. Growlers
    Growlers 20 February 2021 13: 09
    +1
    There is nothing in politics that would not have existed before. All these "bulk" and other adult uncles and aunts from "rains", "jellyfish" and other "fountains" are the same killers, only not the emperors but the Russian state. Only some realize themselves as such, others do not. Some understand that they are, in fact, "Judas thirty-silver" in the hands of foreign states, other silly fools are convinced of their own exclusiveness.
  23. ivan2022
    ivan2022 21 February 2021 12: 34
    0
    Showdown between the Holstein-Gottorp Oldenburg from Russia and the British Hanover, Saxe-Coburg-Gothic dynasty-
    that's what we call "the murder of Russian sovereigns."
    Pathetic attempt to puff out cheeks.
    The "Russian sovereign" Alexander I at one time in the most shameful way deprived Russia of the fruits of the victory over Napoleon. The "Russian Tsar" Peter III led Russia to the collapse of politics in Europe after the even more abominable outcome of the Seven Years War. "Russian Empress" Catherine II finally enslaved the peasants and quartered Pugachev. The "Russian sovereign" Alexander III, after pompous words about "Russia's lack of allies, except for the army and navy" - entered into a military alliance with France, which was then joined by the same "friend" - England. So to speak - "laid the foundations of the Entente." "Russian sovereign" Nikolashka in the 1th century profiled everything!
  24. andrew42
    andrew42 April 19 2021 18: 13
    0
    It's simple. Unequal fight. While many continental sovereigns groaned about some kind of knightly codes of honor, about the weight of this word, the English Judeocrats have long been reckless in politics with the help of "donkeys laden with gold" to the addresses of the right people, and even more, with the help of banal terrorist actions ... Of all the European sovereigns, perhaps only Napoleon, as a former republican and "revolutionary", understood what kind of British "fraternity" he was dealing with - with professional sharpshooters and gesheftmakers, covered with wigs of lords, with a breeding ground for treachery, omnivorousness and lack of principle. All modern so-called "world government" - it is conceptually originally from London.
  25. andrew42
    andrew42 April 19 2021 18: 22
    0
    The author also forgot to link the story with the strange death of General Skobelev, whom British agents of influence urged to rage against Germany, and then liquidated him as soon as he jumped off the hook, reconciling with the tsar. (It was unrealistic to get to Alexander III himself through zaslanets in elite circles). For that Nikolashka was then divorced in full.