Military Review

Why Alexander I did not want to solve the "Polish question"

80
Why Alexander I did not want to solve the "Polish question"

In this article I will try to prove that Napoleon I in no way wanted the restoration of the Commonwealth, but, on the contrary, tried in every possible way to solve the "Polish question" with Russia, but Alexander I, apparently, did not want this and tried to use it as justifying the next offensive war against France.


Was the restoration of Poland part of Napoleon's plans?


With the creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw in 1807, the opinion of high society about France deteriorated significantly. The nobles were extremely afraid of the restoration of the Commonwealth. First of all, they were afraid for their own pocket.

Orenburg landowner M.V. Verigin wrote:

“The new constitution of the Duchy of Warsaw says that no one has the right to own serfs.

And with one stroke of the pen, the nobles are almost deprived of their property.

One can fear that this epidemic will spread in our country as well.

This will be a terrible blow to Russia. "

Indeed, the Russian landowners have greatly enriched themselves at the expense of the partition of Poland. Only in the territories of the Belarusian provinces for 1772-1800. 208505 “showers” ​​were distributed to their property.

Among these landowners we see such noble and popular families as the Kutuzovs, Rumyantsevs, Repnins, Suvorovs, etc. Obviously, the possibility of Napoleon's restoration of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth terrified most of the nobility.

But did Napoleon really want this?

We must understand that in this case Bonaparte would forever quarrel with Russia, Austria and Prussia - participants in the sections of 1772, 1793 and 1795. This was clearly not part of the plans of the French emperor.

Napoleon never directly announced to the Poles his intention to revive their homeland. He never said this to his closest people. Most likely, he only used the Poles as a human resource, inspiring them in every possible way, but at the same time without taking on any obligations.


Map of the Duchy of Warsaw after the Peace of Schönbrunn

Problems around the convention


Bonaparte was well aware of the danger posed by inaction in relation to the "Polish question".

On October 21, 1809, a note was handed to the French ambassador in St. Petersburg, which required the conclusion of a special convention on this issue.

Also, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France sent a letter to St. Petersburg, in which it was said that the Emperor of the French

"Not only does he not want to discover the idea of ​​the restoration of Poland, which is so far from its forms, but is ready to assist Emperor Alexander in all those measures that could forever destroy any memory of her."

Alexander's terms were relatively acceptable. He demanded that the question of the restoration of Poland should never arise, the abolition of the words "Poland" and "Poles" from all state documents, the abolition of Polish orders and the consideration of the annexed part of Galicia to the Duchy of Warsaw as a province of the Saxon king.

On December 23, 1809, the convention was signed, after which it was sent to Paris for ratification. It would seem that the problem has been resolved.

I leave to the reader the main points of this convention:

"Art. 1: The Kingdom of Poland will never be restored.

Art. 2: The High Contracting Parties undertake to ensure that the words "Poland" and "Poles" are never used in relation to any part of this former kingdom, nor in relation to its inhabitants, nor in relation to its troops. They must disappear forever from all official or public acts, of whatever kind.

Art. 3: Awards belonging to the former Polish kingdom are abolished and will never be restored ...

Art. 5: It is established as the most important, unchanging principle that the Duchy of Warsaw has no right to receive any territorial expansion at the expense of lands that once belonged to the Kingdom of Poland. "

Napoleon never imagined that the convention would be drawn up so insulting to his honor and the Poles themselves. He agreed with all the points, but their wording raised questions. Moreover, the convention would oblige the emperor of the French to take on unnecessary obligations in the event of a desire to restore the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by any third country.

Napoleon stated:

“It would be unreasonable and incompatible with my honor to make an irrevocable and all-encompassing commitment that the Kingdom of Poland will never be restored.

If the Poles, taking advantage of favorable circumstances, rise up as one and oppose Russia, then I will need to use all my strength to pacify them - is that right?

If they find themselves allies in this matter, then will I need to use my strength to fight these allies?

It means demanding from me the impossible, dishonorable and, moreover, completely independent of my will.

I can argue that no assistance, either directly or indirectly, will be rendered by me to any attempt to rebuild Poland, but nothing more.

As for the destruction of the words "Poland" and "Poles", this is something that is hardly worthy of civilized people, and I by no means can go for it. In diplomatic acts, I still may not use these words, but I am not in a position to eradicate them from the use of the nation.

As for the abolition of the old orders, this can be allowed only after the death of their current owners and the presentation of new awards.

Finally, with regard to the future territorial expansion of the Duchy of Warsaw, it is possible to prohibit this only on the basis of reciprocity and on the condition that Russia undertakes to never annex to its territory a piece that has been torn away from the old Polish provinces.

With these words I can still agree with the convention, but I cannot admit any others. "

It would seem that Napoleon's remarks are quite fair. He drew up a response draft, the points of which were presented in milder terms, but the meaning of this did not change. For example, the first item now looked like this:

"His Majesty the Emperor of the French undertakes not to support any restoration of the Kingdom of Poland, not to give any assistance to any state that would have such intentions, not to give any assistance, either direct or indirect, to any rebellion or indignation of the provinces that made up this kingdom."

Subsequent paragraphs were also slightly changed, but in general the meaning remained the same. Napoleon's editorial staff was in the interests of both Russia and France. Both powers would be pleased.

But this option was rejected by the Russian side.

Alexander, apparently wishing that the project was rejected again, sent a new version of the contract. It contained absolutely the same articles as in the convention signed in December 1809, which were inadmissible. The Russian emperor modified the first article as follows:

“His Majesty the Emperor of the French, the King of Italy, in order to provide his ally and all of Europe with evidence of his desire to take away from the enemies of peace on the continent any hope of destroying it, is obliged in the same way as His Majesty, the Emperor of All Russia, that the Kingdom of Poland will never will not be restored. "

And again this "Polish kingdom will never be restored"! Alexander was well aware that such a formulation could not be accepted by the French side.

Then why, contrary to the interests of his country (after all, Napoleon's edition was quite suitable for both powers, and even the Russian ambassador to France Kurakin admitted that he could not understand the difference between the condition that Poland would never be restored, and the point about that they will never act directly or indirectly in order to restore it), did Alexander insist on his own version with manic persistence?


Formally, the ruler of the Duchy of Warsaw was the Saxon king Frederick Augustus I. Napoleon refused to appoint any of his brothers as a duke, as he understood that to plant one of his relatives on the Vistula would mean officially placing France there, therefore, to install it on the borders of Russia and create an opportunity clashes between two states.

To clarify this, it is necessary to conduct a short excursion into Russian-French relations under Alexander I.

Synchronous sources prove that the Russian emperor has been forming a new coalition against France since 1803. At the same time, our country did not have a single reason for confrontation, but on the contrary, Napoleon did everything to make friends with us. The explanation for this can only be found in Alexander's personal envy of Bonaparte. The defeat at Friedland and several other reasons forced the Russian emperor to conclude peace with Napoleon.

But the truly Russian tsar did not want to put up with the emperor of the French. Back in Tilsit, Alexander said to the Prussian king, his ally in the fight against France:

“Be patient.

We will take back everything we lost.

He will break his neck.

Despite all my demonstrations and external actions, in my heart I am your friend and I hope to prove it to you in practice. "

It is obvious that Alexander's envy of Napoleon did not disappear anywhere, and even probably intensified. Synchronous sources prove that from 1810 Russia will prepare a new, offensive war against the "Corsican monster" (the reader can learn more about Russian-French relations under Napoleon by going to my article "For whose interests did Russia fight against Napoleon?").

As stated at the beginning, the Russian nobility began to feel a clear antipathy towards France after the creation of the Duchy of Warsaw. So was it not profitable for Alexander, who had long ago decided to fight to the death with Napoleon, to use the anger of the Russian aristocracy?

Was it not profitable for him to feed the fears of the landlords in every possible way in order to justify the next war in their eyes?

The answers to these questions are obvious.

The Russian tsar tried to use the "Polish question" for his own selfish ends.

His plans simply did not include a solution to this problem.

He benefited from the anger of the landowners in order to further intrigue Napoleon.
Author:
Photos used:
en.wikipedia.org
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 26 February 2021 04: 43
    +1
    It is a pity that Poland was not crushed to the end then, you see, and World War II would not have happened because of its Russophobia. Thousands, tens of thousands of Poles participated in Napoleon's campaign
    against Russia ... this cannot be forgotten.
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 26 February 2021 05: 02
      +5
      These are the times! That the British were to blame, now the Poles are to blame for our troubles.
      1. Destiny
        Destiny 26 February 2021 05: 25
        +8
        And the author again is not guilty of the British or the confluence of many historical circumstances that led to the development of history in the form we know it today, but only and exclusively"Alexander's envy of Napoleon"This is already some similar article on this topic. Probably, Alexander I stepped on the foot of the respected author in the tram and did not ask for a pardon, this is something personal.
        1. Kronos
          Kronos 26 February 2021 22: 51
          +1
          Exactly, it was an ordinary imperialist confrontation, not a personal enmity.
      2. antivirus
        antivirus 26 February 2021 10: 37
        +4
        the sparrows are to blame for everything - the crops are pecking. and hunger and wasted labor because of them ..... historical science is like that. about the Ampirators and not skoko about other leaders and performers.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 February 2021 20: 02
          +4
          Quote: antivirus
          the sparrows are to blame for everything - they peck the crops. and hunger and wasted labor because of them ..

          Fellow antivirus makes it easy ... smile
          For, as is known from the classics, culprit of everything have regional division:
          ... goats in Belgium ate cabbage,
          Sparrows - rice in China from the fields,
          And in Australia, evil mongooses
          They exterminated the most useful snakes.
          © Vysotsky
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 February 2021 15: 14
        +5
        Quote: Free Wind
        These are the times! That the British were to blame, now the Poles are to blame for our troubles.

        Why is this now? It has long been known that little people in the Russian state are muddied by Poles, scubents and Vodokranopians. smile
      4. vladcub
        vladcub 26 February 2021 16: 13
        +1
        The author rented the "English" from the Samsonovs. This is their "Englishwoman constantly shits"
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 26 February 2021 06: 04
      +2
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      It is a pity that Poland was not crushed to the end then, you see, and World War II would not have happened because of its Russophobia. Thousands, tens of thousands of Poles participated in Napoleon's campaign
      against Russia ... this cannot be forgotten.

      Not a single nation and state was conquered by force. All had periods of occupation, but in the end the peoples sought freedom. Whether you like it or not, that's the Russian Empire ordered to live a long time and collapsed into independent states
      1. Lech from Android.
        Lech from Android. 26 February 2021 07: 10
        +2
        You tell this Donbass, Syria where the Americans shamelessly climbed, the US-occupied Iraq, the bombed-out Serbia. The United States has quietly occupied many states and the peoples cannot do anything against it.
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 February 2021 07: 52
          +5
          The Author's position is too extreme, I would even say one-sided. Not so simple.
          There were indecently many Poles around Alexander. By the way, not all of them saw Poland in their rosy dreams as a free and independent state "from May to May."
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 26 February 2021 10: 34
          +2
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          You tell this Donbass, Syria where the Americans shamelessly climbed, the US-occupied Iraq, the bombed-out Serbia. The United States has quietly occupied many states and the peoples cannot do anything against it.

          10 years is not a term. In Iraq, does the government consist of Americans? Syria has no troops, it does not lead, it is included in the USA? And then, what does Donbass have to do with it?
      2. antivirus
        antivirus 26 February 2021 21: 12
        -1
        on the Kolyma and Amur, it would be great to have founded eastern Polonia. it was only necessary to play them off with the Uighurs and Mongols, the Chinese and Dzhurgzheni would have approached.
      3. House 25 Sq. 380
        House 25 Sq. 380 April 9 2021 20: 29
        0
        It’s just interesting what the historical perspectives of the German people are ...
    3. wkat
      wkat 26 February 2021 11: 26
      +4
      Yeah, the jelly shores would be
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. vladcub
      vladcub 26 February 2021 15: 49
      +2
      "you look and there would not be 2 world thieves" to think: Adolf was satisfied only with Austria? Figo, there would be no Gleiwitz, he would have found another reason. He is not the kind of person to be content with little.
      Reread Krylov: "The Wolf and the Lamb"
  2. smaug78
    smaug78 26 February 2021 05: 41
    +12
    Another conspiracy theory with a touch of Samsonovism.
    Synchronous sources prove that from 1810 Russia will prepare a new, offensive war against the "Corsican monster"
    ... Alexander 1 and Barcalay de Tolly are very surprised.
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich 26 February 2021 07: 10
    +1
    In this article I I will try to provethat Napoleon I in no way wanted the restoration of the Commonwealth, but, on the contrary, tried in every possible way to solve the "Polish question" with Russia, but Alexander I, apparently, did not want this and tried to use it as an excuse for the next offensive war against France ...
    But did Napoleon really want this?

    We must understand that in this case Bonaparte would forever quarrel with Russia, Austria and Prussia - participants in the sections of 1772, 1793 and 1795. This was clearly not part of the plans of the French emperor.

    It didn't work out, alas.

    And he quarreled himself with them: WHO created on the lands belonging to Prussia and Austria the already disappeared Polish statehood, the Russophobic Duchy of Warsaw?

    WHO fought with Russia and Austria, if not the duchy he created?

    WHO fought fiercely for Napoleon to the end, including Leipzig and Waterloo?

    120 thousand Poles were in the Great Army of the invasion against Russia.

    So Alexander was absolutely right, not trusting Napoleon either.
    Obviously, the envy Alexandra did not go anywhere to Napoleon, and probably even intensified.

    Ridiculous and ridiculous argument to explain actions states and their leaders ..

    And by the way, why, in fact, envy? Endless wars for what is impossible to keep in principle?

    The author also forgot to mention the already sore mouth assertion that Alexander fought because of ... Napoleon's abuse of him in a letter.

    States have other incentives for action and resentment and envy are the last in their row.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 26 February 2021 07: 55
      -1
      I will support Olegovich!

      Quote: Olgovich
      120 thousand Poles were in the Great Army of the invasion against Russia.

      Including two marshals, born Poles!
    2. Monsieur bonapartiste
      26 February 2021 17: 01
      +2
      Firstly, the Duchy of Warsaw was originally created only on the lands of Prussia, which she took from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Austria really wanted revenge, but would she have gone to such a dangerous war with such a dangerous enemy when she knew that France's allied Russia was behind her? Only a very narrow-minded person can seriously think so. Russia had certain relations with Austria, this is confirmed by documents. The Austrian elite knew perfectly well that the Russian tsar would never seriously help Napoleon, and therefore decided to take revenge.

      The Poles took an active part in the war of 1809. Was it possible not to give them a single territory after that?

      Secondly, it was Alexander who spoiled relations with the duchy every year. As mentioned above, our army did not take an active part in the war against Austria. And who were our troops supposed to help? Poles!

      Jozef Poniatowski begged the commander of the army, Golitsyn, to come to the rescue. As always, I demonstrate documents that you cannot expect from the local "critics". On June 7, 1809, the Austrians had already stormed Sandomierz with might and main, Ponyatovsky wrote to Golitsyn: "The specified column (meaning the division of Prince Suvorov, which was closest to the Poles), instead of moving to Sandomierz through Zamosc, along the shortest path, where nothing interfered To her movements, where, on my orders, everything was prepared for her reception, she moved through Lublin and instead of speeding up the movement, which was already unhurried - only 2 miles a day, I added another detour of four marches and three days of rest.

      You, dear, can you explain this? Or is it not enough for you? Keep another document, this time from Golitsyn himself to Ponyatovsky: "I thank you for the information you gave me about the movement of your troops, and I hasten to inform you ... that I have to stay in my positions for some time in order to get accurate information from the cavalry detachment, which I sent in the direction of Lvov. " A very dubious excuse, actually. Golitsyn constantly had reasons for delays.

      Finally, I show you Poniatovsky's letter to Napoleon dated June 27: "Until now, there has not been a single skirmish between them (that is, our troops) and the enemy ... After the Russian generals exhausted all the pretexts that an evil will can think of, to explain their inaction, they demanded that every day they be provided with food for 100 thousand people ... Thus, despite the obligations undertaken by Prince Golitsyn, to cross the San on the 21st of this month with two Russian divisions, the river was crossed for many days later, after they made sure that the Austrians withdrew across the Vistula ... ".

      Now I want to tell you about the panic that existed in the Duchy of Warsaw in the aftermath, when Alexander began to prepare a new war against France. By the way, the Russian tsar really wanted to wage an offensive war, invading the duchy.

      We read a report from Khrubeshov dated August 27, 1811: "Letters received from Russia stir up talk of an impending war ... New troops (Russians) are expected to arrive everywhere in the vicinity, for which supplies are being prepared ..."

      General Roznetskiy's report from Ostrolenka dated August 31, 1811: "... News from the northern border of the omrzyna department confirms what has already been said many times: a large number of carts circulate between Prussia and Russia. They do not hide from anyone that it is about ammunition ".

      Luzhkovskaya customs report dated July 6, 1811: "Three officers from Dokhturov's division were examining the border along the Bug ... Russian residents and Cossacks assure that these officers came to choose a place for camps and that the Russian army will soon join the duchy."

      This is only a small part of the reports that exist. In addition, preparation for an offensive war is confirmed by the relevant documents from our side. I do not consider it expedient to demonstrate them here, as there will be articles on this score.

      And how could the Poles have a good attitude towards us after that? I don’t think so.
      1. House 25 Sq. 380
        House 25 Sq. 380 April 9 2021 20: 32
        0
        Who is interested in the reports of the Poles on the issue? I am interested in the reports of the Russians, they say, "the officers came to choose a place for the camps and that the Russian army will soon enter the duchy" ...
  4. Undecim
    Undecim 26 February 2021 08: 35
    +5
    In this article I will try to prove that Napoleon I in no way wanted the restoration of the Commonwealth, but, on the contrary, tried in every possible way to solve the "Polish question" with Russia, but Alexander I, apparently, did not want this and tried to use it as justifying the next offensive war against France.
    Immediately I remember the unforgettable Ostap Bender: “Listen to what I sprinkled last night under the vibrating light of an electric lamp:“ I remember a wonderful moment, you appeared in front of me, like a fleeting vision, like a genius of pure beauty. ”Isn't that good? Talented? And only on dawn, when the last lines were finished, I remembered that this verse had already been written by A. Pushkin. Such a blow from the side of the classic!
    True, in this case, for example, E.I. Fedosov.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 26 February 2021 09: 09
      +1
      Does the author minus from resentment? Better to read the book, it is on the net.
      1. Daniil Konovalenko
        Daniil Konovalenko 26 February 2021 12: 03
        -3
        Does the author minus from resentment?
        It looks like so .. smile
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 26 February 2021 13: 49
          -2
          Judging by the number of minuses, the hamster from "Novosti" has already got soda, and this section will be dirtied.
          1. vladcub
            vladcub 26 February 2021 16: 00
            -3
            Quote: Undecim
            Judging by the number of minuses, the hamster from "Novosti" has already got soda, and this section will be dirtied.

            No wonder: hamsters breed like cockroaches and look for "food" for themselves. So this is a law of nature
          2. Astra wild2
            Astra wild2 26 February 2021 20: 25
            -1
            Viktor Nikolaevich, with all due respect to you. I'll try to slightly argue: "We've already got here," hamsters do not breed by themselves: some authors "feed" them
      2. vladcub
        vladcub 26 February 2021 15: 55
        +1
        Victor Nikolaevich, what if Fedoseeva is the author's pseudonym?
        1. Undecim
          Undecim 26 February 2021 17: 14
          +1
          The author of what, an article?
          1. vladcub
            vladcub 26 February 2021 17: 21
            +1
            Exactly
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 26 February 2021 17: 37
              0
              You better read a book.
              1. Astra wild2
                Astra wild2 26 February 2021 20: 16
                0
                Victor Nikolaevich, bravo. Well said
    2. Richard
      Richard 26 February 2021 18: 21
      +2
      You can download this book for free here:
      link:https://mirlib.ru/knigi/history/184137-polskiy-vopros-vo-vneshney-politike-pervoy-imperii-vo-francii.html
      1. Phil77
        Phil77 26 February 2021 19: 29
        +2
        Dmitry, I welcome you!
        Thanks for the * tip *, I've already been there. Quite interesting. Yes, some * minus player from around the corner * announced a hunt for you. As far as possible, I try to correct the actions of this person. wink
        1. Richard
          Richard 26 February 2021 20: 16
          +2
          Sergei hi
          Thanks for the * tip *, already been there. Quite interesting.

          Well, thanks here, rather VikNik
          Yes, some * minus signer from around the corner * announced a hunt for you

          Moreover, it minuses all the comments in a row, and the objection is weak laughing
        2. Phil77
          Phil77 26 February 2021 20: 55
          +4
          Ha, ha, ha! I also got it from the amateur * from around the corner *! laughing How funny, really!
          1. Richard
            Richard 26 February 2021 21: 32
            +3
            Yes, it looks like not only you and me - look Sergei: Zhenya Tavrik, vladcub, VikNik, Astra, Daniil, Kote, Olgovich, well, we are with you. laughing
            1. Undecim
              Undecim 26 February 2021 23: 14
              +3
              Somehow earlier in this section there was no such orgy with minuses. Are hamsters huddling in flocks and starting to expand their range? Then write wasted. Only napalm will help, but you won't be able to use it on the website.
              1. Richard
                Richard 26 February 2021 23: 40
                +4
                For which the history section was valuable, because people received interesting information, learned new things, argued among themselves, substantiated their point of view, agreed or denied the given facts, corrected each other. And nobody was offended.
                And now - just a bunch of not thinking sculpt cons. Silently ....
                You recommended reading the book by E. Fedosova and got 9 minuses. I was not lazy and posted the information where you can read or download it, it's worth it - right there are three minuses. The funny thing is, I am sure that those who minus did not open this book at all, moreover, they did not even know about its existence. yes
                Now, in principle, I will not comment on the articles of Samsonov, Kharluzhny, Frolova and similar authors. Let their admirers comment on them. After all, every read has its own audience.
                Best regards to your versatile erudition.
                Dmitriy
                1. vladcub
                  vladcub 27 February 2021 09: 36
                  +4
                  "let their admirers comment on them" and thus identify hamsters?
              2. Phil77
                Phil77 27 February 2021 08: 13
                +2
                Good morning Victor Nikolaevich!
                The worst thing that can happen in the history section is the appearance of a representative of the group * Top commentators * - * Tatras *, this will be the edge! laughing
                1. Undecim
                  Undecim 27 February 2021 08: 19
                  +4
                  Are you saying that the enmity between Napoleon and Alexander I is the intrigue of the enemies of the communists?
                  1. Phil77
                    Phil77 27 February 2021 08: 20
                    +3
                    I do not think so, but the fact that she will be convinced of this is sure!
                    1. Phil77
                      Phil77 27 February 2021 08: 24
                      +3
                      To be honest, I'm already just confused, who are * the enemies of the communists *, and who are * the enemies of the enemies of the communists *. It's just not clear how this person could enter this group? Collective trolling?
                      1. Undecim
                        Undecim 27 February 2021 08: 43
                        +3
                        Black humor.
                      2. vladcub
                        vladcub 27 February 2021 09: 56
                        +3
                        Sergei, don't waste time to understand the logic of her thinking. This time can be usefully spent on: The site, fishing, has not been for a hundred years, just poison jokes
                    2. Undecim
                      Undecim 27 February 2021 08: 29
                      +3
                      As for me, this is not the worst option. Well, tatra will write a couple of standard comments. But when flocks of aggressive hamsters begin to rampage, it will become difficult to communicate. It’s like talking about faleristics, for example, sitting on a fresh dung heap in continuous formation.
              3. vladcub
                vladcub 27 February 2021 09: 28
                +3
                Viktor Nikolaevich, it remains for us to rally and fight against hamsters and stupidity
              4. Doliva63
                Doliva63 27 February 2021 19: 08
                -1
                Quote: Undecim
                Somehow earlier in this section there was no such orgy with minuses. Are hamsters huddling in flocks and starting to expand their range? Then write wasted. Only napalm will help, but you won't be able to use it on the website.

                Hamsters - who is this? Who disagrees with you about something? Cool laughing But it doesn't have to be that way. Everyone has the right to an opinion and to an assessment, even anonymous - the rules allow it. So why hamsters? Why not stupid people, monkeys,? Do not hesitate, burn it with a verb laughing Hope you get banned to hell. With disrespect hi
                1. Undecim
                  Undecim 27 February 2021 19: 37
                  +1
                  Is the head of intelligence of the Order of Torquemada suddenly determined to fight for pluralism? Well, just a schema hussar.
                  The title of a hamster has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with my opinion, so all your pathos is in vain. It is surprising that such an experienced intelligence officer does not know such simple things.
  5. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 26 February 2021 10: 05
    +1
    The explanation for this can only be found in Alexander's personal envy of Bonaparte.
    .. How simple it is. Out of envy, it turns out, into the heat of war, he threw tens, hundreds of thousands of lives. He played with the lives of others, as if playing with soldiers. And there are no other, additional reasons?
    1. Tavrik
      Tavrik 26 February 2021 13: 13
      +3
      There are other reasons: wounded pride, a thirst for influence on European politics, a desire to show what a great king he is.
      Why shouldn't he play with the lives of others? He is a MONARCH! Vicar of God on earth. The figure is sacred. He can.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 26 February 2021 13: 18
        +2
        Quote: Tavrik
        There are other reasons: wounded pride, a thirst for influence on European politics, a desire to show what a great king he is.
        Why shouldn't he play with the lives of others? He is a MONARCH! Vicar of God on earth. The figure is sacred. He can.

        You might think Stalin did not play, the governments of England and France. All states once played with something. And the opinions of ordinary people were not asked
        1. Tavrik
          Tavrik 26 February 2021 17: 28
          +1
          Stalin and Napoleon acted in the interests of their countries, seeking to make them strong and rich. Alexander is in his personal interests, contrary to common sense. Well, that's how he wanted ...
  6. Cartalon
    Cartalon 26 February 2021 13: 19
    +3
    In short, Napoleon did not want to restore so much that he restored it.
    It's like the Emperor's eternal desire for peace by occupying all neighbors.
    1. Tavrik
      Tavrik 26 February 2021 17: 31
      +1
      Do not forget that the occupied neighbors have repeatedly launched aggression against France, then lost wars with a crash, after which they became dependent. Nenuache, everything is fair ...
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 26 February 2021 18: 09
        0
        Yes, some masochists.
  7. vladcub
    vladcub 26 February 2021 18: 24
    -2
    "Alexander Bonopart's personal envy" turns out to be Alexander 1 - an envious old woman who envies young women.
    The author amused me.
    1. Monsieur bonapartiste
      26 February 2021 19: 44
      +2
      You, my dear sir, do not believe the facts and documents?

      Unlike you, in each of my articles and even comments I cite documents that confirm my thesis.

      What reasons did Russia have for the war with France in 1801? Why did Alexander even then in his letters call Napoleon "the evil genius of the revolution" and the presence of the French troops in Egypt "the oppression of the enemy"? Why has the tsar been forming a coalition since 1803 (I cited documents in this regard in the article before last)?

      I will gladly enter into a discussion with you on this topic.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 26 February 2021 22: 05
        0
        Quote: Monsieur bonapartiste
        What reasons did Russia have for the war with France in 1801?

        Alexander was simply afraid of the revolution.
  8. vladcub
    vladcub 26 February 2021 19: 42
    0
    Alexander I had a reputation as a "two-faced Janus", but Bonopart was not inferior to him. Perhaps that is why Alexander so insistently demanded specific formulas. He felt that Napoleon was cunning.
    Alexander had grounds for mistrust:
    "To take on an immutable and all-encompassing commitment ..... it would be an act INSANE", and then a fancy: "incompatible with my part" thunderous applause from the courtiers: "sire, you are such a darling, and Alexander is byaka"
    Bonopart was NOT INTERESTED in a specific commitment.
    1. Monsieur bonapartiste
      26 February 2021 19: 52
      +1
      Do not talk nonsense. Napoleon undertook a specific commitment that he would neither directly nor indirectly support the restoration of the Commonwealth.

      It was obviously not beneficial to Napoleon to take on the obligation that you will fight with a country that wants to restore Poland (that is, if this desire came from any third country)
      1. House 25 Sq. 380
        House 25 Sq. 380 April 9 2021 20: 39
        0
        And what was the name of this third party that would potentially like to rebuild Poland? Sublime Porte? USA? Empire of Japan? Laputa? The Republic of Fairy Tale?
        Could you name a couple of "candidates" for the restoration of Poland, with whom Napoleon was afraid to contact and therefore did not want to take on written obligations?
  9. Tavrik
    Tavrik 26 February 2021 19: 58
    0
    Quote: vladcub
    Alexander I had a reputation as a "two-faced Janus", but Bonopart was not inferior to him.

    Examples of Bonaparte's duplicity - "in the studio"!
    Napoleon was interested in Russia as a reliable ally, so he was sincerely looking for rapprochement with her, giving such handsome advances in all directions. During the Russian-Swedish war, he in no way expressed concern about the aggression of Russia, on the contrary, he supported, because: "Swedish guns should not bother the Petersburg ladies." During the Russian-Turkish war, he just as indifferently looked at the beating of the Turks and offered to establish mutual control over the straits.
    And of course, a normal monarch will not marry the daughter of a family with whom he wants to fight. Only to the family with whom he wants a lasting union, sealed by marriage.
    So Napoleon had clear proposals with regard to Russia, but from Alexander's side there were tricks, uncertainties, vague formulations, etc. In short, I was spinning as I could ...
  10. Astra wild2
    Astra wild2 26 February 2021 20: 14
    0
    The author does not hide the fact that he is a "Napoleonophile", but how can you best present your idol? This is to compare him with Alexander 1. Napoleon dreamed of general prosperity, and Alexander 1 thirsted for war. This is the message of all the works of the author.
    R.
    S
    Colleagues, I confess: I also like Napoleon. He is two heads taller than his contemporaries. But in fairness: Alexander 1 is also an outstanding person. It is STUPID to paint it "white and fluffy", but it cannot be served as a "devil". My opinion: they are almost equal rivals. It was just that Napoleon was more DECISIVE. Perhaps because he made himself, and Alexander was formed by his father and grandmother. By its own bright personality. Alexander had a lot of good projects, but he did not have the will to implement them. By this he was inferior to Bonopart
    1. Monsieur bonapartiste
      26 February 2021 20: 31
      +2
      In fact, I do not pursue the goal that you attributed to me. I just want to convey to the people what I am sure of, my point of view.

      For each of my theses I back up with relevant documents and facts, and the people here are so used to hearing ordinary stories about how bad Napoleon is that they simply cannot adequately perceive the alternative point of view, although it is based not on my personal fictions, but on facts.

      Not a single local "critic" has ever cited documents that refute my theses. One empty words, one chatter repeated hundreds of thousands of times
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 26 February 2021 21: 01
        -2
        All your theses refute the existence of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, Napoleon restored Poland in fact, it did not exist and it appeared.
      2. Astra wild2
        Astra wild2 26 February 2021 21: 12
        0
        If you noticed, I am not saying that Napoleon is bad. I believe that Napoleon beats Alexander with his riches.
        I have already told Valery more than once and I will tell you. I do not have such knowledge of history, but I am trying to argue from the point of view of logic. I will clarify from: the point of view of FEMALE logic.
        You and your colleagues know very well that Alexander was an opposing personality.
        I will not defend Alexander, but I will try to explain why he is like that.? Napoleon created himself, and from Alexander, father and grandmother sculpted: different people. If only Paul had raised him, Alexander would have been: a man of mood, but tough.
        Ekaterina is refined, somewhere insidious, smart and stable.
        I don’t presume to guess with whom it was more difficult
      3. haron
        haron 27 February 2021 23: 55
        0
        Quote: Monsieur bonapartiste
        Not a single local "critic" has ever cited documents that refute my theses.

        In order to refute someone's theses, it is not necessary to bring documents. This refers to theses based on unconscious errors of the rules of logic - paralogism and aporia.
        To refute these errors, it is necessary to use logic and not documents, because strangely enough, people who wrote documents can also make mistakes, deliberately or not.
        Well, only a court can call written sources real facts, after their full scientific study for the absence of fiction.
        To business.
        You cited information from written sources in which it is assumed that up to a certain point Napoleon led a friendly policy towards Russia, and Alexander, towards France, was NOT friendly. ALL! Only these two points can most of all claim to be facts in the author's reasoning. The rest is the thoughts of people who wrote "sources" passed through the author's brain.
        In order not to be sprayed. I will give an example of a situation that most of all violates logic.
        Quote: Monsieur bonapartiste
        At the same time, our country did not have a single reason for confrontation, but on the contrary, Napoleon did everything to make friends with us. The explanation for this can only be found in Alexander's personal envy of Bonaparte.

        The author points out everywhere that Alexander acts against the will of the "Country" only to satisfy his personal envy.
        Not only is envy the most recessive form of motivation in a healthy SOCIALLY educated person. So, Alexander personally witnessed the murder of his father - he knew, understood and partially shared the motivation of the murderers.
        That is, with a probability of 99%, he had an associative link - my subjects could kill me if I govern the country only with my own interests, without taking into account the interests of the elites and the upper classes.
        This alone is enough to leave "personal" as the main vector of conflict between countries.
        Well, the real written sources of facts are most often the books of the "tax inspectorate" of the state. Where and how much came to the budget of the conglomerate of people / structures of the "state" type. But this is the concern for the ladies and will not give in the whole enlightened world))) I beg you! Myzh are not children to believe politicians.
        1. Monsieur bonapartiste
          28 February 2021 13: 10
          0
          Do not assume that the entire Russian court was a supporter of the war with Napoleon. Indeed, some of the people were Anglophiles, but there were also Francophiles and even supporters of neutrality!

          As for the involvement of Alexander in the murder of his father, in fact, this thing has not yet been proven.

          In general, these two topics are suitable for writing entire articles.
  11. Tavrik
    Tavrik 26 February 2021 20: 53
    0
    Quote: Astra wild2
    This is the message of all the works of the author.

    The name of the author is Oleg Valerievich Sokolov.
    Artemenko only briefly retells the content of his books.
    1. Monsieur bonapartiste
      26 February 2021 22: 12
      0
      Well, not really!)

      I use not only his books, not only his. However, I agree, our points of view agree with him, although in some ways I disagree with him.
    2. Monsieur bonapartiste
      26 February 2021 22: 15
      -1
      Specifically in this article, the works of Iskul, Vandal, Sokolov and some others were used.
      1. haron
        haron 28 February 2021 00: 34
        -1
        Quote: Monsieur bonapartiste
        works of Iskul, Vandal, Sokolov and some others

        And they really studied the question about which you are writing here.
        Let's go point by point. CAPITAL LETTERS SUBTEXT OF NAPOLEON
        Quote: Monsieur bonapartiste
        It would be unreasonable and incompatible with my honor to make an immutable and all-encompassing commitment that the Kingdom of Poland will never be rebuilt, it would be an act of unreasonableness and an honor - it will be my good judgment and honor to constantly strive to restore the Queen.

        If the Poles, taking advantage of favorable circumstances, rise up as one and oppose Russia, then I will need to use all my strength to pacify them - is that right? - IF THE POLES RISE I WILL NOT TAKE THEM,

        If they find themselves allies in this matter, will I need to use my strength to fight these allies? - I WILL NOT EVEN FIGHT THE ALLIES HELPING THEM, BUT I WILL HELP THEM,

        It means demanding from me the impossible, dishonorable and, moreover, completely independent of my will - SO I DO NOT WANT, SO WANT THE PEOPLE WHO RULE ME.

        I can assert that no assistance, either directly or indirectly, will be rendered by me to any attempt to restore Poland, but nothing more. - ALTHOUGH I WILL NOT PERSONALLY SPEAK ABOUT THE RESTORATION OF POLAND, BUT ONLY "DO NOT SPEAK", ON THE ACCOUNT OF "DO NOT DO" WE WILL SEE,

        As for the destruction of the words "Poland" and "Poles", this is something that is hardly worthy of civilized people, and I by no means can go for it. In diplomatic acts, I may still not use these words, but I am not in a position to eradicate them from the use of the nation. - WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE HOW TO CALL THEM,

        AND THE MOST INTERESTING,
        Finally, with regard to the future territorial expansion of the Duchy of Warsaw, it is possible to prohibit this only on the basis of reciprocity and on the condition that Russia undertakes to never annex to its territory a piece that has been torn away from the old Polish provinces.
        THE TERRITORY OF THE GW WILL NOT EXPAND IF RUSSIA FREE THE WHOLE TERRITORY OF THE OLD POLISH KINGDOMS

        The author, read deeper into the meaning. Where do you see the benefits for the people of the Russian state ?? Any people.
  12. smaug78
    smaug78 26 February 2021 21: 44
    0
    Quote: Tavrik
    During the Russian-Turkish war, he also looked at the beating of the Turks with indifference.
    The Turks were his allies?
    1. Tavrik
      Tavrik 28 February 2021 22: 31
      0
      Of course not, but if we proceed from the fact that he only dreamed of how to conquer Russia, he could provide any assistance to the Turks in that situation. But no ...
  13. mmaxx
    mmaxx 27 February 2021 18: 57
    0
    The landlords are of course correct. But by annexing Poland, Russia finally acquired a large amount of arable land with a good population density. And there was an opportunity to trade grain.
    And who will go into their own pockets for the sake of some lofty ideas?
    It's like giving independence to the Yamal-Nenets Okrug now.
  14. Tavrik
    Tavrik 28 February 2021 22: 35
    0
    Quote: Monsieur bonapartiste
    our points of view agree with him

    Reminded from the memoirs of Baron Marbeau: "Napoleon and I ..."
    No offense, just remembered .. drinks
    And I met Sire in the last century and in a country that does not exist now ...
    He received his initial Bonapartist education under his leadership on the sidelines of the Artillery Museum ... laughing
  15. smaug78
    smaug78 1 March 2021 09: 12
    0
    Quote: Tavrik
    Of course not, but if we proceed from the fact that he only dreamed of how to conquer Russia, he could provide any assistance to the Turks in that situation. But no ...

    These are just your thoughts, not supported by factual material ...
  16. Sedoy
    Sedoy 23 March 2021 18: 50
    0
    The Kingdom of Poland will never be restored