Military Review

What Russia received from "grateful" Europe for the victory over Napoleon

123

Painting by Russian artist Alexei Kivshenko: "The entry of Russian troops into Paris in 1814"


How Russia was "thanked" for the victory over the French Empire


In 1812, the Russians, without the help of England, defeated 600 thousand French army. At the same time, 2/3 of the "Great Army" were not French, but various Germans (Prussians, Bavarians, Württembergians, Saxons, etc.), Poles, Italians, Spaniards, etc. It was only in the spring and summer of 1813 that Russia had real allies who, seeing that Napoleon's empire was bled, broke the alliance with Paris and opposed France. England provided Russia and Prussia with several million pounds for the war with France.

As a result, Russian troops entered Paris.

Napoleon abdicated the throne. The division of the "skins" of the French empire began.

At the Congress of Vienna, it was decided that England, Austria and Prussia will receive large increments in Europe, and the British also in the colonies. But Russia, which actually destroyed Bonaparte's war machine, and then liberated Europe from French domination, received nothing!

I repeat, without the Russians there would have been no victory over Napoleon.

Even after the terrible catastrophe of 1812, if the Russian troops (as suggested by the wise Kutuzov) did not go beyond their borders, the French could retain a significant part of their positions in Europe. England would have to strain forces and resources to push the French back to their historical territory. The war between the great Western powers would have lasted another ten years. Meanwhile, Russia could close the issue with the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, Constantinople. To decide in their favor the affairs in the Caucasus and the Far East.

Austria and especially England strongly objected to the transfer of the Warsaw area to Russia, and to Prussia a part of Saxony. The British needed Poland in order to use the Polish "ram" against the Russians. Austria did not want the strengthening of Prussia in the German world. It is clear that St. Petersburg wanted to receive lands inhabited by ethnic Poles who had never entered Russia. But our "allies" also offered not independence to these regions, but their annexation to the Austrian Empire. Why did Russia have to give up the strategic foothold from which the invasion of 1812 began? It was reasonable to take Warsaw and engage in the pacification of the Poles, the fraternal Slavic people, and turn them into a part of the imperial society. Take away from the West one of the instruments of aggression directed against Russia.

Warsaw is ours!


It is also worth noting that Britain did not return Malta to us either.

The British had no rights to the island. The British Isles could not be threatened from Malta. The only argument was the war with Napoleon. But in 1814, Russian and allied troops entered Paris. War is over. It was possible either to restore the independence of Malta, returning it to the Order of Malta, or to transfer the island to the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (the nucleus of the future united Italy), which was located only 90 miles from the island.

However, a double standard prevailed at the Congress of Vienna - one for the "Russian barbarians", the other for the "enlightened" British pirates. Malta ceded to England, which had no rights to the island, except for the right of the arrogant and strong. The British turned the island into their colony and naval base, a stronghold of power in the Mediterranean.

In January 1815, a secret alliance was concluded between Austria, England and France, directed against Russia. Bavaria, Hanover and the Netherlands could join the agreement.

That is, they just defeated Napoleon, and “grateful” Europe immediately creates an alliance against the Russians.

Rhetorical question: why did hundreds of thousands of Russian people give their lives?

It is interesting that the “enemy of the human race” Napoleon helped Russia. He left Elba, landed in France, the people and the army greeted Napoleon with delight. The Bourbons have already grown to hate. Napoleon's trick greatly frightened the allies. They were forced to make concessions.

On April 21 (May 3), 1815, the Russian-Prussian and Russian-Austrian treaties on the division of the Duchy of Warsaw were signed in Vienna. Austria received four counties of Eastern Galicia (Old Russian lands). The Saxon King Frederick Augustus ceded to Russia most of the Duchy of Warsaw.

Thus, Russia, having suffered huge human, material and cultural losses during the wars with France in 1805–1807 and 1812–1814, received only a piece of Poland. And the source of future problems (Polish uprisings).

Predation of the Anglo-Saxons in Russian America and the Far East


In the early 1820s of the XNUMXth century, relations between Russia, England and the United States in the Alaska region worsened.

The possessions of the three countries did not have clear boundaries. Moreover, the United States and England, forgetting about their differences on this issue, acted together against the Russians.

Anglo-American fishermen have arrogated to themselves the right to catch valuable sea animals off the coast of Russian America. They also freely pushed ashore anywhere and traded with the natives. The British and Americans sold to the natives mainly alcohol and weapon... It was unimaginable that a Russian ship would land on the possessions of England or on the east coast of America and begin to illegally trade weapons and vodka. The Anglo-Saxons would have immediately responded with a military action, and St. Petersburg also had to apologize.

Interestingly, the British and Yankees also behaved not only in Russian America, but also in the Russian Far East, including Kamchatka and Chukotka.

By this time, Russia was at the peak of its military power, was considered a "European gendarme". In the event of a conflict with the Americans, the Russian fleet could block all American communications in the Atlantic and put the United States in a very difficult economic situation.

It was more difficult with England. The Russians dominated the land, Britain ruled the seas.

In September 1821, Tsar Alexander I decided to restore order in Russian territorial waters and on the coast in the Far East and in Russian America. Foreign ships were forbidden to dock on the Russian shores and islands, and to approach them at a distance of less than 100 miles. Violators were confiscated with all cargo.

To show the seriousness of Russia's intentions, the Maritime Ministry sent a 44-gun frigate "Cruiser" and a 20-gun sloop "Ladoga" to the shores of Alaska. The commander of the detachment and the frigate was Captain 2nd Rank Mikhail Lazarev, and the Ladoga was commanded by his brother, Captain Lieutenant Andrei Petrovich. In August 1822, the ships left Kronstadt, and in the fall of 1823 arrived in Novo-Arkhangelsk. The emergence of the Russian military fleet made the right impression on western predators.

Unfortunately, at that time the Russian Foreign Ministry was headed by the Westernizer K. Nesselrode. He was a supporter of the active course of Russia in Western Europe (the fight against the revolution within the framework of the Holy Alliance), and considered all other directions, including Russian America, to be secondary and unnecessary. He convinced Emperor Alexander to make substantial concessions to the United States.

In April 1824, the Russian-American convention on freedom of navigation, trade and fishing in the Pacific was signed. It is clear that all the benefits of such "freedom" went to the Americans. In February 1825, the corresponding convention between Russia and England on the delimitation of spheres of influence in North America was signed in St. Petersburg. Russia made concessions on the territorial issue.

The fact is that the Russian-American company did not actually have a land border with British Columbia. The Russians owned the edge of the coast and did not develop land inland. In addition, the Stone Mountains (Cordillera Coastal Range) interfered with this. The mountains ran almost parallel to the ocean coast and in different places were 11-24 miles from the water. Over the mountains lay the possessions of the British.

Russian colonists and local residents believed that the natural border was the tops of the ridge, the western slopes belonged to the Russians, the eastern ones to the British. At the same time, the Russians did not go deep into the continent, although for almost half a century there was an uninhabited territory.

From the beginning of the 20s of the XIX century, London decided to seize the coast, which was developed by a Russian company. The British proposed to establish the border between English and Russian possessions. At the same time, the Russian-American Company believed that the border would pass along the natural boundary of the mountains and that its establishment would not be difficult.

However, the Russian Foreign Ministry capitulated to the British on the land border issue.

Now the border ran along the entire length of the coastal strip, which belonged to the Russian Empire, from 54 ° N. sh. up to 60 ° N sh. along the tops of the Coast Range mountains, but not further than 10 nautical miles from the edge of the ocean, taking into account all the bends of the coast.

That is, the line of the Russian-English border in this place did not pass through natural barriers and was not straight (as was the case with the border line of Alaska and the then Northwest Territories).
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/
123 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Pardus22
    Pardus22 1 March 2021 05: 10
    +3
    As a result of the war with Napoleon, Russia received very little, but the borders from Russia were pushed back. More would still not be possible to take. And to fight with Europe after the war with Napoleon was madness. Europe has always been the enemy of Russia, and always acted as a united front against us. . Afraid to diarrhea!
    1. Destiny
      Destiny 1 March 2021 05: 37
      +6
      I agree, but I think the main result of the war with Napoleon is the victory over Napoleon and his "La Grande Armée", because then, in fact, all this Europe came to us under his banner, a kind of prototype of Hitler's campaign in 41, the invasion of two hundred languages.
      1. Aerodrome
        Aerodrome 1 March 2021 05: 49
        +11
        Europe is always "grateful" to us ...
      2. Stirbjorn
        Stirbjorn 1 March 2021 08: 04
        +4
        Quote: Destiny
        a kind of prototype of Hitler's campaign in 41, the invasion of twelve languages.

        Napoleon did not consider the Russian people inferior, moreover, he entered into an alliance with Paul I. And Alexander I, as they correctly indicated below, simply worked out before the English sponsors, for his ascension to the throne.
    2. Deniska999
      Deniska999 1 March 2021 07: 25
      +13
      Where did we go especially to advance in Europe? They took Warsaw, part of Poland. Further? Seize land from Prussia, from Austria?

      Samsonov, how much you can build an insult, all you have little land. At that time, Siberia was semi-developed in our country, and you regret that Russia was not allowed to develop America, which is quite natural. You carry some kind of permanent inferiority complex from article to article.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 1 March 2021 07: 32
        0
        Quote: Deniska999
        Further? Seize land from Prussia, from Austria?

        Territories inhabited by Rusyns.
        1. Pashhenko Nikolay
          Pashhenko Nikolay 1 March 2021 08: 34
          +3
          Did the Rusyns know that they were Rusyns and were not against the empire?
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 1 March 2021 09: 26
            +1
            Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
            And the Rusyns knew that they were Rusyns and were not against the empire

            Read about the genocide of Rusyns staged in the AVI already during WWI.
          2. Far B
            Far B 1 March 2021 09: 51
            -3
            At least they guessed - at the time of the transfer of the territories to Austria-Hungary, these territories were part of the Russian Empire. That is, Alexander surrendered the territory of his own state. He handed it over to the state, which during the Napoleonic invasion took part in this very invasion, and even quite active, since Napoleon himself petitioned for the assignment of a field marshal to Schwarzenberg. And the name Red Rus speaks for itself.
      2. lucul
        lucul 1 March 2021 09: 25
        -6
        Where did we go especially to advance in Europe? They took Warsaw, part of Poland. Further? Seize land from Prussia, from Austria?

        Samsonov, how much you can build an insult, all you have little land. At that time, Siberia was semi-developed in our country, and you regret that Russia was not allowed to develop America, which is quite natural. You carry some kind of permanent inferiority complex from article to article.

        They forgot to ask you.
        Napoleon always sought an alliance with Russia, he absolutely did not need a war with her.
        Napoleon was an anti-Semite no worse than Hitler and clearly understood who made the revolution in France. And in order to defeat England, he needed an alliance with Russia like air. Which he did, having concluded him with Paul 1. But the Anglo-Saxons killed Paul (direct interference in the internal affairs of the country) and put on the throne a worthless puppet - Alexander 1. This worthless ruler did not even take revenge for the death of his father, and completely fell under the Anglo-Saxons. As a result, Napoleon endured Alexander's antics and his provocations (Austerlitz, etc.) for a very long time, perfectly seeing Alexander's puppetry. As a result, the Anglo-Saxons still forced Napoleon to go to war with Russia. As a result of which, Russia lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers, the destroyed infrastructure of the western part of the country and did not receive anything in return from what was promised to her in various alliances. Alliances with the Anglo-Saxons cannot be trusted, they are not worth the paper written on them.
        And remember about this tragedy for the Russian people in 1812, you must always - you do not forget your Holocaust.
        1. A. Privalov
          A. Privalov 1 March 2021 10: 06
          +7
          Quote: lucul
          Napoleon was an anti-Semite

          Exactly! When the cunning Zionists made a revolution in France, they got all the rights and sent Napoleon to Egypt, so that he would take Palestine from the infidels on the way, and when he failed, they sent a plague on him. From this, he became not only an anti-Semite but also a Russophobe, setting off to conquer Russia. But the cunning Jew, Kutuzov, lured him to Moscow and immediately drove him back to France so as not to get up twice. There the Jews removed him from the throne, sent him to the island of St. Helena, where they poisoned and ate. Since then, Jews have had constant heartburn and have been drinking tap water.
          1. A. Privalov
            A. Privalov 1 March 2021 16: 45
            +3
            Source: A Very Brief History of the Jews, Chapter 15 The Zionists and Napoleon. hi
        2. Deniska999
          Deniska999 1 March 2021 10: 10
          +6
          Why would the Holocaust be mine? Or should I join the crowd of screaming Englishmen? Your emotions are indifferent to me. Yes, Britain has always had an unprincipled policy. Well, now what to cry over the fact that ours could not answer
        3. parusnik
          parusnik 1 March 2021 10: 59
          +5
          But the Anglo-Saxons killed Paul (direct interference in the internal affairs of the country)
          ... by the hands of Russian aristocratslaughing If they had sent their "special forces", then there would have been direct intervention.
          1. lucul
            lucul 1 March 2021 11: 59
            -2
            By the hands of Russian aristocratslaughing If their "special forces" were sent, then there would be direct intervention.

            Have you heard anything about the customer and the contractor? )))
            1. Hantengri
              Hantengri 1 March 2021 12: 45
              +7
              Quote: lucul
              Have you heard anything about the customer and the contractor? )))

              Have you heard anything about such a thing as evidence?
              Quote: lucul
              But the Anglo-Saxons killed Paul (direct interference in the internal affairs of the country) and elevated a worthless puppet to the throne - Alexander 1.

              I'm talking about that. It is necessary to prove such "presentations", moreover, having as arguments something more weighty than considerations such as: "An Englishwoman cannot but shit, by definition. So this is definitely her, and who else!" laughing
            2. parusnik
              parusnik 1 March 2021 18: 05
              +1
              I heard. It turns out then, the British, ordered the Russian, noble aristocrats, the assassination of their emperor. Moreover, many of them were quite wealthy and how much the customer paid? 330? Each? laughing
      3. sniperino
        sniperino 1 March 2021 09: 51
        -8
        Quote: Deniska999
        Samsonov, how much you can build an insult, all of you have little land.
        Earth, if and with, then on the other hand, nmv. The world-historical significance of VOSR has always been inflated in the history of the USSR with the help of exaggerating the sufferings of the Russian and other peoples of Ingushetia under the yoke of "non-Russian" tsars and almost complete denial of the contribution of tsarism to the development of Russia. A slight indulgence was given only to Peter I for his Westernism and destructive contribution to the split of the ROC. For the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were essentially Westernizers, and Stalin was a soil worker, so he scored a global fire and started building socialism on his land.
      4. paul3390
        paul3390 1 March 2021 14: 58
        +1
        Where did we go especially to advance in Europe?

        Balkans. Then - the ideas of Pan-Slavism were still very strong ..
      5. Fat
        Fat 1 March 2021 22: 14
        0
        Here's the same
        100 percent agree that expansion should have a pause.
        How many in the Empire of Primorye?
        Rapidly developing cities on the coast? One - two?
        But through the works of our ancestors, Savva Mamontov, the creators of the Transsib, we are in
        "Trend"
        .
        Samsonov is smart
        The empire could grab much more, and why abstained?
        Р'РѕС ‚Рё РґСѓРјР ° йте.
    3. Bar1
      Bar1 1 March 2021 08: 10
      +1
      Russia did not have to wait for gratitude from someone, but to take what she wanted. And in general, the world had to be divided together with Nopoleon, and not with these German predators.
    4. Bar1
      Bar1 1 March 2021 09: 56
      0
      and in general you cannot say better than Pushkin.

      We will amuse good citizens
      And at the infamous pillar
      Gut last pop
      The last king is strangled.
    5. Hantengri
      Hantengri 1 March 2021 10: 53
      +8
      Quote: Pardus22
      Europe has always been the enemy of Russia, and has always acted as a united front against us. They were afraid, before diarrhea!

      In order for this statement not to look like a completely illiterate propaganda cliche, it would be necessary to define in some points:
      1) "Europe" who is this? The thing is that these Europeans in those Europe were bred like fleas on a dog and everyone is different. And their interests, respectively, are also not the same. Moreover, they, these interests, have a bad property to change, depending on the current circumstances, and sometimes very quickly and dramatically. Therefore, speaking of the "enemy of Russia" it would be good to clarify: whom, specifically, and in what historical period, do you mean.
      2) "Always" is when? For example, in 1066 this "always" has already happened, or not yet? And in 1337? And in 1648 it was already the same, no?
      3) With a "united front", some ambiguity also stinks: Inside this, their Europe, good Europeans constantly cut each other, with or without reason. Either they cut each other in the Hundred Years War, then in the Thirty Years War, then they fight for the Spanish inheritance, then they are measured by the Invincible Armads, then they are rummaged from the Vikings through the cracks, etc., etc. but, at the same time, "ALWAYS" act as a "united front against Russia." What is that supposed to mean? It is that, based on your logic, every real European, right in the process of taking away material values ​​from another European, in his head, with a red light bulb, constantly itched the thought: "Lord, what am I doing something? Russia is there too! friend! We must unite, we must have a "united front" against her! It's time to show these barbarians who's who! " wassat Yes?
    6. parusnik
      parusnik 1 March 2021 11: 03
      +4
      Europe has always been the enemy of Russia, and has always acted as a united front against us. They were afraid, before diarrhea!
      ... About always a united front against us, is it possible in more detail in the chronological table and preferably from the 10th century?
  2. Far B
    Far B 1 March 2021 05: 12
    +4
    It was reasonable to take Warsaw and engage in the pacification of the Poles, the fraternal Slavic people.
    And How? Happened? But how could it have happened if they had been at enmity with the Lyakhs since the times of Kievan Rus? But the historical Russian lands (inhabited by Rusyns), out of some fright, were given to Austria. The impression is that Alexander did not need any territorial acquisitions, including Malta. He was quite happy with the role of the "gendarme of Europe", if we remember that the Holy Union was just his brainchild. Therefore, he and the development of the Far East did not particularly care.
    It was impossible to imagine a Russian ship docked ... on the east coast of America
    And why exactly to the east coast? At that time, there were practically no aborigines there, and it is better to save the liver to get the Americans drunk. It is pointless, they themselves booted robustly.
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 1 March 2021 08: 11
      +1
      Quote: Dalny V
      And why exactly to the east coast? At that time, there were practically no aborigines there, and it is better to save the liver to get the Americans drunk. It is pointless, they themselves booted robustly.

      Yes, the author seems to confuse the east coast of America with the west. Given that, by the 20s of the 19th century, there could be no Americans in the Alaska area by definition. Delirium, in short, some
  3. apro
    apro 1 March 2021 05: 12
    0
    They get ... something ... usually from the defeated. And from the cleverly done allies .. what to take ??? the poor and miserable themselves.
    The absence of its own policy regarding European affairs. Provided a leading role.
    1. Fat
      Fat 2 March 2021 02: 56
      0
      RI has always had its own geopolitical interest - access to the Sea.
      The Baltic and the Black Sea were at least somehow provided. We have a continental power.
      Let's go back to the Mediterranean.
      Our Great Country no longer has any trade routes!
      Well, except for the Northern essno.
      This concludes the unnecessary puzzle exercise.
      Sapienti sat
  4. Free wind
    Free wind 1 March 2021 05: 43
    +7
    Damn everyone is to blame, everyone is offended. In America, they hunted cats, sea otters and almost died of hunger. In California, they bought bread from the Spaniards, but did the British and Poles forbid to plant it themselves? If the deer themselves, then that someone is to blame. to annex Poland, Turkey and get 50 million angry Turks and Poles?
  5. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 1 March 2021 05: 46
    +1
    Russia received nothing, since the bald dandy himself owed the British for the murder of his father Paul the First and bringing him to the throne. Alexander the First simply worked off his debt, which he began to work off back in 1805 and put millions of Russian lives to work off this debt. But if it were not for the assassination of Paul the First, then Napoleon's France would have survived and it is quite possible, France would now remain a monarchy ruled by the Bonaparte dynasty, England would not have become a world hegemon, as has happened since 1815 in real history, and the whole world history was would be different. For example, Prussia would not have been able to rally around itself the German kingdoms and duchies, and a strong united Germany would not have been created, in this case, there would not have been both World Wars, and certainly there would not have been a Second World War.
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 1 March 2021 05: 51
      -1
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      bald dandy

      uh ... bully ...! laughing
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 1 March 2021 05: 57
        -1
        This is what Pushkin wrote about him in Eugene Onegin:
        The sovereign is weak and crafty,
        A bald dandy, the enemy of labor,
        Unintentionally warmed by glory,
        Reigned over us then.
        1. Aerodrome
          Aerodrome 1 March 2021 05: 59
          0
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          This is what Pushkin wrote about him in Eugene Onegin:
          The sovereign is weak and crafty,
          A bald dandy, the enemy of labor,
          Unintentionally warmed by glory,
          Reigned over us then.

          wassat
        2. bober1982
          bober1982 1 March 2021 08: 34
          +1
          This is also Pushkin wrote about him:
          Hurrah! Our King! So let's drink to the Tsar!
          He is a slave to word of mouth, doubt and passion;
          Forgive him wrong persecution
          He took Paris, he founded the Lyceum.
    2. Kronos
      Kronos 1 March 2021 10: 29
      +1
      England by the time of Napaleon was already a hegemon, having defeated the main competitors at sea such as Spain and Holland. France, unable to threaten Britain with her fleet, was not a competitor.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 1 March 2021 13: 02
        0
        Napoleon controlled all of Europe with the exception of Britain and Russia. At that time, who owned Europe, he owned the world. And France could eventually build up a fleet equal to that of Britain.
        1. Kronos
          Kronos 1 March 2021 13: 22
          -1
          Every time it was created, it was eventually destroyed by Britain.
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 1 March 2021 15: 20
            -1
            The combined fleets of France, Holland, Spain and Portugal are stronger than the Royal Navy.
  6. rocket757
    rocket757 1 March 2021 06: 11
    +3
    The option, to drive the aggressor away from their borders, and then let them themselves, was hardly acceptable ... but you can't think of anything else worthwhile.
    All that remains is to beat to the end and ... wait, prepare for the next time.
  7. mmaxx
    mmaxx 1 March 2021 06: 48
    +2
    Alexander I had to enter Paris, and he did. And he played at nobility. I wanted to like it.
  8. oracul
    oracul 1 March 2021 07: 31
    +3
    Historian Klyuchevsky V.O. in his lectures he mentioned that Peter the Great achieved the greatest successes when he fought without allies, who demanded help from Russia in hostilities, but after the victory obtained mainly by our efforts, they received "prizes" in we shish with butter. And so it has always been.
  9. parusnik
    parusnik 1 March 2021 07: 45
    +7
    "As a London dandy dressed, he finally saw the light" (c) Anglophilism flourished among the Russian aristocracy, right up to the revolution. English clubs were popular in the capitals and in significant provincial cities. , also the British, put Malta at the head of the Foreign Ministry. It is enough to block the Dardanelles and Gibraltar (it was owned by the British) and a complete blockade. There was no aviation then. Look at the results of all the Russian-Turkish wars. Have you gained a lot? There are more military victories than diplomatic ones in razy.Article from the category if only, if only. "Englishwoman crap." By the way, the English "Moscow company" arose during the time of Ivan the Terrible and died in 1917. Had all sorts of privileges, all this time.
    1. Astra wild2
      Astra wild2 1 March 2021 11: 09
      +3
      "arose at the time of Ivan the Terrible" sailing ship, how can you write that. The author keeps repeating, "the English woman crap."
      He will be offended and will bring hamsters down on you
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 1 March 2021 11: 13
        +4
        laughing good I have not yet written what influence English literature had on Russian from the beginning of the 19th century to the 30s of the same century. Again, the Englishwoman shit. smile
        1. Astra wild2
          Astra wild2 1 March 2021 16: 31
          +3
          The author and his followers say: "The English woman crap" all the time.
          It can be seen that you know the history, what do you think: why is it fashionable among colleagues to remember that Grozny was such an exemplary Tsar? The author often slips this way. Peter 1 was also tough and cruel, and he is in negative characters. Perhaps they are guided by the film, but they don't know Karamzin or Klyuchevsky?
          1. parusnik
            parusnik 1 March 2021 17: 59
            +2
            Terrible was such an exemplary Tsar?
            For me, Grozny is a child of his era. Considering that he had 7 wives, he was not so exemplary. smile But he was not the only one. Europe had enough of them. Tyrants, despots. He is considered exemplary, because they believe that he was slandered by foreigners by their Russians, they say the Romanovs needed to discredit the Rurikovich. For me they are all good. smile
            1. Astra wild2
              Astra wild2 1 March 2021 18: 30
              +3
              I was still in school and read Karamzin about Grozny, but: "The History of the Russian State" was not yet republished here. Dad from somewhere else brought with a firm sign and what, and later read Klyuchevsky, published in the Soviet Union, which means that Soviet historians agreed with him? I watched the film later and after Karamzin and Klyuchevsky it seemed to me "slick", aside from history.
              I agree with you: "he is not the only one" - only British Henry is worth something. Terrible next to him, almost decent: he did not chop off the heads of wives and a "God-fearing" man.
              And so that the Rurik, that the Romanovs are each other. Maybe it seems to me so, but the Romanovs are a little lighter. Most likely, the era changed and they, by will or not by will, but also changed, and among the Rurikovich there were more animals, but that was the time.
              You cannot rewrite history and I cannot. Good or bad: the Rurik or Romanovs, but they remained in our history.
              As I understand it
  10. Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 1 March 2021 08: 01
    +1
    Foreign ships were forbidden to dock on the Russian shores and islands, and to approach them at a distance of less than 100 miles. Violators were confiscated with all cargo.
    100 miles ?! And how to measure them from the coast, with the imperfection of the then navigation instruments.
    In April 1824, the Russian-American convention on freedom of navigation, trade and fishing in the Pacific was signed. It is clear that all the benefits of such "freedom" went to the Americans.
    What, even then the Yankees were shitting ?! True, by 1825 to the Pacific Ocean, cutting was much farther than from the Russian Far East. For there was no way out wassat
  11. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 1 March 2021 08: 12
    +5
    Well, there is nothing particularly surprising here. They get something only when something is demanded or a claim is made on it.
    When the allies imposed an indemnity of 1815 million francs on France under the Treaty of Paris of 700, Alexander announced that Russia was giving up its share. By this he showed that the war with Napoleon was fought not for the sake of prey, but for the sake of principles. I played nobility, you understand!
    They said to him, they say, Your Majesty, they should have gotten something from the foe, they say, they will not understand, sir. On VO in 200 years, Samsonov, do you know what he will write?
    - I know, I know, - Alexander answered ...
    1. Deniska999
      Deniska999 1 March 2021 09: 05
      +3
      The Russian leadership has a centuries-old tradition "Russians don't need money")
  12. Undecim
    Undecim 1 March 2021 08: 14
    +10
    Another pseudo-historical thrust of Samsonov LLC on the topic "exposed Russia", which is popular in certain circles. At the same time, the author does not hesitate to openly lie about "two-thirds of non-Frenchmen" in Napoleon's army that "Britain did not return Malta to us" further in the text to Alaska and the Far East.
    1. Astra wild2
      Astra wild2 1 March 2021 10: 48
      0
      Viktor Nikolaevich, the author is not lying, it's just: "a new look at history."
      The revisionists are already sick of history. Probably, the revisionists want to eat, so they begin to distort history
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 1 March 2021 21: 55
        +1
        "Revisionist" ran with minuses, and you got it along with me. I even know who minus.
        1. Astra wild2
          Astra wild2 2 March 2021 12: 30
          +2
          Good day. How I would like to look into the eyes of this "revisionist" and say what I think
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 2 March 2021 13: 10
            +1
            Never mind. An individual cannot overcome his own inferiority complex.
            1. Astra wild2
              Astra wild2 2 March 2021 14: 01
              +1
              However, you are not trying with the choice of expressions
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 2 March 2021 14: 04
                +1
                Everything is strictly within the site rules. This is a medical term.
    2. Bar1
      Bar1 1 March 2021 11: 26
      0
      Quote: Undecim
      "Britain did not return Malta to us"

      what did Britain give us back Malta?
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 1 March 2021 12: 06
        +2
        what did Britain give us back Malta?
        And you demanded to return?
        1. Bar1
          Bar1 1 March 2021 12: 14
          +1
          Quote: Undecim
          what did Britain give us back Malta?
          And you demanded to return?

          Samsonov says that England did not return Malta to us, and you say that he lied, what did he lie about?
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 1 March 2021 13: 13
            +9
            You can return what once belonged to you. Malta never belonged to Russia, and therefore the British could not return it.
            Moreover, Alexander the First refused to become the Grand Master of the Order.
            The British two times in 1801 proposed to Russia to establish a protectorate over Malta and to send the troops of the Russian Empire to the island. Russia refused.
            In 1802, the refusal was confirmed. Rumyantsev said bluntly: "Russia does not need Malta."
            So who should have been returned to?
            Bar, you better be engaged in Tartary and Slavic subsistence, otherwise it is impossible to be a proud Tartarian and offended by history, like minus gophers.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim 1 March 2021 13: 49
                +6
                Bar, send all claims to science to the Academy of Sciences or personally to "the best friend of Russian scientists." You may even demand to disperse these scientists and appoint yourself in their place. Then you will put things in order in science and "explain" everything. Good luck.
                1. Astra wild2
                  Astra wild2 1 March 2021 16: 48
                  +1
                  Samsonov will not allow him
            2. Bar1
              Bar1 1 March 2021 14: 49
              -1
              topvoshniki and for what they demolished that? For a phrase from Vasily Ivanovich? And after that they will say that we have no censorship?
    3. Bar1
      Bar1 1 March 2021 11: 43
      +2
      Quote: Undecim
      At the same time, the author does not hesitate to openly lie about "two-thirds of the non-French" in Napoleon's army


      also lied? But quite a bit: the French were still less than half of the Grand Army.
    4. Fat
      Fat 1 March 2021 23: 35
      +1
      Vic. Nick.
      Thank you, and for a miracle specifically. Though considerations may vary.
      With respect.
      Access to the sea and trade routes was very important to Peter, and "Samsonov" plays on the square.
      How many critical places did We have, after Novgorod?
      From the Varangians to the Greeks, the Silk Road?
      I try so hard not to shine
      But you clearly noted.
      On the tops to chop the great is not nadot.
  13. Woodman
    Woodman 1 March 2021 08: 50
    +2
    But Russia, which actually destroyed Bonaparte's war machine, and then liberated Europe from French domination, received nothing!

    I repeat, without the Russians there would have been no victory over Napoleon.
    In fact, and as a result of the Second World War, it was Russia that received little. This is not counting the establishment of friendly regimes in Eastern Europe. But the regimes fell, the Union collapsed and only a small part of East Prussia and part of Finland remained with Russia. Incommensurable gains versus losses incurred ...
    In general, looking at our history, you can see that in large-scale conflicts Russia has always received proportionally much less than what it acquired in the course of conflicts relative to local ones.
    “Today we received a message that General Chernyaev took Tashkent. Nobody knows why or why. There is still something erotic in what is happening on the borders of our empire, ”- so a little strangely the Secretary of State of the Russian Empire and actual privy councilor Alexander Polovtsev commented in his diary on the news of the capture of Tashkent, which took place on June 17, 1865. The entry is curious, tk. testifies to the fact that there was no pre-developed plan for the capture of Tashkent.
    1. apro
      apro 1 March 2021 12: 06
      -2
      Quote: Lesovik
      In fact, and as a result of the Second World War, it was Russia that received little.

      You can say I got nothing .... after all, the USSR fought. And pursued a Soviet. And not a Russian policy. But when the Russians began to pursue a Russian policy on the Soviet field ... yes, all the pro-Soviet was immediately destroyed.
      Quote: Lesovik
      only a small part of East Prussia and part of Finland remained with Russia.

      As for Finland ... you can read more ... is it not clear whether this is an occupied territory or a sovereign part of the Russian Federation?
      1. tatra
        tatra 1 March 2021 12: 23
        0
        As enemies of the communists, they try to separate the Soviet from the Russian. NO, the Soviet communists created the BEST State for Russia and the Russian / Russian people - the USSR, were engaged both in the USSR and in the world, in promoting the Russian language and Russian culture. And the enemies of the communists in the West, in Europe, on the territory of the USSR they had captured, clearly proved that anti-Sovietism is ALWAYS equal to Russophobia.
        1. apro
          apro 1 March 2021 12: 30
          0
          Quote: tatra
          that anti-Sovietism is ALWAYS equal to Russophobia.

          The opposite is also possible. Russian means anti-Soviet. Puts the interests of the Russians above the Soviet ones.
          Quote: tatra
          Soviet communists created BEST for Russia

          Soviet communists were building a bright future for everyone.
          1. tatra
            tatra 1 March 2021 12: 43
            0
            Give examples when the Russian enemies of the USSR did at least something good for Russia and the Russian people, or at least offered BETTER than Russia and the Russian people had under Soviet rule. So stupid, senseless demagoguery, beloved by the enemies of the communists, is not necessary. Yesterday was enough for me from the choice of the enemies of the communists at VO Olgovich. Just the facts.
            1. apro
              apro 1 March 2021 13: 12
              +1
              Quote: tatra
              Give examples when the Russian enemies of the USSR did at least something good for Russia and the Russian people, or at least offered BETTER than Russia and the Russian people had under Soviet rule.

              Dear Tatra, the question is not correct. The Russians wanted the Russian way of development, and not the Soviet one. So they got it. It doesn't matter better ... worse. And if the majority of Russians supported the anti-Soviet counter-revolution, then this is their choice.
              1. tatra
                tatra 1 March 2021 13: 37
                +1
                WHAT is it specifically for the Russians, under whom, in comparison with the RSFSR, Russia has degraded and impoverished, and the Russian people have become impoverished and dying out, and who have had the ideology and history of their country and people for all 30 years is stupid malice AGAINST what the communists have done and their supporters, and a cowardly whine that they themselves had nothing to do with their seizure of Russia, and everything that they did to Russia and the Russian people? And I asked not for verbiage, but confidential facts - that the Russian enemies of the USSR did better for Russia and the Russian people than they did under Soviet rule, and that at least they offered Russia and the Russian people better than it was under the USSR, starting with power.
                1. apro
                  apro 1 March 2021 14: 02
                  0
                  Quote: tatra
                  And I asked not for verbiage, but confidential facts - that the Russian enemies of the USSR did better for Russia and the Russian people than they did under Soviet rule, and that at least they offered Russia and the Russian people better than it was under the USSR, starting with power.

                  The goal of the Russians is not to improve the life of the population, but to raise the dough for themselves with their beloved ones in various ways, and most Russians agree with this.
                  1. tatra
                    tatra 1 March 2021 14: 05
                    0
                    Did you just insult or praise the Russians? And no need to talk about the "election" of the enemies of the communists. In their "elections", both in the world and on the territory of the USSR they have seized, only they always win, and they will never give the country over to the real opposition.
                    1. apro
                      apro 1 March 2021 14: 07
                      +1
                      Quote: tatra
                      Did you just insult or praise the Russians?

                      You wanted facts, you got them.
                      1. tatra
                        tatra 1 March 2021 14: 17
                        0
                        Since it is useless to get at least something adequate from the enemies of the communists, let alone honest and objective, I will cite the facts for you. The Russian enemies of the communists proved that they are for Russia and the Russian people for what was before the October Revolution, and became in the Russian Federation, that is, for the WORST for Russia and the Russian people in comparison with the USSR - power, system, economy, demography, medicine , education, science, industry, agriculture.
                      2. apro
                        apro 1 March 2021 14: 27
                        -1
                        Quote: tatra
                        Since from the enemies of the communists

                        Tatra. Do not put equality between Russian and Soviet. This is a different civilizational path. One leads to a bright future for everyone. The second one for yourself. And if the Russians did not want the Soviet civilizational way, this is their right.
                      3. tatra
                        tatra 1 March 2021 14: 33
                        0
                        Yes, I don’t need the silly verbiage of the enemies of the communists. If there is anything to refute my words about the Russian enemies of the communists - go ahead, no - do not torture Claudia.
  14. Woodman
    Woodman 1 March 2021 12: 25
    0
    Quote: apro
    As for Finland ... you can read more ... is it not clear whether this is an occupied territory or a sovereign part of the Russian Federation?

    Your obsessive persistence in writing RF in small letters is very indicative, while you write all other names with capital letters. This cannot be attributed to illiteracy ... Well, yes, however, these are your "cockroaches" and you have to live with them. I have enough of mine. However, you should still be more respectful to the rules of the Russian language.
    I consider the term "occupied territory" unacceptable, but in general we are talking about the Petsamo area, if you are really interested.
    1. apro
      apro 1 March 2021 12: 32
      -1
      Quote: Lesovik
      I consider the term "occupied territory" unacceptable

      But you call it Finland. Consequently, question the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
      1. Woodman
        Woodman 1 March 2021 12: 37
        0
        Quote: apro
        But you call it Finland.

        In my opinion you are engaged in verbiage.
        Quote: apro
        integrity of the Russian Federation.

        It would be better to cultivate in ourselves respect for the language in which you are pleased to speak.
        1. apro
          apro 1 March 2021 13: 07
          -1
          That part of the territories that the USSR received as a result of the peace treaty with Finland were considered Soviet. And this was recognized by everyone, including Finland, and was not disputed. But as a result of the destruction of the USSR, this is now in doubt. And the Russians today themselves condone the finals by betting under doubts the treaties of the Soviet epoch. Considering the actions of the USSR are criminal. and with the Germans the same eggs. only in profile. there are no Finnish German territories within the Russian Federation.
          1. Woodman
            Woodman 1 March 2021 13: 18
            +1
            On the whole, I agree. The only thing is this phrase
            Quote: apro
            as part of the Russian Federation.
            should write: as part of the Russian Federation.
            PS I perfectly understand to which part of my comment you "cling", but nevertheless I think that you are engaged in verbiage in this matter.
            1. apro
              apro 1 March 2021 13: 45
              0
              Quote: Lesovik
              PS I perfectly understand to which part of my comment you "cling", but nevertheless I think that you are engaged in verbiage in this matter.

              For me, the comparison of the USSR and the Russian Federation is not acceptable. These are antagonistic systems. And the Russian path of development is not socialistic, but petty-bourgeois, but also semi-colonial.
              1. Woodman
                Woodman 1 March 2021 13: 51
                0
                Quote: apro
                For me, comparing the USSR and the Russian Federation is not acceptable

                For me, the Empire, the Union, and the Federation are all Russia. The attitude towards the state system or a specific figure is not a reason to neglect the rules of the Russian language.
                1. apro
                  apro 1 March 2021 14: 12
                  0
                  Quote: Lesovik
                  For me, the Empire, the Union, and the Federation are all Russia.

                  It's like equating Great Rome and Italy, Napoleon's France and the 5th or 6th republic.
                  1. Woodman
                    Woodman 1 March 2021 14: 18
                    0
                    Quote: apro
                    It's like equating

                    This is called the history of the state, the history of the people. Due to the fact that the boy Vanya grew up in Ivan Ivanych, no one will say that these are different people. It is one thing to compare how it was, how it became, and it is quite another thing to say that I do not like this part of the story and therefore I do not recognize it, but I like this part and therefore only it exists.
                  2. apro
                    apro 1 March 2021 14: 23
                    -2
                    Quote: Lesovik
                    Due to the fact that the boy Vanya grew up in Ivan Ivanych, no one will say that there are different people.

                    And then Ivan Ivanych turned into Vanka ... and this is also history, only no one wants to accept it.
                  3. Woodman
                    Woodman 1 March 2021 14: 26
                    0
                    And yet this is one person. One can compare this person with himself at different periods of his development, but one cannot say that here it is HE, but here it is not HE. And the story is the same with the state. The state has ups and downs, but the state remains the state.
                  4. apro
                    apro 1 March 2021 14: 31
                    -1
                    Quote: Lesovik
                    And yet this is one person.

                    Yes, one. But the goals are different. And movement in a certain direction. Or self-destruction or development.
                  5. Woodman
                    Woodman 1 March 2021 14: 38
                    0
                    Quote: apro
                    Yes, one, but the goals are different

                    Sometimes the main goal, under the influence of circumstances, gives way to the primary and more attainable goals. Sometimes such a substitution turns out to be a wrong decision, sometimes it is the only correct one. And often, making the right decision requires hint and help, not gloating.
                  6. apro
                    apro 1 March 2021 14: 45
                    -1
                    Quote: Lesovik
                    And often, making the right decision requires hint and help, not gloating.

                    As well as accumulated and saved experience, knowledge, formed skills, tested by time and difficult circumstances, the ability to see the future and predict the consequences of actions.
  • Olgovich
    Olgovich 1 March 2021 08: 57
    +3
    .
    In the event of a conflict with the Americans, the Russian fleet could block all American communications in the Atlantic and put the United States in a very difficult economic situation.

    Which author, however, is a science fiction jokerlol : Russia did not have the forces, funds, or bases for this.
    Even after the terrible disaster of 1812, if Russian troops (as the wise Kutuzov suggested) did not go beyond their borders, the French could retain a significant part of their positions in Europe.
    If they had not gone, they would have received a NEW 1812 And so - without end.

    Therefore, they finished off the aggressor. And they did the same in 1945, which is logical and true.
  • smaug78
    smaug78 1 March 2021 09: 08
    +4
    March 1 - this is the first spring aggravation of the collective Samsonov this year. Another mixture of half-truths, lies and the author's delirium ...
  • AntiAleks
    AntiAleks 1 March 2021 09: 36
    0
    Napoleon was defeated? what nonsense
    1. evgen1221
      evgen1221 1 March 2021 09: 53
      0
      Well, yes, Bonya took Moscow, Peter, reached Kamchatka and on the way back he privatized America with Australia by the way. True to the verb, these things have been told by the runes and Perun will confirm.)))))))))))
  • Astra wild2
    Astra wild2 1 March 2021 09: 49
    +3
    "as the wise Kutuzov suggested" There is no REAL evidence of this, and we can assume anything. Even nonsense: as a child, Aleksandr1 and Bonopart had a very falling out, one urinated another in a compote. And what is the alternative in full.
    Until there are real facts - also an alternative
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 1 March 2021 09: 51
    +1
    There is one global error of tsarism and of the Russian people in general. Our opinion of foreigners is too high and servile in places. What a priori puts in a subordinate position and not out of the blue was born an idiom in Russia, but how our actions will be viewed from abroad (at that time only Europe). Many of the country's troubles have come from this, and Europe and the world owe much to us for the fact that we honor foreigners above our own people.
  • Cucumbers
    Cucumbers 1 March 2021 10: 44
    -3
    Oh, it was necessary to fuck these partners together with Napoleon. Burn the entire English fleet. And then there are still problems from them. We do not need someone else's land, here we would have to master ours. Population, people are not. And it is not clear who is more to blame, maybe the tsar with the help of war fought in this way with distemper. And Russia is like a cash cow. These at regular intervals, so that the fat walk up, rob, rob, rob. We are trying to understand everything, to help. What for?
  • BAI
    BAI 1 March 2021 11: 05
    0
    The author contradicts himself:
    one side:
    It was reasonable to take Warsaw and engage in the pacification of the Poles, the fraternal Slavic people, and turn them into a part of the imperial society.

    with another:
    received only a piece of Poland. And the source of future problems (Polish uprisings).

    So whether Russia needed Poland or not?
  • Fitter65
    Fitter65 1 March 2021 12: 12
    +1
    Russia could close the issue with the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, Constantinople.
    Primordially Russian lands?
  • iouris
    iouris 1 March 2021 12: 52
    0
    Russia is a resource, not a subject. The war with Napoleon was financed by Britain.
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 1 March 2021 14: 14
    +2
    the author did not note that IA1 refused the contribution! And it was also necessary to rob Paris at the expense of robbing Moscow and Smolensk ...
  • Tavrik
    Tavrik 1 March 2021 14: 27
    +3
    Quote: Pardus22
    Europe has always been the enemy of Russia, and has always acted as a united front against us

    Usually we, in alliance with a part of Europe, acted against another part of it. Europe is not homogeneous.
  • vladcub
    vladcub 1 March 2021 15: 39
    +2
    "did not go beyond their borders" Alexander 1 had to coordinate with the Samsonovs, but he climbed and put thousands of Russian soldiers. What a bad king.
    And Stalin forgot to coordinate with the Samsonovs when our troops entered Poland.
    After all, you have to be consistent. If the Liberation campaign of 1813 was nonsense, then Stalin did not have figs to climb into Europe. Now some of the "people's guardians" declare this. It remains for the Samsonovs to repeat after Petrushka: “Stalin occupied Ukraine in 1943 and it will be very good
  • Fat
    Fat 1 March 2021 21: 42
    0
    What is the message!
    It should be noted that the proclamation of the USA gave not the USA and the 1860s were not behind the mountain
    In the course of our frontier will be eternal
    And if you follow the message of the article, then endless ...
    The Empire voluntarily did not miss anything,
    Fake Great Power crying
  • sidoroff
    sidoroff 1 March 2021 23: 57
    0
    Russia also received Finland. however, when she fought against Sweden on the side of Napoleon. Sweden was a member of all anti-French coalitions, and according to the Treaty of Friedrichsgam was forced to join the Continental blockade.
  • Pardus22
    Pardus22 4 March 2021 04: 05
    0
    We managed to push back the western borders of the Empire. At the same time, they scared Europe to death, which was the reason for the Crimean War, which we slept through.
  • vladimirw
    vladimirw 5 March 2021 15: 37
    0
    all of Europe under Napoleon and Hitler fought against Russia.
  • Pardus
    Pardus 10 March 2021 13: 28
    +12
    What Russia received from "grateful" Europe for the victory over Napoleon

    Russia always receives hatred and malice from "grateful" Europe. Therefore, there is nothing to help the Europeans in the future.yes
  • Pardus
    Pardus 10 March 2021 13: 28
    +12
    only in the spring and summer of 1813 did Russia have real allies who, seeing that Napoleon's empire was bled, broke the alliance with Paris and opposed France

    Always the same. We crush enemies alone, and then we find out that we have allies who are not averse to profit from fame and finances at our expense
  • Pardus
    Pardus 10 March 2021 13: 29
    +10
    especially England strongly objected to the transfer of the Warsaw area to Russia

    These are, as always, in their role. Churchill, 130 years later, in general, the plan "Unthinkable" created ...
  • Pardus
    Pardus 10 March 2021 13: 30
    +12
    However, the Vienna Congress was dominated by a double standard

    The double standard still applies to Russia.yes
  • Pardus
    Pardus 10 March 2021 13: 30
    +12
    Unfortunately, at this time the Russian Foreign Ministry was headed by a Westerner

    Unfortunately, we always have Westerners in our government ...
  • Sergey-73
    Sergey-73 14 March 2021 10: 51
    0
    Russia in Europe is like a rich boy with complexes. He has good toys and with them he tries to "buy" the friendship of other children. Those play with him, but when the toys break or the boy begins to demand something, they drive him away.
  • Armen Sologyan
    Armen Sologyan 16 March 2021 13: 38
    0
    What a pity Mother Russia !!! Russia always got the fate of the main winner, and the rest were used by those who sat on the chairs at the table and ate, filling their insatiable belly! And then those who ate rewrote history, they say, not Russia won. So it is in the last war in the last century, about which one cannot dare say that it was World War II !! It was precisely Patriotic and Russia accepted all its strength, and the rest only at the end of some kind of Channel swam across, and then with difficulty, and now they are celebrating as if they were the main ones. In general, all the aspirations of the aggressors in the past and in the future will have only one ending, and it is very deplorable. Russia is the best country on the planet Earth, and if not for endless wars, the people would live happily ever after. And so, only Russia will recover from the invaders, so a new war is brewing. Now it is bacteriological because I will never believe that the coronavirus is of natural origin, I will not believe anyone. The coronavirus was created by hand and spread through China, and China does not have the technologies and experience in the production of bacteriological weapons of mass destruction like the United States and Britain.
  • materik09
    materik09 26 March 2021 19: 53
    0
    Russia got Parisian bistros, from the word "quickly"!
  • Aleksandr97
    Aleksandr97 April 19 2021 16: 52
    0
    Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov was not only an outstanding commander, but also a wise diplomat:
    - "Forgive me, Mikhail Illarionovich!"
    - “I forgive, sir, but Russia will never forgive you for this” !!!
  • AntiAleks
    AntiAleks April 21 2021 05: 45
    -1
    Russia lost all wars with Napoleon, and only England could defeat him, Mr. Dreamer
    1. Aleksandr97
      Aleksandr97 April 21 2021 15: 25
      0
      Napoleon considered the only enemy that hinders his world domination - the Russian Empire! HOW coincides with the USA now !!!!
      The crossing of Napoleon across the Niemen took place on June 12, 1812, having at his disposal 450 thousand people. By the end of the month, another 200 people joined him. The total number of the French army at the time of the outbreak of hostilities in 1812 was 650 thousand soldiers. The combined army of almost all European countries (France, Austria, Poland, Switzerland, Italy, Prussia, Spain, Holland) fought on the side of France.
      Approximately 30 thousand people crossed the Neman from the “Great Army” that took part in the Napoleonic Russian campaign. Over 550 thousand soldiers and officers from Western Europe died in the fields of Russia or were taken prisoner. The chief of staff of the "Grand Army" Marshal A. Berthier reported to the emperor of the French: "The army no longer exists."
      On December 21, 1812, Field Marshal M. Kutuzov informed the Emperor Alexander that "the war was over for the complete annihilation of the enemy."
      On March 19 (31), 1814, Russian troops led by Emperor Alexander I triumphantly entered Paris.
      Ps The Naglo-Saxons are fighting with someone else's hands, and they enter wars when victory is obvious and with only one despicable goal to cling to the winners and snatch from the pie the division of the loser.
  • coramba
    coramba 8 May 2021 10: 44
    0
    Previously, it would have upset me very much, but now I understand that since the time of the Russophobe Peter 1, people of Russia have been leading a great country for whom they were an empty phrase! Otherwise, how to explain the honor of our army often shed blood in Europe for other people's interests?
  • Sedoy
    Sedoy 22 May 2021 18: 33
    0
    Russia could close the issue with the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, Constantinople

    sucker is fate ...