War of the Third Coalition. On the way to Austerlitz

War of the Third Coalition. On the way to Austerlitz
Napoleon and General Mac. Illustration for the book of William Milligan Sloan Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, 1896

Today we will talk about the so-called War of the Third Coalition, which culminated in the famous Battle of Austerlitz. In two short articles, of course, it is impossible to give a complete and detailed analysis of the series of circumstances that led to the defeat of the allied Russian-Austrian troops by Bonaparte's army. Nevertheless, I hope that they will be interesting and will make it possible to more clearly present the course of events preceding the battle and the reasons for the defeat of the coalition army.

Third anti-French coalition

In fact, in 1805, Napoleon was not at all going to fight in Central Europe - the state of affairs there suited him quite well. He had always regarded England as his main adversary, and now he intended to put an end to this ancient enemy of France once and for all.

The initiative for a new war came from the British: it was Britain on May 22, 1803 that declared war on France. English ships began to seize French and Dutch merchant ships. Napoleon, in response, ordered the arrest of all British subjects who were in the territories subject to France. Hanover, the German possession of the English kings, was occupied. But especially unpleasant for the British were serious preparations for the invasion of the British Isles. A huge camp was built in Boulogne-sur-Mer, in which the French expeditionary forces gathered, and by August 1805 there were already about 130 thousand soldiers and officers here.

Boulogne military camp, 1804 year. Engraving by an unknown author.

It was possible to collect about 2 landing ships, which were supposed to transport this army across the strait.

Bonaparte said:

“I only need three days of foggy weather - and I will be the lord of London, parliament, the Bank of England.”

Jean Louis Ernest Meissonier. Napoleon and his headquarters

In these circumstances, British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger made desperate efforts to create a new anti-French coalition, which was supposed to distract Bonaparte from his plans to conquer England.

William Pitt the Younger in a portrait by Gainsborough Dupont

According to him, the continental powers - Russia, Austria, Sweden, Portugal and the Kingdom of Naples - should have fought with France. Prussia, Denmark and the small German principalities could not be drawn into the coalition at that time. London also took over the financing of this campaign, that is, the British actually bought foreign soldiers who were supposed to fight, albeit under their own flags, but for British interests.

Russian Emperor Alexander I, Emperor Franz II of Austria and King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia on a German woodcut of the first quarter of the XNUMXth century

According to the agreement concluded on March 30, 1805, the British undertook to pay Alexander I 12,5 million rubles for 100 thousand soldiers and a quarter of this amount on top for mobilization. Thus, the cost of one Russian soldier was determined at 156 rubles 25 kopecks. Meanwhile, "revision souls" in Russia at that time cost from 70 to 120 rubles. In general, the English Prime Minister did not skimp.

It must be said that the Austrians were not too eager to enter into a new war with France: they still well remembered the defeats that the armies of Bonaparte and Moreau inflicted on them. However, young Alexander I, who dreamed of the laurels of a great commander, was simply eager to fight. He probably would have entered the war with Bonaparte and in splendid isolation, but here's the trouble: Russia and France did not have common borders. Therefore, the Austrian emperor Franz II had to be persuaded to take part in this adventure, which he very soon regretted bitterly.

But it was not only the ambition of Alexander I. He had to take into account the opinion of Russian aristocrats who wanted to lead a European way of life, but the necessary funds to ensure it could only be obtained from trade with England. That is why they killed Paul I, who decided to make an alliance with Napoleon (and as an excuse they declared their victim a crazy tyrant). Eugene Tarle wrote about this in his book "Napoleon":

“The young tsar, at the same time, knew to what extent the nobility, selling agricultural raw materials and grain to England, was interested in friendship with England.”

Alexander also had personal motives, since Napoleon inadvertently allowed himself to offend him with a hint of complicity in the murder of his father. In response to an official note condemning the execution of the Duke of Enghien, the Russian Emperor received a letter containing the following lines:

“If Emperor Alexander had known that the murderers of his late father were in foreign territory, and nevertheless arrested them, then Napoleon would not have protested against such a violation of international law.”

The murderers of Paul I were well known to Alexander, and they were all located on the territory of the Russian Empire. And therefore, personally, Alexander could not object to his opponent in any way. To answer the French emperor had to send Russian soldiers and officers.

Allied plans

Alexander I and Franz II had no intention of waging a defensive war on the territory of Austria. The plans included an offensive on four fronts at once: in northern Germany, in Bavaria, in northern and southern Italy. M. I. Kutuzov was appointed to command the Russian troops - an experienced and experienced general who served under the command of Suvorov, a participant in the assault on the Izmail fortress.

One of the lifetime portraits of M. I. Kutuzov. Colorized engraving by S. Cardelli, 1810s.

However, Alexander I assigned the main role in the upcoming campaign to himself. Kutuzov had to solve purely "technical" issues of organizing the movement of the army, its supply on the way, and so on. Emperor Kutuzov "nobly freed" from solving strategic problems.

The campaign, in which the Russian Podolsk army of Kutuzov (about 58 thousand people) set out on August 13, 1805, was called "Caesar". On the way to these troops were to join the Volhynian army of Buxgevden (48 thousand soldiers) and the guards of the Lithuanian army of Essen the First. The composition and condition of the Russian troops inspired optimism.

Among the commanders were very talented, experienced and authoritative people, including participants in the last military campaigns of the great Suvorov (the Italian campaign and crossing the Alps). Let's name some of them. The first to come to mind, of course, are the names of M. A. Miloradovich and P. I. Bagration, who in the Swiss campaign commanded the vanguard units of the right and left columns of the Suvorov troops, respectively.

M. A. Miloradovich, lifetime portrait by an unknown artist. 1810s, Borodino Field Museum

P. I. Bagration, lifetime portrait of 1805 (engraving by Saunders from the portrait of S. Tonchi), Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts.

Less well known is Nikolai Mikhailovich Kamensky, the son of a field marshal of Catherine the Great, who received the nickname "Devil's General" from Suvorov. It was not an insult, but an agnomen (a nickname like "Zadunaisky" or "Tauride"), which Alexander Vasilyevich appropriated to him for his decisive role in capturing the famous Devil's Bridge (Kamensky's regiment appeared behind French lines on the left bank of the Reis River, bypassing their positions through the village of Betzberg).

N. M. Kamensky on the portrait of F. Veitch

It was Nikolai Kamensky then everyone considered Suvorov's favorite student. The pinnacle of his career was the position of commander of the Danube army. He won a number of victories over the Ottomans, but fell ill and died on May 4, 1811, at the age of 35. He was replaced as commander by Kutuzov, who concluded the Bucharest peace with the Turks less than a month before the start of the war with Bonaparte.

Another participant in the last campaigns of Suvorov, Karl Fedorovich Tol, in 1812 will act as the quartermaster general of the Russian army, and in the future he will become the chief manager of communications and public buildings.

Karl Fedorovich Tol, portrait by J. Doe

Ferdinand Fedorovich von Wintzingerode in 1812 entered the history, as the commander of the first partisan detachment (the future chief of the III Directorate A. Benkendorf was among his subordinates then). In 1813 he led the cavalry at the Battle of Lützen.

George Doe. Portrait of Ferdinand Winzingerode, Hermitage

Pyotr Ivanovich Ozerov will become a member of the State Council and the commission for the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

P. I. Ozerov on the portrait of A. Molinari

In general, Alexander I had every reason to hope for success. The Russian troops went to join the Austrians in six "echelons", which moved at a distance of a day's march from one another.

The first clashes between the Austrian and French armies

All the plans of the allies were violated by Napoleon, who did the almost impossible. In just 20 days, he led his army from the English Channel to the Danube and went to this river when the Russian troops were still on the way. But the Austrian army, which was nominally commanded by Archduke Ferdinand, but in fact by Quartermaster General Karl Mack, had already advanced to Bavaria to the Iller River. Napoleon, who met with Mack in Paris, spoke of him this way:

“Mack is the most mediocre person I have ever met. Full of conceit and pride, he considers himself capable of everything. Now he is without any meaning; but it would be advisable to be sent against one of our good generals; then I would have to look at interesting things. ”

In this portrait we see Charles Schulmeister, about whom the Minister of Police, Jean René Savary, said to Bonaparte:

“Here is a man who is made entirely of the brain, but without a heart.”

Charles Louis Schulmeister in a portrait by an unknown artist

It was he who in March 1804 kidnapped the mistress of Louis Antoine de Bourbon, Duke of Enghien, using her as bait. The duke who appeared was seized, taken to Paris and shot by the verdict of a military court. Now Schulmeister has gained Mack's confidence, posing as a Hungarian aristocrat expelled from France and well aware of the situation in that country. Believing Schulmeister, Mack expected an imminent royalist uprising in Paris, because of which Napoleon would not be up to the war. And so he did not withdraw the army from Ulm in time.

The first to come here were the corps of Ney and Lann, supported by Murat's cavalry. After the French captured the dominant heights surrounding Ulm on October 15, 1805, the position of the Austrians became almost hopeless. On October 20, Mack's army laid down weapon. The fortress of Ulm was also surrendered. 32 thousand people were taken prisoner, the French got 200 artillery pieces and 90 banners. Outside the fortress, Murat's cavalrymen captured another 8 soldiers. Many of the Austrian prisoners were sent to work in France.

Charles Thevenin. Surrender in Ulm, October 20 1805 of the year Napoleon I accepts the surrender of General Mac

A little later, Napoleon said that near Ulm, one Schulmeister replaced him with a 40-strong army corps.

Some detachments from Mack's army were still able to move away from Ulm. The corps of General Jelachich went to Tyrol, where he was then surrounded by Augereau's troops and also capitulated. Archduke Ferdinand took about 5 thousand soldiers to Bohemia. General Kinmeier, at the head of 10 soldiers, broke through to the Inn River, where he joined Kutuzov's army. Napoleon's troops followed him, and Kutuzov led his army towards Vienna, hoping to meet new units from Russia and Austrian formations that were supposed to come from Italy and Tyrol (but came too late).

Kutuzov's army enters the battle

On October 28, Russian troops crossed the Danube at Mautern, after which they destroyed the only bridge. On the left bank in front of them was only Mortier's corps, which was supposed to interfere with the crossing of the Russian army, but was late.

Edouard Adolf Casimir Joseph Mortier

On October 30, in the battle at Krems (it is also called the Dürrenstein battle), Mortier's units, although they suffered heavy losses, managed to avoid complete defeat and cross to the right bank. Russian and French troops were now separated by a wide and full-flowing Danube.

Kutuzov had three options for action. He could stop his troops for a rest, he could lead them east to link up with Buxhoeveden's army, or he could go down the Danube to Vienna. Kutuzov chose the first option, which ended up being the worst.

However, it must be admitted that it was difficult not only to predict, but even to believe in the possibility of what then happened. In L. N. Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace", Kutuzov's adjutant Bilibin describes these events as follows:

“Yesterday, gentlemen marshals: Murat, Lannes and Belliard, sit on horseback and set off for the bridge. (Note that all three are Gascons.)
“Gentlemen,” one says, “you know that the Tabor bridge is mined and counter-contaminated, and that in front of it is the formidable tête de pont and fifteen thousand troops who are ordered to blow up the bridge and not let us in.” But our sovereign Emperor Napoleon will be pleased if we take this bridge. Three of us go and take this bridge.
- Come on, others say;
and they set off, and take the bridge, cross it, and now with the whole army on this side of the Danube are heading towards us. ”

In fact, the Tabor Bridge was captured by the generals Bertrand, Belliard and Moissel, and only the first two were Gascons. But everything else is true.

"The Miracle of the Vienna Bridge"

Murat at the head of the cavalry units, Lannes and Soult with their corps and Oudinot with the grenadier division moved towards Vienna. They could go to the rear of Kutuzov's army, but for this they had to capture the strategically important bridges across the Danube: Taborsky, about 100 meters long, and Shpitsky, whose length was 430 meters.

Everyone perfectly understood the significance of these bridges. For their protection, 13 thousand Austrian soldiers were allocated with artillery batteries attached to them. Moreover, the bridges were mined in advance, and the Austrian cover units were ordered to destroy them immediately at the first appearance of the enemy. In general, the capture of bridges by the French seemed impossible.

However, both the Austrians and the Russians did not take into account the human factor, namely, the hot blood of young and rootless Napoleonic generals and the impenetrable stupidity of Prince Karl Auersperg von Mautern. The Austrian aristocrat used to be the commander of the "toy soldiers" of the court guard, and now it was he who was entrusted with guarding these bridges.

Karl Auersperg von Mautern

On October 31, 1805, two French generals approached the Tabor bridge. These were Murat's subordinates - his adjutant Henri-Gracien Bertrand and the commander of the artillery units Moissel. A little later, Augustin-Daniel de Belliard, Murat's chief of staff, also joined them. Behind them secretly followed two hussars and two dragoon regiments, a grenadier division and a battery of three guns.

The “parliamenters” spoke in a friendly manner with the Austrian lieutenant on duty, and the approaching French soldiers began to break the locks on the lowered bridge lattice. Ordinary Austrian soldiers were already ready to open fire, but, unfortunately, Colonel Goeringer was nearby, to whom Bertrand announced the cessation of hostilities. He presented himself and two other generals as commissioners who must guarantee the inviolability of the Tabor and Shpitsky bridges - without this, the peace agreement would not be signed.

Henri Gracien Bertrand

Terrified of responsibility, Göringer allowed them to switch sides to negotiate with Auersperg. The combat general Kinmayer, the one who managed to lead 10 thousand soldiers away from Ulm, begged the prince not to enter into negotiations and give the order to destroy the bridge. However, Auersperg went to meet the French.

Here, the last attempt to save Vienna was made by an unknown corporal, who, spitting on subordination, began to shout to the commander that the French were deceiving him - and was arrested by order of the prince. And just a few minutes later, the first French platoon crossed the bridge, followed by other units.

Eugene Louis Charpentier. The capture of the bridge over the Danube by the French

A military tribunal sentenced Aeursperg to death, but he was pardoned by the emperor.

Meanwhile, on November 1 (13), 1805, French troops entered Vienna. Here, their trophies were about two thousand artillery pieces and a huge amount of ammunition, equipment, food.

The entry of French troops into Vienna. Engraving from the album "Military campaigns of France during the Consulate and Empire." Paris, 1834

In the next article, we will finish our story and talk about the battle of the Russian rearguard with Murat's corps at Schöngraben and the battle of Austerlitz.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

81 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    19 November 2022 05: 06
    Thanks, Valery. Sad pages of our history. "War and Peace" made them close a long time ago.
    There were personal reasons for Alexander l.
    And the complete destruction of the Mac left us in a very bad situation.
    1. +7
      19 November 2022 12: 38
      Good afternoon, Sergey! smile
      I join in gratitude, Valery has pleased today. good
      And about the coalition ... It has long been said what an Englishwoman always does. negative

      According to him, the continental powers - Russia, Austria, Sweden, Portugal and the Kingdom of Naples - should have fought with France. ................................. London took over the financing of this campaign, that is, the British actually bought foreign soldiers who were supposed to fight, albeit under their own flags, but for British interests.

      And no matter what Alexander's reasons were, he spoiled his country greatly. request
  2. +5
    19 November 2022 07: 22
    Of all the wars of that time, only Suvorov's campaign is well known to us - because it was victorious, and 1812 - because the Patriotic War and the "club of the people's war." About the rest, almost no one knows anything. And they don’t like the war of 1805-1807 at all - because it’s not clear why and why they fought, Napoleon did not threaten Russia and, as it is written in the article, there were not even common borders with his empire. At the same time, people were also raked. But it’s necessary to write - so that there are fewer people who want to get into other people’s wars.
    1. +5
      19 November 2022 08: 06
      only Suvorov's campaign is well known to us - because the victorious
      And what did Russia have with this company? Other than fame? Nothing .. And the results of the war of the third coalition? The exit of Austria from the war, the strengthening of France on the continent. Austria lost influence on Germany, this led to the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine under the French protectorate three months later, as well as the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire. Russia, took part in the fourth coalition, the main sponsor, Great Britain. It ended with the Peace of Tilsit.
      1. +6
        19 November 2022 10: 29
        Alexey, good day hi Immediately, the question is not what she had, but that she is better known, and the truth is that the boys could find out about the same battle of Novi by reading A. Mityaev's "Book of Future Commanders".
        And if we talk about sense, then let's not forget that the king is a big feudal lord, and his thinking is feudal. And then the king's head was demolished, mat what they overthrew, and they encroached, and who? Black is incomprehensible. And if our mob looks at this and does something similar? If they quietly tapped their own, then this is normal, and the palace coup is also here, and here is the street, the elements.
        If we talk from the point of view of state interests, not momentary, then it was the height of stupidity to strangle Hungary in 1849, especially since the Austrians very quickly "thanked" Nicholas 1, but the emperor behaved like a monarch, like a knight without asking for anything in return, and he was surrounded by exactly such or feudal lords. They didn't think like us.
        I once read Prince Obolensky, this is no longer directly related to the topic, a member of the Cadets Party, a liberal revolutionary, and so in his family, the surname is well-known, he was a kind of geek. And he was at work in the Pskov province, it seems, but in general in those parts, he looked at noble estates. The railway in those parts is far away and the noble estates fell into decay, there was no one to look. In general, the nobles there are frank rogues, but they are all in caps with a red band. One of them defeudalized himself and, without showing off, began to plow on a par with the peasants.
        Oh officers, you can walk a couple of blocks, no, you must hire a cab, because they will not understand.
        1. +5
          19 November 2022 14: 28
          Quote: Alexander Salenko
          And then the king's head was demolished, mat what they overthrew, and they encroached, and who? Black is incomprehensible.

          The heads of kings were removed before, but the Franks went further and began to export the revolution. And Napoleon, plus, began to seat his relatives on the vacant thrones (albeit a little later)) And since half of the German monarchs offended by the Franks are, to one degree or another, relatives of Romanov-Holstein-Gogthorp, the reason for intervention is quite weighty.
          You yourself, if you find out that your relatives and neighbors are being squeezed out of an apartment in lawlessness, will you not think about it?
          I don’t want to say at all that Alexander I, who had not yet become “Blessed”, was absolutely right in this case, but, in general, the idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbcrushing teapots until they become steam locomotives is not so bad!
          Quote: Alexander Salenko
          If we talk from the point of view of state interests, not momentary, then the height of stupidity was to strangle Hungary in 1849

          Exactly the opposite. In that case, Nikolai acted just the same very pragmatically.
          The whole point is that the large and clumsy Austrian Empire for Russia as a neighbor is much more preferable than a bunch of national republics headed by demagogues with exorbitant ambitions.
          By the way, "Kossuth and company" did not hide at all that after the victory, the first thing they would do was carry the flag of freedom to ... Poland. Why, by the way, there were so many Poles in their ranks.
          We need it?
          1. +3
            19 November 2022 15: 59
            but, in general, the idea of ​​crushing dummies before they become steam locomotives is not so bad!

            I’m not talking about this, more precisely, yes and no, not because my namesake calculated something there, but because he had a different motivation, including crushing teapots With reasoning that he thought that France would grow stronger is a strong modernization motivation.
            Exactly the opposite. In that case, Nikolai acted just the same very pragmatically.
            The whole point is that the large and clumsy Austrian Empire for Russia as a neighbor is much more preferable than a bunch of national republics headed by demagogues with exorbitant ambitions.

            She is clumsy, but unpleasant as an opponent. The Magyars would definitely have fewer claims, resources, and desires than a decaying empire. Separately pulling up Hungary would be much easier than Austria-Hungary.
            1. +3
              19 November 2022 16: 22
              Quote: Alexander Salenko
              The Magyars would definitely have fewer claims, resources and desire

              Resources, maybe, but about claims and desires, definitely not.
              And if we talk about the Crimean War, then the Allies would definitely fasten the Hungarians. And the Austrians, no matter how you treat them, stood between the warring parties in the Danubian principalities.
              Quote: Alexander Salenko
              Pulling up Hungary separately would be much easier

              Sardinia strongly pulled up? And they had no reason to interfere at all ...
              1. +1
                21 November 2022 09: 32
                The Austrians did something bad to us and we were forced to keep a large army there, they did not divide anyone, having claims in the Balkans themselves.
                And to pull Sardinia, forgive me how, without a land border.
                1. 0
                  21 November 2022 11: 01
                  Quote: Alexander Salenko
                  The Austrians did something bad to us and we were forced to keep a large army there,

                  Well, they would hold against Hungary. If you don't know sobsno Austria is a very small part of that empire.
                  And by the way, our traditional ally against the Turks. Not the best, but I don’t have other Shostakovichs for you (tm))
                  Quote: Alexander Salenko
                  they didn't share anyone.

                  Oh really!
                  Quote: Alexander Salenko
                  And pull Sardinia

                  That's right, that they had no border, but they managed to fasten them. And Hungary with the fucked-up romantics could even more so.
                  1. 0
                    21 November 2022 15: 17
                    Well, they would hold against Hungary. If you don't know sobsno Austria is a very small part of that empire.

                    I don’t understand why I’m talking with such aplomb, if I’m aware of something there, then Hungary, I’m aware that not the rest, and she herself wouldn’t have that interest in the Balkans, so you, my friend, would just have at least some then the work on that war was done, although I am more concerned with the Crimea, one way or another I am concerned with general political issues.
                    And by the way, our traditional ally against the Turks.

                    By the way, then he threw it away, this traditional ally and the contradictions between the empires loomed even earlier, already under Suvorov, when there was the closest cooperation with them, wow, with what swiftness they lost Italy and how quickly Suvorov returned everything back.
                    That's right, that they had no border, but they managed to fasten them. And Hungary with the fucked-up romantics could even more so.

                    How? France has a common border with Sardinia, but not with Hungary, what could have been offered to the Hungarians? Do you at least know how you bribed Sardinia and not at once?
                    1. 0
                      21 November 2022 18: 24
                      Quote: Alexander Salenko
                      she herself would not have that interest in the Balkans,

                      Why did you decide that? How would you have! And they opened their mouths against Serbia, and they wanted to liberate the Danubian principalities and Poland, and even before they themselves gained independence.
                      Quote: Alexander Salenko
                      threw, this traditional ally and the contradictions between empires loomed

                      Relations between allies are never easy. And I must say that our diplomats pretty messed up there too.
                      Quote: Alexander Salenko
                      How? France has a common border with Sardinia, but not with Hungary, what could have been offered to the Hungarians?

                      And you definitely read something about that war?
                      Remember what was offered to Austria (well, they themselves wanted it), and think about why this cannot be offered to independent Hungarians?
                      But Franz Joseph was smart enough to keep neutrality, but I would not vouch for Kossuth and company.
                      I would rather vouch for it. This one will run to war ahead of his own screech!
                      1. 0
                        21 November 2022 19: 27
                        Probably because independent Hungary did not happen then, and its historical interests are Transcarpathia, that's where we could collide with them, so it's in Ukraine, and slamming Hungary, it's not slamming Austria-Hungary, I must admit I'm tired of your free flight of thought.
                        And you definitely read something about that war?
                        More than sure that times in tsat more than you. Including the view from the other side.
                        Remember what was offered to Austria (well, they themselves wanted it), and think about why this cannot be offered to independent Hungarians?

                        What was offered to Austria is in your fantasies that the Austrians did not annoy us, and our Danube campaign was accurate not because someone suggested something.
                        But Franz Joseph was smart enough to keep neutral

                        He had enough memory.
                        And before asking stupid questions about reading, what theater of the Crimean War were you in, for example, how many battlefields did you see? And what did the diplomatic games lead to when the diplomats actually thwarted the plan of the military?
                        And since I said that I know the events in the Crimea and visited every field of a major battle, including the battle site on the Chernaya River, have you even heard of such a thing, uncle? The fact is that it is known, well, once again they lost, which has become familiar.
                        Nevertheless, it was this battle that led to the fall of Sevastopol, so the enemy was divided into a siege corps, and an observational, if the unknown word is not clear, then this is a corps that was expecting an attack from the Russian army from the outside, Vauban's idea was used that the army should not be locked in a fortress, but entrust its defense to the garrison, and the army itself presses from the outside, although the Romans even used something similar and even the Spartans during the siege of Plataea, only on the contrary, they besieged both.
                        After the defeat, the need for an observational corps practically disappeared, the allies could not completely expose them, but on the whole they gathered into a fist and invested in a blow. The fortress fell and in fact the outcome of the war was decided.
                        The problem of the Chernorechensky battle is that the enemy occupied a strong position, the Italians had an easier climb, the French had steep slopes, there was a river in front of the front, and Gorchakov attacked without superiority in strength, why it was necessary to do this is another question. He did not have enough just to create the advantage of those forces that smoked on the border of Austria-Hungary. What more and who could put up more troops, Austria-Hungary, the whole, or part - Hungary?

                        P.S. Geography is also not your forte, I heartily neighing since the Hungarians climbed into Serbia, or would you have some kind of secret knowledge? laughing
                      2. 0
                        21 November 2022 20: 10
                        Quote: Alexander Salenko
                        I confess I'm tired of your free flight of thought.

                        It's mutual for us
                        For some reason, you are confident in the peacefulness of the Hungarians and proclaim it as a dogma
                        Quote: Alexander Salenko
                        What theater of the Crimean War were you in general, for example, how many battlefields did you see?

                        if the discussion was about where which company stood on the Black River, I would take any of your statements on faith. But in this case, you ... how would it be more polite.
                        Quote: Alexander Salenko
                        I neighed from the bottom of my heart since the Hungarians climbed into Serbia,

                        Laughter for no reason....
                        Quote: Alexander Salenko
                        do you have some secret knowledge?

                        No secrets. just take and learn the real story.

                        Look at the map. Austria - dark brown. Light - the Kingdom of Hungary.
                        As you can see, it perfectly borders both Serbia and Romania, which did not yet exist at that time.
                        So march to learn materiel!
                      3. 0
                        22 November 2022 16: 59
                        March to teach materiel to you, what kind of stupidity, Lord. The grandmother remembered when she was a grandfather, that's it, go to your sofa with your family to tell these nonsense.
                      4. 0
                        22 November 2022 17: 20
                        Publicly obgadilis and switched to rudeness?
                        Not surprised...
                        Quote: Alexander Salenko
                        Grandma remembered when she was a grandfather

                        So we were just talking about those times ....
                        anyway, what am I talking about!
                      5. 0
                        21 November 2022 20: 23
                        In general, this is a typical mistake of beginner alternatives. You offer a plan of action different from the real one, but at the same time you are firmly convinced that the enemy will act the same way as in real life.
                        And that doesn't happen. The circumstances have changed.
                        Quote: Alexander Salenko
                        He had enough memory.

                        so be it. But where does Kossuth get such memories from?
                        Quote: Alexander Salenko
                        What Austria was offered is in your fantasies

                        Maybe fantasies, but definitely not mine)))
                        All these conditions forced British and French diplomacy to approach Franz Joseph with particular vigor, with open requests, veiled threats, and with not very definite, but very tempting promises. The accession of Austria, and after it the possible joint accession of the entire German Confederation to the coalition fighting against Russia, could have a very strong influence on accelerating the course of hostilities and achieving victory over a terrible enemy.

                        Eastern war. Tarle.
                      6. 0
                        22 November 2022 17: 03
                        The Eastern war of Tarle is simply nothing in terms of military thought from the word at all, without arguing about the political component, I think where the dog rummaged. But those nonsense are not Tarle, but your interpretation of him, grandfather, he did not flog such stupidity.
                        Why is Austria behaving so ambiguously? Is she plotting "treason", that is, joining Britain and France in the event of a war between Russia and these powers? Will it not suddenly fall with all the might of its still intact and well-armed army on the right flank of the Russian troops during their possible future movement from the Danube to the Balkans? Nikolai knew that Paskevich was inclined to give affirmative answers to all these questions.
                        I wanted to be smeared, well, they jumped. The king did not agree, but that was his problem.
                        WHO there told that Austria divorced something there?
                        Although Tarle is not a military historian, he is an outright layman in these matters, but he is a good historian in general and could not write such nonsense.
                      7. 0
                        22 November 2022 17: 17
                        Quote: Alexander Salenko
                        Eastern war Tarle is simply nothing in terms of military thought

                        You still do not understand that the discussion is not in combat?
                        It is sad.
                        Quote: Alexander Salenko
                        I couldn't write such nonsense.

                        Have you been banned in Google?
                      8. 0
                        22 November 2022 17: 26
                        I poked what Tarle wrote there, that's it, fuck off.
                      9. 0
                        22 November 2022 17: 37
                        Quote: Alexander Salenko
                        I poked

                        Grow the poke first.
                        And two more points
                        1) in order to understand how Hungary could act if it were to free itself, it is necessary not to wander along the Black River, but at least read something about the 1948 revolution and specifically Kossuth.
                        Quote: Alexander Salenko
                        What more and who could put up more troops, Austria-Hungary, the whole, or part - Hungary?

                        Stupid question, well characterizes you though.
                        Part of the army that came to the battlefield (and its best part) is always more important than the whole, but remained in the barracks.
                        Now that's all. Yes
          2. +1
            20 November 2022 00: 51
            There is always a reason to intervene. There would be a desire. But Catherine 2, although she was German, was in no hurry to get involved in the European swara. She made all sorts of statements, while she herself dealt with pressing issues.
            1. +3
              20 November 2022 07: 46
              The situation was a little different. Revolutionary France was then only fighting back and had not yet begun to export its ideas on bayonets. Therefore, Mother Ekaterina did her business on the sly.
    2. +5
      19 November 2022 09: 07
      There is quite enough literature on the Napoleonic Wars in Russian, and it continues to be published at the present time. Another question is that people have stopped reading, they are not interested in history. Sad.
      1. +7
        19 November 2022 10: 42
        Sergey, earlier, of course, they read more and knew more, but then again, history is simply taught at school, something remains in the head, it remained, so it would be more correct to say. But still, military history is very specific and few people know it in essence. For example, a neighbor told me in my childhood that the word musketeer comes from the word musket, well, when the famous movie came out and we played them as boys, this neighbor, an adult man, gave out - this is such a gun. And the vast majority of the population were sure that the musketeers were fighting with swords.
        Tarle, a distinguished scientist, is mentioned here, but here he, a specialist, begins to analyze the battle on the Alma River, for example, and there is little in common with reality. You know the saying how a sliver gets into a gear mechanism and starts to crack and an ignorant person will perceive it as the most important detail. This is how it is here, and just along the Krymskaya I can cite similar works by other historians, I emphasize.
        And I agree about the publications, they are being published, I got two Oryol magazines as a child, there were actually so many of them, and the movement of Napoleon’s corps from the Boulogne camp to Ulm is described in detail, in particular about the passage of part of them through Anspach, an enclave of Prussia, beyond that she let Prussian troops through her territory.
        And now, thanks to the Internet, the clipboard of information is huge, I don’t want to read it. And quite a few fell ill with Napoleonism in the 90s, for example, the notorious Sokolov. And our works in French appeared.
        1. +4
          19 November 2022 16: 05
          I was a little more fortunate - I learned to read at the age of 4 according to the Sytin military encyclopedia. There were other books on military history - Napoleon, Clausewitz, Delbrook .... , but their understanding came later, towards the end of school. And the second thing I was lucky with was that I did not get out of Leninka for almost 30 years, starting at 16, before shoveling the magnificent CDSA library.
          It's nice to meet a kindred spirit drinks
        2. 0
          20 November 2022 01: 00
          Sokolov took up Napoleonics back in the late 70s. In the late 80s, he was already "Sir" in certain circles.
    3. +5
      19 November 2022 10: 15
      I can’t agree, if not everyone could master War and Peace, then quite a few people watched Bondarchuk’s production, and there the Schonngraben case is shown and Bolkonsky’s sticking at the Russian officers mocking Mack, what are you chuckling about, the allied army is defeated. And I’m generally silent about Austerlitz.
      If you are talking about the broad masses, then even they heard something like that, they will tell you, but they didn’t hear much more about the war of 1812, it’s enough to remember that for these masses everyone who is in a shako with a sultan is a hussars.
      And those who were more or less interested in this in the course, if not from elementary school, then from class 5, I knew about it for sure and had someone to discuss it with, it is clear that at the children's level.
      1. +7
        19 November 2022 10: 27
        And the release of the article is just in time for the date. November 20 - the day of the Battle of Austerlitz.
    4. +1
      19 November 2022 11: 05
      Quote: vet
      Of all the wars of that time, only Suvorov's campaign is well known to us - because it was victorious, and 1812 - because the Patriotic War and the "club of the people's war." About the rest, almost no one knows anything. And they don’t like the war of 1805-1807 at all - because it’s not clear why and why they fought, Napoleon did not threaten Russia and, as it is written in the article, there were not even common borders with his empire. At the same time, people were also raked. But it’s necessary to write - so that there are fewer people who want to get into other people’s wars.

      The reasons for fighting are simple, if Napoleon had defeated and subjugated England, can you imagine what a fun company it would be when he came to Russia?
      1. +2
        19 November 2022 16: 09
        And why does he need Russia with a defeated England ???
        1. +2
          19 November 2022 16: 55
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          And why does he need Russia with a defeated England ???

          When you take over the world, every country is important. winked
  3. +6
    19 November 2022 07: 35
    The British pledged to pay Alexander I 12,5 million rubles for 100 thousand soldiers and a quarter of this amount on top for mobilization. Thus, the cost of one Russian soldier was determined at 156 rubles 25 kopecks.
    They give money, why not fight ...
    1. +2
      19 November 2022 10: 11
      Alexander had no option not to fight, if Napoleon dealt with England, then he would still have to fight with him, only now without England.
      1. +4
        19 November 2022 10: 22
        if Napoleon deals with England
        And if, without "if"? England, fought by proxy.
        1. +2
          19 November 2022 10: 43
          I'm sorry I didn't understand your idea?
          What does it mean by someone else's hands, England is fighting as well as she can, if Napoleon conquers her, forces her to give up the fleet, pay indemnity, how will it be possible to fight with him at all, or do you think that Bonaparte did not begin to realize the hegimoy he had received both on land and at sea.
          1. +3
            19 November 2022 10: 57
            It would be wrong to argue with the fact that England made a feasible contribution to this, otherwise at VO you can hear the opinion that the Englishwoman always and everywhere spoils Russians, they have innate Russophobia there.
            And so open to many that without the British there would have been a difficult expedition of the Baltic Fleet to the Archipelago to the Mediterranean Sea, it politically put pressure on the states of Italy, Spain, to provide assistance and support. And from that bell tower it was just yesterday. And not a small number of Russian soldiers fired guns of British origin.
            And France is our old rival, then the Poles will be beaten to rebellion, then the fortress of Ishmael will be built for the Turks, so historically it was they who spoiled us. But again, from the height of that flight, what did such a strengthening of France foreshadow?
            So far, the French have withstood the invasion of the coalition, achieved success in Italy, again it was necessary to repeat it, because Suvorov knocked everyone out, there was an even less well-known defeat of the Austrians from Moro near Hohenlinden, the occupation of Holland, nothing fantastic, because of which the tsar could be afraid, did not have.
            Here he commented above that the tsar is a feudal lord and he thought in feudal terms, but in reality Napoleon dreamed of putting the country in order and rejoiced at the peace with England that did not last long, and it was the British who violated it.
            1. +1
              19 November 2022 11: 03
              Nicholas may have thought like a feudal lord, a knight, and so on. And until Alexander hit religion, he thought in terms of European balance, France became unnecessarily stronger, its influence had to be limited, the conquest by France, England was in principle unacceptable, even if France were not the main enemy, which for more than 100 years interfered with Russian policy in Turkey and Poland.
              1. +4
                19 November 2022 11: 24
                Do not confuse the basis and the superstructure, and so the basis is feudal, by the way, I did not understand why the minus flew to me. Catherine was completely German and held the Legislative Commission, so the merchants said there: why only nobles own serfs?
                So you can admire the fact that the emperor loved to read, listen to music and all that, but I don’t see his efforts to create Russian industry, I repeat, we couldn’t even provide our army with guns and it didn’t bother anyone - we’ll buy it.
                And around the same feudal lords that in Prussia, that in Austria, wherever you spit.
                1. +1
                  19 November 2022 11: 36
                  You can get a minus here for a simple enumeration of facts, more than once.
                  With the smelting of iron, they began, according to the books that I read as a teenager in the Republic of Ingushetia at the beginning of the 19th century, everything was fine, but there were obviously not enough guns due to the constant growth of the army and losses.
                  Nevertheless, you did not refute the allegations that Alexander could not allow the victory of France over England and, apart from participating in the coalition, he had no special options.
                  1. +2
                    19 November 2022 11: 57
                    In general, I argued that there is a different reason here, and if I follow strictly methodologically, I should not refute it, making a remark that the growth of France's power was not obvious. Over in Egypt, Napoleon completely blew everything clean but pulled it off in time, and since at that moment the catastrophe in Egypt was not obvious, he was accepted as a hero. And so one could say about the stupidity of the French, that after such a fiasco they carried Napoleon in their arms.
                    A similar example happened to us in 1914, there was a complete realization that the Germans would sweep away France and take over us, although mass Soviet public opinion adhered to the opposite point of view: on the other hand, Paris was saved. What is voiced by Pikul.
                    Austerlitz, Wagram, Friedland - this is still ahead.
                    1. +3
                      19 November 2022 12: 29
                      The complete helplessness of the Austrians in clashes with the French in the war of the 2nd coalition has already come to light, reading Clausewitz is amazing if the Austrians do not have double superiority, they give way in any situation and this is even before Marengo and that village with a terrible name where Moro gained greatness))
                      Well, it’s impossible to risk that your main economic partner will simply disappear from the map in a couple of weeks, I personally think that the British would still fight back, but I wouldn’t put money on it.
                      1. +2
                        19 November 2022 13: 29
                        Your truth, and of course at that moment. considered in the topic, no one knew about the battle of Wagram, this is not such a convincing victory for Napoleon as the same Austerlitz.
                        But why do we need it? Well, let him beat the Austrians, and we will beat the Turks, by the way, what we did from 1806 to 1812, or the Persians, they started there even earlier.
                        Get it right. I do not want you to recognize my opinion, why, we exchanged our ideas, this is already just fine, I think so.
                        But if we move away from the topic and discussion, nevertheless, the key was gradually approaching Napoleon on the battlefield and the mentioned Wagram will happen later, but while Napoleon ran into trouble near Preussisch-Eylau, then he did not win Aspern-Essling, Borodino and the final at Waterloo.
                      2. +3
                        19 November 2022 16: 26
                        “a key was being selected for Napoleon on the battlefield” - not quite so. The Napoleonic army in professional terms, starting from 1805, gradually deteriorated - the percentage of insufficiently trained recruits was constantly growing, the percentage of allies, who often fought under duress, was increasing, the rivalry of the highest commanding staff reached the point of absurdity. For his opponents, the process was the opposite - the professionalism of the command staff grew, the number and quality of troops increased, and there was an awareness of the consistency of military operations as part of the coalition.
                        And most importantly - having closed the role of head of state and commander-in-chief, Napoleon began to make erroneous decisions that had disastrous consequences - moving deep into Russia after Smolensk, continuing the senseless war in Spain, disrupting negotiations in the summer of 1813 ....
                      3. +3
                        19 November 2022 17: 13
                        And the Austrians alone in 1804 would not have acted
            2. +4
              19 November 2022 11: 42
              I will clarify, France, an old friend of the Ottoman Empire, already from the 16th century ..
              1. 0
                19 November 2022 12: 34
                Peter the Great, offered the French to replace defeated Sweden, insignificant Poland and clearly weakening Turkey in the system of alliances, Russia did not receive a positive response, more such proposals were not made and the French were considered a hostile side by default.
                1. +2
                  19 November 2022 13: 31
                  So I, Mikhail, said the same thing here as Alexei Bogomazov.
          2. +3
            19 November 2022 11: 39
            And what about the French fleet, dominated the seas-oceans? Why is there such confidence that Napoleon would have dealt with England? England fought France on the fields of Europe, with the help of European armies. Yes, the French fleet prevented the landing of the British in Portugal? In Spain? And by the way, Napoleon understood that with the help of military force he could not cope with England, so he arranged an economic blockade for her.
            1. +1
              19 November 2022 11: 43
              The blockade was introduced after Trafalgar, and before that, sorry, the French are preparing to land.
              1. +4
                19 November 2022 12: 36
                In fact, the economic blockade of England was applied by Paul I at the turn of 1800-1801. He turned out to be a kind of first developer of the concept of the Napoleonic project of the continental blockade of England. And that France won the Battle of Trafalgar? smile Destroyed the English fleet? And to be precise, the continental blockade was introduced in 1806. Napoleon issued the Berlin Decree on the continental blockade on November 21, 1806. The document was signed in Berlin after the defeat of the Prussians by Napoleon's army. During 1807, in addition to France, Italy, Holland, Spain and Denmark, Russia and Prussia joined the continental blockade in accordance with the Tilsit treaties of 1807, and in 1809 - Austria and Sweden, so formally. Austerlitz had already thundered two years ago. So, Alexander had options not to fight with France, but to deal with the Balkans, while there was a fight in Europe. Do not get into the third coalition.
                1. +1
                  19 November 2022 12: 47
                  As if the emergency transition of Emperor Paul to a different state of aggregation hints that it is better not to do this.
                  I didn’t understand the passage about Trafalgar, after Trafalgar, Napoleon realized that landing on the island was not possible and started blockade, not understanding the simple thing that any blockade works in both directions and the Emperor lost the economic war, he was forced to break his own blockade.
                  Alexander was engaged in the Balkans, only Constantinople was not going to cede to him Filled.
                  If Alexander didn’t get into the coalition, the French would still end up on the Vistula and I repeat, there are no guarantees that they would not end up on the Thames, which is much worse.
                  1. +3
                    19 November 2022 14: 15
                    Passage about Trafalgar did not understand
                    The blockade began after the defeat of the third and fourth coalitions. Once again, the Continental Blockade was a large-scale embargo against British trade imposed by Bonaparte against the British Empire from November 21, 1806 to April 11, 1814 during the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon issued the Decree of Berlin on November 21, 1806 in response to the naval blockade of the French coast, imposed by the British government on May 16, 1806. The British blockade of France, this is the result of Trafalgar.
                    Alexander and dealt with the Balkans
                    Yeah, along the way, participating in coalitions against Bonaparte. Let me remind you that the Russian-Turkish war lasted from 1806-1812. The best forces were engaged against Bonaparte. , with the support of France, one of the goals of preventing reserves. To defeat Turkey, significant forces were needed; they were not there, Russia fought on two, two fronts. Once again, Austerlitz was already there. Alexander went there. Coalitions formed, since Russia was their backbone. he was an ally of France. True, this is one of the reasons. Alexander, having fit on the throne, refocused on England.
                    1. 0
                      19 November 2022 16: 48
                      I ask you not to remind me of self-evident things, what the Continental blockade is, I know, we read the same books with you.
                      First, the Third Coalition was formed, and then Trafalgar happened, without the third coalition, and without the participation of Russia it was not possible, the Boulogne army could well have ended up in London, and Emperor Napoleon was the ruler of Europe and all the seas, which clearly does not correspond to the interests of the Republic of Ingushetia, and certainly in this situation, nothing would have broken off in the Balkans.
                      And in principle, Alexander could not lead any British policy, because where to export goods?
                      1. +7
                        19 November 2022 19: 18
                        Paul was killed for an alliance with France, Alexander saved England from the invasion of the Boulogne army with English money. England, saved, Europe, falls under the control of France. Napoleon on the borders of Russia. The result of wars, 3 and 4 coalitions.
                      2. +1
                        19 November 2022 20: 18
                        Are you in the place of Alexander the first, even having knowledge afterward, are you ready to vouch that the Boulogne army will not be able to cross the canal and occupy London?
                      3. +1
                        20 November 2022 06: 31
                        Are you ready to vouch that the Boulogne army would be able to cross the canal and occupy London?
                      4. 0
                        20 November 2022 06: 47
                        What if it happens, and what do you do then?
                      5. +1
                        20 November 2022 06: 50
                        And suddenly get
                        Who is stopping you? Act.. hi
                      6. 0
                        20 November 2022 06: 59
                        And it's too late to act when the French are in London, everything is just a comedy, as the invincible emperor says, so be it.
      2. 0
        20 November 2022 01: 09
        And what insoluble contradictions were there between Russia and France to fight? Territorial, religious, financial and economic, etc.? Just do not remember about the universal conquering ambitions of Napoleon. There were none.
        1. +1
          20 November 2022 06: 14
          Tell all the French ministries from Resolvelier to Napoleon III,
          And Napoleon was building a world empire, he wanted to control Europe, India and the paths between them, if this is not a world empire, then what is it?
          1. 0
            25 November 2022 20: 49
            This is not about Richelieu or Napoleon III. It's about Napoleon I.
            Is there at least one document confirming Napoleon's desire to build a world empire? It's synchronous. It's from the archive.
            Europe repeatedly started wars with France. Lost them. Created a new coalition and started a new war. Lost again... Paid indemnities.
            But the aggressor, of course, is Napoleon...
            1. 0
              25 November 2022 21: 06
              Yes, just like that, Europe from doing nothing attacked France, the Mamluks also probably attacked France, Spain attacked France, they attacked and attacked, and France kept defending and defending itself, with the help of an army of a million bayonets, purely defensive.
              1. 0
                29 November 2022 21: 57
                Europe attacked France not from "nothing to do", but purely for practical reasons: to crush the revolutionary infection, to knock out a competitor on the international market, to chop off something from the lands. And France gathered a huge army just to defend the gains of the revolution and defeat the interventionists. Well, we won. In response, the second coalition. Again victory. The third is another victory. And so six (!) times. The French were the first to start the war in Spain and Russia. Although in these cases there were also certain prerequisites, there are colossal miscalculations.
  4. +4
    19 November 2022 07: 47
    General Mack for today's Russia, for contemporaries, is also famous for the fact that when, after the surrender, Mack was sent to Austria and there the court deprived him of his ranks and awards, then at the request of Prince Schwarzenberg, Mack was returned both ranks and orders, and a majestic monument to Soviet wars with in gold letters from Stalin's order in Vienna, stands on the square named after Prince Schwarzenberg - on Schwarzenbergplatz square. By the way, the monument to Schwarzenberg himself also stands on the same square, although it is no longer the central accent of the square named after him. The central object there is a monument to a Soviet soldier holding a gilded Soviet banner from a gilded Soviet coat of arms ... Many tourists do not know Russian and do not understand the gilded words from Stalin's quote, which is carved on the pedestal of the monument. For that, opening his mouth, he understands the greatness of the feat of the Soviet Soldier, the greatness of the Soviet Banner and the greatness of the Soviet Coat of Arms ...
    I apologize that I accidentally actually deviated from the topic in the article. So, suddenly inspired ...
  5. +4
    19 November 2022 08: 34
    And the super spy of Bonaparte Schulmeister - what! Directly, as in the proverb: "Though a scoundrel, but well done."
    And the name matches!
    1. +4
      19 November 2022 12: 15
      Yes, few people can say this about:
      Napoleon said that near Ulm, one Schulmeister replaced him with a 40-strong army corps.

      His later portrait.

      What they said about him:

      This morning I met the French police commissioner in Vienna, a man of rare courage, unshakable presence of mind and amazing insight. I was curious to look at this man, about whom I had heard thousands of wonderful stories. He alone affects the inhabitants of Vienna as strongly as any other army corps. His appearance matches his reputation. He has sparkling eyes, a piercing look, a stern and resolute physiognomy, impulsive gestures, a strong and sonorous voice. He is of medium height, but of a very heavy build; he has a full-blooded, choleric temperament. He perfectly knows Austrian affairs and skillfully sketches portraits of the most prominent figures in Austria. He has deep scars on his forehead, proving that he is not accustomed to running in a moment of danger. In addition, he is noble: he brings up two orphans adopted by him. I talked to him about Iffland's The Recluses and thanked him for giving us the opportunity to enjoy this play.

      — Charles Louis Cadé de Gassicourt (1809)[
  6. Eug
    19 November 2022 17: 19
    Thanks, damn interesting! And how many analogies with the present time and close history - and the nobility, living off exports to Europe, the Germans almost one-on-one repeated the capture of the bridge in 1941 (through the Dvina), and the expectation of a royalist uprising in Paris ... as in the song of the Resurrection group - "everything was already in the world, but this was not enough, everything passed and everything started all over again"...
  7. +3
    19 November 2022 18: 02
    However, both the Austrians and the Russians did not take into account the human factor, namely, the hot blood of young and rootless Napoleonic generals and the impenetrable stupidity of Prince Karl Auersperg von Mautern. The Austrian aristocrat used to be the commander of the "toy soldiers" of the court guard, and now it was he who was entrusted with guarding these bridges.

    Salt articles, excellent, Valery! hi )))
    1. +1
      21 November 2022 09: 20
      Quote: depressant
      Salt article

      Nifilim has been banned. The site has lost another smart and interesting interlocutor. How bizarre the policy of VO is, * those who are able to think *leave*. Who is interesting. Yes. Of course, he is a sharp man, but what is the level of knowledge!
      1. +1
        21 November 2022 13: 00
        Shocked. And for what?
        Sometimes I read opinions and analytics, news. Occasionally he flashed there, and that means the result ... horror!
        And no later than today I got out to Skomorokhov with my blathering and now I'm shaking: what if they get banned too?
        Imagine, I was kicked out of Telegram for the second time with a bang, now, apparently, forever. Well, this is my fault. I stuck a quote from one very honest, but extremely evil and intemperate telegram, in response from the telegram VO received in the teeth and after a kick in the ass wassat )))
        In general, you frightened me and convinced me. I am no longer a walker to the left, only history.
        1. +1
          21 November 2022 13: 09
          Quote: depressant
          Shocked. And for what?

          So do I.
          Quote: depressant
          And for what?

          Well, this is more of a question * to the founding fathers * of the site. Most likely, instead of a normal discussion, on their part, they resorted to the old tried and tested method. For? The departure of an intelligent person is always sad.
          Quote: depressant
          I am no longer a walker to the left, only history.

          Well, it’s not worth it. Truth is more precious than presence. And your beliefs too. hi
          1. +1
            21 November 2022 14: 56
            My convictions, as I had the opportunity to make sure, are of no use to anyone. Only those who have the same convictions agree with them, the rest can only be convinced of something by life itself. It makes sense to express a conviction only when there is a chance to expand the number of supporters, and if not, a shaking of the air.
            1. +1
              21 November 2022 15: 59
              Quote: depressant
              Only those who have the same convictions agree with them, the rest can only be convinced of something by life itself.

              By no means a fact. They are either agreed or rejected. In a normal discussion. In the process.
              Quote: depressant
              air shaking.

              Hmm. Are we doing something else? bully No, of course we communicate. We communicate with those people who, for various reasons, are pleasant to us. hi
              1. +1
                21 November 2022 17: 11
                You see what the matter ...
                On a subconscious level, everyone believes: I just expressed my nonsense, and it will come somewhere, to the level of decision-making, and someone powerful will raise his finger up and say, “Oh! And we are here with the whole crowd, the entire Presidential Administration and We didn't know it was possible! Let's put this wise suggestion into practice!"
                All I can say to that is ha ha ha!
                In fact, they listen to the signals. But to what?
                If the cows in the barn are not fed, they will moo so that the roof of the barn will collapse. These signals are heeded. Before the first expulsion from the VO telegram, I cried out loudly: "Where did the sugar go? This is a political issue!" In response, the jingoists yelled at me with anger. But, apparently, my cry was not an isolated one, the question was raised everywhere, and sugar appeared. The government remembers how hungry electric trains dumped the USSR. And at this food level, they hear us and fill the nursery with hay (grocery stores). And it's all. It is believed that the rest is not our level.
                You did not understand that we have the USSR 2.0 wassat )))
                1. +1
                  21 November 2022 17: 51
                  Quote: depressant
                  You did not understand that we have the USSR 2.0)))

                  Is that you, Lyudmila Yakovlevna, just joking like that? Yes? We don’t understand what at all in the yard now. Mix. Mix. Cocktail. bully
                  1. +1
                    21 November 2022 18: 59
                    No, she wasn't joking.
                    In the yard we have exactly what the ruling strata of the USSR wanted to have and received. It's like looking in a distorted mirror, you don't recognize yourself. But it will be you.
                    1. +1
                      21 November 2022 19: 18
                      Quote: depressant
                      us exactly what the ruling strata of the USSR wanted to have and received

                      Do you want to say that it was this very foul-smelling substance that Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko wanted and built? I don’t want to talk about Andropov, because far from everything is clear with him. .
                      Quote: depressant
                      in a crooked mirror

                      Yes, stop it. You have to really * peck * so as not to recognize yourself. Even in a crooked mirror. laughing
                      1. +1
                        21 November 2022 19: 52
                        Leave Stalin alone. Take the post-war period, starting with Khrushchev. I have the impression, my friend, that you have never participated in discussions about how the USSR decayed, starting from the top. But in general, today I no longer have the opportunity to talk with you on an equal footing - vision! I can still read, typing is extremely stressful. Let's come back to this topic on occasion, if your interest does not fade away. Namely, to the question of why I believe that we live in the USSR 2.0, but built at the request of the top of the Union, and not the workers. And while you think about it. love )))
                      2. +1
                        21 November 2022 20: 07
                        Quote: depressant
                        to talk with you on an equal footing - vision! I can still read, typing is extremely stressful.

                        Well, I have Senegal-Netherlands. The World Cup has begun. Even yesterday. bully
                        * But we will meet, we will definitely meet. * (c)fellow

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"