Winning a war is the natural task of any state that considers itself sovereign. For Russia, it is also unconditional historical mission underlying our cultural code. No wonder the two World War II are so similar to each other.
The phenomenon of national unity manifested by World War 1812, of course, is our cultural archetype. Two hundred years before, in 1612, the national militia of citizen Minin and Prince Pozharsky decided the fate of the country, and our ancestors in 1812 were already well aware of how to behave when uninvited Polish kings or French emperors come to your house. When the German Fuhrer granted us 120 years later, this phenomenon of a truly World War II and true national unity was reproduced and became the main ideological and moral mechanism of the Victory in 1945.
Mission of Russia: on the way of Napoleonic complexes
Since Aristotle’s training of the first European (Eurasian) emperor Alexander the Great, the project of world domination has been the only project of European political thought worthy of giving literally everything to him, making it the ultimate goal and meaning of the existence of this civilization itself. The idea of a united Europe, in essence, has existed since the days of Aristotle himself, and it cannot be said that it should be especially modified there or, God forbid, developed. All Western European countries and peoples strove to implement this idea almost without exception, thereby demonstrating their pan-European nature and actual cultural integrity (uniformity). The only subject of controversy and discrepancy in European history was the question of not European unity itself, but of who would be the “unifier” and, so to speak, the “ruler” of this single European space.
Over the past two hundred years, the French, Germans and Anglo-Americans have acted as candidates for this honorable mission. There was a Napoleonic plan, there was a Hitler plan, but there were also Marshall's plan and Churchill's speech in Fulton. By the way, for some reason it is considered that the main content of Fulton's speech is the declaration of the Cold War to the Soviet Union. However, it is not. Its main content is the proclamation of a single union of free European nations, in which the British Empire transfers leadership to the United States, recognizes this leadership and calls on America to lead the fight against the USSR.
The project of a united Europe under a single management has always been and today remains in reality a project of world domination. In the second half of the twentieth century, as a result of the implementation of the Marshall Plan and the creation of the NATO bloc, a project of European unity under US control was implemented, the most important step on the way to world domination by the Anglo-Saxons was made. The united, and actually conquered Europe on the map today looks the same as in the times of Napoleon or Hitler before the attack on Russia-USSR.
In this regard, the historical fate of our country is amazing. Geopolitically, every time we are the last and insurmountable obstacle to the implementation of projects of world domination. Russia destroyed both Napoleon’s plan and Hitler’s plan. By the way, it is curious to note that in the European civilization only Russia and British-America remain untapped and not conquered.
Historically, it is no coincidence that today, as in 1812, as in 1941, again we stand in the way of the now American (Anglo-Saxon) plan of world domination. We lost the Cold War (as we surrendered Moscow to the French in 1812), but, as the great Russian military leader M.I. Kutuzov, "Russia is not lost with the loss of Moscow." So we should remember today that Russia did not fall with the fall of the USSR.
1812 – 1945. Roll call two wins
June 22 (in the current Gregorian, so-called new style) Napoleon announced to his troops a campaign against Russia, calling this campaign the “Second Polish War”. Yes, yes, on this day. We should celebrate it as a day of national testing and courage.
Despite exactly 129 years of difference, despite the industrial and political revolution in the world that separates these two identical dates, there is a lot of similarity between two wars before the literal morphological repetition. Even technically, the approach to the conquest of Russia for almost a century and a half has not changed a bit. It is no coincidence that we call both wars Patriotic. Both of them crashed into our historical memory, acquired a sacred meaning. And exactly the memory of the first invasion helped to overcome the second.
The usurper unites Europe against Russia. Both Napoleon and Hitler swiftly, in about a decade, with the help of new-fashioned ideology and revolutionary social technology, reached the pinnacle of power and conquered continental Europe. Which both times did not really mind. Both usurpers were recognized as European civilizational heroes who gained their place by the right of the strong and the worthy. Both times, England acted as an ally of Russia, whom Russia ultimately defended against invasion. And both times, England reaped the laurels of the main winner, declaring the outcome of European events precisely for her political and military victory.
Blitzkrieg kaput. It is known that Hitler hoped to win in one or two months, as in all of his previous military campaigns in Europe. But he did not invent it. The main method of Napoleon was to impose on the enemy a general battle, which the usurper won. What, in fact, is a blitzkrieg. The Russians shied away from the general battle the whole summer of 1812, then agreed to accept him at Borodino and were not defeated. After which they again dodged. The war has become protracted. Blitzkrieg failed.
Retreat. I had to retreat to Moscow - both times. Yes, Napoleon entered, and Hitler did not. There is an era difference. But the "point of no return" is one. As for the Poles - two centuries before Napoleon. No need to go to Moscow, reach Moscow, go to Moscow. Such a place. He still chose Dolgoruky. And he understood this. It is no coincidence that all kinds of Russophobia to this day personify their hatred of Russia as hatred above all of Moscow.
Scorched earth. And it was Moscow that burned for more than four days, from 14 to 18 in September of 1812. Burned out more than 5 / 6 city. The usurper was forced to move out of the Kremlin - from a completely European residence, built by the Italians. In WWII we ourselves burned and blew up our cities before the arrival of the Germans - like Moscow in 1812. To the great German annoyance and bewilderment, do not fit into the framework of German rationalism. What to do - Russian barbarians.
Guerrillas, that is to say the terrorists. The peasants and the people in general, but first of all it was the peasants who did not go under the new “power”. What seemed to the invaders was nonsense. After all, according to European understanding, what difference do you guys have, who is the boss? It turned out there is a difference. Napoleon was left without forage. The bread was simply not cleaned, but already cleaned ... destroyed. The French (and then the Germans) were killed without much talk. They gathered in the woods and from there endlessly attacked communications.
In 1812, carts were captured, and in 1941, they were “derailed”. The new “power” could not understand this phenomenon, either then or later. Hitler believed that they would rush to his feet away from Stalin, and Napoleon also came to liberate him from slavery. “Slaves”, however, acted in their own way - as truly free people. Without complexes and looking at the "civilization".
Marshal of Victory. At the beginning of the war, both times the Russians had bad control of the army, with command. Kutuzov accepted the army of August 29, Zhukov - October 10. That is, in the fall, in a difficult situation. Both essentially determined the strategy of the Victory in an essential way. There is such a thing - the Russians long harness. What looks like a crisis and is accompanied by victims is actually a unique process of collective Russian self-organization, when the army and the people, along with the leadership, become one. Both intellectually and morally. And then they win where it seems to all other Europeans is simply impossible.
Gendarme of Europe. Both times it ended with the occupation of the capital of the aggressor. And Russian control over the pan-European processes and countries - legal and deserved control. The ideology of control was different, but the essence was the same: no need to go with us to the war, otherwise you will have to live under us later.
"White Ribbons", that is, flags. The traitors both times dreamed that the European “civilizer” would finally win us, which alone can teach us, foolish, rude and wild, to live like human beings. And for the sake of this, let him blow and punish. They still dream about it.
Heroes They did not spare their belly, gave their lives for their friends. Now they are members of the heavenly host. Both times the war was popular. Holy war. The first to build a temple was the restored Cathedral of Christ the Savior. The memory of the second is still waiting for its visible Orthodox veneration.
Perhaps there are other similarities. But for the output is sufficient and these above. Our memory, which saved the events of 1812 of the year as sacred, firmly, entered the popular consciousness in 1941 with the skeleton.
Let those who think that for the sake of future successes in building a “comfortable European country” (apparently within Moscow and the Moscow region), we need to quickly forget our history, let them think about it. Well, really, why remember it - because it was not with us. That is, let's decide right away that we cannot do it like them. And if anyone comes to us, then we will surrender immediately, without nonsense. And the rest is "Putin's propaganda." However, over the course of 129 years, this “propaganda” (then “Nikolaev’s,” probably) was, as it turned out, very relevant.
Victory is not the final yet. Continuation always follows
"Tell me, uncle, it's not a gift ..." Definitely not a gift. It was not for nothing that Victory was given - both times. And the matter is not only in the fallen, in the devastation, in the exhaustion of the people's forces - and the forces of power, by the way, also.
Nothing ended in 1812. As in 1941. Fights, fights ... And then ...
Here is the magic of numbers:
1812 + = 13 1825
Remember? The end of an era. And the temporary end of imported liberalism. The king came authoritarian. The one that marked the beginning of the Russian railways.
1941 + = 12 1953
This is also the end of an era, only this time liberalization has triumphed - along with the change of the king from the great to the funny. If in 1825, the “modernizers” were put in place, then in 1953, another process began - the rejection of what really “tired us”. And she went to write the province. "Thaw" and vilification of the king of the previous.
Both wars left fatigue and a desire to heal, “like they have there” - for those who were defeated. Already this new generation wanted it. In general, the victory of the military began to turn into a political defeat. In 1825, of course, it was not as deep as in 1960, although the results of the Crimean War - in fact, which revealed our backlog at that time - are not brilliant. So, the way out of the 1825 situation was also far from ideal - with all his real humanism against the background of the 20th century. As the saying goes, we are not one of those Ants who were hung, but one of those Ants who were hung.
This does not mean that there is no need to win, to which many intelligent liberal voices are inclined, but he says that with Victory one must work more correctly in a historical perspective. Because Victory is by no means the end of the historical process. And you cannot get away from its dialectic - after Victory you cannot rest on your laurels, but you need to plan a real historical development. Otherwise, the return of the process of history can seriously damage the state. Victory must be able to continue in the internal life of the state and in foreign policy, and not just “freeze” in memorials and eternal glory.
The phenomenon of the Fatherland in the culture of the winners: the indisputable value
What we call the “golden age of Russian culture” has grown out of the victory in World War 1812 of the year. The core of this culture is the phenomenon of the Fatherland as indisputable value and the ability to view Russian life arbitrarily critical, but without regard to the teachings and patterns of "enlightened" and defeated Europe.
The First World War 1812 of the year was rather well analyzed by Russian historiography and, most importantly, quite powerfully reflected in Russian culture - which is worth only War and Peace. Pushkin and Lermontov as cultural phenomena also have such a reflection, and in many respects their creativity is also the result of this reflection. The fact that Pushkin gave birth to modern Russian at this particular time is not an accident and not a coincidence. The massive rejection of the "state" in the circles of the nobility at the time of the war of the French language - a powerful incentive for Pushkin's genius.
The cultural phenomenon of the Fatherland born of the 1812 war of the year, and the cultural figure of Pushkin, cultivated on this phenomenon, surprisingly combines the later senseless and merciless dispute of Westerners and Slavophiles, which still stands in the way of genuine Russian philosophical thought, replacing it with social pseudo political opposition.
Being a ruthless critic of the Russian reality, not daring to learn something (what we really need) from the West, as Peter I did (a sample of the sovereign for Pushkin), the poet is completely free from complexes in front of Europe, from blind imitation or from blind envy . This freedom of self-determination and reflection gives a feeling of a winner. The winner of the very Europe that persistently climbs to us throughout our thousand-year history as teachers and civilizers.
This is what Pushkin writes, responding to Chaadaev, a sincere admirer of Westernism and the fact that only the West has history and, therefore, the right to teach and educate us: “As for our historical insignificance, I cannot positively agree with you. The wars of Oleg and Svyatoslav, and even specific wars - this is the same life of vigorous courage and aimless and immature activity that characterizes the youth of all nations. The invasion of the Tatars is a sad and great spectacle. The awakening of Russia, the development of its power, the course towards unity (towards Russian unity, of course), both Ivana, the majestic drama that began in Uglich and ended in the Ipatiev Monastery - how is it really not a story, but only a pale, half-forgotten dream? And Peter the Great, who alone is the whole world history? And Catherine II, who placed Russia on the threshold of Europe? And Alexander, who brought us to Paris? And (hand on heart) do you not find something magnificent in the present position of Russia, something that should hit the future historian? Do you think he will put us outside of Europe? ”
The true historical significance of Pushkin’s figure, impossible without a victory over Europe “united” by Napoleon, reflexively assimilating the cultural meaning of 1812 of the year, was remarkable in his article “Pushkin on relations between Russia and Europe”, the outstanding Russian philosopher S.L. Franc. Here is what he writes in the conclusion of his article: “Dostoevsky, in his well-known pre-death speech about Pushkin, in his form, in the language of his convictions, tried to express this genuine universalism of Pushkin’s genius who reconciles Slavophilism with Westernism. He put a lot of his own in this interpretation, but, essentially, in that he caught this universalism of Pushkin, he was absolutely right. When the day of the revival of Russian culture and statehood comes, the old question of cultural relations between Russia and the West will again be before Russian society. Hopefully, it will then remember the wise and broad precepts of its greatest genius. "
The victory over the already united Europe gave our ancestors the freedom of a truly patriotic self-determination, that is, the freedom needed by the critics of their Fatherland without betraying it and denigrating them - criticizing our difficulties and problems without waiting for praise and patronage from the West that we had already defeated. The special price and value of this victory for the formation of Russian identity is understood by another our poetic genius - M. Yu. Lermontov: “Tell me, uncle, not for nothing?” And “It’s not for nothing that all Russia remembers about Borodin’s day.”
Without the victory of 1812, our country would have neither Pushkin, nor Lermontov, nor Tolstoy as we know them, which means there would be no great Russian literature, which in many ways replaced our philosophy, which became the real core of Russian culture and Russian of identity.
Surprisingly, it is precisely the victory over the united Europe that is “to blame” for the failure of the “Decembrist uprising,” or rather, the failure of the next palace coup and the end of an entire era of such palace coups. Practically 100 years thus regulated the participation of the national elite in power. The last December attempt at another coup failed largely due to the desire of the conspirators to do in Russia “how there”. It turned out that in the overwhelming majority of Russia, Russia doesn’t really want to “like it.”
Thanks to the victory of 1812, many in Russia have become clear that the desire to do with us “how there” actually turns out to be only a cover for seizing power and realizing the “Napoleon complex” from certain revolutionary people. It was under the influence of the educational and cultural significance of the victory of 1812 that suddenly, as Lenin wrote, “the circle of these revolutionaries is narrow and they are terribly far from the people”, because neither the broad circles of the nobility, nor the people defending the Fatherland from European civilizers, needed no "how there".
* * *
About six or seven years ago, one of our television channels showed a story in which Russian President Putin and German Chancellor Schröder spoke in a friendly manner over a beer. Then Putin’s words, which we quote from memory close to the text, seemed very curious: “Do you know, Gerhard, why do we, the Russians, work so easily with the Germans? Easier and better than with any other Europeans? "- Putin asked and immediately answered:" Because we, Russians, do not experience an inferiority complex before you, the Germans. "
Our national problem is actually the multiple complexes and “birth injuries” of our native intelligentsia, which perform the functions of the ruling class poorly. And it is truly sad that getting rid of them (complexes and injuries) is accounted for exclusively by winning the next World War — every time Russia and the Russian people face the next “civilized and cultural” Europeans on their path to world domination.