War of 1812. What usually do not write in school textbooks about? Part 2Seems, in our history there are no simple times. There are quiet periods, but not really long. And in general impression that if suddenly by accident there is no war, governors of Russia start reforms. Moreover and at the wrong time! Was late, it is premature. the century costs
19 not that independently here, and rather “is beaten out out of the general operation“. And it is beaten out forward. First in our history Patriotic war; two regicides; at least two rises not of habitual national revolts, but revolutionary movement; two big wars … apart from significant, but less large; … we told at least four most serious changes of an internal political course to
About events of the beginning of the century. Let`s continue conversation on the second largest event of the 19th century - Patriotic war of 1812?
the Serious problem with understanding occurring then is concluded also in a variety of views on the identity of participants of war. One admire the genius of Kutuzov of a military leader, others consider him as the useless idler. The people whether it is nearly universal it was stirred to action, whether was on the verge of antigovernmental revolts. And so on …
How to understand? To get acquainted with the different points of view. To analyze. To compare. Generally, to understand! More carefully with trust to too emotional authors. They are very convincing, besides that they easily give estimates, following the emotions.
And for 1812 and in scientific works there are a lot of divergences. Not in the facts, and in understanding of persons and their motives. We know of people of an era from memoirs, chronicles, letters, diaries. Where subjectivity - norm!
The same Kutuzov was popular in light, unlike Barclay. It seems that from several candidates it was the smaller evil. Still, if the count Palen who was not at war the regicide was one of them long ago!
And Kutuzov, according to contemporaries, was not the great commander. It had a wide experience and preparation. But, according to the same contemporaries, it was scary lazy. And with age, having grown fat, lost mobility, so important then for the commander. He was not obliged to go into battle personally (though it was a commonplace, Suvorov and Frederick II went!) but across the field of fight Kutuzov moved in the vehicle. And how out-of-pocket communications to present to the chief sitting in a rate all picture of fight?
Yes, he ordered at Austerlitsa. Lost, understanding irrationality of someone else`s plan and not having offered the., It seems, and there he (as later at Borodino) personally did not carry out reconnaissance. By many estimates, the arrangement of the Russian troops was unsuccessful … Perhaps! Otherwise as it is possible with approximately equal forces, defending in advance prepared position, to suffer losses much big, than attacking? So that it was necessary to recede?
Nevertheless Kutuzov executed “the program - a minimum“: preserved army. The relation to fight is reflected by his words: “God grant not to break, and to outwit Napoleon!“ to
, as a result, managed It. It seems that Kutuzov did not expect to protect Moscow from the very beginning. Only it was not quite its plan. Kutuzov made a final decision, the plan to leave Moscow in detail stated in Filyakh Barclay de Tolly. Kutuzov needed to agree …
Probably, almost everyone will call apogee of war the Borodino fight. In France French are considered as winners. At us the majority will be called winners of Russians. This opinion so took roots that not all will believe quite objective facts: battle terminated at most “in a draw“. And even in favor of French.
From the point of view of military science, lost conceded a battlefield. From Borodino receded, let and after fight, Russians. And from Moscow receded! An ultimate goal of campaign, capitulation of Russia, Napoleon did not reach. Did not break the Russian army. But forced to recede and took the capital. Generally, it means a victory in battle!
What does not belittle a feat of Russians at all! But we will not forget that Kutuzov gave battle to justify delivery of Moscow before society. Most likely, it would hand over it and without battle. Also would preserve much more people!
Judging by textbooks, the instigator of Moscow is unknown. But Russians, leaving, took out fire equipment. And it is more probable, and set fire too … Also most of inhabitants left. French have no need to set fire to the winter quarters, and the discipline in army was up to standard. But after the fire of Moscow - growth of people`s movement, and enemy army in the semi-burned-down city absolutely it became uncomfortable!
do not confuse guerrillas and guerrilla war. The first - peasants and petty bourgeoises, the armed people. The second - first of all, the military left in the back. By the way, “the first guerrilla Denis Davydov is widely known“. Only it rather the first, it is fine about the movement written. What he much more wrote, than cut, also contemporaries specified. He is a hero, undoubtedly. But in the back it remained not the first and with small group. And this tactics at least in Seven years` war, and even in Northern is thought up.
And to Moscow began to flow including peasants - to plunder. Sometimes and could take ordinary bandits to whom all the same whose furazhir to plunder for guerrillas. French turned up few times - and you are a guerrilla! Robbers in Russia became more active in any distemper!
All “know“ about rise in patriotism. Both guerrillas, and the supply of army which in many respects laid down on shoulders of inhabitants. And mention textbooks how after Alexander I`s appeals about creation of a militia in Moscow jumped up the prices of the weapon? Many times. So “people“ - concept too wide that it is so unambiguous to speak about its patriotic upsurge … yes about something! in the village everything is not so unambiguous
I. There was a broad guerrilla movement. But also differently French were met too. Not for nothing the government from the very beginning was afraid that the population will apprehend French as liberators from slavery!
To the contrary, the first guerrillas are not patriots. Just peasants were protected from robbers … by
60% of expenses on war of 1812-1814 were made by payment of a salary to officers and generals. 14% - on prodfurazh and the maintenance of hospitals. 5,1% - ware property. 1,5% - on artillery. In my opinion, it is an indicator of a little peculiar preparation for war!
preparation! Attack was not sudden, prepared for it approximately since 1810. I already said that prepared for offensive war! In the territory of buffer Poland. Reminds nothing? Personally reminds me - another, too Domestic, war …
And still a couple of words about the reasons of war and the Tilsit world. Its essence - in continental blockade of England, attempt to strangle that economically total ban of trade with it. Since 1807 Russia forcedly joined blockade. And first observed the contract. But as Russia actively traded with England, merchants and part of the nobility incurred losses. Probably, it was surmountable, but the tsar together with society considered the world “shameful“. And dreamed to be the great commander even before war of 1812 - go! And the relations with Napoleon were bad from the very beginning of Alexander`s government. Approximately since 1808 blockade was broken. Impression that Alexander intentionally teased Napoleon … Entered a high customs tariff on the luxury goods imported generally from France.
That is Russia supported fleet, the main military force of England.
If to understand, the Tilsit world for Russia was not so unprofitable to be at war. And whether it is unprofitable in general? Though England was the largest Russian exporter, really a trade turn from - for participations in continental blockade decreased slightly. The damage was suffered by the few merchants and rich residents of big cities - ports (and whether much they were?) and capitals. The trouble is that the public opinion was formed by this small percent of the population. The others, I think, and did not notice …
In any case, judging by figures, there is no direct regularity between the termination of trade and recession of the Russian economy. And a number of branches of the Russian economy went to growth...
On everything it is similar: Alexander I writing in letters that he considered the world as a respite brought to war. And here Bonaparte told about benefit of the union with Russia though he hated Alexander. Alas, Alexander`s ambitions were stronger! Having lost a number of campaigns in Europe, he provoked war in Russia. His father was wiser. Winning in the Italian campaign, Paul I as a result made with Napoleon even not the peace, but the union. So frightened British that those organized Pavel`s murder.
And continental blockade gradually yielded fruits. Two serious crises in England, inflation, serious disorders … And all this accrued. It seems that numerous colonies did not offset losses from loss of the European partners. Also do not break blockade Russia (more precisely, Alexander I), who knows, than everything would turn back?
But England was saved by war in Russia … And again it reminds history of the 20th century!