Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov.

Artist R M Volkov

Private bussiness

Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov(1745 - 1813) was born in St. Petersburg in the family of engineer-lieutenant general Illarion Matveevich Golenishchev-Kutuzov. In 1759 he graduated with honors from the Artillery and Engineering Noble School and became a mathematics teacher there. Two years later he was promoted to warrant officer and appointed company commander of the Astrakhan Infantry Regiment, which was then commanded by Suvorov. Since 1762, Kutuzov has been the adjutant of the Revel Governor-General, and in the same year he was awarded the rank of captain.

In 1764, Mikhail Kutuzov received a baptism of fire in actions against the Polish Confederates. In 1767, he was recruited to work on the “Commission for the Drawing up of a New Code.” Three years later he was transferred to the First Army, located in the south, and took part in the war with Turkey that began in 1768.

In the spring of 1770, Kutuzov in Moldova, in Rumyantsev’s army, held the position of chief quartermaster of the avant-garde. He took part in the battles at the Ryabaya Mogila mound, at Larga and Kagul. In the summer of the same year, he supervised fortification work and participated in the siege and capture of Bendery. The following year he fought at Popesty and was promoted to lieutenant colonel. 1772-1774 Kutuzov spent Dolgoruky in the Crimean Army, commanding a battalion. In July 1774, in a battle with the Turks near the village of Shumy, north of Alushta, Kutuzov was seriously wounded in the temple and right eye. Doctors considered his wound fatal, but he survived.

For a year and a half, Kutuzov was treated in St. Petersburg, and at the beginning of 1776 he was granted a year's leave to improve his health abroad. Before leaving, he married Ekaterina Ilyinichna Bibikova. Kutuzov lived in Leiden for quite a long time, and also visited Prussia, Austria, and England. Upon returning to Russia, he was sent to Crimea, where he served for about six years under the command of A.V. Suvorov. Kutuzov was promoted to colonel and commander of the Lugansk pikeman regiment, stationed in Crimea, then of the Mariupol light horse regiment and carried out tasks to organize the protection of the Crimean coast. At the same time, he had to engage in diplomatic negotiations with the Crimean Tatars.

In 1782, Kutuzov received the rank of brigadier, and in 1784 - major general. From 1785 he was the commander of the Bug Jaeger Corps, which he himself formed. Commanding the corps and training the rangers, he developed new tactics for them. At the beginning of the Russian-Turkish War of 1787-1791, Kutuzov was entrusted with guarding the southwestern borders of Russia along the Bug River. In the summer of 1788, he and his corps took part in the battles near Ochakov, where on August 18 he was wounded for the second time. The Austrian general, Prince de Ligne, wrote about this: “Yesterday they shot Kutuzov in the head again. I think he will die today or tomorrow.” But Kutuzov managed to survive again. Moreover, three and a half months later, having barely managed to recover, he took part in the famous assault on Izmail, commanding the sixth column of the left wing of the Russian army.

After the capture of Izmail, Kutuzov was promoted to lieutenant general and appointed commandant of this fortress. Having repelled the attempts of the Turks to take possession of Izmail, on June 4 (15), 1791, he defeated the Turkish army at Babadag with a sudden blow. In the Battle of Machinsky in 1791, Kutuzov, showing himself to be a skilled master of active and maneuverable tactics, dealt a crushing blow to the Turkish troops.

In 1792 he was sent as ambassador extraordinary to Turkey. Returning to his homeland, he became the director of the Land Noble Cadet Corps, and taught tactics, military history and other disciplines. In March 1795 he took command of the Finnish ground forces. In 1797, already under Paul I, Kutuzov received the rank of general from the infantry and was put in command of the Finnish division. At the beginning of 1800, Paul made him the Lithuanian military governor, and in the summer he transferred him to the south, instructing him to form the Volyn army.

Soon after the assassination of Paul, the new Emperor Alexander I appointed Kutuzov as the military governor of St. Petersburg, but already on August 29, 1802, Kutuzov was stripped of all positions. After retirement, he lived on his estate Gorshki.

The disgrace ended in August 1805. When Russia entered the anti-Napoleonic coalition, Kutuzov became the commander of one of the two armies sent to Austria.

Kutuzov was supposed to lead troops to join the allied Austrian army, but it was defeated by Napoleon near Ulm. As a result, Kutuzov's army found itself face to face with the enemy. He undertook a march-maneuver from Braunau to Olmutz and skillfully withdrew Russian troops from the attack of superior enemy forces, winning victories at Amstetten and Krems during the retreat. On November 20 (December 2), 1805, the Battle of Austerlitz took place. Alexander I, who actually removed Kutuzov from command of the army, held him responsible for the failure.

In September 1806, Kutuzov became the military governor of Kyiv. On March 15, 1811, he was appointed commander-in-chief of the Danube Army. In the Battle of Rushchuk (15 thousand troops of Kutuzov against 60 thousand of the Turkish vizier Akhmet Bey), he inflicted a crushing defeat on the enemy, which marked the beginning of the defeat of the Turkish army. After this, Kutuzov deliberately withdrew his army to the left bank of the Danube, without interfering with the crossing of the Turks pursuing him. Using a skillful maneuver, he went on the offensive and surrounded the Turks. Ahmet Bey secretly fled from his camp and began negotiations. On November 26, 1811, the remnants of the Turkish army surrendered to the Russians. After peace was concluded, Kutuzov was sent to St. Petersburg, where he was appointed commander of the troops for the defense of the capital.

After Napoleon captured Smolensk, Alexander I appointed Kutuzov commander-in-chief of the Russian army. Under his leadership, Russian troops took part in the Battle of Borodino, then left Moscow, carried out the Tarutino maneuver and forced Napoleon to retreat along the old Smolensk road. In January 1813, the Russian army crossed the border and by April entered Saxony, heading further to Paris.

On April 28, 1813, Mikhail Kutuzov died in the small town of Bunzlau (now Boleslawiec in Poland). His body was sent to St. Petersburg and buried in the Kazan Cathedral.

What is he famous for?

Mikhail Kutuzov

Mikhail Kutuzov received his greatest fame during the War of 1812. Continuing the tactics chosen by Barclay de Tolly, he retreated, avoiding a general battle. Napoleon sought such a battle, hoping to defeat the Russian army with superior forces. Having received some reinforcements, Kutuzov decided to give Napoleon a battle on the outskirts of Moscow at Borodino. The Battle of Borodino took place on August 26 (September 7) and did not bring Napoleon the desired success. But the Russian army after the battle did not have the means for a counteroffensive or another major battle. Kutuzov, who understood this, arrived in the village of Fili on August 31. After inspecting the position proposed for battle on the Vorobyovy Gory, Kutuzov convened a military council on September 1 in the hut of the peasant Frolov to discuss the question: “Should we wait for the enemy in a disadvantageous position or cede Moscow to the enemy?” The opinions of the participants were divided, and Kutuzov made a decision: “Napoleon is like a stormy stream that we still cannot stop. Moscow will be a sponge that will suck it up... With the loss of Moscow, Russia is not lost. I make it my first duty to preserve the army... By the very concession of Moscow we will prepare the death of the enemy... I command you to retreat.” After leaving Moscow, Kutuzov secretly made a flanking maneuver from the Ryazan road to Kaluga, brought the army out from under enemy attack, and concentrated it in the area of ​​​​the village of Tarutino.

Napoleon sent the Marquis Lauriston to Kutuzov to negotiate peace. Kutuzov replied that the war had just begun for him and there was no talk of peace. Having failed in his attempts to make peace, Napoleon began to withdraw from Moscow on October 19. He tried to move the army south, to the Kaluga region, where there were supplies of food and fodder. The most important task of the Russian troops was to prevent the French from penetrating into the southern provinces, where they could easily rebuild the army and spend the winter.

The battle for Maloyaroslavets on October 24 turned out to be decisive. After eight desperate attacks and the burning of Maloyaroslavets, Napoleon was faced with an alternative: either decide on a general battle, or turn northwest, towards Smolensk, along the Smolensk road that he had destroyed. Napoleon decided to retreat. This predetermined the outcome of further military operations. Russian troops launched a counteroffensive, which Kutuzov organized in such a way that Napoleon’s army was constantly under attack from regular troops and partisan detachments. This disorganized the enemy army, led to the defeat of the remnants of the French troops on the Berezina River and their flight to the border.

What you need to know

Shortly before Napoleon's troops invaded Russia, Kutuzov won a major diplomatic victory. Before the inevitable war with France, Russia needed to secure its southern borders and free the troops participating in the next war with Turkey. Realizing this, French diplomats in Istanbul tried in every possible way to delay the conclusion of peace between Russia and Turkey. Kutuzov achieved the completion of negotiations a month before the start of the war with Napoleon. On May 28, 1812, the Treaty of Bucharest was concluded. Russia not only freed up its Danube army for the war against Napoleon, but also received all of Bessarabia from Turkey. “This was the first blow in time,” wrote Evgeny Tarle, “which Kutuzov the diplomat dealt to Napoleon almost three and a half months before Kutuzov the strategist dealt him a second blow on the Borodino field.”

Direct speech

“Major General and Cavalier Golenishchev-Kutuzov showed new experiments in his art and courage, overcoming all difficulties under strong enemy fire, climbed the rampart, captured the bastion, and when the excellent enemy forced him to stop, he, serving as an example of courage, held the place, overcame a strong enemy, established himself in the fortress and then continued to defeat the enemies.”

A. V. Suvorov after the storming of Izmail

“One of the most powerful and happiest features of Kutuzov’s intellect was that he was never and never felt like only a commander fighting battles, or only a diplomat conducting negotiations, or only a statesman - the ruler and organizer of a large region. Helping Suvorov and Potemkin in the Crimea in the 80s of the 18th century, today he fights with the Tatar parties, tomorrow he negotiates with them, the day after tomorrow he administratively arranges the territory that successively passes under Russian rule, and then, when it turns out to be necessary, he again turns to sword and back to diplomacy. When, as a result of disgrace, he was appointed military governor of Kyiv in October 1806 or to the same position in Lithuania in July 1809, he, introducing an orderly administration, pursuing abuses, at the same time successfully and skillfully both in Kiev and Vilna takes into account national aspirations and neutralizes Napoleon’s plans to cause uprisings or unrest in the Polish and Lithuanian population, with complete success using all the subtlety of his mind and his diplomatic talents for this, because neither in Tilsit nor in Erfurt friendly outpourings of both emperors did he believes and knows what threat hangs over the Russian western provinces and Lithuania from Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw and how clever Napoleon’s secret agents in Lithuania, sent from Paris and Warsaw. When he receives a very intricate assignment - to eliminate many years of mistakes and all sorts of voluntary and involuntary failures of the weak and incapable of his predecessors and to end the Turkish war that lasted more than five years, then every informed and impartial person does not know who to be more surprised at - the brilliant commander, with the most skillful maneuver then on the left, then on the right bank of the Danube, who broke and then defeated the Turkish army under Ruschuk and after Ruschuk, or the incomparable virtuoso of diplomatic art, who served Russia such a service with the Peace of Bucharest. This versatility of mind and talents allowed Kutuzov to seek out such unexpected means, resort to such resources and achieve such results that never occurred to others. To prevent war while it is still threatening, or to end it as quickly as possible, if there is at least some possibility of achieving the desired results through peaceful negotiations - this is a trait that is very characteristic of Kutuzov.”

Historian Evgeny Tarle

In front of the saint's tomb

I stand with my head bowed...

Everything is sleeping all around; some lamps

In the darkness of the temple they gild

Columns of granite masses

And their banners are hanging in a row<…>

Delight lives in your coffin!

He gives us a Russian voice;

He keeps telling us about that time,

When the voice of the people's faith

Called to your holy gray hair:

“Go and save!” You stood up and saved...

A. S. Pushkin

10 facts about Mikhail Kutuzov

• The Golenishchev-Kutuzov family descends from the “honest husband” Gabriel, according to the legends of ancient genealogists, who left “Prus” for Novgorod during the reign of Alexander Nevsky in the first half of the 13th century. His great-grandson Alexander Prokshich (nicknamed Kutuz) became the ancestor of the Kutuzovs, and Kutuz’s grandson - Vasily Ananievich (nicknamed Golenishche) - was a Novgorod mayor in 1471 and the ancestor of the Golenishchev-Kutuzovs.
• According to the project of Mikhail Kutuzov’s father, engineer-lieutenant general Illarion Kutuzov, the Catherine Canal was built in St. Petersburg.
• The soldiers in the Tarutino camp sang songs: “We are not afraid of the French, our bayonet is always raised, if only Father Kutuzov would allow us to join them soon!”
• Kutuzov had five daughters, and his only son died in infancy from smallpox.
• Kutuzov became the first holder of all four degrees of the Order of St. George. In total there were four such people in Russian military history, in addition to Kutuzov they were Mikhail Barclay de Tolly, Ivan Dibich and Ivan Paskevich.
• Kutuzov's injury in 1774 is described in a poem by Derzhavin, which contains the lines: “Death rushed through his head, But his life remained intact.”
• They say that Barclay de Tolly asked Kutuzov: “After all, you continue to act according to the plan developed by me; Why did they suspend me?” Kutuzov responded to this: “In order to surrender the capital to the enemy, in Prussia there is Blucher, in Great Britain there is Wellington, in Russia only I can do this.”
• At the Artillery and Engineering Noble School, Mikhail Kutuzov studied French, German and Latin languages. Later he mastered three more languages: English, Swedish and Turkish.
• The French writer Madame de Stael, who visited Russia, found that Kutuzov spoke French better than the Corsican Napoleon Bonaparte.
• During the Great Patriotic War, the code name “Kutuzov” was given to the Oryol offensive operation of the Soviet troops.

The Battle of Borodino is one of the most mysterious battles in Russian history. Until now, historians do not have a consensus on who won it. During the battle itself, Napoleon managed to capture the positions of the Russian army, but after it, the French were inexplicably thrown back by Russian soldiers to their original positions. As a result, both the Russians and the French celebrated their victory.

Split personality

It is interesting that Russian and French contemporaries attributed diametrically opposed statements to Napoleon about the outcome of the Battle of Borodino.

According to the Russian historian Mikhnevich, the emperor said the following: “Of all my battles, the most terrible is the one I fought near Moscow. The French showed themselves worthy of victory, and the Russians acquired the right to be invincible...”

And if you believe the French general Pele, Napoleon tirelessly repeated the following phrase: “The Battle of Borodino was the most beautiful and most formidable, the French showed themselves worthy of victory, and the Russians deserved to be invincible.”

Kutuzov’s behavior became an even greater mystery for historians. After the miraculously won territory was occupied by Russian soldiers, the fearless Field Marshal General gives the order to retreat. He was sure that the losses of the Russian army did not allow the battle to continue. In addition, reserve troops rushed to the aid of the French, with whom Napoleon would have won in any case. Mikhail Illarionovich chose to save the lives of the surviving soldiers and capitulate. However, not all commanders of the Russian troops agreed with this decision, as evidenced by the letter from Count Fyodor Rastopchin to Emperor Alexander I...

“Kutuzov is an old gossip woman”

Village of Kutuzov
along the Tula road 34 versts from Moscow

The surrender of Moscow to the French shocked minds. The soldiers gave in to despondency. Indeed, it is strange how, after such a shameful retreat that lasted three months, your capital was captured by an enemy driven to extremes. The generals are furious, and the officers loudly say that it is a shame to wear a uniform. Soldiers no longer constitute an army. This is a horde of robbers, and they rob in front of their superiors. It’s impossible to shoot: it’s not possible to execute several thousand people a day? There are tricks everywhere. Bennigsen reaches out to the top brass. All he does is look for positions while the army is on the march. He boasts that he alone spoke against leaving Moscow and wants to publish a printed report about it. Barclay voted for leaving Moscow to the enemy, and thus, perhaps, wanted to make them forget that, thanks to his haste, Smolensk perished. Prince Kutuzov is no more - no one sees him; he lies down and sleeps a lot. The soldiers despise him and hate him. He does not dare to do anything; a young girl dressed as a Cossack keeps him busy. After leaving Moscow, he headed to the Kolomenskaya road to interrupt the enemy’s communication with Smolensk and take advantage of the supplies accumulated in Kaluga and Orel. He even thinks about giving battle, but he just won’t dare to do it. His argument is that the army must be saved; but if she must keep retreating, then he will soon lose her. I am of the opinion that Bonaparte will leave him when he least expects it.

Kaisarov and Kudashev do everything; they are the stewards of your fate and the fate of the Empire. Since it is widely believed that Kutuzov is acting on your orders, and since the surrender of Moscow without a battle, which he himself announced, struck everyone with horror, it would be necessary, in order to prevent a rebellion, to recall and punish this old fool and courtier. Otherwise, innumerable disasters will occur.

I'm in the army, death is in my soul. I see the army in disarray, the peasants ruined, communications interrupted; there is no boss and no one to replace him. This is another time when public opinion was deceived in its choice. Kamensky has gone crazy, and Kutuzov, the old gossiping woman, has lost his head and is thinking of doing something, without doing anything.

FROM THE EDITOR:

Dear readers!

Here is the fifth electronic issue of the newspaper "Petersburg Cadets". Your questions are coming in - where are the beautiful color editions of the newspaper on offset paper, with an abundance of wonderful photographs, interesting materials, with the participation of the Suvorov, Nakhimov and cadets themselves... The fact is that our newspaper, which has been published monthly since 2006, is non-profit. That is, it is not sold in kiosks and is not available for subscription. Published using sponsorship proceeds. However, since March of this year, the newspaper has only one left - not a very rich sponsor - a graduate of one of the Suvorov schools... Therefore, the editors humbly ask you to excuse us for these temporary difficulties and expect to find sponsors in the near future, and organize subscription and sales in 2012 our newspaper.

One of our readers, without reading the newspaper’s imprint, decided that it was “samizdat”. This is not so: the newspaper has state registration PI No. FS2-8400 dated December 11, 2006, is published in one of the most prestigious printing houses in St. Petersburg - “Courier”, 16 members of the editorial board, including senior officers and scientists, participate in the preparation for publication , education, sports, art, graduates of Suvorov military schools.

TOWARDS THE THIRD GENERAL CADET SCHOOL
TO THE CONGRESS OF OS NKR

• Draft Regulations of the Third All-Cadet Congress of the OS NKR
• Theses of the Report of the Presidium of the OS SNKR at the Third All-Cadet Congress of the OS SNKR

Qui prodest?

In our country, preparations for the 200th anniversary of Russia's victory in the Patriotic War of 1812 have begun widely. In accordance with Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 28, 2007 No. 1755 “On the celebration of the 200th anniversary of Russia’s victory in the Patriotic War of 1812,” preparations for the anniversary were widely launched in the country. The State Commission, headed by the President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev, and the Public Council for Assistance to the State Commission (chaired by the Minister of the Moscow Government A.V. Kibovsky) have been created and are working. A detailed plan of main events was approved by the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, with the involvement of government bodies of the constituent entities of the Federation, where organizing committees were created and plans for regional and municipal events were approved.

Today we are reprinting from Military History Magazine No. 3 for 2004 a large article by famous historians - professors V. Grosul and V. Iminov "Field Marshal M.I. Kutuzov. Who's next?".

The article gives a reasoned, document-based rebuff to lies and falsifications, which are increasingly disseminated in the media, and the authors of these false and provocative “works” have lost all shame and conscience, hiding behind Russian surnames, they furiously attack Russia, the history of Russia, mockingly exaggerate the dirtiest rumors about the outstanding sons of our country. Their "documents" are those made in different time statements of offended and envious contemporaries. Their “analysis” consists of crude excerpts from letters, distortion of facts, etc. The publication poses the question, who is next? It seems to us that there will be many more to come. The slanderers, having already bitten the bit, are trying to discredit Peter the Great, Alexander Suvorov, Mikhail Kutuzov, Georgy Zhukov, throwing mud at Joseph Stalin beyond all measure and at the same time trying to raise Napoleon, Hitler, and other invaders to the shield. The “writer” Alexander Nikonov is especially distinguished. This relatively young man, having graduated from the Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys (MISIS) in 1986, decided not to engage in either steel or alloys, but chose a scandalous, but very financial path in life. He actively advocated the legalization of prostitution, drugs, handguns, and even the euthanasia of newborn disabled children, calling them “blanks” and “defective floppy disks.”

Nikonov is an active promoter of profanity. He published the obscene newspaper “Mother”, for which he was prosecuted. He published several scandalous books - the novel "Anna Karenina is a Female", "Upgrade of a Monkey", "Crap Book", which caused protests from the widest Russian public. However, they brought the author not only tangible money, but also dubious fame: he became a laureate of a number of prestigious literary awards - the Alexander Belyaev Prize, the Moscow Union of Journalists Prize, the Russian Union of Journalists Prize, twice won the Ogonyok magazine prize, and the Nonconformism 2010 prize. “For his contribution to national culture” in 1999 he received a state award - the Pushkin Medal (!). I wonder WHO assessed his “contribution” to culture?!

A truly militant atheist, he is the chairman of the Atheistic Society of Moscow (AtOM).

And this culture manager decided to make an attempt to spoil the Russian people’s holiday - the 200th anniversary of Russia’s victory in the Patriotic War of 1812. His A new book "Napoleon. Attempt No. 2".

Let us dwell on the last pages of this book, where he writes about the war of 1812, glorifying the commander Napoleon in every possible way, and in an extremely insulting manner mocks Kutuzov and the Russian people in general.

Here are some excerpts from the book:

"...We've dealt with the people. Now let's deal with the talented commander - Kutuzov. We owe the glory of Kutuzov and the orders of Kutuzov to Comrade Stalin. Wanting to justify the catastrophic defeat of 1941, he grabbed the historical analogy lying on the surface and ordered the court historians, including Tarle, to invent "okay prepared counter-offensive" by Kutuzov. Which did not exist. And could not have happened. Kutuzov knew that he would never defeat Napoleon. Napoleon would leave Russia only when he himself wanted it. And so it happened. Napoleon did not lose a single major battle and left when he decided to leave.

Kutuzov - by that time an old, flabby pedophile - was known in the Russian army as a lazy, mean-spirited and flattering intriguer..."

Further, Nikonov reinforces his inventions with the words of Alexander I - “This man never objected to me,” General Mayevsky - “having received 20 papers to sign, the field marshal was tired of ten signatures,” English General Wilson - “The army was without food all day... How It’s a pity that they have such a boss.” General Muravyov - “Kutuzov showed up little, slept a lot and did nothing,” etc.

Nikonov’s own assessments: “A 64-year-old man - one-eyed, fat, ugly...”, “Kutuzov is dishonest...”, “Kutuzov, due to his years, was already in rank. The last name again ends with “ov”,” “He was an ordinary mediocrity with a talent more suitable for palace intrigue and licking the asses of superiors."

And finally, Nikonov allowed himself to say: “It’s funny, but there are still people in Russia who consider the Borodino defeat of our army a “glorious victory of Russian weapons.”

M.Yu. Lermontov wrote:

"Tell me, uncle, it’s not without reason

Moscow, burned by fire,

Given to the Frenchman?

After all, there were battles,

Yes, they say, even more!

No wonder all of Russia remembers

About Borodin Day!

Lermontov's poem "BORODINO", a popular song based on these words, is often performed today. And not only on the concert stage! The drill song "BORODINO" is sung by soldiers and cadets. Suvorovites and cadets are singing!..

For Nikonov, this is funny, but the Russian people not only honor the victory of Russia in 1812, honor the heroes of the Battle of Borodino, but also celebrate September 8 DAY OF MILITARY GLORY OF RUSSIA. A military-historical holiday, scientific conferences, a prayer service in the Spaso-Borodinsky Monastery and many other festive events are held.

This is how it has been for 200 years and how it will be!

It is extremely unpleasant to quote a traitor by definition, but you have to do it in order to reveal his vile face: “... The Russians destroyed Moscow. The French saved it,” “The Old Guard took almost no part in the robbery at all” (a curious combination of words “almost at all”!) “What do simple civilized people need, considering that civilization is comfort through reason? .And does it matter to them as the name of the “tsar” who rules the country? Well, Medvedev came instead of Putin, or even Bush, if there is work, the metro runs, they take out garbage and sell cars on credit, then what difference does it make to a civilized (read civilized) ) citizen, who sits there in the Kremlin - Pupkin or Seledkin? And the simpler and dumber the people, the easier it is to organize them to fight for the interests of the leader. And vice versa. If a country is conquered not by barbarians, whose invasion will lead to the collapse of civilization, that is, to a drop in the standard of living, the disappearance of comfort, but, on the contrary, by people with a higher civilized status, resisting them is a sign of stupidity... What prevented people from staying in the city, living ordinary life, trade? Asian wildness and nothing more. What savagery was manifested in the deliberate destruction of their own capital. The Russians acted like dogs in the manger." "Time passed. In burned-out Moscow, there was still a certain amount of supplies left for the army to take the risk of overwintering. But what's the point? To finish off Kutuzov in the spring? And where he? This daredevil, after all, before breaking it, you still need to find it. The old man is very agile. Like a cockroach... Go to St. Petersburg right before winter? It’s scary, but what if these savages burn St. Petersburg too? Then the army will be left completely without food... If the Russians themselves did not need Moscow, why did Napoleon need it? Napoleon understood that not in a military, but in a political sense, his departure from Moscow would look like a defeat. It is all the more important for us to understand the reasons for this defeat. Why did the War of 1812, all the battles in which Napoleon won (!), end in actual loss for him? In Russia, many, for some unknown reason, are accustomed to believing that the glorious Russian army, led by the wise, albeit one-eyed Kutuzov, drove the “invader” out of the Fatherland. this stupid nonsense was invented much later. But in Russia at that time there were no such illusions. God helped by turning on winter a little earlier - that was the general opinion."

Nikonov's conclusion: "What ruined the French commander and his army? Three things superimposed on each other - the vast expanses of Russia, the fire of Moscow and the unexpectedly early frosts."

“Napoleon, of course, is a genius, there is no doubt, but the facts require us to admit that Kutuzov helped him with all his might” (!).

“So slavery won in 1812. The people of Russia were again enslaved, and Russia lost. But she would have won the world by losing this war... And I’ll tell you this: “Tsar Alexander oppressed his slaves. And in civilized Europe, relations between people and countries were completely different. We still have a bad idea of ​​this due to the same backwardness”... Compared to the Russian autocracy, the Napoleonic dictatorship was "dictatorship-light" .

It would be possible to respond to Nikonov for every one of his inventions, but firstly, it is clear to every normal person that these historical “discoveries” of his are either the most shameless lies, or hopeless stupidity, or simply a desire to shock readers and “earn” big money from it.

Many letters are published in the media and on the Internet, the authors of which express the deepest indignation at Nikonov’s writings. Here is one of those letters:

Plastun-

I am surprised at you, Russians. Because you have two extremes. Either revel in your own importance, or screw everything up. This book has the second one. Napoleonophilia, elevated to an absolute and a complete obliteration of one’s own history. Here there is “Suvorov’s old ass”, and “pedophile-Kutuzov”, and the idiot-Russian Tsar. And it is not clear how such a genius Napoleon put at least 550 thousand soldiers and officers in Russia, while the losses of the Russian army and militias amounted to 210 thousand. Oh yes, everything is freezing. The poor unfortunate civilizing guardians were frozen. Doesn't remind you of anything? The beaten fascist generals then whined the same way. Frost, bad roads, barbarians all around... And the fact that, in addition to the retreating frostbitten ones, the French garrisons had to be knocked out of Russian cities with battle... not a word. All attention to the “Moscow” French group, we note, which has greatly thinned out after Borodin. In general, if you can still read about Napoleon’s reformism, then regarding his military campaigns it’s a complete mess: and it’s unclear how he could lose if he fought with idiots, with the exception, perhaps, of the Englishman Nelson, well, he was at sea. But Napoleon lost on land. Undoubtedly, Napoleon is a genius and great person, but why raise it to the rank of the Absolute? They beat him too, and they beat him well. Therefore, by December 21, 1812, 255 generals, 5,111 officers, and 26,950 lower ranks passed through East Prussia from the Great Army, “in a pitiful condition and mostly unarmed” (Auerswald).

Nowadays, many serious works have appeared dedicated to the Patriotic War of 1812 and its commanders, first of all, Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov. In our opinion, there are two books that are profound scientific research(although not indisputable) of this war. This is a book by a military historian, writer and leading researcher at the Institute of Military History, Alexei Vasilyevich SHISHOV - "Unknown Kutuzov" and the work of Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Nikolai Alekseevich TROITSKY - "Field Marshal KUTUZOV - myths and facts."

The authors of these books present His Serene Highness Prince GOLENISCHEV-KUTUZOV SMOLENSKY as an outstanding Russian military and statesman, the hero of all Russian-Turkish wars of the 18th - early 19th centuries, the savior of the Fatherland in the Patriotic War of 1812, holder of all Russian orders, including the first holder of all four degrees of the Order of SAINT GEORGE, Field Marshal General. The authors show KUTUZOV based not on rumors or someone’s hasty statements, but on documents, specific events and facts (including “inconvenient” facts). The role of KUTUZOV in the history of Russia is assessed using the assessments of many of the most prominent sons of Russia and, perhaps, it is important to mention an excerpt from a letter from Alexander 1 to Kutuzov’s wife after his death: "... His name and deeds will remain immortal. A grateful Fatherland will never forget his merits, Europe and the whole world will never cease to be amazed by him..."

However, one cannot help but be surprised by something else: IN TODAY'S MAIN DOCUMENTS, in plans for preparing and holding the anniversary, including in the voluminous plan of the Government of the Russian Federation, the name KUTUZOV is not even mentioned. In the Guidelines for educational institutions recommended for the anniversary, the name of Napoleon is repeated TWELVE times, and KUTUZOV - not once! One gets the impression that those who draw up these documents and who approve them do not read anything except Nikonov’s books, in particular, his book “Napoleon. Error No. 2.”

Vladimir Sokolov-Khitrovo

Field Marshal M.I. Kutuzov. Who is next?

// Military historical magazine. 2004. No. 3. P.18-21.

A huge amount of literature is devoted to the Patriotic War of 1812 and, naturally, the commander-in-chief of the Russian army, Field Marshal General Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov, has always occupied an honorable place in it. There is not a person in our country who does not know this outstanding commander, and if we talk about professional historians, then no matter what field of historical science they work in, there has not been and will not be indifference to this figure of Russian history among them. Every new document about Kutuzov and his activities is received with interest and generates many comments. The historiography of the War of 1812 continues to be replenished with more and more new works, and only in Lately the works of V.N. appeared Balyazina, A.A. Vasilyeva, V.N. Zemtsova, L.L. Ivchenko, V.G. Sirotkina, A.G. Tartakovsky, V.P. Totfalushina, A.V. Shishov and a number of other scientists. Attracted the attention of readers round table, organized in 1995 by the magazine "Rodina" (No. 9), under the title "Savior of the Fatherland. Kutuzov - without the textbook gloss." And, of course, the latest book by the famous Saratov historian N.A. occupies a special place in historiography. Troitsky "Field Marshal Kutuzov: myths and facts", published in Moscow in 2002.

ON THE. Troitsky, the author of numerous studies, including on the War of 1812, set himself the task of showing what the Russian commander was like in life, and not just on the battlefield. Despite the fact that this book presents facts that were not usually brought before the attention of the general reading public, it gives the impression of a serious monographic study. Of course, it would be possible to strengthen or weaken some accents, to pay more attention to individual stages of the commander’s career, for example, his participation in the Russian-Turkish war of 1806-1812, but in general the monograph by N.A. Troitsky - an event in the historiography of the Patriotic War of 1812. Having carefully studied the biography of M.I. Kutuzov, the author, without hiding a number of, one might say, negative traits of his character: a penchant for intrigue, love of women, the qualities of a skilled courtier, nevertheless writes about Kutuzov as “an outstanding Russian military and statesman who gained unfading fame not only in the military , but also in the civil and diplomatic fields."

The publication on this topic under the title “Was there Kutuzov?” is of a different nature. in the newspaper "Arguments and Facts" (No. 38, September 2003). First of all, the attitude towards the topic of the newspaper itself is surprising. Already on the first page it was announced as follows: “Field Marshal Kutuzov. Was there a savior?” An approach that immediately raises doubts. The heading: “The field marshal who slept through the entire war” is categorical, as are the comments and questions from the editors that precede two articles, one of which is “anti-Kutuzov” in nature, and the other, on the contrary, one might say, “pro-Kutuzov”. The newspaper introduction to the first of them states that “Kutuzov’s genius as a commander has recently been subject to increasing doubts,” and the introduction to the second points to a paradox, the essence of which, according to the newspaper, is that Napoleon allegedly “not having lost a single battle...lost the campaign. And Kutuzov, who did not win a single battle, won the war." And the question is asked: what is more important?

Both the announcement on the first page, and the section, and comments with questions reveal the actual position of the editors to such an extent that the game of objectivity becomes unnecessary. However, let us turn to the materials of the articles. In one of them, presented in the form of a conversation between a newspaper correspondent and M. Gornostaev, who identified himself as a candidate of historical sciences, the essence is contained in the following words of the latter: “The brilliant commander Kutuzov did not exist, there was only a good, but not very talented military leader, a man not burdened with high morality." With this conclusion about M.I. We categorically disagree with Kutuzov as a military leader. On the one hand, it is necessary to note a number of omissions, and on the other, controversial provisions. The silences are of a fundamental nature.

Indeed, how can one write and talk about the Patriotic War of 1812 and not mention the brilliant Tarutino march maneuver, which Napoleon himself spoke very highly of? A maneuver that marked the beginning of a turning point in the war, when M.I. Kutuzov, arriving in Tarutino, declared: “Now not a step back!” During this flanking maneuver, the French lost sight of the main forces of the Russian army for 9 days. The Tarutino maneuver, the idea of ​​which belonged entirely to Kutuzov, was so far-sighted in concept and perfect in execution, so fateful in its influence on the subsequent course of the war, that it was included as an outstanding achievement of military art in all textbooks for future military leaders. As a result of this maneuver, the strategic situation changed radically in favor of the Russian army, which received ample opportunities for comprehensive preparation and deployment of a counteroffensive. This alone could give M.I. Kutuzov has the right to be called a brilliant commander.

The field marshal understood that in an open field battle, especially in the early stages of the war, when the most powerful army of that time, led by the most talented military leader, invaded Russia, it would be difficult for the Russian troops, consisting mainly of former serfs, to win. Therefore, the enemy had to be outwitted, and “fat, old, one-eyed” (the newspaper editors did not fail to emphasize this) really outwitted the best commander in Europe (1). And this was not an accident, but corresponded to the talent of the field marshal, who had already demonstrated more than once in numerous wars his outstanding intelligence and military cunning, which were appreciated not only by Empress Catherine II, but also by such military authorities as P.A. Rumyantsev, A.V. Suvorov, as well as a number of other associates of Kutuzov. In particular, his immediate superior, Commander-in-Chief of the Moldavian (Danube) Army, Field Marshal General A.A. Prozorovsky, in December 1808, wrote about Kutuzov to Alexander I, although he could not help but know that the Russian autocrat did not like the latter: “I recognize him in the art of war as one of the best generals of the sovereign emperor” (2).

Before the Tarutino maneuver M.I. Kutuzov pulled Napoleon into Moscow and laid a real trap for him there. Yes, leaving Moscow without a battle at its walls is the most dramatic act of the War of 1812, the great sacrifice of a great city. But this is also evidence great strength the will, courage and wisdom of the Russian commander, who believed that with the loss of Moscow Russia was not lost yet. The main thing is to preserve the army and get closer to the troops coming for reinforcements. “By the very concession of Moscow,” said Kutuzov, “we will prepare the inevitable death of the enemy... As long as the army exists and is able to resist the enemy, until then there remains hope of ending the war happily, but after the destruction of the army, “both Moscow and Russia are lost.” (3). Truly prophetic words, in the light of which Gornostaev’s statement that “Kutuzov did not know what to do until the last day” does not correspond to reality.

From the point of view of military expediency, the field marshal's decision cannot raise much doubt. He carefully thought out and subsequently implemented measures of precisely this nature in order to isolate the enemy army in Moscow and thereby demoralize, exhaust it, and then “squeeze” it out of the city. Firmly deciding to exterminate the invaders’ troops, M.I. Kutuzov steadily directed all efforts towards achieving this goal. Acting as the Quartermaster General of the Main Staff of the Russian Army during the War of 1812, that is, he was a person close to the commander-in-chief and shared with him all the work of commanding the troops, K.F. Tol (infantry general from 1826) spoke in 1825 about the activities of the commander: “He, with firmness and constancy, leading all our armies, in the light of his vast and experienced mind, came up with general action plans, which were bound to inevitably lead the enemy to destruction, and appointed a time and place for the execution of these plans... Combining in himself all the springs of our military strength, he directed it so that it would inflict the most disastrous blows on the enemy."4 So the surrender of Moscow, and the Tarutino march-maneuver were stages on the path to the defeat of Napoleon, and this needs to be talked about directly, and not talk about the equality of forces and the ability to stop the invaders at the walls of the Mother See. There were no such forces then, and the second battle near Moscow did not guarantee Russian victory.

M. Gornostaev also speaks with omissions about the Tarutino battle on October 6 (18), 1812, which, in fact, marked the transition of the Russian army from defense to active offensive actions. And although it ended only in tactical success - the partial defeat of the 26,000-strong French vanguard of Marshal I. Murat, its importance for raising the morale of the Russian troops and strengthening their faith in the final victory over Napoleon can hardly be overestimated. In the same way, it is difficult to overestimate, but in strategic terms, the significance of the battles near Maloyaroslavets on October 12 (24), about which, by the way, M. Gornostaev did not say a word at all. These battles, which went down in history as the Battle of Maloyaroslavets, were the culmination of the struggle for the strategic initiative, a turning point in the Patriotic War of 1812, which determined the fate of the “Great Army”. Here, near the walls of the ancient Russian city, in a stubborn, fierce struggle, the strategic initiative was finally wrested from the enemy, and from here his expulsion from Russia began. As a result of the battle, Napoleon was forced to abandon the plan of a roundabout movement through Kaluga to Smolensk, i.e. through the grain-producing southern provinces of the Russian Empire, and turn his troops, as Kutuzov sought, to the Old Smolensk Road, beginning a retreat along the terrain devastated by the French themselves . And if Gornostaev admits a partial victory in the Battle of Tarutino, saying that the final defeat of Murat was allegedly prevented by Kutuzov himself, although the latter’s actions were determined by the information he received about Napoleon’s impending departure from Moscow and the uncertainty of the enemy’s subsequent actions, then the silence about Maloyaroslavets can only be considered as another There is a serious flaw in this publication.

Not mentioning the Tarutino maneuver and Maloyaroslavets is about the same as not mentioning the Moscow and Stalingrad battles when talking about the Great Patriotic War. What kind of objectivity can we talk about after this? But in addition to silences in M. Gornostaev’s answers to the correspondent’s “thorny” questions, we also see a number of controversial statements. Neither the number of troops of the parties named by him who took part in the Battle of Borodino on August 26 (September 7), 1812 (Russians - 154.8 thousand people with 640 guns, French - 134 thousand and 587 guns), nor the number of losses are generally accepted at Borodino (55 thousand Russians and 34 thousand French) (5), and the very assessment of this battle is one-sided. We must not forget that the strongest army in Western Europe, which had not known defeat for over 10 years, was unable to break the resistance of the Russian troops. The French and their allies suffered heavy losses, especially in the cavalry, which were much more difficult for them to replace than for the Russians: the significant distance from France affected them. It is also wrong to say that the Russians lost the Battle of Borodino (“our army abandoned the battlefield”) (6), although, of course, it was a battle for Moscow, but also for Russia as a whole. “Suppose,” wrote the remarkable military historian of Russian diaspora A.A. Kersnovsky, “that in the Battle of Borodino Napoleon managed to destroy the Russian army. The Emperor would have remained adamant even then, Moscow would have been burned, popular uprising would have flared up in this case too. But there would be no one in the Tarutino camp and there would be no one to stand up for the conqueror of the road at Maloyaroslavets... Napoleon could have placed his army in winter quarters somewhere in the Kaluga or Oryol province (suffering, of course, great damage from the partisans) and -19 - in the spring of 1813, resume military operations, relying on the inexhaustible resources of Europe under his control" (7).

In fact, it would not hurt for Gornostaev to say with which army Napoleon came to Russia and with which he left, or rather fled, because his retreat turned into flight. And most importantly, it was necessary to give credit to M.I. Kutuzov as the winner of the French, and not conclude the conversation with the dubious phrase that “only a successful combination of many factors allowed Kutuzov to be called the winner of Napoleon.”

And one more remark regarding M. Gornostaev’s statement that the field marshal did nothing in the Tarutino camp, was demoralized and mostly asleep (and this version, judging by the column, is shared by the newspaper’s editors). In saying this, Gornostaev refers to some “memoirs of contemporaries” of the War of 1812. I wonder whose? Isn't it General L.L. Bennigsen, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Army, who is widely known as an ill-wisher of M.I. Kutuzov, who sought through intrigue and denunciations (for which, in fact, he was removed from office) to remove the field marshal and become commander-in-chief himself? To show the inconsistency of M. Gornostaev’s assertion, we will present only one of the many testimonies of participants in the war with Napoleon - the famous military historian Lieutenant General A.I. Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky, who was one of Kutuzov’s adjutants in 1812. In 1840, he wrote: “For Kutuzov, his stay in Tarutino was one of the brilliant eras of his illustrious life. Since the time of Pozharsky, no one has stood so high in the sight of all of Russia... In Tarutino, in an incredibly short time, Kutuzov brought the army into the most harmonious position, Tired of a thousand-mile retreat and bloody battles, he handed weapons to the people, besieged Napoleon in Moscow and... drew all the benefits from a new kind of war" (8). In other words, during three weeks of stay in the Tarutino fortified camp [from September 21 (October 3) to October 11 (23), 1812] M.I. Kutuzov and his associates did, and this cannot be denied, a huge amount of work: important preparatory and organizational measures were carried out that ensured the successful transition of the Russian army to the counteroffensive, and one of the largest strategic tasks was solved - superiority in forces over the enemy was achieved.

The second article in the newspaper seemed to be intended to present a different point of view. Its author V.M. Bezotosny, who wrote and published a number of well-known works on the War of 1812 in his time, is fully prepared for this. But his article, firstly, is half as long in volume, and, secondly, it also cannot but give rise to controversy. It turns out that almost all historians have complaints against Kutuzov for abandoning Moscow and for the poor balance of forces on the Borodino field. No, and there has never been such unanimity among historians. On the contrary, most of them do not condemn Kutuzov either for Moscow or for Borodino. And in general, what complaints can domestic historians have against the winner of Napoleon? The author writes that the exaltation of M.I. Kutuzov began in 1945, and here he comes into conflict with the statement of M. Gornostaev, who noted the “canonization” of Kutuzov immediately after the War of 1812, which, in our opinion, is more true. But didn't Kutuzov deserve it? In any other country, the winner of the best commander of the time and, it should be added, the best army would have been exalted and canonized.

V.M. For some reason, Bezotosny also does not write about the Tarutino maneuver, or the Tarutino battle, or the battle of Maloyaroslavets. And this is surprising. How could a historian of this class remain silent about the most important, turning-point events of the war? At the same time, Bezotosny’s ​​position differs markedly from Gornostaev’s position. He admits that "Kutuzov was an intelligent, cunning and experienced military leader." And despite such recognition, the editors of Argumenty i Fakty are clearly inclined to the assessment of the author of the first article-conversation, with which we absolutely cannot agree. Kutuzov's role in the War of 1812 was more significant than direct participation in its events. He fought against the Polish confederates back in the 60s of the 18th century, participated in three Russian-Turkish wars, and fought with Napoleon in 1805, being the commander-in-chief of the Russian-Austrian army. Could a mediocre or, as M. Gornostaev writes, not very talented commander be appointed to such an important post? That is, Kutuzov was considered the first commander of the country even at that time. And the unsuccessful Austerlitz is not only and not even so much his fault. M.I. Kutuzov was a subtle diplomat and statesman. He successively served as Lithuanian, St. Petersburg, Kiev, and again Lithuanian military governor, trained military personnel at the Noble Artillery and Engineering School, in the Land Noble Cadet Corps, and many of his students subsequently became famous as defenders of the Fatherland, including in the War of 1812.

And, of course, we must not forget that back in March 1811, Kutuzov was appointed commander-in-chief of the Moldavian army, which on June 22 (July 4) won a brilliant victory near Ruschuk, and then, in October-November, near Slobodzeya. In the latter case, Kutuzov literally lured the Turkish army to the left bank of the Danube, surrounded it and took the remnants prisoner, for which he was elevated to the dignity of count. In May 1812, he promptly, despite the opposition of France and the desire of the Turkish government to delay negotiations, concluded peace with Turkey in Bucharest and freed the more than 50,000-strong Moldavian army for the war with Napoleon. This world, as you know, was called God-given. If M.I. Kutuzov did nothing more, but only presented his country with such a gift on the eve of the French invasion, then this would have been enough to go down in history, including the history of the Patriotic War of 1812. It is no coincidence that in July of the same 1812, less than a year after receiving the title of count, he was also awarded the title of His Serene Highness Prince. It is difficult to find a similar example in the history of Russia and this, we emphasize once again, is not accidental.

Already in the summer of 1812 M.I. Kutuzov was the most popular person in the state -20-, the hope of both the “tops” and the “bottoms”. And this is not an exaggeration. At the beginning of the Patriotic War, in a competitive struggle, he, by the will of the nobility, was elected head of the St. Petersburg militia, and was also appointed commander of the so-called Narva Corps, intended to protect St. Petersburg. Isn't this evidence of the hopes that society placed on him? And, of course, it knew him not only from books, but personally, not only as “fat, old and one-eyed.” He lost an eye in battles, receiving one after another wounds to the head, each of which, according to the ideas of the medicine of that time, was considered fatal. But Kutuzov survived, survived in order to lead the country’s armed forces and the people in the fight against a terrible external danger.

Was there another, more suitable figure then? Yes, at that time there were many young, slender and “big-eyed” commanders, but public opinion preferred Kutuzov, and Alexander I was forced to give in (9). Infantry generals M.B. Barclay de Tolly and P.I. Bagration were excellent commanders. The first commanded the 1st Western Army and, as Minister of War, was the de facto commander-in-chief, the second stood at the head of the 2nd Western Army. But neither one nor the other was suitable for the role of essentially the leader of the nation. If only because there were extremely tense relations between these two extraordinary personalities. There had to be someone third, more experienced and respected and, of course, a Russian person. This third, besides M.I. Kutuzov was not there. Neither L.L. was suitable. Bennigsen, a former Hanoverian infantryman, the same age as Kutuzov, nor P.Kh. Wittgenstein, who blocked the French’s path to St. Petersburg and even earned the name “defender of Petrov’s City,” but did not rise to the occasion when he led the Russian army after the death of Kutuzov. Another honored general, commander of the 3rd Army A.P., also did not approach. Tormasov, who for some time served as commander-in-chief, when in the spring of 1813 M.I. Kutuzov fell ill. In the Russian army there were then many fighting, honored military leaders, but in order to fight Napoleon, public opinion gave preference to Kutuzov and was not mistaken. Expressing general feelings, A.S. Pushkin wrote: “When the voice of the people’s faith called out to your holy gray hair: “Go, save!” You stood up and saved” (10).

"The glory of Kutuzov is inextricably linked with the glory of Russia, with the memory of greatest event modern history. His title: Savior of Russia; his monument: the rock of St. Helena!... Kutuzov alone was invested with the people's power of attorney, which he so wonderfully justified! "(11). These words also belong to the great Russian poet. It would be nice for all of us to listen to them. M.I. Kutuzov decided main tasks, and details that are of interest to us historians should not obscure the main thing.

And last but not least. The newspaper "Arguments and Facts" has a huge circulation in modern times. As far as we know, this is the most popular publication in Russia. The newspaper's circulation is 1000 times greater than the circulation of N.A.'s monograph. Troitsky or, for example, the magazine "Domestic History", hundreds of times - "Military Historical". It influences millions of readers. And when it comes to national shrines, you need to think many times before starting a campaign of discredit. Essentially, the newspaper took part in a campaign aimed at de-heroizing Russian history, a campaign that began about 15 years ago and, above all, set the task of debunking the Soviet period of the history of the Fatherland. This also affected the Great Patriotic War. 1941-1945, during which mass heroism was displayed on a scale that no other historical era can compare with. Then an attempt was made to de-heroize pre-revolutionary Russian history. There are known attacks on Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy and others. Now we are faced with a campaign against Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov. Bitter trials befell this commander after the cession of Moscow, but already in October 1812 his star shone again with a dazzling light and, we are sure, will never fade. There is no reason for this.

Notes

(1) Napoleon, critically reflecting on the Russian campaign, was forced to admit: “The sly fox - Kutuzov - greatly let me down with his flank march.” See: Zhilin P.A. Field Marshal Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov: Life and military leadership, 3rd art, add. M.: Voenizdat, 1988. P. 187.

(2) M.I. Kutuzov. Collection of documents. In 5 volumes/Ed. L.G. Bloodless. M.: Military Publishing House, 1950-1956.1952. T 3. P. 90.

(3) Ibid. M., 1954.T.4.Part 1.S.221.

(4) Quote. by: Zhilin P.A. Decree. op. P. 352.

(5) According to the latest data published in the 1st volume of the Military Encyclopedia (M.: Voenizdat, 1997. P. 551), by the beginning of the Battle of Borodino the Russian army had 120 thousand people, 624 guns; French - 130-135 thousand people and 587 guns. Regarding losses, the article says that Napoleon’s army lost over 50 thousand people killed and wounded (according to French data, about 30 thousand people), including 49 generals; Russian army - over 44 thousand people (including 29 generals).

(6) With the onset of darkness, Napoleon withdrew his troops to their original positions. According to the testimony of the French officer Venturini, a participant in the Battle of Borodino, “with the onset of night, each side again occupied the places from which it began the battle in the morning.” See: Liprandi I.P. To whom and to what extent does the honor of “Borodino Day” belong? M., 1867. P. 71.

(7) See: Kersnovsky A.A. History of the Russian army. In 4 volumes. M.: Golos, 1992-1994. 1992. T.1. pp. 264,265.

(8) Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky A.I. Description of the Patriotic War of 1812. St. Petersburg, 1840. Ch.Z. P. 142.; 4.4. pp. 378,379.

(9) In letters to his sister, Alexander I reported: “In general, Kutuzov enjoys great love among wide circles of the population here (in St. Petersburg - Author) and in Moscow.” And further: “In St. Petersburg, I saw that everyone was decisively in favor of appointing old Kutuzov as commander-in-chief; it was a common desire... I had to choose the one who was pointed to by the common voice.” See: Correspondence between Emperor Alexander I and his sister. book Ekaterina Pavlovna. St. Petersburg, 1910. P. 82.87.

(10) Pushkin A.S. Poly. collection op. M., 1949. T 12. P. 102.

(11) Ibid. P. 133.

GROSUL V.Y.,
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Chief
Researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

IMINOV V.T.,
retired lieutenant general, candidate of historical sciences, professor,
Leading Researcher at the Institute of Military History of the Russian Defense Ministry

RESOLUTION
III All-Cadet Congress of the Open Commonwealth
Suvorov, Nakhimov and cadets of Russia

On the participation of cadet associations in the preparation and celebration of the 200th anniversary of Russia’s VICTORY in the Patriotic War of 1812.

In accordance with Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 28, 2007 No. 1755 “On the celebration of the 200th anniversary of Russia’s victory in the Patriotic War of 1812,” preparations for the anniversary were widely launched in the country. The State Commission, headed by the President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev, and the Public Council for Assistance to the State Commission (chaired by the Minister of the Moscow Government A.V. Kibovsky) have been created and are working. Approved by the Chairman

The Government of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin has a detailed plan of main events, with the involvement of government bodies of the constituent entities of the Federation, where organizing committees have been created and plans for regional and municipal events have been approved.

Particular activity in preparation for the anniversary is shown in the Republic of Bashkortostan, in the Belgorod, Kostroma, Kursk, Nizhny Novgorod, Omsk, Penza, Ryazan, Sakhalin, Smolensk regions, Kamchatka Territory, Yamalo-Nenets District. Federal, municipal and public organizations the city of MOSCOW, where restoration of monuments is carried out, thematic design of the entire city is being prepared for the anniversary, conferences, exhibitions, festivals, competitions, military-historical and sporting events are being held, performances and concert programs are being prepared, publication and re-publication of scientific works, popular literature and collections of documents. All this work was directly headed by Moscow Mayor Sergei Semenovich SOBYANIN. Moscow cadet educational institutions and the Moscow Commonwealth of Suvorov, Nakhimov and cadets began to participate in this work. The Council of the St. Petersburg Union of Suvorov, Nakhimov and Cadets supported the petition of the 21st Congress of Associations of Russian Cadet Corps abroad to restore the state holiday of victory in the Patriotic War of 1812 and issue a commemorative medal dedicated to the anniversary. The implementation of the project “Under the shadow of St. Petersburg - Sons of the Fatherland” has begun.

Unfortunately, St. Petersburg is noticeably behind in preparation for the anniversary. But many memorable relics and memorial sites of the Patriotic War of 1812 are concentrated here - the grave of M.I. Kutuzov in the Kazan Cathedral, the world-famous gallery of the Patriotic War of 1812 in the Hermitage,

magnificent exhibitions, including original items from the museum in Bunzlau, where Kutuzov died - in the Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineering Troops and Signal Corps, house number 30 on Kutuzov embankment, where the field marshal lived with his family, the A.V. Suvorov Museum , Alexander Column on Palace Square and much more.

However, neither the governor nor other representatives of the former capital of Russia are represented in the State Commission, nor in the Public Council, nor in other bodies preparing for the anniversary.

There is no proper rebuff given to the book and newspaper articles of some false historians who are trying to make capital from the deheroization of the War of 1812 and the Great Patriotic War, from glorifying the enemies of Russia and even openly regretting victories over them, which, according to them,

"prevented our country from tasting the joys of European civilization."

Particularly indignant is the digging of these false historians into the biographies of the great commanders Kutuzov, Suvorov, Peter the Great, Zhukov and others in order to show their mediocrity, low moral qualities and the accident of victories under their leadership.

THE CONGRESS DECIDED:

1. Consider it the most important patriotic duty of every cadet educational institution, every cadet public association to engage in active work to prepare and celebrate the 200th anniversary of Russia's victory in the Patriotic War of 1812.
2. To support and actively seek the implementation of the proposals of the 21st Congress of Associations of Russian Cadet Corps Abroad (Serbia, 2010) on the restoration of the state holiday of the victory of Russia in the Patriotic War of 1812 and the establishment of a state commemorative medal for the anniversary. Recommend that Suvorov, Nakhimov and cadets be nominated for the State Commemorative Medal and the recently approved public award - the cross "For perpetuating the memory of the Patriotic War of 1812" for their contribution to perpetuating the memory and popularization of the Russian victory in the Patriotic War of 1812.
3. Recommend that cadet educational institutions of all departments and cadet public associations organize conferences, exhibitions, competitions, concerts, military-patriotic and sports events, visits to the graves and monuments of Kutuzov and other commanders of the two Patriotic Wars with laying flowers and giving military honors, conducting excursions of Suvorov students, Nakhimovites and cadets to the places of battles of the Patriotic War of 1812, to museums and memorial places.
4. Until October 15 this year. develop and distribute to cadet institutions guidelines for organizing and holding events dedicated to the anniversary.
5. To support the holding of a historical and literary competition for Suvorov, Nakhimov and cadets of all departments for the anniversary. Send representatives of regional cadet public associations to the current Organizing Committee and the jury. Contact the associations "Cadet Brotherhood" and "Russian Cadet Brotherhood" with an offer to take part in organizing the competition.
   In addition to the traditional prizes and Diplomas for the winners of the competition, the most distinguished ones will receive a public medal “For perpetuating the memory of the Patriotic War of 1812.”
6. Recommend holding cadet competitions dedicated to the anniversary:

• - readers, musicians
• - artists
• - drill songs
• - KVN
• "The smartest cadet"

Organize the participation of Suvorov, Nakhimov and cadets in the improvement of the graves of Russian soldiers and other memorable places of the Patriotic War of 1812.

Conduct scientific and practical conferences and seminars on the topic “From the feat of heroes of the Patriotic War of 1812 to the feat of heroes of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.”

To provide for and assist in the participation of the most worthy Suvorov students, Nakhimov students and cadets in the “MEMORY TRAINS” planned by the Government of the Russian Federation to the State Borodino Military Historical Museum-Reserve.

Organize the participation of Suvorov, Nakhimov and cadets in the All-Russian historical and patriotic camp “VIVAT, VICTORY!” created by decision of the Government of the Russian Federation. and in the All-Russian historical and local history campaign “Be worthy of the glory of your ancestors!”

Participation of representatives of Suvorov, Nakhimov and cadets in the FIFTH cadet rally in Serbia (summer 2012), dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the Russian victory in the Patriotic War of 1812.

Organize the preparation and participation of representatives of Suvorov, Nakhimov and cadets, as well as cadet public associations in the Military-Patriotic Holiday in honor of the publication on January 7 (new style) 1813 in Moscow of the HIGHEST MANIFESTO on the end of the Patriotic War of 1812.

=========================================================

The project was prepared by the editor-in-chief of the newspaper "Petersburg Cadets" - (disabled from the Great Patriotic War, graduate of the 4th Moscow Special Artillery School - 1942), professor, retired lieutenant colonel Vladimir Aleksandrovich Sokolov-Khitrovo, who humbly asks all interested parties to report their comments and wishes by phone +79119259982, +79219477961, E-mail: [email protected]

MONUMENT TO THE GRAND DUKE

In 2009, it was 100 years since the death of the outstanding military and statesman of Russia - Grand Duke MIKHAIL NIKOLAEVICH ROMANOV, who for a quarter of a century was the Chairman of the State Council of the Russian Empire, where he showed himself as a Russian patriot, statesman, and man of duty.

On September 19, 2010, a monument to the Grand Duke, who served as governor there for about 20 years, was opened and consecrated in the Caucasus.

The monument created by Alexander Apollonov was cast in a bronze copy, presented by the St. Michael Athos Monastery as a gift to St. Petersburg, has already been delivered to our city and is awaiting installation.

Where is the best place to install a monument? Probably the most the best place for him, this is the territory of the Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineering Troops and Signal Corps. Mikhail Nikolaevich was one of the organizers of this museum; he made a great contribution to the development of Russian artillery, heading the Mikhailovsky Military Artillery Academy for several decades.

The editors of the newspaper "Petersburg Cadets", on behalf of the readers, warmly support the proposal to install the bust on the territory of the museum and appeal to the Governor and the Legislative Assembly with a request for assistance in this good deed.

Deputy Editor-in-Chief Nina Skornyakova

(Igor Andrushkevich: Electronic Cadet Letter No. 71.)

The smartest cadet from
St. Petersburg SVU
BOGDAN KHMILYAR

The STS television channel and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation decided to provide Suvorov, Nakhimov and cadets with the opportunity to take part in one of the most popular television programs - “THE SMARTEST”

Students of the Moscow and Tver Suvorov Military Schools took part in the first episodes, entitled “THE SMARTEST CADET.” The third program, on August 7, was dedicated to the St. Petersburg Suvorov Military School.

Together with Tina KANDELAKI, who, as always, held this meeting superbly, TV viewers were pleasantly surprised to see a group of beautiful, cheerful, smart, charming boys in white military tunics with scarlet shoulder straps. It seems that there were no such difficult questions of the competition that the Suvorov students did not answer would be an instant answer. No less interesting was the conversation between the presenter and each of the participants. She asked about the family, about why they entered the Suvorov School, about their favorite subjects and favorite teachers, about whether it’s boring to live and study without girls, and what the guys want to become in the future. Quick, witty answers brought out kind smiles from everyone, the admiration of Tina KANDELAKI herself, who simply fell in love with each of the Suvorov students, and clearly fell in love with each of them.

I would like the competition not to end, but the airtime was running out and Tina KANDELAKI summed up the results. She presented the prize - SURKA, to the smartest cadet - Suvorov student BOGDAN KHMILYAR.

Suvorov student Nikita Mikhailets took second place, and Suvorov student Daniil Motorin took third place.

The editors of the newspaper "Petersburg Cadets" cordially congratulate the St. Petersburg Suvorov students and the head of the school - Honored Teacher of Russia, Major VERONIKA GENNADEVNA KALYUZHNOVA on yet another victory. High discipline, real St. Petersburg culture, careful preservation of the traditions of the Suvorov school, success in sports, amateur performances and, finally, the best among Suvorov schools, the results of the current graduation (FIVE gold and TWO silver medals), speak for themselves. KEEP IT UP GUYS!

Executive secretary of the newspaper "PK" -
graduate of St. Petersburg VU (2006)
student of the State Polytechnic University
Andrey Belov.

...do we want to erect a monument to a pedophile in the presence of pioneers, pensioners, as well as camp inmates on Seliger? You see, if we have found in the person of pedophiles the main enemy of the economy (“and in general!”) of modern Russia (gays and cyclists also harm it), then we must be strict and consistent! I’m generally silent about the fact that the pedophile of Alexander’s times was also a Freemason... And now about everything in order.

Before the war of 1805, which ended in the defeat of the Russians at Austerlitz, Kutuzov did not exercise chief command, but was only an executive officer under the command of A.V. Suvorov and P.A. Rumyantseva. His main talent turned out to be the gift of a courtier, which in the eighteenth century could advantageously replace all other abilities. Kutuzov began by flattering Catherine’s all-powerful favorite, young Platon Zubov (for more information about this time in the life of the future field marshal, see the monograph by Professor, Doctor of Historical Sciences N.A. Troitsky, “Field Marshal Kutuzov: Myths and Facts.” M., 2002, pp. 72 – 73, etc.). The Russian military officer, Orthodox Christian and aristocrat regularly came to Zubov in the morning to brew coffee for him according to a specific “Turkish” recipe. Then he waited in the reception room and brought the drink into the bedchamber (often without being embarrassed by the gossip of those present). A.S. Pushkin in “Notes on Russian” history XVIII century" called "Kutuzov's coffee pot" the most disgusting symbol of court humiliation (Pushkin A.S. Collected Works: in 10 volumes. M., 1981, vol. 7, pp. 275 - 276). But as a result of this torment, in the mid-1790s, Kutuzov was made commander-in-chief of all ground forces, navy and fortresses in Finland, as well as director of the Land Noble Cadet Corps (safe and profitable!). However, the cadets did not like him. As they saw off Kutuzov’s carriage, the young men shouted: “coffee pot”, “scoundrel, Zubov’s tail”! Nevertheless, Kutuzov managed to profitably sell part of the government land belonging to the Corps. He was so unprincipled that he managed to take advantage of the favor of Catherine II and Paul I, who were at war with each other (Ibid., pp. 75 – 93)! The Empress invited him almost daily into her society as a court flatterer. A phenomenal and significant fact: Kutuzov dined with both monarchs on the last evening before their deaths! Only a masterly flatterer and hypocrite could be treated kindly by mutual enemies and antipodes.

And now let’s fast forward to the year during which, in fact, the residents of Novokuznetsk are going to erect a monument to Kutuzov, and at their own expense. The French crossed the Neman, the Russian army began to retreat quickly and somewhat chaotically. Having started this whole “mess” (back in 1805 he launched an aggression against France), Orthodox Tsar Alexander I abandoned the army and took refuge in St. Petersburg. A huge number of landowners lost their estates (the peasants also lost everything, but this did not matter to the tsar). Responding to the court grumbling, Alexander is forced to make a cunning move: all the big shots went to himself and the “German” (Scottish origin) Barclay, so the venerable serf owner, owner of 6567 slaves M.I., is appointed as the further head of the retreat until winter. Kutuzov (Troitsky N.A. Alexander I and Napoleon. M.: “ graduate School" P. 208). And let, they say, not the “German” and not the Tsar, but their own people be criticized!

It’s good that, according to modern legal rules, the law does not have retroactive effect: otherwise Kutuzov would not have received an appointment, and would not have erected monuments now, but would have to go to trial for malicious and recurrent pedophilia: in the spring of 1811-1812. Instead of active work on the Turkish front, he had fun with a 14-year-old Moldovan girl. Here is how General Count Alexander Fedorovich Langeron describes it: “Kutuzov’s first order of business upon arriving in Bucharest was to find a mistress for himself; it was not at all difficult to do, but his choice amazed us. He fell on a 14-year-old girl, Vorlam’s niece and who was already married to a young boyar, Gunian. Kutuzov really liked her and he, knowing Wallachian customs well, ordered her husband to bring her to him, which he did. ...When a 64-year-old old man, one-eyed, fat, ugly, like Kutuzov, cannot exist without having three, four women with him... this is worthy of either disgust or regret..." (Field Marshal Kutuzov. Documents. Diaries. Memoirs. M ., 1995, p. 332). Such were the morals of the Orthodox aristocrat, whose ashes rest in the Kazan Cathedral. I have not yet put into circulation the information reported by the famous Turkish historian of the 1930s. Akhmed Altynay, which have recently begun to leak into Russia via the Internet. Among other things, he talks about Kutuzov’s visit to the harem...

Shameful pages of Russian history: Mikhail Kutuzov, the shocking truth.
Mikhail Khokhlov

Shameful pages of Russian history: Mikhail Kutuzov, the shocking truth
I will briefly outline the essence of the most fundamental dispute, which simultaneously involves history, the modern Criminal Code, and the personal interests of our fellow citizens.

Recently I received a letter from Novokuznetsk. Its author, a member of the Union of Journalists of Russia Stanislav Lidvansky, asked me, as the author of many studies about the War of 1812, to intervene in a situation that was very typical for Russia: in a city in Western Siberia far from the theater of military operations in 12, a truly severe battle broke out between opponents and supporters of erecting a monument to Mikhail Kutuzov. In the settlement of New Moscow Krasnopakhorskoye, an eerily terrible six-meter idol was installed on September 1, although its prototype passed the prototype of the “innovation” itself, and the idol itself resembles not Kutuzov, but a kind of Terminator only after a long binge.

It must be said that the question is not idle: a monument is a symbol that informationally and psychologically encodes people and an era.

Let me emphasize that we are not talking about “destroying our history” - as some shout when they demolish a monument, for example, to one of the main monsters of the last century - Stalin.

We are talking about the construction of a new monument, in the light of modern knowledge of historical scientists and in the context of the current socio-political situation.

This problem, as it seems to me, has two aspects - on the one hand, it is necessary to give an objective assessment of the professional activity of the candidate for monuments, on the other hand, forgive me, we must fundamentally decide for ourselves and modern Russia: do we want to see pioneers, pensioners, and Should the inmates of the camp on Seliger erect a monument to a pedophile?

You see, if we have found in the person of pedophiles the main enemy of the economy of modern Russia (gays and cyclists also harm it), then we must be strict and consistent!

I’m generally silent about the fact that the pedophile of Alexander’s times was also a Freemason... And now about everything in order.

Before the war of 1805, which ended in the defeat of the Russians at Austerlitz, Kutuzov did not exercise chief command, but was only an executive officer under the command of A.V. Suvorov and P.A. Rumyantseva.

His main talent turned out to be the gift of a courtier, which in the eighteenth century could advantageously replace all other abilities.

Kutuzov began by flattering Catherine’s all-powerful favorite, young Platon Zubov (for more information about this time in the life of the future field marshal, see the monograph by Professor, Doctor of Historical Sciences N.A. Troitsky, “Field Marshal Kutuzov: Myths and Facts.” M., 2002, pp. 72 - 73, etc.).

The Russian military officer, Orthodox Christian and aristocrat regularly came to Zubov in the morning to brew coffee for him according to a specific “Turkish” recipe. Then he waited in the reception room and brought the drink into the bedchamber (often without being embarrassed by the gossip of those present).

A.S. Pushkin in “Notes on Russian History of the 18th Century” called “Kutuzov’s coffee pot” the most disgusting symbol of court humiliation (Pushkin A.S. Collected Works: in 10 volumes. M., 1981, vol. 7, pp. 275 - 276).

But as a result of this torment, in the mid-1790s, Kutuzov was made commander-in-chief of all ground forces, navy and fortresses in Finland, as well as director of the Land Noble Cadet Corps (safe and profitable!). However, the cadets did not like him.

As they saw off Kutuzov’s carriage, the young men shouted: “coffee pot”, “scoundrel, Zubov’s tail”!

Nevertheless, Kutuzov managed to profitably sell part of the government land belonging to the Corps. He was so unprincipled that he managed to take advantage of the favor of Catherine II and Paul I, who were at war with each other (Ibid., pp. 75 - 93)!

The Empress invited him almost daily into her society as a court flatterer. A phenomenal and significant fact: Kutuzov dined with both monarchs on the last evening before their deaths! Only a masterly flatterer and hypocrite could be treated kindly by mutual enemies and antipodes.

And now let’s fast forward to the year during which, in fact, the residents of Novokuznetsk are going to erect a monument to Kutuzov, and at their own expense. The French crossed the Neman, the Russian army began to retreat quickly and somewhat chaotically. Having started this whole “mess” (back in 1805 he launched an aggression against France), Orthodox Tsar Alexander I abandoned the army and took refuge in St. Petersburg.

A huge number of landowners lost their estates (the peasants also lost everything, but this did not matter to the tsar).

Responding to the court grumbling, Alexander is forced to make a cunning move: all the big shots went to himself and the “German” (Scottish origin) Barclay, so the venerable serf owner, owner of 6567 slaves M.I., is appointed as the further head of the retreat until winter. Kutuzov (Troitsky N.A. Alexander I and Napoleon. M.: “Higher School”. P. 208).

And let, they say, not the “German” and not the Tsar, but their own people be criticized!

It’s good that, according to modern legal rules, the law does not have retroactive effect: otherwise Kutuzov would not have received an appointment, and would not have erected monuments now, but would have to go to trial for malicious and recurrent pedophilia: in the spring of 1811-1812. Instead of active work on the Turkish front, he had fun with a 14-year-old Moldovan girl.

Here is how General Count Alexander Fedorovich Langeron describes it: “Kutuzov’s first order of business upon arriving in Bucharest was to find a mistress for himself; it was not at all difficult to do, but his choice amazed us. He fell on a 14-year-old girl, Vorlam’s niece and who was already married to a young boyar, Gunian. Kutuzov really liked her and he, knowing Wallachian customs well, ordered her husband to bring her to him, which he did. ...When a 64-year-old man, one-eyed, fat, ugly, like Kutuzov, cannot exist without having three, four women with him ... this is worthy of either disgust or regret ... "

(Field Marshal Kutuzov. Documents. Diaries. Memoirs. M., 1995, p. 332).

Such were the morals of the Orthodox aristocrat, whose ashes rest in the Kazan Cathedral.

I have not yet put into circulation the information reported by the famous Turkish historian of the 1930s. Akhmed Altynay, which have recently begun to leak into Russia via the Internet.

Among other things, he talks about Kutuzov’s visit to a harem with 10-year-old girls who practiced oral sex. We have enough terrible information even without the Turk!

Governor General of Moscow F.V. Rostopchin, in a highly moral manner (not like the girls praying in the temple not by order, but by their own feelings) burns the city along with its centuries-old artistic and material heritage (“Motherland”. No. 6-7, 1992, pp. 88 - 93). In Moscow, several thousand (!) Russian wounded soldiers are burning alive (Troitsky N.A. Field Marshal Kutuzov... p. 221): for the nobles, a significant part of the officers, landowner Kutuzov ordered to be taken out, and the “rabble” - let them, apparently, believe in the next world into a fairy tale about the “patriotic” war.

These crimes against humanity will forever remain on the conscience of Rostopchin and Kutuzov.

The French live quietly in Moscow for 36 days (and if they had received a train with food, they would have lived like this until Gorbachev’s thaw), but then the persecution of the Russian army begins again - the battle near Maloyaroslavets.

The Russian troops, having reinforced their forces and rested in the camp, lose the battle (being in a fortified position - in the city!), and Kutuzov orders a retreat to the Linen Factories.

Napoleon understands that Kutuzov can run away to Kamchatka with the same level of military talent, that frost is approaching, that the country is not adapted to life - and decides to retreat to the direction where there is food (to the West).

I note that in Europe, French soldiers, as decent people, bought food from local residents for gold Napoleons, but in Russia there was physically nowhere to buy food.

And not only the French: instead of a market system - spirituality and conciliarity, that is, there are no European stores as a class (except for a boutique of French hats in Moscow).

The Russian army also suffered catastrophically from this: Kutuzov withdrew 130,000 soldiers from Tarutin, and brought 27,000 to Vilna - this is with 90 percent of non-combat losses (Ponasenkov E.N. The Truth about the War of 1812. M., 2004, p. 213) .

The fact is that the “most serene” intrigued more and more (for example, he wrote a slander to the Tsar about Barclay, who had done so much for Russia, after which the latter left the army with pain in his heart) and slept, but did not take care of provisions and winter clothing for the army ( Ibid., pp. 213 - 214).

Characterizing the criminal inactivity of the commander-in-chief in the period after leaving Moscow and during the “sitting” in the Tarutino camp, on September 20 Rostopchin wrote to Alexander I: “Prince Kutuzov is no more - no one sees him; he lies down and sleeps a lot. The soldier despises him and hates him. He does not dare to do anything; a young girl dressed as a Cossack keeps him busy.”

(Shishov A.V. Unknown Kutuzov. M., 2001, p. 378).

Let me note that this was a different... or rather, a different Cossack, not the one in the Russian-Turkish one: he “grew old” and was written off. So, the “coffee pot”, even during the terrible period of the 12th war, could not do without role-playing games.

Kutuzov does not go on the offensive, but goes on a “parallel march”, without even trying to seriously disturb Napoleon’s army. On the Berezina, where normal Western generals would have captured Napoleon’s army, the latter deceives P.V. with brilliant maneuvers. Chichagova, throws back the body of P.Kh. Wittgenstein, successfully builds bridges and successfully crosses (Ponasenkov E.N. Decree cit., pp. 210 - 211).

In this, the emperor was helped not only by his own talent, but also by the “most illustrious” Kutuzov (he stood motionless for two days), who took revenge on Chichagov for replacing Kutuzov as army commander in Turkey (Kutuzov acted sluggishly and delayed the conclusion of the much-needed Russia peace); but not only did he change it, he also revealed Kutuzov’s financial fraud. However, of course main reason there was a psychological fear of Catherine’s nobleman Kutuzov of the commander Napoleon, who smashed “Zubov’s coffee pot” in two general battles (Ibid., pp. 210 - 213).

I already wrote to Borodino, but for this topic we need to recall the main nuances. The battle was lost by Kutuzov!

Two general battles - at Austerlitz and at Borodino - and both were lost!

Fighting on home soil, having full and absolute power to command, having superior numbers:

About 155,000 people and 640 guns at Kutuzov

Against less

135,000 people with 587 guns from the French

(Troitsky N.A. Field Marshal Kutuzov... p. 170)

Of the 155,000, about 30 were militias, but they also had weapons, widely praised Orthodox faith and acted against the corps of Yu. Poniatovsky on the left flank, even if we subtract them, as some fierce falsifiers do, then, given that Napoleon did not bring about 20,000 guards into battle, Kutuzov had a large numerical superiority, and, being in a fortified position, Kutuzov lost!

Let me remind you that Kutuzov even carried the icon theatrically throughout the entire formation with great pathos!

The French who won the battle, I note, did not have priests or icons in the army!

Where is the “Russian spirit” that conquers everything?

The French took all the fortifications, about 2000 prisoners (Buturlin D.P. History of the invasion of Emperor Napoleon into Russia in 1812. M., 2011, p. 168), and forced the Russians to retreat with more than their own (the side attacking the fortifications ) losses: more than 50 thousand for the Russians and around 35 thousand for the French (calculation based on regimental records - see the best monograph on the topic: Zemtsov V.N.

Battle of the Moscow River. M., 2001, p. 260 - 267, etc.). At the same time, Napoleon did not even need to bring 21 thousand guards into action (Lachouque H. The Anatomy of Glory. Napoleon and his Guard. London. 1961. P. 247)!

Let's continue. In the Tarutino camp, Kutuzov is not engaged in preparing for an offensive, but in sending out punitive detachments (Ponasenkov E.N. Op. cit., p. 139, 214-215). In 1812, the peasant war against serfdom and the tsarist regime covered the vast majority of the empire - 32 provinces (Abalikhin B.S. Features of the class struggle in Russia in 1812 // From the history of the class struggle in pre-revolutionary and Soviet Russia. Volgograd, 1967, p. 130).

The armed uprising of the warriors of the Penza militia was “famous” for the most brutal suppression. Seven thousand militia captured the city of Insar and imprisoned the officers.

The townspeople supported the peasants: “This is not Pugachevo: then they didn’t hang you all, but now you can’t get out of it!”, - the rebels warned the nobles (Shishkin I. Riot of the militia in 1812 // Riot of military villagers in 1831, St. Petersburg, 1870, p. 245).

Kutuzov sent troops against the rebels. After bloody clashes, the riot was suppressed.

Captured warriors had their nostrils torn out and beaten to death with sticks: this is how some Orthodox people dealt with others (Godin V.S. Anti-serfdom uprising of the warriors of the Penza militia in December 1812 // Notes of Local History. Penza, 1963, Issue I, p. 25) .

Now, knowing about these facts, answer me honestly to the question: what kind of “patriotic” war against the French can we talk about?

It was more likely Civil War in Russia against the backdrop of Napoleon's local Russian campaign.

So, let’s ask ourselves the question: is it possible to erect a monument (especially with public donations) to an incompetent commander, a hypocritical careerist, a corrupt official, a man who stained himself with the innocent blood of his fellow believers, a scoundrel, an adulterer and, finally, a pedophile?

Personally, as a scientist and citizen, I am sure that no! However, I believe that on an artistic level it is possible to find a wonderful compromise that will reconcile both serious scientists and exalted pseudo-patriots and even fans of the so-called. contemporary art.

Here is my conceptual design for the monument to M.I. Kutuzov: on a solid foam pedestal there is a huge coffee pot, and under it is the inscription: “To the beloved serf owner from grateful slave-descendants.”

I think now I have the right to count on a bonus for them. Kandinsky next season!