FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1151   1152   1153   1154   1155   1156   1157   1158   1159   1160   1161   1162   1163   1164   1165   1166   1167   1168   1169   1170   1171   1172   1173   1174   1175  
1176   1177   1178   1179   1180   1181   1182   1183   1184   1185   1186   1187   1188   1189   1190   1191   1192   1193   1194   1195   1196   1197   1198   1199   1200   >>   >|  
and such maneuvers... But why did they not execute those maneuvers? And why if they were guilty of not carrying out a prearranged plan were they not tried and punished? But even if we admitted that Kutuzov, Chichagov, and others were the cause of the Russian failures, it is still incomprehensible why, the position of the Russian army being what it was at Krasnoe and at the Berezina (in both cases we had superior forces), the French army with its marshals, kings, and Emperor was not captured, if that was what the Russians aimed at. The explanation of this strange fact given by Russian military historians (to the effect that Kutuzov hindered an attack) is unfounded, for we know that he could not restrain the troops from attacking at Vyazma and Tarutino. Why was the Russian army--which with inferior forces had withstood the enemy in full strength at Borodino--defeated at Krasnoe and the Berezina by the disorganized crowds of the French when it was numerically superior? If the aim of the Russians consisted in cutting off and capturing Napoleon and his marshals--and that aim was not merely frustrated but all attempts to attain it were most shamefully baffled--then this last period of the campaign is quite rightly considered by the French to be a series of victories, and quite wrongly considered victorious by Russian historians. The Russian military historians in so far as they submit to claims of logic must admit that conclusion, and in spite of their lyrical rhapsodies about valor, devotion, and so forth, must reluctantly admit that the French retreat from Moscow was a series of victories for Napoleon and defeats for Kutuzov. But putting national vanity entirely aside one feels that such a conclusion involves a contradiction, since the series of French victories brought the French complete destruction, while the series of Russian defeats led to the total destruction of their enemy and the liberation of their country. The source of this contradiction lies in the fact that the historians studying the events from the letters of the sovereigns and the generals, from memoirs, reports, projects, and so forth, have attributed to this last period of the war of 1812 an aim that never existed, namely that of cutting off and capturing Napoleon with his marshals and his army. There never was or could have been such an aim, for it would have been senseless and its attainment quite impossible. It would have been sens
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1151   1152   1153   1154   1155   1156   1157   1158   1159   1160   1161   1162   1163   1164   1165   1166   1167   1168   1169   1170   1171   1172   1173   1174   1175  
1176   1177   1178   1179   1180   1181   1182   1183   1184   1185   1186   1187   1188   1189   1190   1191   1192   1193   1194   1195   1196   1197   1198   1199   1200   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Russian

 
French
 

series

 

historians

 

victories

 

Napoleon

 

marshals

 

Kutuzov

 

military

 

defeats


contradiction

 

destruction

 

capturing

 

period

 

maneuvers

 

considered

 

conclusion

 

cutting

 

Berezina

 

superior


forces

 

Krasnoe

 

Russians

 

impossible

 

lyrical

 

generals

 

events

 

wrongly

 
memoirs
 

reports


rhapsodies

 

letters

 
claims
 

submit

 

devotion

 

sovereigns

 

victorious

 

attributed

 

retreat

 

studying


senseless

 

brought

 
complete
 

source

 

liberation

 
country
 

existed

 

national

 

vanity

 
putting