Who burned down Moscow in 1812?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The topic seems to be hackneyed. Historians have studied - they have written them in textbooks - monuments have been erected, and even poems have been composed. Everyone knows today that wooden Moscow burned down. Directly or indirectly, Napoleon is to blame for this. The hearts of our people were filled with sorrow and anger. The entire Russian land rose to fight the foe. Yes. We know this, and it seems that everything is logical, but there is still intrigue here, and considerable.

How did it all work out? 200 years have passed since the tragic events, and all this time the hypotheses about the Moscow fire were built according to the same scheme. If the political circumstances at the moment demanded to put the blame on the French, then the reasons were immediately revealed why the governor of Moscow Rostopchin (as an option - Kutuzov) could not initiate the arson in any way.

Then simple logic dictated - if not they, then the French. When it was required to show the act of selflessness of the Russian people, this time Napoleon had an iron alibi. Well, since they weren't French, it means that ours were set on fire after all.

If there was no direct political pressure, then it became clear that neither we nor the French were interested in the Moscow fire, and everyone had reasons to avoid such a development of events. Then the Solomon decision followed, which is still shared by the most sane (in my opinion) researchers - Moscow caught fire itself, from the negligence of marauders, lack of order and supervision. But even this version on closer examination does not look convincing. However, let's figure it out in order.

The French did not want the Moscow fire

In his memoirs, Brigadier General of the French army Segur very well showed the impression of the French from the fire:

Segur also writes about how Napoleon, entering Moscow, gave appropriate orders to ensure order and prevent robberies. The first fires were extinguished by the French together with local residents. So the French army did in other conquered European cities.

From many sources it is known that Napoleon was going to bargain a profitable peace from the Russian Tsar, in exchange for Moscow. He intended to engage in negotiations, comfortably accommodating himself in the captured city. When Moscow turned to ash and ruins, Napoleon lost the subject of bargaining. He already had nothing to offer.

The French army also suffered greatly. Two thirds of the troops in Moscow at the time of the fire were killed. If they themselves were the initiators of the arson, then, undoubtedly, they would have worried about their safety.

The Russian empire was not interested in the destruction of Moscow

The Governor-General of Moscow, Rostopchin, who is most often accused of deliberately setting fire to Moscow, did have plans to destroy a number of strategic facilities. However, the complete liquidation of the city was never envisaged. This is a huge waste of resources. And, of course, no one was going to blow up the Kremlin either. Ten years later (in 1823) Rostopchin wrote an essay in his defense: (The truth about the Moscow fire):

(75%)

(Gornostaev MV "Governor-General of Moscow FV Rostopchin: pages of the history of 1812").

In addition, in Moscow, even after the fire, there were about 20,000 residents who suffered hunger, cold and devastation. It is hard to imagine that while preparing the total destruction of the city, Rostopchin would not have bothered about the evacuation of residents, or knowing that many still remained in Moscow, he nevertheless set in motion a sinister plan.

We must pay tribute to the propagandists of that time. They skillfully manipulated the consciousness of the population, concocting myths on the go and hammering them into their heads. Any event could be turned in the right direction. So the catastrophic destruction of the capital surrendered to the enemy (see the article), shamefully without a fight, turned into a heroic feat of our people, a single impulse, etc. This haze already dominated the minds infinitely, when Rostopchin could not stand it and published his truth. And this is how it was perceived:

(M. Gornostaev "The Governor-General of Moscow FV Rostopchin: Pages of the History of 1812").

The reaction is completely predictable. But this does not diminish the merits of the Governor-General, who did not want to be an accomplice to the lies. I think it is now clear that the Moscow fire has become a surprise to both sides … How did such an accident, so accurate in time and place, happen?

"Not wooden Moscow", or "The stone does not burn"

And why are we actually sure that Moscow was made of wood? Let's check it out, just in case. And then the article immediately catches your eye "Stone construction in Moscow at the beginning of the 18th century" … Here's what's interesting on our question:

That is, more for 100 years before our event in the areas of China City and the White City, as well as on the territory of the Kremlin itself, construction was allowed only made of stone and brick … But there were still fires. For example, the famous Moscow fire of 1737. Then the entire center of Moscow burned out. A wooden roof burned down on the Kremlin walls, never restored. The building of the Armory was burnt out. Why, then, was it necessary to introduce stone construction? Maybe it doesn't help?

The stone really doesn't burn. The interior furnishings are on fire, wooden floor beams, but not the walls. This significantly prevents the spread of fire to neighboring buildings. That often allows you to localize the source of fire. For example, for 10 months in 1869, 15 thousand fires were counted in Moscow. On average 50 fires a day! However, the entire city did not burn out. That is, fire safety in stone buildings is an order of magnitude higher.

If a wooden building burns down, then only ashes remain. The stone house does not burn, it burns out from the inside. Smoked walls remain, and very soon the house can be restored again.

So, after the Moscow fire of 1812, the entire stone part of Moscow, with rare exceptions, turned into RUIN! One gets the impression that the richest people of the country lived not in stone palaces with thick walls, but in adobe huts, which crumbled to pieces from the fiery heat. And this is a very wrong impression!

The stone is crumbling

Count Segur, in his memoirs about the fire of 1812, wrote amazing lines:

Where were the officers from the Kremlin building looking? To the north and east. And there were entirely stone China city and the White city. And how did they come crashing down? Just in ruins. Or maybe the translation from French is not entirely accurate? Perhaps the phrase originally sounded like this:

And now we will cite excerpts from eyewitness notes to make sure that this was not a simple fire:

"Fire of Moscow 1812", Memoirs of Count de Segur, Historical Knowledge, issue 2.

These memoirs, which I have already quoted above, are valuable evidence. They are widely known in historical circles and appear in all serious studies on this issue. But historians read in them only what suits them … For example, there are lines about caught arsonists, and they are quoted with pleasure. But the excerpts given here deny the dominant role of the arsonists in the Moscow fire. On the contrary, they show unusual character hotbeds of fire.

Why did the author of the memoir presented events in such a contradictory manner? This is called confusion. When a person sees something unusual, then his mind tries to find a familiar familiar explanation in order to maintain an integral worldview. And you and I are arranged in the same way. Segur describes locked houses with guards that catch fire by themselves, and houses that catch fire from unknown reasons (a slight crackle of an explosion, a thin plume of smoke), which he tries to explain with some kind of chemical explosives. And then he sees in every ragged, burnt Muscovite an arsonist.

If you think soberly, both are only trick of the mind … Moscow was hastily abandoned, no one would have had time to mine it in such a cunning way. And there is no need, there are simpler ways. And the “proud arsonists”, who allegedly hate the French fiercely, and are ready to destroy all their property in their own will, after a few pages ask to warm themselves at the enemy's fires. The strangeness and confusion of the mind is the cause of the contradictions.

Another killer fact:

(from 2nd to 3rd according to the old style - author) ("Fire of Moscow 1812" Memoirs of Count de Segur, Historical Knowledge, issue 2).

At this point, historians could not pass by, they mentioned. A significant fact. But they had to downplay the value of the count's memoirs, calling him a dreamer. This is already a "brain flow" and the fuses of the historians themselves have worked. But we understand, it cannot Brigadier General the French army to be just a dreamer. The position is not allowed. If the French generals perceived reality so inadequately, they would have confused the direction, and instead of Europe they would have conquered Greenland. But in some ways, modern researchers are right. The Count's notes clearly bear an imprint doubts and illogicalities.

The damage is not commensurate with the consequences of a conventional fire

What was the situation that caused this state of eyewitnesses? Here is a map describing the extent of the damage to the city, indicating the number of houses destroyed in specific areas. The undamaged quarters are marked in a light tone.

And here is the description on the ground:

("Fire of Moscow 1812" Memoirs of Count de Segur, Historical Knowledge, issue 2).

Please remember the words about "Hot cold mud" and "Raw straw" … They will be very useful to us, and not only because in rainy, damp weather, spontaneous occurrence and spread of a fire is less likely. For now, let's remember - it was raining, and not a little. Let's continue the description:

(as it is written in the original, no order, - ed.)

("Fire of Moscow 1812" Memoirs of Count de Segur, Historical Knowledge, issue 2).

In general, it should look something like this:

(images of Hiroshima after a nuclear strike)

What turned Moscow into ruins and ashes shocked eyewitnesses to the point of shock. Only this can explain Ghostly state - residents of the city, no longer hiding from anyone; ten thousand Russian soldiers, partly armed, who no longer thought to fight the French, or simply leave the city (they were demoralized and disoriented); French soldiers, who also did not pay attention to the presence of an armed enemy.

This state of the people continued for several days, after which at least some kind of organization and pursuit of an armed enemy began, who just by that time had also come to his senses and fled the city. Doesn't seem like ordinary fire, even a large one, was able to drive into prostration experienced soldiers who had seen both fire and death more than once.

And here's an interesting fact for comparison. In 1737, as is known, one of the most terrible fires in Moscow happened. Then the weather was dry and windy, several thousand courtyards and the entire city center were burnt out. That fire was comparable to ours, but in it only 94 people died … How the catastrophe of 1812, being the same fire, was able to swallow two-thirds of the French army stationed in Moscow. That is, order 30,000 people? Couldn't they walk? The French losses "on vacation" in Moscow are confirmed by various sources:

("The Fire of Moscow 1812" Memoirs of Count de Segur, Historical Knowledge, Issue 2, p. 17).

("Russians and Napoleon Bonaparte". Moscow 1814).

This was no ordinary fire … It is not surprising that the destroyed city “it was precisely those 30,000 corpses that smelled like that. Let’s not forget about the dead civilians, who, even after the fire, remained up to 20,000 people. And how many of them died? Probably no less than the French. Here is what eyewitnesses write about it:

("Russians and Napoleon Bonaparte". Moscow 1814).

It is surprising and incomprehensible such a number of victims (about 30 000 people) from an ordinary fire. Even in the Battle of Borodino, where the French were exterminated by targeted fire from rifles and cannons, where soldiers fought to the death in hand-to-hand combat, Napoleon's army lost order. 30 000 man, and only killed 10 000 … I am compelled to note once again that ordinary fire under no circumstances could not would lead to the same number of victims.

Kremlin ruins

Why should we doubt the accepted historical version of the destruction of the Kremlin by Napoleon? Because in this version everything is illogical from start to finish. Because of no motive actors. In the writings of the 19th century Russian propaganda machine, Napoleon appears as a madman and a vandal. This is exactly how Hitler was portrayed a century later, and then the rabid imperialists. Our ideological opponents were also in no way inferior in creating such horror stories. It's just handy propaganda stamp … The actions of a mentally ill person do not need to be explained. It makes no sense to look for logic in them. Here's a quote:

(Napoleon - author) ("Russians and Napoleon Bonaparte". Moscow 1814).

The agitators went too farBy this time, the fire in Moscow had been extinguished several times and reappeared. There was almost nothing to burn. In addition, several additional fires did not fundamentally change anything. And the destruction of the Kremlin too.

("Russians and Napoleon Bonaparte". Moscow 1814).

Illiteracy of agitators to help us … They have no time to look at the world with open eyes, they are always busy with their dirty business. Otherwise, they would have understood that demolishing stone shops with field artillery cannonballs is a very stupid idea. Nothing will come down, just dig holes. The project of demolishing the cloth and other rows with the help of gunpowder is also interesting in its stupidity. Agitators do not understand that gunpowder is a strategic resource for warfare. It does not grow on trees, and tends to end. They do not know how much of it is required to fulfill such an idea. According to my estimates - a couple of wagons or fifty wagons. We read further:

("Russians and Napoleon Bonaparte". Moscow 1814).

Here's an image. First, Napoleon rages, runs, shouts, he himself helps to push the sacks of gunpowder into the tunnel. Although Rostopchin, according to the testimony of Count Segur, allegedly left a huge amount of gunpowder in the Kremlin, which cannot be called anything other than mining. If this was the case, why mine again?

Then he orders to fire cannons at the shops located near the Kremlin, which a few pages ago had already been burned and turned into ruins. After that, he blows them up with gunpowder. Control shot, so to speak. And now Marshal Mortier is striking matches over the wick with his own hand, if it has caught fire, it has not burned, and throws this case and scrapes at full speed to catch up with the emperor. Neither give nor take the running Makhnovists.

All this strongly resembles hastily cobbled together propaganda version … In addition, Segur, already during the first wave of fire, indirectly mentions some ruins in the Kremlin:

"" ("Fire of Moscow 1812" Memoirs of Count de Segur, Historical knowledge, issue 2).

What piles of stones can be on the territory of the Kremlin when the fire, allegedly, was just approaching its walls? All known underground passages from the Kremlin originate in the towers, not from a heap of stones. Now, if the tower has turned into this pile, then it's understandable. At the same time, probably, both the shopping arcade and the destroyed part of the Kremlin walls could have turned into ruins. At the same time, the giant Alevizov ditch, which ran from the Arsenal Tower to Beklemishevskaya, and had a width of up to 34 meters, with a depth of about 13 meters, could also be littered with rubble. After that, it became easier to level it than to clear it.

To explain such destructionapparently, the above clumsy versions were concocted. But it's still easier to explain than to destroy in reality. How did they do it?

Second sun over Moscow

It is appropriate here to give an alternative version of the science fiction writer Vasily Shepetneva, set out in his work "Singers of Hell" … It sounds so convincing that the Internet has long forgotten that this is fiction, and they consider the story to be genuine:

This lengthy quote is not for nothing. It has already been said about fireball over the Trubetskoy palace. It is a pity that there is no way to get acquainted with the original of Segur's memoirs in French. People's perception of everything unusual is often inadequate, but translations can be even more distorted. Who now knows what that fireball was doing - it rose, fell or stood still, but the palace caught fire from it.

Many sane people will be outraged by the absurdity of assumptions about nuclear disaster Moscow in 1812. Even if there are no direct written instructions on the use of such weapons. This may well be, because we have already seen how skillfully the parasite-agitators managed the information space even at that time. But radiation should have stayed … Where is she?

And here, admire - a map of the radiation background of Moscow:

The increased level of background radiation in the center of Moscow (dark blue color) forms a characteristic spot, with a "torch" extended towards the south. The epicenter of the spot is located exactly in the place where, allegedly, Napoleon frantically destroyed the stone trading rows. This is just that place, overlooking the Kremlin windows of two officers from Segur's memoirs. The very ones who were awakened by the "unusual light", and before their eyes stone palaces collapsed.

In the same memoirs, it is said that a strong wind was blowing from the north, which shows the direction of dispersion of radioactive debris, which now has residual phonetics in the ground. On the same side are located Nikolsky gate Kremlin, which, allegedly, were blown up by the possessed Napoleon almost to the ground. And, finally, here is also the Aleviz Moat, which, after the catastrophe, was apparently so littered with debris that it was decided not to clear it, but simply to fill it by expanding Red Square.

That is, we see all traces of the use of small tactical nuclear charge … The time has come to mention the rain, in spite of which the fire reoccurred all the time. After a ground nuclear explosion, rain always appears, since a large amount of dust is thrown by ascending heat currents into the upper atmosphere, where moisture immediately condenses on them. All this falls in the form of precipitation.

It is possible that several charges were used at different times, since the fire, being extinguished in one area, occurred again in another. They could be different ground, air and high-altitude, in which there is practically no shock wave, but there is powerful radiation that causes fires and diseases. It would be practically impossible for people of the 19th century to identify them reliably, precisely as explosions. The only thing that remains is to talk about fireballs and spontaneously arising fires.

conclusions

- There is no single official version about the causes of the fire in Moscow in 1812, which, by the sum of facts and arguments, would outweigh the rest. All existing versions are politicized to some extent. It means that true reasons Nowadays not opened.

- Neither Russia nor Napoleon needed the fire.

- Most of the eyewitnesses noted the unusual circumstances of the fire, which, being extinguished in one place, reappeared in another.

- Propaganda lies us that Moscow was wooden … This is done to exaggerate the fire hazard of the city in our imaginations. It is a fact that the whole city center within a radius of 1.5 kilometers from the red square was stone … It is also significant that in 10 months of 1869 in Moscow 15 thousand fires were counted. On average 50 fires a day! However, the entire city did not burn out. The point here is not so much vigilance as in the increased fire safety of the stone city with wide streets.

- After the disaster, for several days, people in the affected area were in a state of shock. The armed opponents did not perceive each other as a threat. Up to 10,000 Russian soldiers roamed openly in Moscow, and no one tried to detain them.

- The damage from the disaster was inconceivably heavy. The French lost in Moscow 30 000 people, which is more than their losses in the battle of Borodino. Moscow on 75% was destroyed. Even the stone buildings have turned into ruins, which cannot happen in an ordinary fire. A significant part of the Kremlin and massive stone trading rows became ruins, which propaganda was forced to explain by the tricks of the inadequate Napoleon (he allegedly ordered all this to be blown up). And the fact that the degree of destruction of the same Kremlin was different in different places was explained by the fact that the hasty Murat did not set all the wicks on fire, or the rain extinguished them, etc.

- The French army did not have sufficient funds to destroy massive stone buildings on such a scale. Field artillery is not suitable for this, and it is not enough to collect so much gunpowder. It's about kilotons in TNT equivalent.

- Until today, the distribution of the background radiation level in Moscow indicates traces of the use of nuclear weapons. Visible epicenter and a torch of dispersion of radioactive explosion products. The location of the epicenter corresponds to the observations of eyewitnesses, and the direction of scattering repeats the described direction of the wind.

P. S. The third side

Let's take a step back from the nightmarish scenes and think about it. If all the hypotheses about the fire of 1812 turn out to be untenable, then is the very formulation of the question - "Who are the arsonists: Russian or French?" Why not consider taking part in a disaster third party?

Such a power, as history shows, has been present on the planet for a long time. For many centuries, no major war sprang up on its own. There was always someone who pitted neighbors, brought the conflict to the point of explosion, provoking carnage, and then spreading his influence over the peoples weakened by the war. So it was during the Second World War, when the Germans and the Russians exterminated each other, and the world behind the scenes made their choice - which of the opponents, bled by the confrontation, would need to be finished off.

There is no reason to exclude the manifestation of this third force in the Napoleonic Wars. Something is known about this. This and funding Napoleon from relevant sources, and his difficultly explainable decision to fight with Russia, leaving his main enemy England alone, as Hitler later did. But it is one thing to build conspiracies and weave intrigues, and another, in a strange way with special cruelty, to destroy a huge city located in the depths of Russia, thousands of kilometers from the border.

The governments of the largest powers of the planet got their hands on nuclear technology only in the fifties of the 20th century. There is a feeling that someone began to actively prepare humanity for suicide, at the dawn of the Day of Svarog. But with such a weapon already for a long time could own the third side … And the fact that the media and official science foaming at the mouth deny the slightest possibility of such a development of events, once again proves weight the version given in this article.

Alexey Artemiev, Izhevsk