Petersburg war of 1854

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

Interestingly, England in 1918 was not the first time to attack Russia with "democratization" goals. You've all probably heard a little about the so-called "Crimean War", which actually began in 1853.

This war is presented to the Russian people as a local conflict between Russia and Turkey, in which England was on the sidelines. This is a blatant lie. In English literature there are complete and numerous accounts of this full-scale aggression by the only superpower of the 19th century - the Great British Empire against Russia. The "Crimean War" was unleashed, with all the might of the huge British Empire, "over which the sun never set," a direct attack on Russia not only by the British Empire alone, but also by its allies - France and Turkey, like Bulgaria and Ukraine are now "helping "US to attack Iraq. It was just that then the United States was on the eve of its own "Civil War" and could not provide assistance to its kindred England. This attack by England on Russia was no less large-scale than the then recent Napoleonic campaign against Russia, or the attack of German troops on June 22, 1941, or "Di-dey", "Landing Day" of the Anglo-American allies against Germany in 1944.

Quote from Christopher Hibbert's "The Destruction of Lord Raglan" 1990

“In March 1854, a British army of 30,000 people landed in the Crimea. The Times described this army as "The Choice Army Ever Set sail from the shores of England." The commander of this finest army of mercenaries drawn from all over the world was Lord Raglan, a veteran of the Battle of Waterloo 40 years earlier."

The English "blitzkrieg" and "Drang nach Osten" took place not only in Crimea. England took Russia in ticks. The British Empire, which could strike only from the sea, but not like France or Germany from land, struck not only from the south, from the Black Sea, but also to the Crimea; but also from the north, from the Baltic Sea - by the direct capture of the capital of Russia, St. Petersburg.

Quote from Peter Gibbs's Crimean Blunder (1960): "At the beginning of 1854, even BEFORE England officially declared war on Russia, (that is, without a declaration of war - treacherously), the English fleet under the command of Sir Charles Napier attacked St. Petersburg." … A full-scale amphibious operation was carried out, similar to the opening of a second front in World War II.

Vicki Blitzkrieg of England vs. Petersburg, buried in this article about Admiral Napier. The British coalition included a French squadron sent by Napoleon III under the command of Admiral Parseval-Deschenes and Admiral Penaud (French Fleet under Admiral Penaud), and the Marine Corps under the command of General General Barraguay d'Hilliers, who lost an arm while under Borodino … (Oliver Warner “The See and the sword” (The Baltic 1630-1945) NY 1965. In addition, the coalition included the troops of the Scandinavian countries: the Danes, the Dutch, the Swedes, and in general all the rabble from all over Europe. This wiki article describes the Baltic War:

She reports that "Admiral Napier successfully blocked all Russian ports in the Baltic, so that not a single Russian ship could even leave the ports, and carried out constant shelling."

However, Russian troops defended Petersburg. Why? You need to know the strategic position of St. Petersburg. Petersburg is not directly on the Baltic Sea, otherwise the British would have taken it. Petersburg stands up the Neva, which flows into the narrow Gulf of Finland. The English fleet, in order to enter the Neva and capture Petersburg, had to pass by the Sveaborg fortress and the Kronstadt fortress.

In addition, there were other Russian fortresses located on the islands of the Gulf of Finland. The main islands covering the entrance to the Gulf of Bothnia were the Aland Islands and their main fortress Bomarsund. The British could not capture Petersburg only because they could not pass the fortresses covering Petersburg. The fortresses of Sveaborg and Kronstadt really turned out to be impregnable for the British. The British coalition, after a fierce siege and landing of the marines, in August 1854 managed to storm only the Bomarsund fortress.

_% C3% 85land

The next year, the British coalition, even then without the United States, which then stood on the verge of its own Civil War, under the command of the now commander-in-chief Sir Richard Dundas, undertook a fierce assault on the Sveaborg fortress. However, the Russians defenders of the Sveaborg fortress, withstood a fierce siege of all the might of the elite forces of the then superpower - the British Empire, over which the sun never set, and which had the resources of almost the entire world at its disposal. The Russian defenders of the Sveaborg fortress did not surrender the fortress to the western enemy.

However, someone wanted to forget this "Petersburg war" of England against Russia in such a way that if someone else heard something about the "Crimean war, then about the siege of Petersburg and the Petersburg war of England against Russia, on the scale of the" World " aggression of the 19th century, in general, for some reason, modern "education" is silent, and apparently not casual. For some reason, even the official, supposedly Russian historiography mentions this full-scale aggression of the British coalition against Russia, which was similar to the aggression of the American coalition against Iraq, as some insignificant episode. While this aggression was even more threatening in its consequences, and no less dangerous than the Napoleonic campaign against Russia before

Thus, in the 19th century, as well as in the 20th century, Russia repulsed two full-scale aggression by the Western coalition, that is, it practically won the two then world wars of the West against its state. These Russian fortresses, which defended St. Petersburg, were too tough for the vaunted English fleet. "Dee Day" - "Day of the landing" of the 19th century for the British failed. Otherwise, Russia, like India, would have become an English colony back in the 19th century.

However, the transformation of Russia into a Western colony, already as a colony of a new superpower - the United States, will take place later - as a result of the so-called "Civil War and Intervention of 1918-1921" and again in 1991. And the main role in the transformation of Russia into a raw material appendage of the West, in the 20th century, will already be played by internal forces within Russia itself, relying on the richest and most powerful force in the world - American and English crypto-Jewishness.

Thus, in the brilliant victory of Russian arms over the British armed forces near St. Petersburg, carefully concealed from the Russian people, the Russian army gave a strong rebuff to the British, and they had to, having buried their grudge, get out of their way. This brilliant victory of Russian weapons is so hidden from the Russian people that, apparently, it is no coincidence that for some reason the medals "For the Defense of St. Petersburg" were not instituted.

But think about the total control over Russian history by the dark forces, when even at universities students are still taught that Russia was defeated in the Crimean War ?! And this at a time when, in the Crimean War, Russia did not lose Petersburg and Crimea, but in fact the whole of Russia, repulsed the attack of the most powerful army of the 19th century - the British Empire.

In Crimea, the Russians did not succeed in repelling the British aggressor so easily. It took the Russians two years to drive the finest British army out of the Crimea. Otherwise, at least the Crimea, as well as the Spanish Gibraltar, or the Argentine Falkland Islands, or Hong Kong, would now be English.

Having suffered a military defeat, the British took a different path. On their instructions, as in the case of Emperor Paul the First, Emperor Nicholas I was poisoned by traitors.. Why there is not a single monument to Nicholas the Firstwho defended Russia from the large-scale aggression of the Great British Empire?

Compare that the USSR, having failed to immediately repulse Germany, drove the Germans from their land for five years, and the Germans severely battered Petersburg. How much stronger was Nikolayev's Russia, correspondingly, that it quickly threw the most powerful power of that time out of the door! Please note that Tsar Nicholas I was liquidated in 1855. After which England managed to retreat from Russia, retaining its face, and telling in the West the usual English tales about its great "liberation mission". If Nicholas the First had not repulsed this British aggression, and effectively and quickly, then Russia would have already been reduced to the position of India, that is, a raw material appendage of the British Empire. But the Anglo-Americans had to wait until 1918 for this moment.