Nuclear explosion over Moscow or Who is to blame for the fire of 1812?

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

“Two officers settled down in one of the Kremlin buildings, from where they had a view of the northern and eastern parts of the city. it collapsed … The information brought by the officers who had come from all sides coincided with each other. On the very first night, from 14th to 15th, a fireball descended over the palace of Prince Trubetskoy and set fire to this building."

There are several facts in history that are considered immutable. That is, no one doubts them and is not going to check them. One of these facts is the fire in Moscow in 1812. At school we were taught that Kutuzov specially set fire to Moscow so that the French would get a completely burnt-out city. That Kutuzov prepared a trap for Napoleon's army. As a result, the official history remained on this point of view …

Even in 1812 itself, the causes of the famous fire were reluctant to discuss. For the Russians, the very fact of surrendering the ancient capital for desecration to Napoleon's troops was extremely unpleasant, and an unnecessary reminder of this was not welcomed. For the French, however, surrendering to the fire of a huge city was also a shameful event, incompatible with the role of an advanced civilized nation, which they undoubtedly considered themselves to be. And there were very few direct witnesses of the fire who could clearly and in detail tell about what happened: Muscovites, especially from educated classes, left the city, many invaders died during the inglorious flight from Russia …

Now, when historians, journalists, and simply thinking people have become skeptical about what they were taught in schools and institutes, three versions prevail: Moscow was deliberately burned by the French; Moscow was deliberately burned by Russian patriots; Moscow caught fire from the negligence of both the invaders and the remaining extremely small population. In the novel "War and Peace" Leo Tolstoy, having analyzed the possible versions, came to the conclusion: Moscow could not but burn, because in the absence of firm order, any, even insignificant, fire threatens a citywide fire.

"Moscow caught fire from pipes, from kitchens, from bonfires, from the slovenliness of enemy soldiers, residents - not the owners of houses. If there were arson (which is very doubtful, because there was no reason to set fire to anyone, but, in any case, troublesome and dangerous), then arson cannot be taken as the cause, since without arson it would have been the same. " As the saying goes, Tolstoy took the position "neither ours, nor yours." This version, like any other, has a right to exist, but it does not look reliable. As for the arson attack by the Russians or the French, it is not so simple here either. Neither side was interested in destroying the city, so the likelihood of deliberate arson is extremely small, one might say, negligible.

The French were the least interested in destroying Moscow. An army entering a large, rich city will never destroy it, remaining in the ashes. Suffice it to recall numerous memoirs and archival documents indicating that French soldiers in the initial period of the outbreak of the fire participated in extinguishing on an equal basis with local residents, forming fire brigades. Moscow was a serious card in Napoleon's sleeve in the peace negotiations, and it would be unforgivable foolishness to lose it as a result of arson. In addition, as a result of the fire, a significant part of the units of the French army suffered, which lost a significant number of soldiers killed and burned. If the French had set fire to Moscow, they would have withdrawn their troops in advance.

However, the version of the death of Moscow at the hands of French soldiers was actively used by the Russian government for propaganda purposes. Already in a government communication dated October 29 (17 according to the old style) October 1812, all responsibility for the fire was assigned to the Napoleonic army, and the arson was called a case of "damaged by the mind." But in one of the imperial rescripts of 1812 addressed to the Governor-General of Moscow, Count Rostopchin, it was already indicated that the death of Moscow was a saving feat for Russia and Europe, which was supposed to glorify the Russian people in history, the result of God's providence, and in another rescript the culprit was named fire - the French. In other words, the Russians did not know what position they should take after all.

Among those who did not doubt the leading role of the Governor-General of Moscow Rostopchin in organizing the fire was the Russian historian Dmitry Buturlin, who wrote that “being unable to do anything to save the city entrusted to him, he intended to ruin it to the ground, and through that the very loss Make Moscow useful for Russia. According to Buturlin, Rostopchin prepared incendiary substances in advance. Mercenary arsonists, led by disguised police officers, were scattered throughout the city.

Other historians (Russian and Soviet) considered the burning of Moscow a manifestation of Kutuzov's genius. In Soviet times, the question of the causes of the Moscow fire took on a political tinge. If the first Soviet historians did not doubt the decisive role of Rostopchin (or Kutuzov, Rostopchin himself could not have made such a decision!), Then later historiography on this issue bears an ideological imprint.

In chronological order, works of different decades are often characterized by an opposite attitude to the problem. So in the 20s of the last century, the prevailing opinion was that the fire was organized by the Russians. In the 1930s, Evgeny Zvyagintsev suggested that the reason for this was "the slovenliness of the French in handling fire." In the 40s, Militsa Nechkina's position was voiced that the fire was a manifestation of the patriotism of the Russian people, but without specifying specific persons. In 1950, the first serious study of Ivan Polosin in the Soviet years appeared, who argued that the fire was an expression of the patriotic enthusiasm of Muscovites, but its main reason was the order of Kutuzov. Finally, in 1951-1956, the version of Lyubomir Beskrovny and Nikolai Garnich took shape that the French deliberately burned Moscow. They were joined in 1953 by Nechkina (who changed her point of view by one hundred and eighty degrees) and Zhilin. This concept prevailed in the 60s and 70s.

As for Rostopchin, in 1823 the count wrote the essay "The Truth About the Fire in Moscow", where he described in some detail the far-fetched accusations against him, and gave specific facts on which the destruction of Moscow was at least inexpedient. In particular, he spoke about the insolvency of such causes of arson as the destruction of food supplies and housing stock for the accommodation of soldiers. In addition, the Russians made no attempt to evacuate the civilian population, or even warn them about the need to leave the city anytime soon. It is difficult to imagine that the governor gave the order to set fire to a city in which there are several tens, or even hundreds of thousands of inhabitants.

If we summarize all the data and make at least a minimal analysis of what happened, then several conclusions suggest themselves. Firstly, there is no single official version about the causes of the Moscow fire, which, by the sum of facts and arguments, would outweigh the rest. All existing versions are politicized to some extent. And this means that the true reasons have not yet been revealed.

Secondly, neither Russia nor Napoleon needed the fire.

Thirdly, most of the eyewitnesses noted unusual circumstances of the occurrence of fire centers, which, being extinguished in one place, reappeared in another.

Fourthly, the propaganda lies to us that Moscow was made of wood. This is done to exaggerate the fire hazard of the city in our imaginations. It is a fact that the entire city center within a radius of 1.5 km from Red Square was made of stone. It is also significant that in 10 months of 1869 in Moscow 15 thousand fires were counted. On average, fifty (!) Fires a day. However, the whole city did not burn out! And the point here is not so much vigilance as in the increased fire safety of the stone city with wide streets.

In order to understand that Moscow at the beginning of the 19th century was by no means wooden, it is enough to familiarize yourself with the work "Stone Construction in 18th Century Moscow". There are many interesting things in it. A hundred years before the events described, wooden construction was prohibited in the city center, as a result of which, by 1812, most of the buildings in Moscow, not counting the outskirts, consisted of stone and brick houses, which significantly increased the city's fire safety. At the same time, after a fire in a stone building, the walls remain intact, and only the interior rooms burn out. While, according to the descriptions of that time, after the fire of 1812, practically nothing remained in the center of the capital.

Fifth, after the disaster, people in the affected area were in a state of shock for several days. The armed opponents did not perceive each other as a threat. Up to 10 thousand Russian soldiers roamed openly in Moscow, and none of the French, who were there for more than a month, tried to detain them.

Sixth, the damage from the disaster was inconceivably heavy. The French lost 30 thousand people in Moscow, which is more than their losses in the Battle of Borodino. Moscow was 75 percent 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 fuses on fire, or the rain extinguished them, etc.

Seventh, the French army did not have sufficient funds to destroy massive stone structures on such a scale. Field artillery is not suitable for this, and it is not enough to collect so much gunpowder. We are talking about kilotons in TNT equivalent.

And finally, eighth. To this day, the distribution of the background radiation level in Moscow indicates traces of the use of … a nuclear weapon. Professionals who understand the issue clearly see the epicenter and the torch of dispersion of radioactive explosion products. The location of the epicenter corresponds to the observations of eyewitnesses, and the direction of dispersion repeats the described direction of the wind.

What turned Moscow into ruins and ashes shocked eyewitnesses to the point of shock. Only this can explain the "ghostly" state of both the residents of the city, who were no longer hiding from anyone, and tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, partly armed, who no longer thought to fight the French or simply leave the city (they were demoralized and disoriented), and French soldiers, who also ignored the presence of an armed adversary.

All these data and conclusions could not but compel thinking researchers and historians to look for some other reasons in the Moscow fire. A great many versions have been (and are) being put forward. A recent find allows us to make a new, completely unexpected assumption.

Several years ago, a certain Moscow official bought a neglected estate in the south of France, in the vicinity of Toulon. After taking over the property, he started to renovate the old mansion and, preparing the furniture for restoration, in one of the secret drawers of the writing table, he found the diary of a certain Charles Artois, a lieutenant of the Napoleonic army, who was lucky enough to return home. The diary described the events in Moscow and details of the return of the army from Russia. Now the manuscript is undergoing a series of examinations, but thanks to the courtesy of the owner, we managed to get acquainted with excerpts from it.

"I was standing in the courtyard of a large Russian house. The low sun flooded Moscow with a golden light. Suddenly a second sun lit up, bright, white, dazzling. It was located twenty degrees higher than the first, true, and shone no more than five seconds, but managed to scorch the face of Paul Berger The walls and roof of the house began to smoke. I ordered the soldiers to pour several dozen buckets of water on the roof, and only thanks to these measures it was possible to save the estate. In other estates, located closer to the newly appeared star, fires began. It is this mysterious heavenly flash and caused a terrible fire that destroyed Moscow …"

And here is an entry from the same diary, made a week later: "Hair began to fall out. I shared this sad discovery with Girden - but he has the same troubles. I'm afraid soon our entire detachment - but that the detachment, the entire regiment will become a regiment of bald ones … Many horses are seriously ill, which baffles veterinarians. Like bipedal healers, they claim that the whole reason is in malignant miasms dissolved in the Moscow air … Finally, the decision was made: we are leaving Moscow. The only hope to see our native France gives courage, otherwise we would rather just lie on the ground and die - our condition is so bad …"

An interesting description of the flight of Napoleonic troops from Russia. As you know, the French had to retreat (in fact, the composition of Napoleon's army was multinational, in fact, the French were a minority in it) had to retreat along the devastated Smolensk road. Lack of food and fodder, lack of winter uniforms turned the once mighty army into a crowd of desperate, dying people. But is it only "General Moroz" and "General Golod" to blame for the misfortunes that befell the army? "Fires continue around. The estate where we are quartered has survived, but, as luck would have it, a new attack hit our ranks. Rotten Russian water, intemperance in food or some other reason, but all our people suffer from the most severe bloody diarrhea. Weakness in all members, dizziness, nausea, turning into indomitable vomiting, add misfortune. And we are not alone in a similar situation - all the battalions of our regiment, all the regiments in Moscow. Doctors suspect dysentery or cholera, and recommend to leave the inhospitable city as soon as possible. stands ten miles from the Moscow outpost, everyone is healthy and cheerful, however, they are disturbed by the Russian partisans. Seeing our deplorable state, he immediately turned back, fearing to catch the infection …"

Military statistics claim that in Moscow only one third of the French army that entered the city survived. In literally these words, Brigadier General Count Philippe de Segur writes in his memoirs "The Fire of Moscow 1812": "From the French army, as well as from Moscow, only one third survived …" But what we read in the Moscow edition of 1814 "Russians and Napoleon Bonaparte ":" According to the French prisoners themselves, their 39-day stay in Moscow cost them 30 thousand people … "For comparison, an interesting fact. 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. In scale, that fire was commensurate with the fire of 1812, but only 94 people died in it. How could the catastrophe of 1812, being the same fire, be able to swallow two-thirds of the French army stationed in Moscow? That is, about 30 thousand people? Couldn't they walk? And if they could not, then why ?!

But back to the diary of Charles Artois. The pages describing the return journey of the French are heavy and mournful: Artois's detachment lost people every day, but not in battles - they were not able to fight - but from weakness and exhaustion caused by a mysterious illness. Even the meager provisions that they managed to get were not used for future use, they simply could not digest it. The soldiers were covered with abscesses and ulcers. Both people and horses were killed. Those units that did not enter Moscow fought off the Russians, but their ranks were melting, while the Russian army was only getting stronger.

As you know, most of the Napoleonic army perished in the vastness of Russia. Charles Artois was disabled by illness. Immediately upon his return to France, he received his resignation, but did not live long and died at the age of thirty-two without children.

The new owner of the estate (among other things, a candidate of physical and mathematical sciences), having read the manuscript and consulted with experts, suggested that the army that occupied Moscow in 1812 was subjected to an air nuclear strike! Light radiation caused fires, and penetrating radiation caused acute radiation sickness, which crippled the army.

But where did the nuclear bomb come from in those days? First, the explosion could have been caused not by a bomb, but by a meteorite falling from antimatter. The theoretical probability of such an event is negligible, but not zero. Secondly, a blow at the request of the Russian authorities could have been dealt by the "Great Old Ones", a crypto-civilization inhabiting underground Russia. The version is somewhat fantastic, but this assumption is supported by the decision of Kutuzov to leave Moscow after the won general battle, and the mass evacuation of the population from the city unprecedented in those days. The authorities decided to sacrifice buildings in the name of the death of the enemy.

The last, most likely, but at the same time, and most confusing assumption is that the echoes of a much later - and much more powerful - nuclear explosion reached Moscow in 1812. There is a theory that some of the energy released during an uncontrolled nuclear reaction travels in time both in the past and in the future. It was from the future that the echo of a nuclear explosion reached Napoleon's army.

The French emperor, who was at the time of the explosion in a stone building, received a relatively small dose of radiation, which already affected the island of St. Helena. Official medical science claimed that Napoleon died of poisoning, presumably arsenic. But, as you know, the symptoms of arsenic poisoning and the symptoms of radiation sickness are similar.

One can, of course, assume that Charles Artois's diary is yet another hoax. Some official-physicist-mathematician without a name and address available to all comers, some French lieutenant who died for some unknown reason, it is still unknown whether he really existed … Let it be a hoax, let it be! However, the memoirs of Comte de Segur are by no means a hoax! And in his memoirs, there are also words that some of his officers saw how at the time of the fire stone buildings flared up and then collapsed. In general, in the descriptions of many eyewitnesses, phrases about outbreaks and subsequent destruction of buildings are often found. Agree that during an ordinary fire, stone buildings do not behave like that!

And people do not behave so strangely after a simple, albeit large-scale fire. At de Seguur we read: “Those of ours who used to walk around the city, now, deafened by a storm of fire, blinded by ash, did not recognize the area, and besides, the streets themselves disappeared into smoke and turned into heaps of ruins … only a few surviving houses scattered among the ruins. This slain and burned colossus, like a corpse, emitted a heavy smell. Heaps of ash, and in places ruins of walls and fragments of rafters, some indicated that there were once streets here. Russian men and women covered with burnt clothes. They are like ghosts, wandering among the ruins … The question is, why should they wander? What have they lost in the ashes?

The memoirs of Comte de Segur are well known, only historians take from them only what they consider necessary. For example, mentions of several caught arsonists are replicated in all publications, and the memories of the unusual nature of the burning are closed eyes, and these data are not published in print. But how are we arranged? Oh, how hard it is for us to open the original source, we are more and more satisfied with quotations …

There is one more interesting description from de Segur's book: “Two officers were stationed in one of the Kremlin buildings, from where they had a view of the northern and eastern parts of the city. illuminated the graceful and noble outlines of their architecture, and then it all collapsed … The information brought by the officers who came from all sides coincided with each other. structure.

Today's historians are inclined to attribute this fact to the Count's fantasies. But did dreamers really get into the ranks of generals in France?

According to the recollections of eyewitnesses, after the fire, Moscow turned into a heap of ash, there was practically nothing left. The huge number of victims, exceeding the number of those who died in the largest battles of this war, simply cannot theoretically correspond to an ordinary fire, even a whole city. At the same time, judging by the descriptions of the Comte de Seguur, the soldiers and officers of the French army after fighting the fire were completely exhausted, and sat on "wet straw" or in "cold mud". That is, it was raining outside, or at least there was significant humidity after precipitation. This fact is very important, since the overwhelming majority of spontaneously occurring fires in such natural conditions do not spread, but quickly fade out, especially in areas with stone buildings …

The city center suffered the most, despite the fact that it was built up exclusively with stone and brick buildings. Even from the Kremlin, almost nothing remained, although wide squares and ditches separated it from the surrounding buildings. Such, for example, as passing from the Arsenal Tower to the Beklemishevskaya Alevizov ditch (34 meters wide and 13 deep). After the fire, this huge ditch was completely filled up with debris and debris, after which it turned out to be easier to level than to clear.

By the way, Napoleon, who (according to the first version) is accused of setting fire to Moscow and blowing up the Kremlin, himself barely survived during this fire. Comte de Segur says: "Then, after a long search, ours found an underground passage near a pile of stones, leading to the Moscow River. Through this narrow passage, Napoleon with his officers and guards managed to get out of the Kremlin."

All in all, a very strange fire. To put it mildly. Unusual (!) Light, fireball, flames that bring down (!) Palaces … Not adobe huts, but multi-storey buildings! The flame does not ignite, but illuminates first and only then brings down! About the ball - no comment at all. Those who have not guessed or close their eyes to the obvious should just watch the newsreel of nuclear tests …