NY Danilevsky: Why Europe is hostile to Russia?

We hear the slander, insults we know
Tysyacheglavoy lies newspapers
Infidelity, jealousy and fear generated.
Our friends at Rus no!

"Take a look at the map — told me a foreigner — how can we not feel that Russia puts pressure on us in its mass as a cloud hanging like a terrible nightmare?" Yes, landkartnoe pressure does exist, but where it is, in fact, what and when manifested? France under Louis XIV and Napoleon, Spain under Charles V and Philip II, Austria under Ferdinand II really gravitated over Europe, threatened to destroy the self, the free development of its various nationalities, and much effort was worth it free from such pressure. But is there anything like this in the past history of Russia?

However, many times it intervened in the fate of Europe, but what was the reason for these interventions? In 1799, in 1805, in 1807. Russian army fought with varying degrees of success, not for the Russian and European interests for [1]. Because of these same interests, for her, in fact, alien, had brought it on himself the twelfth year of the storm, and when wiped off the face of the earth half a million army and this one seemed to have served as a pretty free Europe, it did not stop there, as despite its benefits — that was in 1813, a review of Kutuzov and, generally, all the so-called Russian party — two years fought for Germany and Europe and, having finished the fight overthrow of Napoleon, just saved France from the vengeance of Europe as saved Europe from oppression France. Thirty-five years later, she again, perhaps against their own interests, saved from the final disintegration of Austria, believes rightly or wrongly, the cornerstone of the political system of European countries [2]. What gratitude for all that she has received both Governments and the peoples of Europe — is well known, but not in this case. Here, however, all that is still marked by the active participation of Russia in European affairs, with the sole exception of perhaps aimless intervention in the Seven Years' War [3].

But the lessons of history have not warned anyone. Russia — do not get tired of screaming at the skies, — a huge aggressive state, continually expanding its limits, and therefore threatens the peace and independence of Europe. This is — one charge. Another is that Russia allegedly is a sort of political Ahriman [4], some dark force hostile to progress and freedom. How much do all this just? Let's look first at the Russian aggressively.

Of course, Russia is not small [* 1], but most of its space occupied by free people of Russian settlement, not the conquest of the state. Put on, got to the Russian people, is a very natural area — just as natural as, for example, in France, only in large amounts — an area of signification sharply on all sides (with some exceptions west) seas and mountains. This region was crossed into two divisions Ural Mountains, which, as is known, in part because of its high canopy that is not natural ethnographic septum. The western half of the field erupt radiating in all directions from the center of rivers: the Northern Dvina River Neva — drain the entire lake system, Western Dvina, the Dnieper, Don and Volga in the same way as in a small form France Meuse, Senoyu, Loire, Garonne and Ronoyu . The eastern half of the parallel erupt over the Ob, Yenisei and Lena, who are also not divided among yourselves mountain barriers. Throughout this space, there was no political body formed when the Russian people began to gradually withdraw from the tribal forms of life and make the political system. The whole country was either desert or semi-wild inhabited by Finnish tribes and nomads, therefore, nothing to prevent the free settlement of the Russian people that lasted almost the entire first millennium of its history, in the absence of historical nations that we must be to destroy and trample down, to take their place. Never occupation people dedicated to him the historical pursuits should not have less blood and tears. He suffered many wrongs and oppression against the Tartars, Poles, Swedes and the Sword, but he is not oppressed anyone, unless we call oppression reflection unfair attacks and claims. Public building erected by them is not based on the bones of the violated nationalities. He has held or wasteland, or joined with him by the historical, not at all forced assimilation tribes such as the Chud, the whole, or as a current Meria Zyrians, Cheremysi, Mordovians, neither involves nor the historical beginnings of life, no aspirations to it, or, Finally, taking under its shelter and its defense, the tribes and peoples who, being surrounded by enemies, have already lost their national independence or could not keep it any longer, as the Armenians and Georgians. Conquest has played in all of this most insignificant role, as is easily seen by seeing how Russia got its western and southern suburbs, slyvuschego in Europe under the name of conquest greediness greedy Russia.

But first we must agree on the meaning of the word "conquest." Conquest is a political murder, or, at least, the political mayhem, as, indeed, the first of these expressions is used in a very different sense, say better: national, national murder or mayhem. Although the definition of this metaphor, though it is true and clear. Subsequently presented the case to elaborate on our thoughts about the meaning of nationalities, but still rather accept aphoristic position, which, however, and requires no special evidence in our time, is because, in theory at least, the belief of the majority of thinking people:that every nation has the right to an independent existence that is far as it is aware of itself and has a claim on him.This last condition is very important and requires some explanation. If, for example, Prussia conquered Denmark, France or Holland, they would cause this real suffering, would violate a valid law, which could not be rewarded any civil or political rights and privileges granted by the Danes and the Dutch, for, apart from the personal and civic but political, or so-called constitutional, freedom, the people who lived a separate public and political life, still feel the need that all the results of their activity — industrial, intellectual and social — were full of their property, and the practice of sacrificing an alien political body , do not get lost in it, did not constitute a material and the means to achieve their objectives for outsiders. They do not want to serve them, because every historical nationality has its own task, which must decide whether his idea, his separate way of life that seeks to implement — a task the idea side of life, the more excellent and original than itself perfectly nationality from others in the ethnographic, social, religious and historical relations. But a necessary condition for the achievement of all of this is the national political independence. Consequently, the self-destruction of this country may be in all fairness named the national murder which excites a legitimate resentment against his finisher. To this class of social phenomena is and what I have called the national mutilation.

Italy, for example, felt real suffering because of her — Venice — remained attached to an alien political body — Austria, although this was not an insurmountable obstacle to the development of its national life, just like cutting off an arm or leg does not stop the life of a man, but nevertheless deprives her of the fullness and diversity manifestations to which she would have been able to without this injury. Historical people gather together until all of its parts, all of its organs shall be considered politically crippled. Such were recently Italians, are still Greeks, Serbs, and even Russian, which are separated by three or four million of their own countrymen Ugric and Galician [5]. And how many more still under wraps nations rests, waiting for his resurrection! What has been said here would be, however, to unfair and unreasonable to attribute to such tribes who lived independent historical life, because if that does not have an internal dispositions of this, or because circumstances have developed unfavorably for them and the possibility of their historical development was destroyed at this early period of their lives when they were only ethnographic material has not yet had time to take the form of political identity — so to speak, before they were vdunut spirit alive. These tribes — such as the Basques in Spain and France, the Celts Valisskogo principality [6] and our many Finnish, Tatar, Samoyed, Ostyak other tribes — are intended to ensure that the merge gradually and imperceptibly with the historical nationality, among whom they are scattered, assimilate it, and serve to increase the diversity of its historical manifestations. These tribes havewithoutdoubt, the right to the same level of personal, civic and social freedom as the dominant historical nation, but not to political independence, because, not having it in mind, and they do not need for her to feel and even feel they can not. You can not stop life that did not live, can not mutilate the body, no individual association. There is not, therefore, no national murder, mutilation or national, and therefore no gains. It is even possible in respect of such tribes. The most etymological meaning of the word "conquest" is not applicable to the submission of the tribes, for they have no resistance and, if this does not violate their personal, property and other civil rights. When these rights are inviolable, they are, in fact, nothing more than defend.

After this brief digression, necessary to understand the concept of winning, we will begin our review of the north-western corner of the Russian state, with Finland — right from one of the political crimes of which admonishes us to Europe. Was the conquest here is exactly the meaning of the national murder, which gives it a hateful, criminal nature? Without doubt not, because there was no nationality, which would defeat with its independent existence of any department or mutilated integral part of it. Finnish tribe inhabiting Finland, like all the other Finnish tribes scattered over the space of Russia, never lived historical life. As long as there is no breach of national independence, the political considerations of geographic roundness, strategic border security, etc., in themselves they can not justify the accession of any country, receive their lawful use. Russia was at war with Sweden, which since the Treaty of Nystad could not get used to the idea of the assignment that by all rights belonged to Russia [7], and was looking for anyone in her opinion, for a chance to renew the war, and return their former conquests. Russia won and gained the right to compensation money, land or other, as long as it did not extend to the part of Sweden itself — for the national territory is not alienated and no agreements can not consecrate in the minds of the people of this exclusion as part of the alienated lose its national character. Then, of course, but only have to submit irrevocably. But not enough to say that the accession of Finland, Sweden, Russia to draw substantial rights were not violated — the benefits of Finland itself, ie, the Finnish people inhabiting it, more than the benefits Russia, demanded changes rule. The state, as powerful as Russia, may have largely refuse to benefit from the acquired country nation so powerful as Russian, could with impunity provide Finnish nationality ethnographic full independence. Russian state and the Russian nation could settle for less, it was enough to have in the north-west corner of its territory neutral country and friendly nation instead of an enemy outpost and the rule of hostile Swedes. Russian state and nation could do without a full merger of the country with him and Finnish nationality, to which, of course, by necessity, had to seek a weak Sweden, in relation to which Finland was three-quarters of its own space and half of its population. Indeed, only since the accession of Finland to Russia beginning to awaken Finnish nationality and finally reached that of its language could be recognized as equal in respect of the Swedish university education, administration and even debate in the Sejm. Russia made for the Finnish nationality will no doubt appreciated by impartial people, in a hostile camp, of course, only as long as it excites resentment which sometimes ridiculously. When I was in Norway I seriously one Swede assured that the Russian government of hostility to Sweden, induced Finnish nationality and writing, with precisely this purpose, an epic poem, Kalevala. Amazing government, which, in the opinion of the Poles, decrees creating Russian language and teaches him his Mongolian nationals and Review Swedes, composes folk epics!

For Finland, missing Ingria [8] — for the possession of which on us, does not seem to roll in reproaches, though she was repulsed by the Swedes — we find the so-called German Baltic provinces (die deutschen Ostsee — Provinzen), ie the German possession on the shores of the Baltic Sea. By name may, perhaps, think that it is a question of the conquered and annexed by Russian — from the Holy Roman Empire, or of replacing its German union — the provinces of Prussia and Pomerania, which the current is really the only province in the German Baltic Sea, not the settlement Estonians Latvians and space from the Lake Peipsi and Narva River to the Prussian border — native Russian supplies, where else Yaroslav founded the St. George, later renamed in Dorpat [9] — of the space to a settlement in which the first Riga bishops considered it necessary to seek permission from Polotsk princes . Who were the invaders in this country: a Russian, that is, the Slavs, who, in alliance with different Chudsko tribes laid the foundation of the Russian state and peacefully with the beginnings of Christianity have made education in this Baltic country in the same way as in other parts of their own, one component of the whole physical state area — or uninvited and unwelcome German adventurers here which were the fire and sword to spread the spiritual dominion of the popes, to pay the natives into slavery and prisvoivat yourself someone else's property? Russia has never acknowledged that an alien invasion! Pskov and Novgorod, standing guard over the land here in a heavy Russian Tatar hour, never ceased to protest against it with weapons in their hands. When Moscow has united Russia, she found her first duty to destroy the nest of knighthood and return her Russian heritage. The first failed at the outset, but the country was taken over by Poland and Sweden, and the struggle for it merged with the struggle for the other areas, alienated by these states on Russia. But this is just one more aspect of the matter, is the main part of the accession of the Baltic region is done even against the wishes of the alien nobility, and at his own request and promptings, with the help of his endeavors and representative — the hero Patkul [10]. It can be argued that for most people, the owner of the country's indigenous, Estonians and Latvians, although Russia has already done something, but then, not all of what they could expect from it, but certainly not for that accuses her Europe not that she sees that trait on which her eyes accession of the Baltic region has hated aggressive character. Quite on the contrary, what little has been done — or, better said, in what she fears on the part of Russia — for the true liberation of the people and the country, and she sees, in fact, the usurpation of Russian, German and insult all of European civilization.

For the Baltic regions of the country begins, now known by the names of the North-West and South-West region, and previously called the Polish provinces. Near the time when it would be out of place does not fill a single page all kinds of evidence for the belief that it is Russian territory, which Russia had never won: because you can not win that our without winning, so it was always, always, even in such a thought all Russian people, while the upper classes it did not start to dry out a living and live the people's sense of national feeling — so far, due to the fact many of these layers is not allowed otumanit your mind humanitarian ridiculous nonsense, do not even have the dignity of sincerity and impartiality. Poles and Europe have made, thankfully, a few sober Russian work in this regard [11], and although, unfortunately, despite their best efforts, not so much more time to this, as he should wish for — so tightly crammed humanitarian nonsense in Russian head — reached, however, what would not have done the most thorough and long dissertation — freed from labor to prove that the North-West and South-West region — is exactly the same and Russia on exactly the same basis as most Moscow.

But in the North West province has a small bit of land, it Belostotskaya area that is somewhat out of place to stay. This area, together with the northern part of the present Kingdom of Poland, the duchy Poznansky and West Prussia, went to the division of Poland in the share of Prussia. In the seventh year, Treaty of Tilsit, it was ceded to Russia [12]. How many cheers for the occasion in German writings about the perfidy of Russia, shamefully agreed to take part in the looting of its former ally unhappy! One has only to glance at the map to make sure the bad faith of the prosecution.

Belostotskaya area adjacent to the eastern border of the Kingdom of Poland. From the northern part of present-day kingdom, which two years later was attached and the south, and from the Province of Posen was Napoleon Duchy of Warsaw. This relationship was torn between Bialystok area and escaped from the destruction of the Prussian lands. For Prussia, therefore, Belostotskaya area was, if anything, is lost; Prussia remained one of two things: to see her in the hands of a hostile or her Duchy of Warsaw, coupled with a hostile Saxony, or in the hands of a friendly Russia. Could there be any doubt in choosing the most Prussia? As for Russia, it is obvious that she considered the Bialystok region to join her not to Prussia — from which this area has already been taken away by the fact of formation of the Duchy of Warsaw — and this last, they both hostile state. Where is the perfidy? Subsequently, when the Kingdom of Poland in retaliation for the services rendered by Russia Europe was annexed to Russia [13], Prussia received sufficient compensation for the departed from her part of Poland, and Belostotskaya area could not be returned to her because she remained separated from the Polish kingdom as before the Duchy of Warsaw, which (apart from the dedicated his Duchy of Poznan), the variable name only.

Can not see, however, is the Kingdom of Poland to be called the conquest of Russia, as in force immediately before the definition was, apparently, the national homicide? This question is worthy of consideration, because judgments and actions in Europe, in relation to it, is also evident — if not more than in the Eastern question in comparison with the Schleswig-golshteynskim — is the duality of action and that the falsity of the weights, which measure it and slaps Russia and other countries.

The partition of Poland in the opinion of Europe is the greatest crime against international law committed in modern times, and the burden falls on the Russian him. And this opinion is not newspaper screamers, no crowds, and the opinion of most advanced people of Europe. What, however, is Russia's fault? The western half of the Tartar domination was conquered by Lithuania shortly Russified, then through Lithuania — first by accident (by marital union), and then forcibly (Liublin union) — ceded to Poland [14]. Eastern Russia will never put up with this situation. This is evidenced by the continuous series of wars in which the first advantage for the most part belonged to Poland, and from the time of Khmelnitsky and reunion of Little Russia finally moved to Russia. When Alexis Russia had more happiness to belong to the political system of the European states, and because it was in its hands, and she was the only judge in their own backyard. At the time, there was the first partition of Poland. Russia, without asking, took out her she could — Little Russia on the left bank of the Dnieper, Kiev and Smolensk — and would take more if the hopes of the Polish crown did not deceive the king and forced to miss out on a good time [15]. The partition of Poland as Russia took part in it, could have been accomplished already — a little over a hundred years earlier than it actually occurred, and, of course, with a huge benefit for Russia, because then not wander more humanitarian ideas in the minds of Russian, and margin would have been assigned to the Orthodox and Russian nationality before they could be to give to the cause of perdition Russian Czartoryskis with their many followers and supporters, prosperous under different kinds of images, and even to this day [16]. Be that as it may, the case has not been completed, but only barely begun when Alexei, and once lost a good time returned not be earlier than one hundred years of Catherine II. But why should that be legal in half of the XVII century, it becomes illegal to end XVIII? The most reason for war when Alexei same — all the same oppression of the Orthodox population, asking for help for his native Russia. And if it was true return of Smolensk and Kiev, then why was not fair to return not only Vilna, Mezzanine, Polotsk, Minsk, but even Galic, who, unfortunately, was not returned at all? But in this unique and was the partition of Poland, as far as it involved Russia [17]! The form was, however, different. In the hundred years Russia had the good fortune to join the political system of the European states, and her hands were tied. Whether its not his ancestral property you return, as if talking to her neighbors, we do not care, you just amplify, and we ought to strengthen as much. The situation was such that Russia was not able to regain its rightful belonging, avoiding at the same time, Austria and Prussia to own a part of Poland and even Russia — Galich — to which neither the one nor the other, of course, did not have any right to . The initial idea of this section belongs, as is well known, Friedrich [18], and in the destruction of present Poland, in its legal limits, Russia did not have any benefits. Quite the contrary, Russia certainly would have retained its influence on Poland and its separation from the Russian regions, the more that it alone could hope to find support Poland against their German neighbors, who (especially Prussia) was highly desirable, even essential to get some of their own in Poland. But do not risk it was because of this Russian war with Prussia and Austria! Is it not obvious that anything that was not fair to divide Poland — so to say, the murder of Polish nationality — on the conscience of Prussia and Austria, and Russia does not, be content with their property, the return of which was not only their right, but also the sacred duty. — or will be, perhaps, human head, who would say that the generosity demanded from Russia rather give up its rightful, you agree to the destruction of most of Poland? After all, this is all that you can blame Russia, becoming for the most quixotic viewpoint. Such a course of action would be, perhaps, is possible, if Poland had acted differently with their Russian and Orthodox subjects, in these same circumstances, it would be ridiculous and pathetic velikodushnichanem at someone else's expense. If a private person deprived of his wealth, for it was forced to return without being able to achieve this otherwise, enter into an agreement with the neighbors, obviously wishing to take advantage of sim auspicious occasion, that without the least the fact that the right to seize and unjust share of the property owner, which undoubtedly belongs to him — we are, no doubt, would have to say that he did disagrees with the rules of Christian morality. But the application of these rules to mezhdugosudarstvennym and even international relations it would be strange confusion, a lack of understanding of the proving grounds on which these institutions are founded highest moral demands. The requirement of the moral course of action is none other than the requirement of self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is the highest moral law. Strictly speaking, this is identical concepts. But the only reason for self-sacrifice is immortality, eternal inner essence of man, for to the strict law of morality or self-sacrifice was not absurd, contains an internal contradiction, it is obviously necessary that it flowed out of the inner nature of the person who has it on the basis of act in the same way as in all natural, or what is the same thing as the divine laws. (…) But if the person ends all life here, then, no doubt, and the laws of its activity can not be nowhere else had drawn as of the requirements of that same life — of what constitutes its essence, that is, from the requirements of the temporary peace of mind, happiness and prosperity in which every creature is finite, and even the only imaginable purpose of their existence. Just in case, if not in it, is an inner need of our essence, the spirit, as we call it — if it contains something other than a non-exhaustive content of the temporary earthly life — can be vystavlyaemo and another beginning for its activities, the beginning of morality , love and self-sacrifice. But the state and the people are the transient phenomena that exist only in time and, therefore, only on the demand of their temporal existence can be based on the laws of their activities, that is politics. This is justified by the Machiavellianism, and states only that everyone of their own, that for every category of beings and phenomena have their own law. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a strict law bentamovsky principle of utility, it is understood health benefits [19] — that the foreign policy of the law, the law of the state of relations to the state. There is no place to the law of love and self-sacrifice. Inappropriately applied, this supreme moral law takes the form of mysticism and sentimental, as we have seen in the example of blessed memory, the Holy Alliance [20]. We note, incidentally, that the beginning of health benefits understood clearly inadequate and useless as the basis of morality, should give much better results as a political principle, for the very simple reason that it is used here to its current location. In fact, for long-lasting life of the state is a greater likelihood that the threat that provides the basis of utilitarian beginning — that is, its sanction, consisting in the words: "She has the same measure you use — and you vozmeritsya" [21] — will have time to conceive his action, whereas in the short-term life of every person having sufficient means of power, cunning, may very thoroughly hope that he will be able to avoid the consequences expressed in the words quoted above.

Thus, the partition of Poland, as far as it has been involved Russia, was a matter entirely lawful and fair, was the fulfillment of a sacred duty to the children of her own, in which it should not have been confused by the false and sentimental impulses of generosity, as Catherine after they, unfortunately, and to general unhappiness Russia and Poland, perplexed her and confuse many more still. If the partition of Poland was an injustice on the part of Russia, it was only in the fact that Galic was reunited with Russia. Despite all this, the indignation of Europe collapsed, however, with all his weight not really guilty — Prussia and Austria — and in Russia. In the eyes of all Europe's crime division of Poland lies in the fact that Russia has increased by returning their property. If it were not for the sad fact is, the Germanization of Slavic peoples — although for her most accommodating of all, yet still-Slavic — not opened to so many tears and crying. I even think that, quite the contrary, after due-hypocritical condolences she would secretly accepted with joy obscheyu as desired victory of civilization over barbarism. After all, we know that she is not afraid of Europe and our humanitarian progressives, even if is in the form of an Austrian policeman (seeAthenaeum)[22]. Have some pity on the French would have lost it a convenient tool to roil Germany. This direction of European public opinion is very well understood and the Polish intelligentsia, and she knows how to appease Europe and refuses blood heritage of Poland, which was reached in Austria and Prussia, if only she were returned to what it once took from Russia, alien to her dearer to her. Who had seen ugly, but a curious spectacle fights between large poisonous spiders, called phalanges, that is, of course, notice how often this evil beast devoured with the fury of one of his opponents, does not feel that the other otel already in his ass. If these do not represent the true emblem of the phalanx gentry and the Jesuit Poland — its symbol, flag, expressing its state character's much more than a single-headed eagle?

But no matter how right the partition of Poland by Russia, she now has been part of Poland, and this must therefore bear the reproach of the acquisition of the are wrong, at least on par with Prussia and Austria. Yes, unfortunately, has! But has again not to conquer, but by the sentimental generosity, which has just been said. If Russia, liberated Europe, provided in part by Napoleon restored to its former fate of Poland, that is, the section between Austria and Prussia, and in consideration of its invaluable, though poorly evaluated, the merits claimed for himself the eastern Galicia, part of which — Tarnopolsky district — at the already held, it would have remained on the same ground on which stood at Catherine, and no nothing could blame her. Russia would receive significantly less space, not much smaller population, but how many more of the Inland deservedly acquired, as it would increase the number of his subjects not hostile to the Polish element and the present Russian people [23].

What made the Emperor Alexander to lose sight of this essential benefit? What has blinded his eyes? Does not plans of conquest, and the desire to fulfill his youthful dream — to restore the Polish nation, and to make amends for that is what he thought of his great grandmother misdemeanor. What was true, proven by the fact that so looked on the Poles. When the enemy camp, from Austria, France and England began to do all sorts of obstacles to the plan the restoration of Poland, threatening even the war, the Emperor Alexander sent the Grand Duke Constantine in Warsaw Poles call to arms to defend their national independence. Europe, as usual, saw it as a ruse on the part of Russia — the desire, on the pretext of restoring the Polish nation, little by little, to take in hand, and those of the former Kingdom of Poland, which is not got it — and therefore agreed to the perfect incorporation

[* 2] of Poland, but not for the independent existence of the kingdom in personal dynastic union with Russia, which is now so wish. Only when Hardenberg, who, as a Prussian, was more familiar with the Polish and Russian affairs, explained that Russia needs its own harm, diplomats agreed on the independence of the Kingdom [* 3] [24]. Subsequent events proved that Russia plans were not ambitious, just generous. If the Russian government supported the Poles hope for accession to the realm of the Prussian and Austrian parts of former Poland, like this, for example, later wished Marquis Wielopolski, or would only be condoned by tending to the plot, of course, would not have happened that the uprising broke out in the Kingdom of Poland [25] rather than in Poznan or in Galicia, for internal reasons, consisting in an unsatisfactory condition of the land for this uprising was not. How would any judge who granted the Kingdom of the Constitution — the freedom with which it enjoyed was, in any case, much greater than in selected provinces of Prussia and Austria than in most of Prussia and Austria, than even in most of contemporary Europe. The time from 1815 to 1830, in which the kingdom enjoyed independently controlled, particularly the army, their own finances and constitutional forms of government, it was, without a doubt, and in the material and moral respects the happiest time in Polish history. Rise of nothing more than another does not explain how annoyance at the failure of the Poles of their plans to restore the ancient majesty of Poland, even though it was under the scepter of the Russian tsars, of course, only to start [26]. But these plans were not aimed at Galicia and Poznan, and Russia to the west, because there were only a free hand of the Polish intelligentsia — as many polyachit and Latin. It was only when, in the opinion of the Polish intelligentsia, has provided enough indulgence, or rather, promote Russian government — for indulgence was still pretty — to opolyacheniyu western Russia, while resentment of the Poles broke out and led to the 1830 uprising, and and 1863. Here's how ambitious and aggressive plans were Russia that prompted her to solicit the Congress of Vienna of accession of the Kingdom of Poland!

In the south-west corner of the Russian Bessarabia is also a recent acquisition. Here the Christian Orthodox population was plucked out of the hands of them that afflicted his wild and rough conquerors, the Turks — a population that has triumphed this event as a deliverance from captivity. If that was the conquest, then Cyrus freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity, was their conqueror [27].On this and should no longer apply.

All the southern Russian steppes were also taken out of the hands of the Turks. Steppes of these belong to the Russian plain. Spokon century, from the time of Svyatoslav, fought for them with hordes of nomads first Russian princes, then Russian Cossack communities and Russian tsars. Why do the same with any law brought here Ottoman Rule patronize predatory raids? The same must be said of the Crimean peninsula, though not from time immemorial belonged to Russia, but will serve as a safe haven not only for its implacable enemies, but the enemies of every civilization that made forays out of it at every opportunity, pozhigali fire and sword posekali southern Russian region to Moscow itself. You can probably agree that there was conquered by the state, nation deprived of its independence, but what state and what nationality? When I called at any winning national murder, in this case it was a murder that is allowed and the divine and human laws, — a murder committed in self-defense, and together as a fair punishment [28].

There is still the Caucasus. Under this mnogoobemlyuschim name ought to distinguish, in this regard here, Caucasian Christian area, Mohammedan Transcaucasian region and the Caucasian mountaineers.

Small Caucasian Christian kingdom since the time of Ivan the Terrible and Godunov pleaded for Russian assistance and offered to admit Russian citizenship. But the Emperor Alexander I, in the beginning of his reign, after much hesitation, finally agreed to fulfill this desire, first ensuring that the Georgian kingdom, utterly worn out with age-old struggle against the Turks, Persians, and the Caucasian mountaineers, could lead an independent existence any longer and had to or die or join the same religion Russia. In taking this step, Russia knew that assumes a heavy burden, though perhaps not anticipate that it will be so heavy that it would cost her sixty years of continuous struggle. Be that as it may, either by nature of the case, either in the form of his conquests were not here, and it was filed on the fading and die. First of all, it involved a two-time Russian struggle with Persia, and Russia was not the instigator [29]. During the struggle, she managed to free some Christian population of the double yoke of small sovereign Khans and Persian rule. With this together were subdued Mohammedan Khanate: The Kuban, Baku, Shirvan, Sheki, Ganja and Talyshenskoe, now make up as many counties, and Erivan region. We say that, perhaps, is the conquest, although it only won by won. Not so happy, though, Russian conquest of the Caucasian highlanders.

Here, just a lot of killing, if not independent of, the independent tribes. After the partition of Poland's hardly what other action Russia aroused in Europe is widespread resentment and regret, as the war on the Caucasian mountaineers and Especially recently made a conquest of the Caucasus [30]. No matter how much our publicists are trying to put this thing as a great victory gained universal civilization — nothing helps. He does not like Europe to Russia took on the case. — Well, on the Syr Darya, in Kokand, Samarkand, in wild-stone Kyrgyz else, all right, you can just barely tolerate such civilizing — all the same kind of Spanish fly pulls, although, unfortunately, not enough strength in Russia, and then we have at hand, the Caucasus, and we would do here potsivilizirovali (…). And on the Caucasus (as well as the Polish, as well as the east, as well as on every) issue can be judged benevolence Europe to Russia.

About Siberia and say nothing. What is there, in fact, the conquest? Where is the conquered peoples and conquered the kingdom? One has only to consider how much in Siberia and Russian as foreigners, to make sure that for the most part it was a futile exercise room, perfect (as history shows) Cossack prowess and resettlement of the Russian people with almost no government assistance. Is still among the Russian conquest ranked as the Amur region, inhabited by no one, where every relocation was even banned by the Chinese government, it is unknown why and for what is considered his his property?

So, in the Russian conquest all that can be at different stretch to call this name is limited to the Turkestan region, the Caucasus mountain range, five or six counties of the South Caucasus and, if anything, even the Crimean peninsula. If you disassemble the case for a clean conscience and justice, none of the possessions of Russia can not be called winning — in a bad, anti-national and hated because of the sense of humanity. Do many of which can be said to myself the same thing? England at near by independent Celtic won the state [31] — and how to win! — Taken away from the people the right to ownership of his native land, hunger forced him to move out to America, and at a distance of nearly a semicircle of land conquered kingdoms and nations, including India in nearly two hundred million souls, deprived of Gibraltar from Spain, from France to Canada, the Cape of Good Hope in Holland, etc. Lands, futile or inhabited by wild tribes of the unhistorical, in the amount of nearly 300,000 square miles I do not think conquests. France robbed Germany of Alsace, Lorraine, Franche-Comte, in Italy — Corsica, Nice and Cannes, the sea conquered Algeria. And how was it conquered and taken away from her again! Prussia rolled and joined his scattered members at the expense of Poland, which had no right. Austria little or almost nothing is taken away by the sword, but its very existence is a crime against the rights of peoples. Spain in the old days had the Netherlands, mostly Italy, conquered and destroyed entire civilizations in the Americas.

If you can not accuse Russia really committed to her conquests, then maybe, they were sent to her aspirations: the failure of attempt does not justify another criminal. Let us take a look at the nature of the warrior who she was. There is no need to go far. All wars were conducted before Peter Russia for their own survival — for the fact that in the unfortunate times in its history has been torn away by its neighbors. The first war, which she has not to this end, and which, in fact, began its intervention in European affairs, was vedena against Prussia. Sufficient reason to participate in the Seven Years' War from Russia, of course, was not. Slander Frederick offended Elizabeth, his actions, rightly or wrongly, regarded throughout Europe as a brazen violation of international law in general, and of the laws of the Holy German-Roman Empire in particular [32]. If there was a fault, it separated Russia from the rest of Europe, in one way or not, but it was a chance phenomenon which is not in the general direction of Russian policy. During all the reign of Catherine the Great's Russia effectual way to intervene in European affairs, pursuing its own goals and objectives of these, as we have seen, were the goals right. Since the Emperor Paul, in fact, begin the European War Russia. War of 1799, in a purely military sense, almost all of the glorious Russian-Keeping, was an act of political magnanimity exalted, unselfish, chivalry in the true spirit of the Maltese [33]. Was it an act of the same political prudence — is another matter. For Russia, however, this war has had considerable moral result: it showed what can a Russian military affairs. The same sort of had a war in 1805 and 1807. Russia has taken to heart the interests, she completely foreign, and worthy of any surprise heroism brought sacrifices for Europe. Peace of Tilsit forced her to take time off from this policy and dedication to turn to the former Catherine rut, but the benefits it could obviously buy, continuing to go for it, did not satisfy her, did not have anything in front of her primanchivogo. Interests in Europe, Especially the interests of Germany, lying so close to her heart, it was beating just for them. That the efforts made by Russia in 1813 and 1814, were made in favor of Europe — in this agreement even now impartial people, of whatever political camp they belong to, and then all the praise unparalleled selflessness Russia. But what's the twelfth year was a struggle undertaken by Russia in the interests of Europe — is hardly many confessed. Of course, the twelfth year of the war was primarily a war of the people, — People in the full sense of the word, if we take into account the best way of doing it, and the feelings at the time inspired the Russian people. But such was whether this glorious war in its reasons, that is, the desire to break the Russian interests prompted Napoleon to take it? This is hardly possible to answer in the affirmative. The causes of this titanic struggle — which overthrew Napoleon and led to such enormous consequences — before insignificant that it is impossible to understand how they could make Napoleon rush into such a dangerous, risky venture needlessly, having on hand at Spain. What is, in fact, the reason that prompted Napoleon to collect 600,000 army and invade her to a distant country — neizobilnuyu resources, means of communication with the bad — to deal with the army and the people, the courage which he was well known? .. Inaccurate compliance with the treaty of Tilsit Russia, is permitted under the hand of some trading with England, when Napoleon himself admitted at such a deviation from the rules of the continental system, and a protest against the seizure of Russian Oldenburg — that's all [34]. It is reasonable to all of the inadequacy of these people think enough to add, referring to the insatiable ambition of Napoleon. Of course, Napoleon was ambitious beyond measure, but was in fact also prudent. The true cause of the war, as Napoleon understood it, he has expressed in the words spoken to them Balashov: Emperor surrounded by his personal enemies, the lower people, as he put it — including Stein, a villain, driven from their homeland — that is, people who roads were the interests of Germany and who tried thinking of Emperor Alexander sent in this way [35]. Well understood and properly developed sense of these hints explains everything. Napoleon could not help but feel that they erected the building is very shaky and apart from his genius, no other high back pressure has not. Jerome, Joseph, Murat were not able to support it [36]What will happen after his death, that he would leave his son? World domination, he felt, even beyond him, I had to find with whom to share it, and he thought after the Peace of Tilsit, he found that a friend and ally in Russia, the other, however, and there was nowhere to find. He thought that the Russian of direct political calculation, due to their own purposes and benefits will be with him at the same time. And really, why would could not reach Russia in union with him, if only looking at the matter from their point of view? Fervent support of the war in 1809 would have given her all Galicia [37] reinforced the war against Turkey have brought her not only to Moldavia and Wallachia, but the Bulgars — would give her the opportunity to form an independent Serbian state to attach thereto Bosnia and Herzegovina. Napoleon would not only ensure that our possessions are gone over the Balkans, but Napoleon was not eternal. The most Duchy of Warsaw, which in his eyes was only a threat against Russia, he probably would have sacrificed, just making sure that Russia really is in all his plans, that going to fulfill its objectives, it is as much in need of it, as he to her — that she is interested in maintaining its power. But soon after the Peace of Tilsit, Napoleon saw that he could not rely on Russia, can not rely on its sincere assistance, based on the letter is not binding their agreement, and on the political calculation that it formally kept that promise, but her heart lies union with him. In the war of 1809 helped it just for show, for the intercession of the Duchy of Oldenburg and further influx of German patriots, whom Napoleon, from his point of view, called the bad guys (of course, is unfair), showed him that Russia hotly takes to heart the so-called European or, more precisely, the German interests, hotter than your own. What had he to do? What attracted him irresistibly logic of the position in which it has set as its own ambition, and the very course of events? Obviously, in addition to support themselves by other means, regardless of the Russia — to ensure that the look of the building to his helpers some other post, albeit less reliable fortress. This post was thinking he hewed at the expense of Russia itself, restoring the Kingdom of Poland in its former volume. It was hoping he would at least find always ready weapon against hostile Germany. Otherwise, proceed to Napoleon was hardly possible. And without war political edifice, erected by them, was to collapse if Russia is not interested in his support — if not collapse under him, so after his death. The war led by his genius, was represented by at least a chance or force Russia to support this, or replace it with another but less hard, but more dependent and pliable instrument. In short, if Napoleon could count on Russia, which, as it seemed, she was interested in his case, he would never have thought the restoration of Poland. No good deed goes unpunished. In the thirteenth year, led by a new army gathered them, he expressed this thought in the most positive way: "In just easier and more sensible it would be right to come together with the Emperor Alexander. I have always considered Poland a means, not the main thing. Satisfying Russia at the expense of Poland, we have the means to humiliate Austria, to turn it into nothing "[* 4]. Can anything be clearer, more open and, moreover, consistent with the actual nature of Napoleon!
Not because of Europe if, therefore, is not due to a particularly Germany, Russia took on his chest thunderstorm twelfth year? Twelfth year was, in fact, a great political mistake, facing the spirit of the Russian people in the great popular celebration.

What's not any of their own interests had Russia in mind, daring to fight against Napoleon, one can see much of the fact that, after graduating with unparalleled glory of the first act of the struggle, she did not stop, did not use the opportunity to represent her achieve all that she could wish for yourself, concluding peace with Napoleon and the union, as he did every means solicited, and how willing the same Kutuzov and many other great men of that era. What prevented Alexander repeat Tilsit with the only difference being that this time he would play the primary role and honorable? Even for Prussia, which has compromised himself to Napoleon, the Emperor Alexander could say all that would be required, in his opinion, honor.

Fourteen years after the Treaty of Paris had Russia to wage war with Turkey. Russian troops crossed the Balkans and were at the gates of Constantinople. With France, Russia was in friendship, in Austria there were no troops, no money; England, even if it wanted to, could not do anything — then there was no military ships, the Prussian government was due to the close friendship with Russia. Europe could only entrust Turkey generosity Russia. Russia has taken a while something for yourself? And one word of it was enough to attach to his Moldavia and Wallachia. Even the words were not necessary. Turkey itself is offered in place of Russian principalities underpaid more debt. Emperor Nicholas refused from that and from other [38].

Then came 1848. The shocks were in this time in the whole of Europe, untied the hands of the conqueror and ambitious man. As Russia took advantage of this unique situation? She saved from destruction neighbor — that is a neighbor who just had a more ambitious types oppose it on Turkey, if she had any, [39]. That's not enough, then you can connect generosity with ambition. After the Hungarian campaign was sufficient pretext for war with Turkey, Russian troops occupied Wallachia and Moldova, the Turkish Slavs would go up to the first word of Russian. Does all of this took advantage of Russia? Finally, in the 1853 Russia had expressed its demands with the sharpness and obstinacy, an example of which in the same year gave her embassy Leyningena graph, and in the case of the slightest delay gratification, moved troops and navy, when neither Turkey nor the Western powers were not at all prepared, which could not reach it?

So, the Russian state, the war, which it led, goals that haunted, and even more — favorable circumstances, many times repeated, that it is not thought to use — all shows that Russia is not ambitious, not aggressive power that the new the period of its history, for the most part she has sacrificed its obvious benefits, the most just and legitimate, European interests — often even deemed it his duty not to act as a unique body (which has its own independent purpose, finding in itself sufficient justification for all their aspirations and actions), and as utility power. Where did and for what, I ask, distrust, injustice, hatred of Russia by governments and European public opinion?

I appeal to the other major accusation against Russia. Russia — Extinguisher of light and liberty, dark dark force, the political Ahriman, as I put it above. In the famous Rotteka suggested — which, not having to hand his "History," I can not, unfortunately, just quoted, — that every Russian prosperity, any development of its internal forces, increase its prosperity and power of a social disaster, misfortune for all mankind. This view is only Rotteka expression of public opinion in Europe. And this is again based on the same sand as the ambition of conquest and Russia. Whatever the form of government in Russia, whatever the shortcomings of Russian administration, the Russian justice, Russian fiscal system, etc etc., before all this, I believe, no one does not care, as long as it does not seek to impose on all of this to others. If all this is very bad, the worse for it, and all the better for its enemies and detractors. The difference in political principles can not yet be an obstacle to friendship governments and peoples. Was not England constant friend of Austria, despite the absolutism and constitutionalism one another? Do not use Russian government and the Russian sympathies of the people of America, and vice versa? Only harmful interference in Russian domestic politics of foreign states, the pressure to which it would prevent the development of freedom in Europe, it may be subject to fair criticism and excite her indignation. Let's see what it has earned Russia than to Europe so guilty? Prior to the French Revolution of such intervention, such a pressure, and there could be no, because between the continent of Europe and Russia did not exist then no apparent difference in political principles. On the contrary, the reign of Catherine justly considered one of the most advanced and progressive, as we now say. Toward the end of his reign, Catherine was, however, the intention to arm the revolution, and that the heir to her did. But if the French revolution should be a lamp of freedom, and to extinguish this light was in a hurry to fill the whole of Europe, and in front of all — a constitutional and free England. Russia's participation in the common effort was short and insignificant. Suvorov's victories, however, applauded when the whole of Europe. War against Napoleon were not, of course, and did not consider the war against freedom. These wars are over, and if defeated France at the same time received a free form of government, then it was required only to Alexander. During the war for independence, many states have promised their subjects constitution, and no one has kept its promises, except, again, the Emperor Alexander on Poland.

After the Congress of Vienna, according to the Russian emperor, Russia, Austria and Prussia signed the so-called Holy Alliance, to start which invites all the sovereigns of Europe [40]. This sacred union is the main accusations against the Russian sovereigns and exposed conspiracy against their own people. But in this union should be a clear distinction between the idea, the original idea, that alone belonged to Alexander, from the practical execution, which is an integral property of Metternich. In the original the same idea, whatever its practical advantages, of course, there was nothing oppressive. Emperor Alexander was, no doubt, for the constitutional principle everywhere, in his opinion, national development admit its application. He was the enemy and the enemy of the party, forcibly displaced rebellion and revolution, but it was a friend of the imposed [* 5] of the Constitution, and after recent experiences, after so many disasters endured Europe, whether it was possible to think differently? Yes, and without regard to the circumstances, is not fair to look at this? Is it fair agreement, a conscious concession may be worse violence and the principle and the effects? Forcing the power, if the power is still on his side, is rarely satisfied with the forced, can we expect a moderation of the overheated passions, delight pride of success? If, on the contrary, after the first outbreak, the first successful assault force moves again to the side succumbed to this onslaught of power, can we expect from her faithful implementation of forced? On the contrary, a concession made in the fullness of power, the consciousness of its usefulness and fairness, contains all liens durability. What is stronger and faithfully executed: if the imposed constitution Sardinia and Italy, or to replace it with a forced constitution of France after 1830, and Prussia after 1848? If it be said that the imposed Constitution of France in 1814 and 1815 not too faithfully executed, then everyone knows that this constitution was a form of voluntary charter of the Bourbons, in fact were with their hand forced circumstances concession, though all their rule bore the stamp of alien intervention, hateful for any self-respecting people [41].

On the diplomatic congresses twenties the most moderate and liberal was the voice of Alexander. In this I refer to Gervinus, not too friendly to Russia and all things Russian. The root of all reactionary, retrograde measures that time was Austria and its ruler Metternich, who, entangling all their networks, including Russia, forced to give up the last of its natural and national policies to help the Greeks in general and Turkish Christians against their oppressors — contrary to refuse all its legends, all of its interests, its sympathy to all the sovereign and its people. Russia was also a victim Metternihovoy policy, why is it, rather than Austria, which has been blamed for everything, and for whose benefit it was done, bear the burden of guilt? England herself did not obey it then Metternihovoy policy? Is Russian troops quelled the rebellion in Naples and Spain [42] and are not these uprisings and entered them for a short time, the order of things were so light phenomena that should be sorry for them? Russian instigation to have been the cause of all oppression, which endured the German press, the German universities and the general desire of German youth? Does not the German government, and led them to Austria, should be esteemed the cause of all these measures, not only for them, whether they were useful? Or maybe all these German liberal aspirations had such strength that, with no hope of support from Russia, the German government would not dared them protivustat? But is it prevented them realized where they had any real significance — prevented France or Belgium, even a little to give yourself the form of government that they want? Russia prevented if anything, even in Germany in 1848, and in 1830? Do not own impotence want to justify, shouldering the failure of the pressure exerted by the supposedly dark absolutism of the North?

The best evidence, however, that is not valid any wine without any active intervention of Russia — to the detriment of freedom of mankind in general and Germany in particular — were the reason for her hatred of the total, is the murder of Kotzebue [43]. What is important here is not the act of a student accident fanatic, and then the general sympathy, who has brought to him a political crime, not only in revolutionary circles, but in a calm, sensible part of the society, which is difficult to find another example. What was, however, the guilt of Kotzebue? He reported, said the Russian government on the state of public opinion in Germany (mostly the same — its university students), that is, doing what is involved, among other things, any diplomatic agent or a foreign correspondent for any newspaper. Wines of it in any case not exceed the guilt of many Petersburg correspondents of foreign newspapers, to those, however, circonstanus attenn antes [* 6] Kotzebue in favor of that hostility to Russia and St. Petersburg correspondent of slander for all open and can excite the indignation quite thorough, and what he wrote Kotzebue, no one knew, and all the guilty was based on assumptions. And do during Kotzebue had a number of people who reported the German government (Especially as Austrian) the spirit and direction of thinking that prevailed among German youth, which, of course, for it was much more dangerous? Why this explosion of indignation from such an insult people's feelings, that it reaches even the murder of sympathy, unless the murder was committed to the detriment of Russia? But that was before the famous congresses, Russia still does not have time to be guilty [44], still fresh in the memory was getting rid of the French yoke. German public opinion had here, as well as after, no more gratitude than 34 years later — the Austrian government [45].

If we are angry for mutual advice and for the influence exerted by the government on the government, then, of course, Russia would have had as much (if not more) right to resent Austria, and at other German courts, as well as Germany to Russia. Not influenced by whether the change is attributed to Metternich's way of thinking that has taken place in the reign of Alexander after 1822? [46] Is not this influence was the cause of disgrace Kapodistrias, the hostile attitude adopted on Greece and generally in relation to national policies, finally, is not this the most impact was the cause of the change in the direction of public education in times of Shishkov and Magnitsky? And after not in favor of Austria was considered whether any moral support Slavs almost over Russian state crime? Let the European public opinion, if it wants to be fair, will carry even extended to Russia on German affairs detrimental effect to its real source, that is, the same German governments, and in particular to the Austrian. No, not the actions of Kotzebue and all similar (in fact, quite innocent properties) Russian government intervention in European affairs explain the hatred which in Europe to Russia, and most murder of Kotzebue and, most importantly, the compassion that it is excited, but this hatred and explains, the reason is it is deeper.

However, that is not anti-liberal Russian intervention in the affairs of others is the beginning and the main reason of hostile feelings in Europe, can provide evidence of the most severe, irrefutable. When people think of anything to see the cause of this phenomenon, it is very easy to verify the assumption, if possible eliminate the causes of action alleged. It is clear that the assumption is false, when the phenomenon continues to eliminate this cause. For example, the slowdown in the swing of the pendulum, seen in equatorial countries, attributed the lengthening it from the heat. Come up with a projectile that eliminates the influence of heat, but the pendulum continues to swing more slowly than in the north. This showed to the evidence that it's not in the heat. In matters of public almost never resort to experiments, but concerns us regarding the subject was made by the most experience in large scale, and what happened? For a little over thirteen years as a Russian government has completely changed its system to have committed an act of such high-liberalism that even ashamed to apply to it is a vulgarization of the word; Russian nobility to show unselfishness and generosity, and the masses of the Russian people — moderation and gentleness unparalleled. Since then, the government has continued to act in the same spirit. One liberal reform followed another [47]. On foreign affairs, it has not been any pressure. That's not enough, it uses its influence in favor of a liberal. Both the government and public opinion is sympathetic to the cause of the Northern States is sincere, than most of Europe [48]. Russia first recognized the Kingdom of Italy, and even how to say his influence to help prevent Germany Unrighteous case. And what, if changed even by a hair Europe in relation to Russia? Yes, she is very sympathetic to the peasant question, while hoping that it would plunge Russia into endless troubles, just the same as England sympathized with the release of the American Negro. We've seen a lot of her to love and good will on the occasion of Polish affairs [49]. Hangman, equipped by Dagger and arsonists become heroes, as long their nefarious deeds turned against Russia. Advocates nationalities fall silent as soon deal with the protection of Russian nationality, utterly oppressed in the western provinces — as sure, however, as in the case of Bosnians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Montenegrins. Benevolent as well as really a way to appease Poland vesting Polish peasants to the land itself is impartial judges? Or, perhaps, the English way of pacifying Ireland eviction due to starvation is preferable from the humane point of view? The experience is made on a large scale. Medical proverb says: sublata causa tollitur effectus [* 7]. But here and troubleshoot the cause of action continues: it means that is not the reason.

Back in fashion, we refer to all the ignorance of Europe, to her ignorance regarding Russia. Our press is silent, or, at least, until recently, remained silent, and enemies to slander us. Where are the poor Europe to know the truth? She otumanena, confused. Risum teneatis, amici [* 8], or, in Russian, — chickens to laugh, my friends. Why is Europe, which knows everything from the Sanskrit language to the Iroquois dialects, from the laws of motion of complex systems of stars to the structure of microscopic organisms, only one does not know Russian? Is it any Geis-Greiz, Schleiz and Lobenshteyn not stoyuschaya that she turned on him his enlightened attention? These ridiculous excuses wise as the serpent, Europe — its ignorance, naivety and gullibility, just as if it is a question about the schoolgirl. Europe does not know, because I do not want to know, or should I say, he knows the way wants to know, that is as consistent with its preconceived opinions, passions, pride, hatred and contempt. These ridiculous courting foreigners to show them the face of Russia, and, through them, to educate and to make see the light blinded and deluded public opinion in Europe. Why not satisfy the curiosity of a good man, but in vain to connect with the different okulisticheskie dreams. Needless to shoot thorn to those who have eyes and can not see, there is nothing to cure deafness of those who have ears and hear not. Educating the public opinion of books, magazines, brochures and word of mouth can be very helpful in this respect, as in all others — not only for Europe, but for us ourselves, Russian, which even to themselves accustomed to watching other people's eyes, for our countrymen. For Europe, it will be a wasted effort: she herself without our help, finds out what he wants, and if he wants to know.

The fact is that Europe does not acknowledge us. She sees Russia and the Slavs in general is something foreign to her, and at the same time such that it can not serve it easy for the material from which it could derive its benefits, as the extracts from China, India, Africa, America and most of t . etc., — material that can be build and obdelyvat in the image and likeness, as was previously hoped Especially as the Germans had hoped that, despite the preproslavlenny cosmopolitanism, just from a single saving German civilization was prepared to save the world. Europe sees why the Slavs in Russia and not only alien but hostile to the beginning. No matter how loose and was no soft upper, outer, weathered and had applied to the clay layer, yet Europe understands, or, more precisely, instinctively feels that beneath this surface is strong, solid core that will not crush, do not grind, do not dissolve — which, therefore, can not be assimilated themselves, to put into his flesh and blood — which has the power and his claim to live independent, original life. Proud, and justly proud, his merits Europe is difficult — if not impossible — to move it. So, by all means, do not cross, so pestle, by hook or by crook, we must not give this kernel more to get stronger and grow, take root and branch depth and breadth. Oh, and now it's too late if not lost to time? Is there more to think about impartiality, about justice. For sacred purposes not all means are good? Is not this the preaching and the Jesuits, and madzinisty [50] — the old and the new Europe? Will Schleswig and Holstein Danish or German, it still remains Europe; little inclination to happen in the political balance, whether that be interpreted much? European great power on will not tolerate public opinion, there is nothing to get too excited, we must make allowances between their. Tend to balance in favor of Athens or Sparta, is not the same whether Greece will prevail? But how is allowed to spread the influence of an alien, hostile, barbaric world, even if it is extended to the fact that all human and divine laws of this world? Do not let them use it — a common cause of everything that feels Europe. You can take in the Turks and allies and even give him the banner of civilization. This is the only satisfactory explanation of the duality of weights and measures, which measure and slaps Europe when it comes to Russia (and not only Russian, but all of the Slavs) — and when it comes to other countries and peoples. For this injustice to this unsympathetic Europe to Russia — which compare 1864 of 1854 is just one of countless examples — however much we were looking for, we do not find reasons to those or other actions of Russia, did not find the explanation and response based on facts. There is nothing even conscious of what Europe could give itself an impartial report. The reason for the phenomenon lies deeper. It lies in the uncharted depths of the Tribal likes and dislikes, which constitute a kind of historical instinct of peoples, leading them (in addition to, but not against their will and consciousness) to the unknown targets for them, because in general, the main outlines of the story is composed not arbitrary human, although he provided for them to breed patterns. What led to the ancient Germans incessant attacks on Rome? It is said that the South has an irresistible fascination for the children of the North. No need of extensive ethnographic information in order to see that this is totally unfair. Daily experience confirms that every nekochuyuschy people — and the Germans during the war with Rome had been sedentary — In primitive times as much, at least, as the later is almost irresistible attachment to their homeland, its climate, as it were, it may be severe, to the surrounding nature, no matter how it was poor. South for the people of the north has something deadly. Take, for example, even though Russian settlement in the Caucasus. To blessed to Caucasian countries seeking Russian people provided their own free will? No, it Siberia has much more appeal. Do not bait the south, but some hate the people attracted to the death of Rome. Why are so well together and then gradually merge with the German tribes Romance, Slavic and with the Finnish? German is Slavic, on the contrary, repel each other, antipathetic to one another, and where if one replaces the other, the pre destroys its predecessor, as the Germans did with the tribes and the Elbe to the Baltic Sea Coast Dwellers Slavic. That's what the unconscious feeling that something historic instinct and make Europe not to love Russia. Where does the impartiality of view here — which is not deprived, however, and Europe, and Especially Germany — When it comes to alien nationalities? Everything is original Russian and Slavic seems to her despicable, and its eradication is the sacred duty and the true task of civilization.

Gemeiner Russe, Bartrusse [* 9] are the terms of the greatest contempt for the language of the European, and especially German. Russian in their eyes can lay claim to the dignity of man only when already lost their national identity. Read traveler reviews, enjoying great popularity abroad — you'll see them in sympathy with the Samoyeds, Koryak, Yakuts, Tatars, to anyone, not only for the Russian people, let us see the behavior of the foreign managers with Russian peasants; note attitude coming to the Russian sailors to the porter and general exchange workers, read articles about Russia in European newspapers, in which the expressed opinions and passions enlightened part of the public, and finally, make sure the attitude of European governments in Russia. You will see that in all these different areas dominated by the same spirit of hostility, receiving, depending on the circumstances, the form of distrust, malice, hatred or contempt. Phenomenon concerning all spheres of life, from the political to the ordinary everyday relationships, affects all levels of society, and not having any factual basis, can in general only the bowels of the instinctive consciousness of the radical hatred, which lies at the basis of historical and historical problems of the tribes. In short, a satisfactory explanation of how this political injustice and social stigmas that can only be found in the fact that Europe recognizes Russia and the Slavic something alien to itself, and not only alien but hostile. To an impartial observer it neotverzhimy fact. The only question is, whether well-founded, are valid if such kind of conscious mind, and such kind of unconscious instinct, feeling, or whether they are temporary prejudice, misunderstanding, which is destined to disappear. The study of this question I intend to devote the next chapter.

Notes

[1] This is an Italian and Swiss campaigns of Alexander Suvorov and the subsequent participation of Russia in the coalition war against Napoleonic France.

[2] During the revolutionary events of 1848-1849. in the Austrian Empire Hungarian forces launched a series of heavy defeats Austrians, Hungary was declared an independent state. At the request of the Austrian Emperor Nicholas I of Hungary sent an army under the command of Prince Paskevich, the Hungarians were defeated, the remnants of their forces surrendered in August 1849

[3] The Seven Years' War of 1756-1763., During which allied with Prussia and England opposed it as part of a coalition of Austria, France, Russia, Sweden and Saxony, was initiated by the Prussian King Frederick II, who sought to establish the hegemony of Prussia Central Europe. In 1760 Russian troops after a series of victories came to Berlin, putting Frederick II to the brink of disaster, but were recalled to Russia after the death of Empress Elizabeth of her successor of Peter III.

[4] Ahriman (Ahriman) — in Iranian mythology presiding deity of evil.

[5] Danilevsky adheres common in the XIX century. look to the ethnic unity of the Great Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians, seeing in them (including the population belonged to Austrian Galicia and Ugrian Russia) representatives of the united Russian people.

[6] This is about the inhabitants of the peninsula Wales (United Kingdom) with a Celtic origin.

[7] The peace treaty signed in Nishtadte (Finland), summed up the Northern War of 1700-1721. Russia, having gotten in her victory over Sweden, has regained the ancient Russian lands on the Neva river. Besides Ingria Ingrian Earth, it acquired "an everlasting possession" Karelia, Estonia and Livonia to the seaside from Vyborg to Riga.

[8] Ingermanlandia — another name Ingram.

[9] Dorpat (Dorpat, Estonian name Tartu) — an ancient Russian city of St. George, founded in the XI century. Kievan Prince Yaroslav the Wise.

[10] Liflyandskii nobleman I.-R. Patkul Swedes served first, then — the Saxons. As an ambassador of the Elector of Saxony in Moscow contributed to conclude an alliance between Russia, Poland and Saxony against Sweden, and in 1702 entered the service of Peter I. Nothing heroic in the Russian service Patkul did not commit.

[11] The various layers of Russian society in different ways greeted the news of the beginning of the Polish uprising of 1863 Russian revolutionary democrats have expressed their complete solidarity with the rebels. "When the revolution broke out in Poland — wrote Kropotkin — all in Russian thought that it would make the democratic and republican nature of the People's Zhond (created during the Polish uprising of the secret government. — SV) to free the broad democratic basis of peasants fighting for the independence of the fatherland. " However, this did not happen, and soon, "the radical part of Russian society with regret convinced that Poland prevail purely nationalist aspirations" (Kropotkin, PA Notes revolutionary. M., 1988. S. 188).

[12] June 25, 1807, Alexander I and Napoleon at Tilsit gathered for peace talks. A peace treaty (Treaty of Tilsit) established the division of areas: Western and Central Europe, ruled by Napoleon in Eastern Europe — the Russian Emperor. From taken from Prussia Polish territory was created Grand Duchy of Warsaw, Russia has received little Bialystok district.

[13] meets in Vienna after the collapse of Napoleonic France congress of representatives of the European powers decided to liquidate created by Napoleon the Great Duchy of Warsaw and on the division of the territory between Russia, Austria and Prussia. At the request of Alexander I, who dreamed of the restoration of Poland under the royal scepter of land ceded to Russia in May 1815 was founded the Kingdom of Poland (Congress Poland), called the "Congress of the kingdom."

[14] The term "marriage union of Lithuania and Poland" Danilevsky implies Krevsk Union in 1385, entered into in connection with the marriage of Grand Duke Jogaila of Lithuania and the Polish queen Jadwiga. Polish feudal lords, the organizers of the union, using it as a means of subjugation and exploitation of Galich and other Russian lands seized earlier Litvoy.V 1569 in Lublin between Poland and Lithuania was signed a new contract unitary (Union of Lublin), proclaimed the creation of a unified Polish-Lithuanian state — the Commonwealth.

[15] Under the terms of the Treaty of Andrusovo 1667, concluded between Russia and the Commonwealth, to retain the Russian Smolensk, left-bank Ukraine and Kiev, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine remained under the power of the Poles. In 1686, the government signed Sophia "perpetual peace" with Poland, which confirmed the terms of the armistice.

[16] A. Prince Czartoryski was one of the closest persons to Alexander I in the early years of his reign, he held in 1804-1806. Minister of Foreign Affairs, hoped to restore Poland to dynastic union with Russia. In the beginning. 60s. XIX century. with a similar program was made by the Polish aristocrat Marquis A. Wielopolski. In Russia for "cultural autonomy" of Poland, were at that time the liberal bureaucracy, headed by Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich.

[17] Polack in the Eastern Belarus went to Russia as a result of the first partition of Poland in 1772, Minsk and Vilnius -, respectively, in 1793 and in 1795

[18] That is, the King of Prussia, Frederick II.

[19] Bentamovsky utilitarian principle — the principle of utility as the basis and purpose of human activity, as articulated by the English philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832).

[20] A Treatise on the formation of the Holy Alliance was signed in Paris in September 1815 by Tsar Alexander I, the Austrian Emperor Franz I and the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III. "In the face of the whole world" monarchs pledged to be based on their actions, "the commandment holy religion, truth, mercy and peace." The act of the Holy Alliance was largely an expression of the mystical mood, which remained Russian tsar, who was greatly influenced by the well-known preacher, Baroness Yu Kryudner, predict the course of a number of important developments in Europe.

[21] The words of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus Christ (Matthew, 7.2).

[22] "Athenaeum" — a literary weekly, published in Moscow in 1858-1859. ed. EF Korsch.

[23] See note. 5 to this chapter.

[24] In fact, the Prussian Minister N. Hardenberg throughout the course of the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) actively opposed the plans of the restoration of Poland under Russian protectorate.

[25] This is the uprising of the Kingdom of Poland in 1830

[26] For all the subjectivity of approval Danilevsky the absence of internal causes of the Polish uprising of 1830. it contains a grain of truth. Poland had a special status that distinguishes it from other parts of the Russian Empire. In November 1815, Alexander I signed the constitution of the kingdom of Poland, which proclaimed the equality of people before the law, inviolability of person and property, freedom of the press and of religion. Poland had its own government, a bicameral Diet, kept his army. French historian of the end of XIX century. A. Rambaud, assessing the state of Russian Poland in the years 1815-1830., Wrote that "the first time in centuries, the country prospered." (See: History of the XIX century. Ed. Lavisse E. and A. Rambaud. At 8 vols, 1938. T. 3. S. 285-296.)

[27] King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon after the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of Judah captive captured the Jews to Babylon. The Babylonian exile, which lasted half a century, ended in 538 BC. e., when the Persian king Cyrus II, occupied Babylon, allowed the Jews to return to their homeland.

[28] The Crimean Tatars, who were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, attacked the southern outskirts of Russia until the second half of the XVIII century. In 1783, the last Crimean Khan Shahin Giray relinquished his authority and the Crimea was annexed to Russia.

[29] The Shah of Iran Faht Ali at the instigation of England twice, in 1804 and in 1826, went to war against Russia, but both times suffered a severe defeat.

[30] In 1859, Russian troops under the command of Prince AI Bariatinskii stormed the fortified aul Gunib, the last stronghold of Imam Shamil, the leader of the Caucasian highlanders. Finally, the resistance of the Caucasian tribes was broken imperial armies in the mid 60's. XIX century.

[31] "Celtic state" refers to Danilevsky Ireland won by Cromwell's army in the years 1649-1652. and then been transformed into an English colony.

[32] On the Seven Years' War see note. 3 to this chapter. The reason for Russia's participation in the war was not "slander" of the Prussian King Frederick II, and his desire to turn Poland into a vassal state, put his brother on the throne of the Duchy of Courland and settle in the Baltic States, which threatened Russian interests in the Baltic Sea.

[33] The participation of Russia in 1799, the second coalition war against France was marked by close victories that brought fame to Russian weapons. Alexander Suvorov crashed in northern Italy and the French army MacDonald Moreau Russian fleet under the command of f. f. Ushakov liberated from the French Ionian Islands. Calling the war in 1799 "an act of chivalry in the true spirit of the Maltese" Danilevsky alludes to the fact that Paul I, in addition to his royal title, was still grandmaster title Order of Malta, which he received from owning the Order of St. John of Jerusalem Knights of Malta.

[34] In 1810, Napoleon banished Duke of Oldenburg, Oldenburg attached to his possessions in Germany. This was a direct violation of the Treaty of Tilsit, where the independence of the Duchy of Oldenburg stipulated the particular item. The formal reason for such action was the failure to comply, "Continental System", ie, a system of measures aimed at the economic strangulation of England.

[35] This is the conversation that took place in Vilnius June 17, 1812 between Napoleon and the adjutant general of AD Balashov, sent Alexander to Napoleon I to present a written protest in connection with the transition of the French troops of the Neman and the start of hostilities.

G.-F.-K. Stein — Prussian minister. For his patriotic views were expelled by order of Napoleon, in 1812, he lived in Russia.

[36] In an effort to strengthen the empire he created, Napoleon gave the European thrones, their relatives and servants. Brother Jerome he made king of Westphalia, his other brother, Joseph (Joseph) — King of Spain, Marshal Murat, Napoleon was elevated to the throne of the kingdom of Naples.

[37] In 1809, Austria has launched a new war against France. Russia, after the Peace of Tilsit formally in alliance with France, shied away from the active help of Napoleon, limiting the concentration of troops near the Austrian border.

[38] Russian-Turkish war of 1828-1829. almost led to the occupation of Russian troops and the Straits of Constantinople, Adrianople, but the conditions of the world were unexpectedly light for Turkey has kept its protectorate over Serbia, Moldavia and Wallachia.

Danilevsky mentioned the Treaty of Paris was signed by the Allied Powers and France May 30, 1814

[39] See note. 2 to this chapter.

[40] The Holy Alliance shortly after its inception in 1815 has turned out three sovereigns agreement (see Note. 20 to this chapter) in the forum of most European monarchs. The weakening of the Sacred Union in the second half of the 20's. XIX century. occurred as a result of serious differences that have arisen among the participants due to the worsening of the Eastern question.

[41] After the defeat of Napoleonic France, Alexander I, excluding unwanted return to power of the Bourbon dynasty, spoke out in favor of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte (King of Sweden, in the past — one of Napoleon's marshals) as the most suitable candidate to the French throne. Forced to accept the candidacy of Louis XVIII Bourbon king insisted on the acceptance of the constitutional charter.

[42] In connection with the revolution in 1820 in Naples congresses of the Holy Alliance in Troppau (Opava) and Laibach (Ljubljana) on the initiative of Metternich-ha took the decision to intervene in the affairs of the Neapolitan. British Foreign Minister Sergei Kestlri publicly opposed the intervention, but secretly supported Metternich.

[43] The German writer, agent of the Russian government A.-F. Kotzebue was killed March 23, 1819 in Mannheim student K. Zandi.

[44] This refers to the conventions of the Holy Alliance in Troppau, Laibach and Verona (1820-1822 gg.).

[45] During the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Austria has concentrated on the border with Russia and a large army, threatening invasion, forced Nicholas I to withdraw troops from Moldova and Wallachia, after which the two principalities were occupied by the Austrians.

[46] Metternich actually managed to pull out at this time of the king's statement that since 1814 he had "done a lot of evil and will try to fix it." But the ostentatious nature of liberalism Alexander I revealed earlier, when the king has surrounded himself with AA Arakcheev known feudal.

[47] This is the peasant reform of 1861 and other reforms era of Alexander II.

[48] During the Civil War in the United States, Britain and France have supported the slave South. Russia, by contrast, has expressed his sympathy against the North. In 1863, two Russian naval squadron arrived in New York and San Francisco, where they were met by enthusiastic people.

[49] This refers to the anti-Russian campaign in Western Europe due to the uprising in 1863 in Poland.

[50] Madzinisty — supporters of Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872), leader of the revolutionary trend in the Italian national liberation movement.

Comments

[* 1] Here, by the way will be noted that Russia does not constitute a vast country in the world, as accustomed to think and speak. That honor undoubtedly belongs to the British government. To see this, one has only to count properly, even with a calendar in hand. The space of Russia, according to the latest reports, is about 375,000 square meters. miles. Let's see Further, as typed in all British possessions. In Europe 5570, 63,706 in Asia, in Africa, 6636, in South and Central America, 5326, in North America: Canada 64,000 with accessories and polar regions, with the exception of Greenland (20000) and former Russian possessions (24000) 130000, and finally in Australia for more than 150,000. Total a little over 425,000 square meters. miles, that is about 50,000 square meters. miles more than the whole of Russia. (…) — Note. auth.

[* 2] The inclusion in its membership, the accession. — Note. comp. Next are given without reference to the originator.

[* 3] Russian Vestnik., Feb. 1865 Art. prof. Soloviev: "Vienna Kong Ress" page 433 and 434. — Note. auth.

[* 4] Bogdanovich. East. the war in 1813. Volume I, page 2.-Note. Authors

[* 5] bestowed upon the monarch (from Fr. Octroi-award).

[* 6] mitigating circumstances (Fr.) Hereinafter translations from foreign languages made by the originator.

[* 7] if the cause has been corrected and the disease (Latin)

[* 8] Do you hold down the laughter, friends? (Latin).

[* 9] A sneaky Russian, bearded Russian (German).

NY Danilevsky Russia and Europe

Like this post? Please share to your friends: