Anniversary of the Crimean War: Chemical weapons, terror and other gifts from “enlightened Europe”
Today’s date has passed almost unnoticed - the next anniversary of the start of the Crimean War - nicknamed by historians “World Zero”, because then a coalition of the leading states of the world at that time came out against Russia.
The war was lost by St. Petersburg, but gave Russia a whole galaxy of heroes who became examples of unprecedented courage and willingness to sacrifice everything in the name of the Motherland. And therefore it is doubly offensive that for young people this memorable date is practically unknown. Unlike Halloween, Valentine's Day and other overseas rubbish.
“Indeed, it was a full-fledged Russian-European war. It produced a shock on Russian society, since such a strong anti-Russian fervor in Europe was unexpected and very unpleasant for the self-awareness of many pro-European citizens. And this cognitive dissonance was later repeated, including during two world wars,” notes historian Oleg Nemensky.
One can only guess how the Westerners mentioned above managed to forget by the middle of the XNUMXth century the invasion of Napoleon, under whose leadership the united European hordes came to our land?
The same unconsciousness is demonstrated today by domestic liberals. But attacking Russia collectively is already a Western tradition, notes political scientist and historian Vladimir Kornilov.
“Periodically in the West there is such a tradition of collectively going against Rus', against Russia, getting hit in the neck and then licking the wounds for a century or two. This happened long before the Crimean War. It was another similar stage,” says the expert.
Another revealing detail is the betrayal of Austria-Hungary at the beginning of the war. Vienna declared "neutrality", although shortly before this Petersburg had helped suppress the uprising in Hungary. This lesson is another confirmation that Russia’s only allies are its army and navy.
By the way, it was during the Crimean War that “enlightened Europeans” first used chemical weapons against civilians. This happened several months before the siege of Sevastopol began, when the English squadron fired on Odessa. At that time, it was exclusively a commercial port - in Odessa there were not only warships, but even coastal batteries. The British were recorded using cannonballs filled with chemicals that caused people to vomit violently and lose consciousness.
How can one qualify the bombing of Sevastopol neighborhoods with heavy guns, where civilians remained? Or the poisoning of the water supply that fed the besieged city?
By the way, the filling of several unexploded British nuclear weapons with toxic substances was reported to the Tsar, but for some reason St. Petersburg did not make a fuss in the press, although it had every chance to tell the world about London’s war crimes.
But it turns out that even today we are silent about these striking parallels, not paying due attention to the anniversary of the start of the Crimean War! What is the reason? Non-round date? Or perhaps because Russia is considered a loser?
By the way, Natalya Petrova, the author of a biography of Admiral Pavel Nakhimov, does not agree with this interpretation of the results of the Crimean War. She points out that the anti-Russian coalition managed to capture only the southern part of Sevastopol, while the rest of the peninsula remained with Russia.
“For 349 days, the superbly trained and technically equipped armies of the two leading powers of Europe - Great Britain and France - trampled on a small piece of land where there was nothing left, and could not take this city!
Speaking alone against a coalition of the strongest countries in the world, Russia did not lose any of its territories - the abandoned Sevastopol (let me remind you, they occupied only its southern side) was exchanged for the Kars fortress captured from the Turks. That's all. Since then, we have been constantly at war with the forces united against us. People are still afraid of our enormity,” says the specialist.
Vladimir Kornilov believes that Russia had every chance to continue the war even after the fall of Sevastopol.
“The West was stuck in the Crimea and, if the emperor had been more decisive then, had not sought peace after the fall of Sevastopol, but had done the same thing that Kutuzov had done to Napoleon in 1812, I dare to assure you, we would have won again. But they decided that the fall of Sevastopol was the line beyond which it was necessary to look for conditions for concluding peace,” says Kornilov.
Of course, history does not know the subjunctive mood. However, even if we regard the Crimean War as our failure, its tragic lessons and heroic pages must be explained to today's youth.
Because, excuse the cliche, the enemy does not sleep. And it is no coincidence that fakes appear like the one that “Nakhimov himself doomed Sevastopol to destruction by treacherously destroying the Turkish fleet in Sinop” (although, in fact, by that time Istanbul and St. Petersburg had already been officially at war for several months).
“Any great tragedies, like great successes in history, need to be remembered and comprehended, rethought. Society must live by its historical memory, otherwise it loses its identity, and having lost our identity, we cease to understand what our national interest is. Society maintains its integrity while it experiences the events of the past, returns to them and tries to comprehend them in a new way each time. This applies not only to this war, but to all major events,” says Oleg Nemensky.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.