Condemnation of war in the novel war. Portrayal of war in the novel War and Peace
Everywhere in the novel we see Tolstoy's disgust with war. Tolstoy hated murder - it didn’t matter in the name of what these murders were committed. There is no poeticization of the feat in the novel heroic personality. The only exception is the episode of the Battle of Shengraben and the feat of Tushin. Describing the War of 1812, Tolstoy poeticizes the collective feat of the people. Studying the materials of the war of 1812, Tolstoy came to the conclusion that no matter how disgusting the war is with its blood, loss of life, dirt, lies, sometimes the people are forced to wage this war, which may not touch a fly, but if it is attacked by a wolf, defending himself, he kills this wolf. But when he kills, he does not feel pleasure from it and does not consider that he has done something worthy of enthusiastic praise. Tolstoy reveals the patriotism of the Russian people, who did not want to fight according to the rules with the beast - the French invasion.
Tolstoy speaks with contempt about the Germans, in whom the instinct for self-preservation of the individual turned out to be stronger than the instinct for preserving the nation, that is, stronger than patriotism, and speaks with pride about the Russian people, for whom the preservation of their “I” was less important than the salvation of the fatherland. Negative types in the novel are those heroes who are openly indifferent to the fate of their homeland (visitors to Helen Kuragina’s salon), and those who cover up this indifference with a beautiful patriotic phrase (almost all of the nobility with the exception of a small part of it - people like Pierre, Rostov), as well as those for whom war is pleasure (Dolokhov, Napoleon).
The closest to Tolstoy are those Russian people who, realizing that war is a dirty, cruel, but in some cases necessary, do the great work of saving their homeland without any pathos and do not experience any pleasure in killing enemies. These are Bolkonsky, Denisov and many other episodic heroes. With special love, Tolstoy paints scenes of a truce and scenes where the Russian people show pity for the defeated enemy, concern for the captured French (Kutuzov’s call to the army at the end of the war - to take pity on the frostbitten unfortunate people), or where the French show humanity towards the Russians (Pierre on interrogation by Davout). This circumstance is connected with the main idea of the novel - the idea of the unity of people. Peace (the absence of war) unites people into one world (one common family), war divides people. So in the novel the idea is patriotic with the idea of peace, the idea of negating war.
Despite the fact that the explosion spiritual development Tolstoy happened after the 70s; in their infancy, many of his later views and moods can be found in works written before the turning point, in particular in “”. This novel was published 10 years before the turning point, and all of it, especially with regard to Tolstoy’s political views, is a phenomenon of a transitional moment for the writer and thinker. It contains the remnants of Tolstoy’s old views (for example, on war), and the germs of new ones, which will later become decisive in this philosophical system, which will be called “Tolstoyism.” Tolstoy's views changed even during his work on the novel, which was expressed, in particular, in the sharp contradiction of the image of Karataev, which was absent in the first versions of the novel and introduced only at the last stages of work, with the patriotic ideas and sentiments of the novel. But at the same time, this image was caused not by Tolstoy’s whim, but by the entire development of the moral and ethical problems of the novel.
With his novel, Tolstoy wanted to tell people something very important. He dreamed of using the power of his genius to spread his views, in particular his views on history, “on the degree of freedom and dependence of man on history,” he wanted his views to become universal.
How does Tolstoy characterize the War of 1812? War is a crime. Tolstoy does not divide combatants into attackers and defenders. “Millions of people committed such countless atrocities against each other..., which for centuries the chronicle of all the courts of the world will not collect and which, during this period of time, the people who committed them did not look upon as crimes.”
What, according to Tolstoy, is the reason for this event? Tolstoy cites various considerations of historians. But he does not agree with any of these considerations. “Every single reason or a whole series of reasons seems to us... equally false in its insignificance in comparison with the enormity of the event...” A huge, terrible phenomenon - war, must be generated by the same “huge” cause. Tolstoy does not undertake to find this reason. He says that “the more we try to rationally explain these phenomena in nature, the more unreasonable and incomprehensible they become for us.” But if a person cannot know the laws of history, then he cannot influence them. He is a powerless grain of sand in the historical stream. But within what boundaries is a person still free? “There are two sides of life in every person: personal life, which is the freer the more abstract its interests are, and spontaneous, swarm life, where a person inevitably fulfills the laws prescribed to him.” This is a clear expression of the thoughts in the name of which the novel was created: a person is free at any given moment to do as he pleases, but “a committed act is irrevocable, and its action, coinciding in time with millions of actions of other people, receives historical significance.”
Man is unable to change the course of swarm life. This is a spontaneous life, which means it is not amenable to conscious influence. A person is free only in his personal life. The more connected he is to history, the less free he is. "The king is a slave of history." A slave cannot command a master, a king cannot influence history. “In historical events, so-called people are labels that give a name to an event that, like labels, has least of all connections with the event itself.” These are Tolstoy's philosophical reasonings.
Napoleon himself sincerely did not want war, but he is a slave of history - he gave more and more new orders that accelerated the outbreak of war. A sincere liar, Napoleon is confident in his right to rob and is confident that the looted valuables are his rightful property. Enthusiastic adoration surrounded Napoleon. He is accompanied by “enthusiastic screams”, “thrilled with happiness, enthusiastic... huntsmen are jumping in front of him”, he puts the telescope on the back of the “happy page who ran up”. There is one general mood here. The French army is also some kind of closed “world”; The people of this world have their own common desires, common joys, but this is a “false common”, it is based on lies, pretense, predatory aspirations, on the misfortunes of something else common. Participation in this common pushes people to do stupid things and turns human society into a herd. Drawn by a single thirst for enrichment, a thirst for robbery, having lost their inner freedom, the soldiers and officers of the French army sincerely believe that Napoleon is leading them to happiness. And he, even more a slave of history than they, imagined himself to be God, for “it was not new to him the conviction that his presence at all ends of the world... equally amazes and plunges people into the madness of self-forgetfulness.” People tend to create idols, and idols easily forget that they did not create history, but history created them.
Just as it is unclear why Napoleon gave the order to attack Russia, Alexander’s actions are also unclear. Everyone was expecting war, “but nothing was ready” for it. “There was no common commander over all the armies. Tolstoy, as a former artilleryman, knows that without a “common commander” the army finds itself in a difficult situation. He forgets the philosopher's skepticism about the ability of one person to influence the course of events. He condemns the inaction of Alexander and his courtiers. All their aspirations “were aimed only at... having a good time, forgetting about the upcoming war.”
“I don’t know anyone who writes about war better than Tolstoy”
Ernest Hemingway
Many writers use real historical events for the plots of their works. One of the most frequently described events is war - civil, domestic, world. The Patriotic War of 1812 deserves special attention: Battle of Borodino, burning of Moscow, expulsion of the French Emperor Napoleon. Russian literature presents a detailed depiction of war in the novel “War and Peace” by L.N. Tolstoy. The writer describes specific military battles, allows the reader to see real historical figures, and gives his own assessment of the events that took place.
Causes of war in the novel "War and Peace"
L.N. Tolstoy in the epilogue tells us about “this man”, “without convictions, without habits, without traditions, without a name, not even a Frenchman...”, who is Napoleon Bonaparte, who wanted to conquer the whole world. The main enemy on his way was Russia - huge, strong. Through various deceitful ways, brutal battles, and seizures of territories, Napoleon slowly moved away from his goal. Neither the Peace of Tilsit, nor Russia's allies, nor Kutuzov could stop him. Although Tolstoy says that “the more we try to rationally explain these phenomena in nature, the more unreasonable and incomprehensible they become for us,” nevertheless, in the novel “War and Peace” the cause of the war is Napoleon. Standing in power in France, having subjugated part of Europe, he lacked great Russia. But Napoleon made a mistake, he did not calculate his strength and lost this war.
War in the novel "War and Peace"
Tolstoy himself presents this concept as follows: “Millions of people committed such countless atrocities against each other..., which the chronicle of all the courts of the world will not collect for centuries and which, during this period of time, the people who committed them did not look at as crimes.” . Through the description of the war in the novel “War and Peace,” Tolstoy makes it clear to us that he himself hates war for its cruelty, murder, betrayal, and meaninglessness. He puts judgments about war into the mouths of his heroes. So Andrei Bolkonsky says to Bezukhov: “War is not a courtesy, but the most disgusting thing in life, and we must understand this and not play at war.” We see that there is no pleasure, pleasure, or satisfaction of one’s desires from bloody actions against another people. It is definitely clear in the novel that war, as depicted by Tolstoy, is “an event contrary to human reason and all human nature.”
Main battle of the War of 1812
Even in volumes I and II of the novel, Tolstoy talks about the military campaigns of 1805-1807. The battles of Schöngraben and Austerlitz pass through the prism of the writer’s reflections and conclusions. But in the War of 1812, the writer puts the Battle of Borodino at the forefront. Although he immediately asks himself and his readers the question: “Why was the Battle of Borodino fought?
It didn’t make the slightest sense either for the French or for the Russians.” But it was the Battle of Borodino that became the starting point for the victory of the Russian army. L.N. Tolstoy gives a detailed idea of the course of the war in War and Peace. He describes every action of the Russian army, physical and state of mind soldier. According to the writer’s own assessment, neither Napoleon, nor Kutuzov, much less Alexander I, expected such an outcome of this war. For everyone, the Battle of Borodino was unplanned and unexpected. The heroes of the novel do not understand what the concept of the War of 1812 is, just as Tolstoy does not understand, just as the reader does not understand.
Heroes of the novel "War and Peace"
Tolstoy gives the reader the opportunity to look at his heroes from the outside, to see them in action in certain circumstances. Shows us Napoleon before entering Moscow, who was aware of the disastrous position of the army, but moved forward towards his goal. He comments on his ideas, thoughts, actions.
We can observe Kutuzov, the main executor of the people's will, who preferred “patience and time” to the offensive.
Before us is Bolkonsky, reborn, morally grown and loving his people. Pierre Bezukhov, in a new understanding of all the “causes of human troubles,” arrived in Moscow with the aim of killing Napoleon.
Militia men “with crosses on their hats and in white shirts, talking loudly and laughing, animated and sweaty,” ready at any moment to die for their homeland.
Before us is Emperor Alexander I, who finally gave “the reins of control of the war” into the hands of the “all-knowing” Kutuzov, but still does not fully understand the true position of Russia in this war.
Natasha Rostova, who abandoned all family property and gave carts to wounded soldiers so that they had time to leave the destroyed city. She takes care of the wounded Bolkonsky, giving him all her time and affection.
Petya Rostov, who died so absurdly without real participation in the war, without a feat, without a battle, who secretly “enlisted in the hussars” from everyone. And many, many more heroes who meet us in several episodes, but are worthy of respect and recognition of true patriotism.
Reasons for victory in the War of 1812
In the novel, L.N. Tolstoy expresses thoughts about the reasons for Russia’s victory in the Patriotic War: “No one will argue that the reason for the death of Napoleon’s French troops was, on the one hand, their entry at a late time without preparation for a winter campaign deep into Russia, and on the other hand, on the other hand, the character that the war took on from the burning of Russian cities and the incitement of hatred of the enemy among the Russian people.” For the Russian people, victory in the Patriotic War was a victory of the Russian spirit, Russian strength, Russian faith in any circumstances. The consequences of the War of 1812 were severe for the French side, namely for Napoleon. It was the collapse of his empire, the collapse of his hopes, the collapse of his greatness. Napoleon not only failed to take over the whole world, he could not stay in Moscow, but fled ahead of his army, retreating in disgrace and the failure of the entire military campaign.
My essay on the topic “Depiction of war in the novel “War and Peace”” very briefly talks about the war in Tolstoy’s novel. Only after carefully reading the entire novel can you appreciate all the skill of the writer and discover interesting pages for yourself military history Russia.
Work test
Let us recall that these warnings were expressed by Tolstoy in recent years last century, less than two decades before the outbreak of the First World War, which brought “terrible disasters” to humanity. The writer condemned the indifference with which most of his contemporaries observed the preparations for war, which were increasingly unfolding openly in European countries. He called for the most decisive and effective measures to be taken against the aggressors in order to force them to abandon their dangerous plans. “And before our eyes,” wrote Tolstoy, “these<безбожные, несчастные>- crazy people dressed in uniforms and ribbons, called monarchs and ministers, make parades, reviews, maneuvers, forcing people prepared for this to shoot, stab imaginary enemies, rewarding those who do it better, who come up with more cruel means of killing and force them to stab , shoot these same imaginary enemies. Why do we leave these people alone, and don’t rush at them and put them in restraint institutions? After all, isn’t it obvious that they are planning and preparing the most terrible crime and that if we don’t stop them now, the crime will be committed not today, but tomorrow.”
The article “To the Italians” was not completed and did not appear in print during the writer’s lifetime. But her main thoughts were transferred to other journalistic works of the late Tolstoy, which quickly gained international fame.
The armed conflicts of the early 20th century, in particular the Russo-Japanese War, which broke out in 1904, served as a serious test for supporters of peace. Many pacifists, frightened by it, experienced severe disappointment in the activities of international peace organizations, fell into despair, and began to look at the war as an inevitable and inescapable disaster.
In a conversation with Burdon, Tolstoy expressed distrust of the idea of arbitration in international disputes expressed by participants in the 1899 Hague Peace Conference. He recalled that the person who took the initiative to create the Hague Tribunal to consider international conflicts is “now sending a whole people to fight.” In saying this, the writer had in mind the Russian Emperor Nicholas II. Tolstoy said that he sees salvation from war not in “diplomatic combinations”, but “in the conscience of every person, in a firm understanding of the duty that everyone is obliged to bear within himself...”.
Concluding a conversation with a French journalist, Tolstoy made the following confession: “I want love for peace to cease to be a timid aspiration of peoples horrified at the sight of the disasters of war, but so that it becomes an unshakable demand of an honest conscience...”
This is a very important recognition, defining with great accuracy the position of Tolstoy, which he occupied at a time when the peace movement was subjected to the most severe trials. Unlike many pacifists, his contemporaries, during difficult years Tolstoy not only did not stop actively fighting for peace, but also intensified the struggle, using every opportunity to do this - be it a private letter, a conversation with visitors to Yasnaya Polyana, a magazine article or an international conference.
The writer believed that anti-militaristic propaganda and the growth of people's consciousness caused by the expansion of interethnic and international relations would lead to curbing the arms race and minimizing the possibility of military clashes. “The consciousness of the evil, the uselessness, the absurdity of war,” Tolstoy said in 1904, “is increasingly penetrating the public consciousness: so, perhaps, the time is near when wars will become impossible, no one will fight.”
However, the writer least of all expected that the danger of war might disappear on its own. He resolutely warned both his contemporaries and future generations of people that “war will not destroy itself,” and tried to do everything in his power to ensure that thousands and millions of peace supporters rose up to fight it.
In July 1909, Tolstoy received an invitation to come to the Swedish capital Stockholm and take part in the peace congress, which was to take place a month later. The writer, who was then 81 years old, decided to go to Stockholm and speak at the congress with a report on the military danger threatening humanity and measures to combat it.
In his report to the Stockholm Peace Congress, Tolstoy appeals to millions of ordinary people not to take up arms and not shed blood in fratricidal wars.
This is one of Tolstoy's strongest anti-militaristic works. In it, the writer appeared as a “fierce enemy of war” * who “spoke in the language of a peace fighter not because he was a pacifist and non-resistance, but because he was a classical realist.”
Tolstoy's report is imbued with the conviction that warriors are not inevitable, and with confidence in the victory of the forces of peace over the forces of war. “...Our victory,” says the writer, “is as certain as the victory of the light of the rising sun over the darkness of the night.”
These optimistic words of Tolstoy inspired and continue to inspire all people of good will who are fighting to ensure that aggressive wars are forever excluded from the lives of nations.
The theme of war in the great epic novel “War and Peace” begins with an image of the war of 1805 by L.N. Tolstoy shows both the careerism of staff officers and the heroism of ordinary soldiers, modest army officers, such as Captain Tushin. Tushin's battery took the full brunt of the French artillery strike, but these people did not flinch, did not abandon the battlefield even when they were given the order to retreat - they also took care not to leave the guns to the enemy. And the courageous captain Tushin timidly remains silent, afraid to object to the senior officer in response to his unfair reproaches, afraid to let down another superior, does not reveal the true state of affairs and does not justify himself. L.N. Tolstoy admires the heroism of the humble artillery captain and his fighters, but he shows his attitude to the war by depicting the first battle of Nikolai Rostov, then still a newcomer in the hussar regiment. There is a crossing over the Enns near its confluence with the Danube, and the author depicts a landscape of remarkable beauty: “blue mountains beyond the Danube, a monastery, mysterious gorges, pine forests filled to the top with fog.” In contrast to this is what happens next on the bridge: shelling, groans of the wounded, stretchers... Nikolai Rostov sees this through the eyes of a man for whom war has not yet become a profession, and he is horrified by how easily the idyll and beauty of nature are destroyed. And when he first meets the French in open battle, the first reaction of an inexperienced person is bewilderment and fear. “The enemy’s intention to kill him seemed impossible,” and Rostov, frightened, “grabbed a pistol and, instead of shooting from it, threw it at the Frenchman and ran to the bushes as best he could.” “One inseparable feeling of fear for my young one, happy life took over his entire being." And the reader does not condemn Nikolai Rostov for cowardice, sympathizing with the young man. The writer’s anti-militaristic position was manifested in the way L.N. shows. Tolstoy’s attitude towards the war of soldiers: they do not know what and with whom they are fighting, the goals and objectives of the war are incomprehensible to the people. This was especially evident in the depiction of the war of 1807, which, as a result of complex political intrigues, ended with the Peace of Tilsit. Nikolai Rostov, who visited his friend Denisov in the hospital, saw with his own eyes the terrible situation of the wounded in hospitals, dirt, illness, and the lack of the most necessary things to care for the wounded. And when he arrived in Tilsit, he saw the fraternization of Napoleon and Alexander I, ostentatious rewarding of heroes on both sides. Rostov cannot get out of his head the thoughts of Denisov and the hospital, of Bonaparte, “who was now the emperor, whom Emperor Alexander loves and respects.”
And Rostov is frightened by the naturally arising question: “Why are the torn off arms, legs, and killed people?” Rostov does not allow himself to go further in his thoughts, but the reader understands the author’s position: condemnation of the meaninglessness of war, violence, and the pettiness of political intrigue. War of 1805-1807 he assesses it as a crime of the ruling circles against the people.
The beginning of the War of 1812 is shown by JI.H. Thick as the beginning of a war, no different from others. “An event contrary to human reason and all human nature took place,” writes the author, discussing the causes of the war and not considering them to be in any way justified. It is incomprehensible to us that millions of Christian people would kill and torture each other “due to political circumstances.” “It is impossible to understand what connection these circumstances have with the very fact of murder and violence,” says the writer, confirming his idea with numerous facts.
The nature of the war of 1812 has changed since the siege of Smolensk: it became a people's war. This is convincingly confirmed by the scenes of the fire in Smolensk. The merchant Ferapontov and the man in the frieze overcoat, setting fire to barns with bread with their own hands, the manager of Prince Bolkonsky Alpatych, the residents of the city - all these people, with “animated joyful and exhausted faces” watching the fire, are seized by a single patriotic impulse, the desire to resist the enemy. The best of the nobles experience the same feelings - they are united with their people. Prince Andrei, who once refused to serve in the Russian army after deep personal experiences, explains his changed point of view: “The French have ruined my house and are going to ruin Moscow, and have insulted and insulted me every second. They are my enemies, they are all criminals, according to my standards. And Timokhin and the whole army think the same.” This united patriotic impulse is especially clearly shown by Tolstoy in the scene of a prayer service on the eve of the Battle of Borodino: soldiers and militias “monotonously greedily” look at the icon taken from Smolensk, and this feeling is understandable to any Russian person, as Pierre Bezukhov understood it when he toured the positions near the Borodino field. This same feeling of patriotism forced the people to leave Moscow. “They went because for the Russian people there could be no question: whether it would be good or bad under the rule of the French in Moscow. It was impossible to be under the control of the French: it was the worst thing,” writes L.N. Tolstoy. Having a very extraordinary view of the event of that time, the author believed that it was the people who were the driving force of history, since their hidden patriotism is not expressed in phrases and “unnatural actions”, but is expressed “imperceptibly, simply, organically and therefore always produces the strongest results.” . People left their property, like the Rostov family, they gave all the carts to the wounded, and to do otherwise seemed shameful to them. “Are we some kind of Germans?” - Natasha is indignant, and the countess-mother asks her husband for forgiveness for recent reproaches that he wants to ruin the children without caring about the property left in the house. People burn houses with all their goods so that the enemy does not get it, so that the enemy does not triumph - and achieve their goal. Napoleon is trying to rule the capital, but his orders are sabotaged, he is completely out of control of the situation and, according to the author’s definition, “is like a child who, holding on to the strings tied inside the carriage, imagines that he rules.” From the writer’s point of view, the role of an individual in history is determined by the extent to which this individual understands his relevance to the course of the current moment. It is precisely because Kutuzov feels the mood of the people, the spirit of the army and monitors its changes, corresponding to it with his orders, explains L.N. Tolstoy is the success of a Russian military leader. No one except Kuguzov understands this need to follow the natural course of events; Ermolov, Miloradovich, Platov and others - everyone wants to speed up the defeat of the French. When the regiments went on the attack near Vyazma, they “beat and lost thousands of people,” but “they did not cut off or overthrow anyone.” Only Kutuzov, with his senile wisdom, understands the uselessness of this offensive: “Why all this, when one third of this army melted away from Moscow to Vyazma without a battle?” “The club of the people’s war rose with all its formidable and majestic strength,” and the entire course further developments confirmed this. The partisan detachments united officer Vasily Denisov, demoted militiaman Dolokhov, peasant Tikhon Shcherbaty - people of different classes. But it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the great common cause that united them - the destruction of Napoleon's "Great Army".
It is necessary to note not only the courage and heroism of the partisans, but also their generosity and mercy. The Russian people, destroying the enemy army, were able to pick up and feed the drummer boy Vincent (whose name they changed to Vesenny or Visenya), and warm Morel and Rambal, an officer and an orderly, by the fire. Kutuzov’s speech near Krasny is about the same thing - about mercy for the vanquished: “While they were strong, we did not feel sorry for ourselves, but now we can feel sorry for them. They are people too." But Kutuzov had already played his role - after the expulsion of the French from Russia, the sovereign no longer needed him. Feeling that “his calling had been fulfilled,” the old military leader retired from business. Now the old political intrigues of those in power begin: the sovereign, the Grand Duke. Politics requires continuing the European campaign, which Kutuzov did not approve of, for which he was dismissed. In the assessment of L.N. Tolstoy’s foreign campaign was possible only without Kutuzov: “The representative of the people’s war had no choice but death. And he died."
Appreciating people's war, which united people “for the salvation and glory of Russia”, J1.H. Tolstoy condemns a war of European significance, considering the interests of politics unworthy of man's purpose on earth, and the manifestation of violence as inhumane and unnatural to human nature.
The idea for the novel "War and Peace" originated with Tolstoy back in 1856. The work was created from 1863 to 1869.
The confrontation with Napoleon in 1812 is the main event in the history of the early 19th century. The role was very important. Philosophical thought Leo Tolstoy was embodied largely thanks to her image. In the composition of the novel, war occupies a central place. Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy connects the fates of most of his heroes with her. The war became a decisive stage in their biography, the highest point in spiritual formation. But this is the climax of not only everyone storylines works, but also historical plot, in which the fate of the entire people of our country is revealed. The role will be discussed in this article.
War is a test not carried out according to the rules
It became a test for Russian society. Lev Nikolaevich considers the Patriotic War as an experience of a non-class living unity of people. It occurred on a national scale based on the interests of the state. In the writer's interpretation, the War of 1812 is a people's war. It began with the fire in the city of Smolensk and did not fit any legends of previous wars, as Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy noted. The burning of villages and cities, the retreat after numerous battles, the fire of Moscow, Borodin's attack, catching marauders, rehiring transport - all this was a clear deviation from the rules. From a political game waged in Europe by Napoleon and Alexander I, the war between Russia and France turned into a people's war, on the outcome of which the fate of the country depended. At the same time, the senior military leadership turned out to be unable to control the condition of the units: its dispositions and orders did not correlate with the actual state of affairs and were not carried out.
The paradox of war and historical pattern
Lev Nikolayevich saw the main paradox of the war in the fact that Napoleon’s army, having won almost all the battles, ultimately lost the campaign and collapsed without noticeable activity on the part of the Russian army. The content of the novel "War and Peace" shows that the defeat of the French is a manifestation of the pattern of history. Although at first glance it may inspire the idea that what happened is irrational.
The role of the Battle of Borodino
Many episodes of the novel "War and Peace" describe military actions in detail. At the same time, Tolstoy tries to recreate a historically accurate picture. One of the main episodes Patriotic War- this, of course, It made no sense either for the Russians or for the French from a strategic point of view. Tolstoy, arguing for his own position, writes that the immediate result should have been and was for the population of our country that Russia was dangerously close to the death of Moscow. The French almost destroyed their entire army. Lev Nikolaevich emphasizes that Napoleon and Kutuzov, accepting and giving the Battle of Borodino, acted senselessly and involuntarily, while submitting to historical necessity. The consequence of this battle was the causeless flight of the conquerors from Moscow, the return along the Smolensk road, the death of Napoleonic France and the 500,000-strong invasion, which was for the first time attacked by an enemy with the strongest spirit at Borodino. This battle, therefore, although it did not make sense from the position, was a manifestation of the inexorable law of history. It was inevitable.
Leaving Moscow
The residents of Moscow leaving is a manifestation of the patriotism of our compatriots. This event, according to Lev Nikolaevich, is more important than the retreat of Russian troops from Moscow. This is an act of civic consciousness demonstrated by the population. Residents, not wanting to be under the rule of a conqueror, are ready to make any sacrifices. In all cities of Russia, and not just in Moscow, people left their homes, burned cities, and destroyed their own property. The Napoleonic army encountered this phenomenon only in our country. Residents of other conquered cities in all other countries simply remained under the rule of Napoleon, and even provided a solemn reception to the conquerors.
Why did residents decide to leave Moscow?
Lev Nikolaevich emphasized that the population of the capital left Moscow spontaneously. A sense of national pride motivated the residents, not Rostopchin and his patriotic “tricks.” The very first to leave the capital were educated, wealthy people who knew very well that Berlin and Vienna remained intact and that during the occupation of these cities by Napoleon, the inhabitants spent fun time with the French, whom Russian men and, of course, women loved at that time. They could not have acted differently, since for our compatriots there was no question of whether things would be good or bad in Moscow under the rule of the French. It was impossible to be at the mercy of Napoleon. This was simply unacceptable.
Features of the partisan movement
An important feature was the scale of what Leo Tolstoy calls “the club of the people’s war.” The people beat the enemy unconsciously, the way dogs kill a rabid runaway dog (comparison by Lev Nikolaevich). People destroyed the great army piece by piece. Lev Nikolaevich writes about the existence of various “parties” (partisan detachments), the only goal of which is to expel the French from Russian soil.
Without thinking about the “course of affairs,” intuitively the participants in the people’s war acted as historical necessity dictated. The true goal pursued by the partisan detachments was not to completely destroy the enemy army or capture Napoleon. Only as a fiction of historians who study the events of that time from letters of generals and sovereigns, from reports, reports, in Tolstoy’s opinion, did such a war exist. The purpose of the “club” was a task understandable to every patriot - to clear their land from invasion.
Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy's attitude to war
Tolstoy, justifying the people's liberation war of 1812, condemns the war as such. He evaluates it as contrary to the whole nature of man, his reason. Any war is a crime against all humanity. On the eve of the Battle of Borodino, Andrei Bolkonsky was ready to die for his fatherland, but at the same time condemned the war, believing that it was “the most disgusting thing.” This is a senseless slaughter. The role of war in War and Peace is to prove this.
Horrors of war
In Tolstoy's depiction, 1812 is a historical test that the Russian people passed with honor. However, this is at the same time suffering and grief, the horrors of extermination of people. Everyone experiences moral and physical torment—the “guilty” and the “right,” both the civilian population and the soldiers. By the end of the war, it is no coincidence that the feeling of revenge and insult is replaced in the soul of Russians by pity and contempt for the defeated enemy. And the destinies of the heroes were reflected in the inhumane nature of the events of that time. Petya and Prince Andrei died. The death of her youngest son finally broke Countess Rostova, and also accelerated the death of Count Ilya Andreevich.
This is the role of war in the novel War and Peace. Lev Nikolaevich, as a great humanist, of course, could not limit himself to patriotic pathos in her depiction. He condemns war, which is natural if you read his other works. The main features of the novel "War and Peace" are characteristic of the work of this author.
