What is Tolstoy's attitude towards war? What was Tolstoy's attitude towards the war? Negative characters in the novel

At the center of L. N. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” is an image of the Patriotic War of 1812, which shook the entire Russian people, showed the whole world its power and strength, and brought forward ordinary Russian heroes and the great commander - Kutuzov. At the same time, great historical upheavals revealed the true essence of each individual person and showed his attitude towards the Fatherland. depicts war like a realist writer: in hard work, blood, suffering, death.

Also, L. N. Tolstoy sought in his work to reveal the national significance of the war, which united the entire society, all Russian people in a common impulse, to show that the fate of the campaign was decided not in headquarters and headquarters, but in the hearts ordinary people: Platon Karataev and Tikhon Shcherbaty, Petya Rostov and Denisov...

Can you list them all? In other words, the battle painter paints a large-scale image of the Russian people who raised the “club” of the liberation war against the invaders. It’s interesting to know what Tolstoy’s attitude towards war is? According to Lev Nikolaevich, “war is the fun of idle and frivolous people,” and the novel “War and Peace” itself is an anti-war work, which once again emphasizes the senselessness of the cruelty of war, deathly and human suffering. The writer reveals his point of view in the novel in different ways, for example, through the thoughts of your favorite characters. The same Prince Andrei, who, lying under the sky of Austerlitz, is disappointed in his previous dreams of glory, power, about “his Toulon” (even his idol, now seems small and insignificant to Prince Bolkonsky). An important role in understanding author's position Regarding the war, there are comparisons between the bright forest nature and the madness of people killing each other. Involuntarily, a panorama of the Borodino field appears before our eyes: “the slanting rays of the bright sun... cast their dark, long shadows on it in the clear morning air, piercing with pink and golden hues. Further, the forests, completing the panorama, as if carved from some precious yellow-green stone, were visible with their curved line of peaks on the horizon... Closer, golden fields and copses glittered.” But this most wonderful picture of nature gives way to a terrible sight of battle, and all the fields are covered with “darkness of dampness and smoke”, the smell of “strange acid saltpeter and blood.” In the episode of the fight between the French and Russian soldiers over a banner, in the pictures of military hospitals, in the drawing up of dispositions for battles, we are once again convinced of L.N. Tolstoy’s negative attitude towards war. In his novel, the writer gives images of two wars: abroad in 1805-1807 and in Russia in 1812. The first, unnecessary and incomprehensible to the Russian people, was a war that was fought on someone else’s side. Therefore, in this war, everyone is far from patriotism: officers think about awards and glory, and soldiers dream of returning home as soon as possible. The second is of a completely different nature: it is a people’s war, a fair one. In it, patriotic feelings gripped various layers of Russian society: the merchant Ferapontov, who burned down his shop when the French occupied Smolensk so that nothing would go to the enemy, and the men Karn and Vlas, who refused to sell “for the good money that was offered to them, hay,” felt hatred for the enemy. ", and the Rostovs, who gave up carts for the wounded in Moscow, thus completing their ruin. Folk character the war of 1812 was particularly widely reflected in the spontaneous growth of partisan detachments, which began to form after the enemy entered Smolensk; It was they, according to Tolstoy, who “destroyed the great army piece by piece.” The author speaks of the partisan Denisov, the peasant Tikhon Shcherbat, “the most useful and brave man” in Vasily Dmitrievich’s detachment, and the brave but ruthless Dolokhov as outstanding heroes. A special place in the understanding of the “hidden warmth” of Russian patriotism is occupied by battle of Borodino , in which the Russian army won a moral victory over a numerically superior enemy. Russian soldiers understood that Moscow was behind them, they knew that the future of the Motherland depended on the upcoming battle. It is no coincidence that the French generals reported to Napoleon that “the Russians are holding their ground and producing hellish fire, from which the French army is melting,” “our fire is tearing them out in rows, but they are standing.” Fighting for Moscow, the symbolic city of Russia, Russian warriors were ready to hold their positions to the end - just to win. And this is most clearly shown by the author using the example of Raevsky’s battery, from which “crowds of wounded with faces disfigured by suffering walked, crawled and rushed on stretchers.” The French understood that they themselves were morally exhausted, devastated, and this is what later determined their complete defeat. Having reached Moscow, the French army would inevitably die from the mortal wound it received at Borodino. While Russian soldiers, not in word but in deed, contributed to the overall victory in the war, the regulars of St. Petersburg and Moscow salons were only capable of false patriotic appeals and speeches, thereby showing no interest in the fate of the Motherland. They were not given the ability to “realize the danger” and the difficult situation in which the Russian people found themselves. Tolstoy sharply condemns such “patriotism” and shows the emptiness and worthlessness of these people. Undoubtedly, the Patriotic War of 1812 played a significant role in the life of Prince Andrei and Pierre. Patriots of their Motherland, just like decent people, they took upon themselves a part of those trials and difficulties, the grief that befell the Russian people. And in many ways, the Battle of Borodino was, of course, a turning point in the lives of Prince Bolkonsky and Count Bezukhov. As an experienced combatant, Andrei was in his place in this battle and could still bring a lot of benefit. But fate, stubborn in its desire to destroy Bolkonsky, finally reached him. A senseless death from a stray grenade ended such a promising life. The Battle of Borodino was a great test for Pierre as well. Wanting to share the fate of the people of Russia, Count Bezukhov, not being a military man, took part in this battle. Before Pierre's eyes, people suffered and died, but not only death itself struck him, but also the fact that the soldiers no longer saw any savagery in the destruction of people by people. On the day of the battle, Count Bezukhov was given a lot by his last conversation with Prince Andrei, who realized that the true outcome of the battle depended not on the staff officers, but on the feeling that now lived in the heart of every Russian soldier. According to Tolstoy, not only the brilliant heroism and patriotism of the Russian people made a significant contribution to the victory, but also, undoubtedly, the commander-in-chief of the Russian army, Kutuzov, who was the favorite of soldiers and military officers. Outwardly he was a decrepit, weak old man, but strong and beautiful internally: the commander alone made bold, sober and correct decisions, did not think about himself, about honors and glory, setting himself only one task, which was his aspiration and desire: victory over a hated enemy. In the novel “War and Peace,” Tolstoy, on the one hand, shows the senselessness of war, shows how much grief and misfortune war brings to people, destroys the lives of thousands and thousands of people, on the other hand, shows the high patriotic spirit of the Russian people, who participated in the liberation war against French invaders, and won. In the novel “War and Peace” L.N. Tolstoy with all severity administers moral judgment over the high society and the bureaucratic elite of autocratic Russia. The value of a person, according to L.N. Tolstoy, is determined by three concepts: simplicity, kindness and truth. Morality, as the writer believes, is the ability to feel one’s “I” as part of the universal “we”. And Tolstoy’s favorite heroes are simple and natural, kind and warm-hearted, honest before people and their conscience. The writer sees completely differently people belonging to high society, “envious and stuffy for a free heart and fiery passions,” as M. Yu. Lermontov said. From the very first pages of the novel, we, the readers, find ourselves in the St. Petersburg drawing rooms of high society and get acquainted with the “cream” of this society: nobles, dignitaries, diplomats, ladies-in-waiting. Tolstoy tears away the veils of external brilliance and refined manners from these people, and their spiritual squalor and moral baseness appear before the reader. There is neither simplicity, nor goodness, nor truth in their behavior, in their relationships. Everything is unnatural, hypocritical in salon A. II. Scherer. Everything alive, be it a thought and feeling, a sincere impulse or a topical wit, extinguishes in a soulless environment. That is why the naturalness and openness in Pierre’s behavior frightened Scherer so much. Here they are accustomed to “decently pulled masks”, to a masquerade. Prince Vasily speaks lazily, like an actor in an old play, while the hostess herself behaves with artificial enthusiasm. Pierre felt like a boy in a toy shop. L.N. Tolstoy compares the evening reception at Scherer’s with a spinning workshop, in which “spindles made noise evenly and incessantly from different sides.” But in these “workshops” important matters are decided, state intrigues are woven, personal problems are solved, selfish plans are outlined: places are looked for for unsettled sons, like the idiot Ippolit Kuragin, profitable matches are outlined for marriage. In this light, as L.N. Tolstoy draws, “eternal inhuman enmity, the struggle for mortal blessings, boils.” Let us remember the distorted faces of the “mournful” Drubetskaya and the “gracious” Prince Vasily, when the two of them clutched the briefcase with the will at the bedside of the dying Count Bezukhov. And the hunt for Pierre, who has become a rich man?! After all, this is a whole “military operation”, carefully thought out by Scherer and Prince Vasily. Without waiting for Pierre and Helene’s explanation or matchmaking, Prince Vasily bursts into the room with an icon in his hands and blesses the newlyweds - the mousetrap slammed shut. The siege of Marya Bolkonskaya, a rich bride for the rogue Anatoly, begins, and only chance prevented the successful completion of this operation. What kind of love can we talk about when marriages are made out of open calculation? With irony, even sarcasm, L. N. Tolstoy draws the “declaration of love” of Boris Drubetsky and Julie Karagina. Julie knows that this brilliant but poor handsome man does not love her, but demands a full declaration of love for his wealth. And Boris, uttering the right words, thinks that it is always possible to arrange it so that he will see his wife extremely rarely. All techniques are good to achieve “fame, money and ranks.” You can join a Masonic lodge, pretending that you are close to the ideas of love, equality, and brotherhood. But in fact, people like Boris Drubetskoy entered this society with one goal - to make profitable acquaintances. And Pierre, a sincere and trusting man, soon saw that these people were not interested in questions of truth, the good of humanity, but in the uniforms and crosses that they sought in life. Lies and falsehood in relationships between people are especially hated by L. N. and Tolstoy. With what irony he talks about Prince Vasily, when he simply robs Pierre, appropriating income from his estates and keeping several thousand quitrents from the Ryazan estate. And all this under the guise of kindness and care for the young man, whom he cannot leave to the mercy of fate. Helen Kuragina, who became Countess Bezukhova, is also deceitful and depraved. She openly cheats on her husband and cynically declares that she does not want to have children from him. What could be more terrible than this in a woman? Even beauty and youth among people of high society take on a repulsive character, because this beauty is not warmed by spiritual warmth. They lie, playing at patriotism, Julie Karagina, who finally became Drubetskaya, and others like her. Their patriotism was manifested in their rejection of French cuisine, French theater and the humorous establishment of a fine for drinking French words. Let us remember with what enthusiasm the two-faced prince admires Vasily, saying with the pride of a prophet: “What did I say about Kutuzov? I have always said that he alone is capable of defeating Napoleon.” But when the news reached the courtiers that Moscow had been left to the French, Prince Vasily indisputably said that “it was impossible to expect anything else from a blind, depraved old man.” Tolstoy especially hated the imperial “game of war”: for Alexander the First, the actual battlefield and the parade on Tsaritsyn Meadow are one and the same thing (remember his dispute with Kutuzov before the Battle of Austerlitz). In the military environment, which L.N. Tolstoy knew well, careerism and fear of personal responsibility for decision. That is why many officers disliked the honest and principled Andrei Bolkonsky so much. Even on the eve of the Battle of Borodino, staff officers were concerned not so much about the possible result as about concerns about their future awards. They closely watched the weather vane of royal favor. With severe mercilessness, L. N. Tolstoy tore off the masks from representatives of high society, exposing the anti-people essence of their ideology - the ideology of human disunity, selfishness, vanity and contempt for people.

The central event of the novel “War and Peace” is the Patriotic War of 1812, which shook up the entire Russian people, showed the whole world its power and strength, brought forward simple Russian heroes and a brilliant commander, and at the same time revealed the true essence of each specific person.

Tolstoy in his work depicts war as a realist writer: in hard work, blood, suffering, death.

Here is a picture of the campaign before the battle: “Prince Andrei looked with contempt at these endless, interfering teams, carts, parks, artillery... from all sides, behind and in front, as long as he could hear, the sounds of wheels, the rumble of bodies, carts and carriages, and the clatter of horses were heard , blows with a whip, shouts of urging, cursing of soldiers, orderlies and officers... The soldiers, drowning knee-deep in mud, picked up guns and wagons in their hands...” Reading the description, we feel the enormous strain of human strength, the severity of labor, fatigue reaching the limit.

And here is a complex and multicolored picture of the Battle of Shengraben: “Infantry regiments, taken by surprise in the forest, ran out of the forest, and companies, mixing with other companies, left in disorderly crowds...” One can feel the chaotic nature of the escape of the Russian army, “... but at that moment the French, advancing on ours, suddenly, for no apparent reason, they ran back... and Russian riflemen appeared in the forest. It was Timokhin’s company... The runners returned, the battalions gathered, and the French were... pushed back.”

Elsewhere, “four unprotected cannons fired boldly” under the command of Staff Captain Tushin. Here a significant number of soldiers were killed, an officer was killed, two cannons were broken, a horse with a broken leg was struggling, and the artillerymen, having forgotten all fear, beat the French and set fire to the village they occupied. In this battle, as well as in the attack of Timokhin’s company, there was nothing particularly effective and nothing ostentatious; the people here were simply doing their duty, without thinking that they were heroes.

After the battle, “it was as if an invisible gloomy river was flowing in the darkness... In the general roar, due to all the other sounds, the moans and voices of the wounded were heard most clearly... Their groans seemed to fill all this darkness surrounding the troops. Their groans and the darkness of this night were one and the same.” War brings suffering and death to people. Started with aggressive goals, it is hateful and disgusting to Tolstoy. A just war can only be caused by absolute necessity. The Battle of Shengraben was necessary to save the Russian army, which was in a difficult situation. On the part of the Russians, the Patriotic War of 1812 was fair. The enemy entered Russia and advanced towards Moscow. An unknown soldier, expressing the general opinion of the Russians, told Pierre that they “want to attack the enemy with all the people; one word - Moscow. They want to make one end.”

The greatest manifestation of Russian patriotism was the Battle of Borodino, in which the Russian army defeated the French: “the Russians hold their ground and produce hellish fire, from which the French army melts.”

“Our fire is tearing them out in rows, but they are standing,” the adjutants reported to Napoleon. And Napoleon felt “how the terrible span of his arm fell magically and powerlessly.” In the episodes of the novel dedicated to the people's struggle for their national independence, there is no place for theatrical effects and beautiful phrases.

“From the time of the fire of Smolensk,” writes Tolstoy, “a war began that did not fit any previous legends of wars. The burning of cities and villages, retreat after battles, Borodin’s attack and retreat again, the fire of Moscow, catching marauders, rehiring transports, guerrilla warfare - all these were deviations from the rules.”

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 filled to the top with fog pine forests" 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 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 essentials 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 of subsequent events 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 “Grand 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.

Reflections on the causes of the war (based on the novel by L.N. Tolstoy “War and Peace”)

War is “an event contrary to human reason and all human nature.”

The War of 1812 is at the center of L.N.’s artistic design. Tolstoy in his brilliant epic novel “War and Peace” (1863-1869).

Man has an undeniable right to live on earth. Death in war is terrible and immoral: it takes away this right. The death of a hero who defended the fatherland may glorify his name, but this will not make its tragic meaning different: the person does not exist.

While the war is going on, “such a countless number of atrocities, deceptions, betrayals, thefts, forgeries and the issuance of false banknotes, arson and murders are committed, which in entire centuries will not collect the chronicle of all the courts of the world.”

But, from the point of view of the morality of war, these actions are not immoral: they were committed against a hated enemy, as well as in the name of the honor and glory of “our” side.

L.N. Tolstoy writes that from the end of 1811, “armament and concentration of forces” began in Western Europe, so that by the summer of 1812, formidable hordes of Russia’s enemies appeared at its borders. According to sources, there were 450 thousand people in Napoleon’s army, of which 190 thousand were French, the rest were a contingent of the allies.

Speaking about the causes of the war, Tolstoy names the main one. In the human environment, be it states, classes, social movements, moments arise when certain forces unite in order to create the preconditions for the emergence of some very important event. This event, due to its significance in people's lives, can change the world.

Thus, Napoleon’s wars with the Triple Alliance in 1805-1807. and the concluded Treaty of Tilsit in 1807 redrew the map of Europe. Napoleon initiated the economic blockade of England. Russia did not agree with the conditions of isolation of England, receiving military and financial assistance from it. With the knowledge of Napoleon, Russia established its influence in Finland contrary to the interests of Sweden. Napoleon promised independence to Poland, which ran counter to the interests of Russia, but inspired the Poles.

Conflicts due to clashes of interests arise not only between states. Heads of nations and armies, members of royal families, diplomats - these are the high-ranking people on whom it depends whether there will be a war or not. But, as Tolstoy writes, their authority and decisive the last word in the events that arose could only be an appearance.

It only seemed that the firmness of the Russian Emperor Alexander and the lust for power of Napoleon could push the situation towards a war between Western Europe and Russia. According to the writer, “billions of causes coincided to produce what was.” The horror of war is that its formidable and terrible mechanism, having gained momentum, mercilessly kills people.

“Millions of people, having renounced their feelings and their reason, had to go east from the West and kill their own kind...”

As a rule, it is the “great men”, the aggressors and invaders, who are to blame for the personal tragedies of those whom they attacked.

Tolstoy writes: “It is impossible to understand... why, because the Duke was offended, thousands of people from another region killed and ruined the people of the Smolensk and Moscow provinces and were killed by them.”

Tolstoy is a great humanist. He claims that a person’s personal life and, most importantly, the value of this life is above all. But if people are involved in a historical process common to everyone, then their environment becomes “spontaneous, swarm life.”

In this case, as they say, the masses make history. The people of France willingly supported Napoleon in his claims to foreign territories and the material wealth of other countries. And everyone believed that the costs of these wars would be repaid by the benefits received after the victory.

The soldiers of Napoleon's army expressed their love for their idol with joyful exclamations when, upon leaving the forest towards the Neman, they saw his figure.

But Emperor Alexander and the subjects of his state had completely different motivating circumstances that involved them in the bloody events of the war. main reason entry into the war on the part of the Russian world was one - the desire of the entire nation to defend independence native land at any cost.

“People's thought” was embodied in concrete deeds of the defenders of the Fatherland.

Tolstoy shows how different classes of Moscow unite in a common impulse during the arrival of the sovereign. The formation of the militia, the heroic but inglorious defense of Smolensk, the appointment of Kutuzov as commander of the army, the difficult retreat to Moscow, the Battle of Borodino as the culmination of events, the turning point in the war and the creation by Muscovites of conditions disastrous for the invaders, the partisan movement - through these efforts of the people, the entire nation, victory was created.

The powerful national upsurge in Russian society and Russia's victory in this war were conditioned and justified by the law of historical justice.

Searched here:

• https://site/vojna-i-mir-prichiny-vojny/
• causes Patriotic War in the novel war and peace

Tolstoy's novel partisan war French

Attitude of L.N. Tolstoy's approach to war is contradictory and ambiguous. On the one hand, the writer, as a humanist, considers war “the most disgusting thing in life,” unnatural, monstrous in its cruelty, “the purpose of which is murder,” a weapon — “espionage and treason, deception and lies, called stratagems.” War, according to Tolstoy, brings only violence and suffering, divides people and embitters them, forces them to transgress universal human rights. moral laws... And at the same time, Tolstoy, being a patriot, glorifies a war that “does not fit any previous legends,” a partisan war that “began with the enemy’s entry into Smolensk” and, according to the author, was one of the main reasons for the defeat of the French in Russia and the death of Napoleonic army. Tolstoy characterizes this “war not according to the rules” as spontaneous, comparing it with a club, “rising with all its formidable and majestic strength and, without asking anyone’s tastes and rules, nailed the French until the entire invasion was destroyed.” Generated by a “feeling of insult and revenge,” personal hatred of the French, which was experienced by the residents of Moscow, who left their homes and left the city so as not to submit to Napoleon’s army, and by the men who burned all their hay so that the French would not get it, the idea of ​​this war gradually spread to all levels of society. The awakened national consciousness and reluctance to be defeated by Napoleon united various classes in the struggle for freedom and independence of Russia. That is why partisan warfare is so diverse in its manifestations, and partisan detachments are so different from each other: “there were parties that adopted all the techniques of the army, with infantry, artillery, headquarters; there were some Cossacks, there were peasants and landowners.” Napoleon's Grand Army was destroyed piece by piece, thousands of Frenchmen - backward marauders, foragers - were exterminated by the partisans, their numerous "small, combined, foot and horse" detachments. The heroes of this war are representatives of different classes, having little in common, but united by the common goal of defending their homeland. This is the sexton, “who took several hundred prisoners a month,” the hussar Denis Davydov, “who took the first step” in legitimizing the partisan war, the elder Vasilisa, “who killed hundreds of French,” and, of course, Tikhon Shcherbaty. In the image of this partisan, Tolstoy embodies a certain type of Russian peasant, not meek and humble, like Platon Karataev, but unusually brave, not devoid of a good, moral principle in his soul, but in many ways acting instinctively. That’s why he easily kills the French, “does no harm to them, but he beat about two dozen marauders.” Tikhon Shcherbaty, “one of the most necessary, useful and brave people in the party,” he is distinguished by his dexterity and ingenuity: “No one else discovered cases of attack, no one else captured him and beat the French.” But at the same time, the reckless cruelty of Tikhon, who used to not use tongues and not take prisoners, but who beat his enemies not out of hatred and malice, but because of his underdevelopment, contradicts Tolstoy’s humanistic beliefs. This hero, as well as Dolokhov, who commanded a small party and fearlessly went on the most dangerous forays, is associated with a peculiar ideology of guerrilla warfare, reflected in the book. in the words of Prince Andrey: “The French ruined my house, they are my enemies, they are all criminals. They need to be executed. Dolokhov considered it “stupid courtesy”, “chivalry” to leave the French alive, who anyway “will die of hunger or be beaten by another party.” However, such a hero as Denisov, who released prisoners “on receipt”, “did not have a single person on his conscience” and “did not want to sully the honor of a soldier”, as well as Petya Rostov, “who felt love for all people”, who felt pity for Vincent Bosse , a young drummer taken prisoner, embody Tolstoy’s ideas of humanism, compassion and love for people. The laws of peace, according to the author, will certainly triumph over war, because hostility and hatred towards the enemy is replaced by pity and sympathy. So, after the battle of Krasnoye, Kutuzov appeals to the army with an appeal that “while the French were strong, they beat them, and now you can feel sorry for them, they are people too,” and the captured Italian admits to Pierre that “to fight with such a people as Russians are a sin, because they, having suffered so much from the French, do not even have any malice against them...”