You need to know the history of your country. Moreover, it is vital. We must not forget its black pages in order to prevent their repetition. It is important to know about the bright pages so that such distortions in the mass consciousness do not arise, which we have observed in Russia in recent years. Namely, shying away from "sprinkling ashes on our heads" for the "sins" of which we have never committed, to destructive jingoistic patriotism, in which hot heads are ready to perform religious processions and be proud of the merits of our ancestors.
The fact is that the merits of fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers are not ours, but theirs. Therefore, one should remember about the victories of great-grandfathers, but not stick out, so as not to become a laughing stock in the eyes of sane people. Pride in the country's past is akin to underwear. It is necessary to wear it, but showing it to others is immoral. Culturally mature people with long traditions will never take offense at those who divide the world into good and bad nations. A wise people will never boast of the great achievements of their ancestors. But in order to acquire these qualities, you need to know your history. Truthful. Without embellishment, and without inventions of foreigners, picked up by domestic historians.
Now in Russia, interest in the history of Alaska has again sharpened, and it is impossible not to notice one general line that can be traced in all publications without exception. Everyone certainly emphasizes the fact that Alaska has never been a territory of Russia, but there was just a colony run by a joint-stock company, etc. However, Russian colonies existed along the entire western coast of North America, in the territories of the modern states of Washington, Colorado and California. These territories have never been designated as part of the Russian Empire on maps.
Meanwhile, Alaska and the Aleutian Islands were designated. Suggestive? So in a joke, "The government of Alaska has decided to rename its state to Ice Crimea", just a joke. But what I will tell you next is generally known to one out of a hundred, if not out of a thousand. Speech about the Russian province in the Mediterranean:
Santorini island. Cyclades Islands, Greece.
So, in order. In November 1770, the Russian armada of the Black Sea fleet, consisting of five squadrons, passed by the islands in the Aegean Sea. The purpose of that campaign now seems very vague. With whom they were going to fight with such huge forces at that time is not very clear, although historians claim that we fought with the Turks.
Admiral Samuel Karlovich Greig commanded the campaign. There were a huge number of English and Danes in the service of Catherine II. You need to understand that in the eighteenth century in the Russian army and navy, if they can be called Russians at all, of course, all those whom we now call foreigners served, and this is a reason for a separate study.
Admiral S. K. Greig. (Unknown artist)
Promotional video:
And here is the first question: if Admiral Greig, Baron Munchausen, and even the famous Admiral Nelson received salaries from St. Petersburg, then it means that there were simply no other armies in Europe? At least comparable in combat capability with the Russian? It turns out that all the wars between France and Britain and Gishpania were just local squabbles of neighbors. And real wars were fought with the armies of Yemelyan Pugachov and Osman III. The conclusion suggests itself then that Europe had two enemies in the 18th century - Visantia and Tartaria.
By the way, according to the official version, the campaign was led by Admiral Grigory Spiridov, and the curator was Count Alexey Orlov.
Admiral Grigory Andreevich Spiridov.
Count Alexey Grigorievich Orlov-Chesmensky.
Probably, the fact of distortion of history took place only in the "interests of the Russian people." Well, why should he suffer and memorize unspoken surnames? And in the textbooks now, the glorious Russian admiral Greig is given the place of a simple captain - commander, commander of the flagship battleship "Three Hierarchs" (66 guns). And on the bowsprit of the flagships of the Russian fleet of that time, there was such a jack:
Then it was called the Kaiser flag.
This leads to a logical question: - What jacks were on the ships of the British Empire? You can easily find the modern bowsprit flag of Great Britain, but I could not find data on its image in the 18th century. Hence the version: England did not have its own symbols, and its own navy did not exist, and the fact that Admiral Nelson served the Russian Empire can be evidence of this. A salary was sent to him from the St. Petersburg Admiralty, and even a column with a monument on Trafalgar Square in London was installed with funds from the Russian treasury.
Column of Admiral Nelson. London.
Is the meaning of the word "colonization" clear to everyone? Experience tells us not. Let me explain. Colonization is when an official subject of a monarch "pillars" a territory, figuratively and locally. He installs a column with the symbol of his lord, and thus makes it clear to everyone who comes here after that this territory is already a colony of the one whose symbol is indicated on the column present here.
Nowadays, the meaning of this has long been forgotten, and the columns are placed everywhere, all and sundry, with or without reason. But when Nelson's column was being built, it still had its original meaning, and one must assume that St. Petersburg considered Britain its colony! At first glance, this is an insane assumption, but if we recall the content of Ivan the Terrible's letters to Queen Elizabeth of England, from which it is clear that he considered the London court his vassal (“… You are in your maiden title, like any simple girl. I would have participated in our business, but he cheated on us, you shouldn't have believed.”), and considering that the British officers were in the service of the Russian emperor, everything becomes simple and clear.
When did the Russian fleet cease to be a single whole and stand out as an independent one? The answer to the question can be given by the date of appearance of such a Kaiser flag:
Today it is called the "serf flag", but this is a real falsification. A few years ago, information about this Kaiser flag was publicly available, but when I tried to confirm with a reference to the source to substantiate my statement, I completely failed. There is no more information about the original role of this most curious symbol, other than that contained in official encyclopedias and reference books. In the same way, information that Admiral Nelson was in the service in the St. Petersburg Admiralty disappeared. But back to the symbolism.
In my opinion, they made it quite clear to everyone that Russia is the legal successor of Great Tartary. Over the flag, which was firmly entrenched in Britain as the "Union Jack", they sewed the pre-Petrine Russian banner - a black two-headed eagle on a gold background. Let me remind you that earlier, on the banner of Great Tartary, instead of an eagle, there was a black griffin. Apparently from that moment the process that ended with the “Great October Socialist Revolution” began.
For two hundred years Britain fought for a way out from under the protectorate of Russia, and achieved its goal only when the last Russian emperor Nicholas II disappeared. Note that the royal regalia and the Romanov family jewels immediately ended up in London. British intelligence agent Albert Stopford removed from Petrograd in 1917. 224 items from the royal treasury. Elizabeth II considers the crown, which previously belonged to the last Russian empress Alexandra Fedorovna, to be her favorite. Now you understand the meaning of transferring the prime meridian from Pulkovo to Greenwich? In my opinion, it is obvious. Whoever owns the scepter, orb and crown, he owns the whole world, and he owns the zero meridian.
Crown of the Russian Empire on the head of the Queen of Great Britain.
How is it? Does my assumption that Britain was a vassal of Russia still seem insane? However, back to where we started.
So, imagine an armada of five squadrons, which includes 21 battleships, 5 frigates, and about two dozen bombers, packet boats, kicks, transports and small vessels. Here's a little naval educational program:
They were walking, admiring the delights of seascapes, and then suddenly it was the Count Orlov's itching to stick to the rocky island. Maybe it made him feel sick, or maybe something else made him. After all, the islands were completely wild. No buildings, no trees, just stone hills in the sea. They landed … It turned out that this is the island of Paros. Sounds nice. Doesn't it look like anything?
It turned out that there are ruins in abundance on the island, fragments of marble columns of statues … "Just like we have in Azov and Taurida"! - thought the ideological inspirer of the campaign, Count Orlov. I just thought, and then the natives run up to him. Hungry, grimy, dressed in rags, and shouting in eager rivalry:
- Where are you from? Who it?
- I, brothers from Russia! Count Orlov!
- Have something to eat?
- No, poor fellows! For you - only tea!
The aborigines became sad, wept, and such a speech is made: - "Well, if we all get a Russian passport at once, then Russia will feed us delicious bread"?
And then everything was as usual. Catherine was not in vain called the "Great", quickly and without delay gave citizenship to all interested inhabitants of the island, which is located in the center of a strategically important archipelago in the Aegean Sea, which is a natural grouping of forts on the outskirts of Turkey and the Bosporan Strait. That is, no matter how Turkey puffed up, owning the "key to the Black Sea", all of its geographical superiority was reduced to zero in one fell swoop. In the Black Sea there is a Russian fleet, and in the Aegean there is also a Russian fleet. However, the Turkish fleet itself got into the ticks! All ingenious is simple!
And then it turned out that on the great many islands that form the Cyclades archipelago, a lot of Hellenes live, who vegetate in terrible poverty on the rocky islands scorching from the sun. And all of them, like gypsies, had no citizenship, i.e. were completely nobody's, left to their own devices. The Russians, according to their barbaric custom, built the city of Auzu on Poros (Does it remind you, nothing? Yauzu, for example?). Schools, hospitals appeared in the city, and … It's generally unbelievable - the Admiralty!
To understand the importance of this fact, it is necessary to remember that not a single admiralty was built on the Black Sea, but it was built on the Cyclades !!! And life boiled on the island, people felt the care of the Russian empress, and proudly began to consider themselves Russian people. On the neighboring islands, the natives were very envious of the happiness that fell on the heads of ordinary Parians, and they also wanted to become Russians. Ekaterina Kristianovna Holsten-Gotorpskaya was a kind woman, and she gave everyone Russian citizenship, as well as everything that comes with it. Schools, hospitals, ports, jobs, salaries are decent. And soon, by 1775. already 27 islands voluntarily became part of the Russian Empire, in fact, forming the Greek province.
Cyclades archipelago.
Naturally, the third question arises: How could it happen that close to the side of the “great Ottoman Empire” with its “invincible fleet” there was a strategically important archipelago, inhabited by beggars who have no monarch? Were the Turks so naive that they underestimated the importance of controlling the archipelago? Did you think that since there is nothing but the ruins of an unknown civilization, they don't need the islands at all? And what about Greece, where was she looking?
Oh yes … Greece at that time still did not smell. Those. I wanted to say that it did not exist in the project yet. Only in 1821 will Greece appear, followed by myths about “Ancient Greece”. What then was instead of Greece? Historians say that Turkey, or rather the Ottoman Empire, owned everything there, oppressed, stifled freedom and violated human rights at every step.
Everything is clear here, they came up with a myth about the great democratic Ancient Greece, and began to diligently revive independence from the Ottomans. How all this is done, brainwashing, planting national identity, revolution, liberation, and as a result - non-military seizure of territory, we now know very well. Exactly the same thing happened with the territory of Turkey in 1821. Really big question, Turkey was then? Not. What happened? Ottoman Empire. And how is it right, OTTOMAN, as they teach in Russia, or OTTOMAN, as they teach in the rest of the world?
Or maybe the Ottomans didn't really know anything about the archipelago? This could have happened if he just appeared right now, as in Pushkin's fairy tale. Speculation? Well, if!
Here are the facts:
The entire Mediterranean and Black Sea regions are simply stuffed with the remains of an ancient civilization, which is attributed to ancient Greece and Rome. Moreover, a lot of archaeological finds are still under water, i.e. it is obvious that the civilization that we got in the form of marble fragments was destroyed by a flood. Along the way, I will note that a very recent flood, because marble “lives” no more than 150 years. After all, what is marble? This is ordinary chalk, or limestone. Its chemical formula is CaCO3. Moreover, it also burns. Did not know?
But the fact that the remnants of the same civilization are found in North Africa and the Crimea, and the Caucasus, and in huge quantities in Turkey, is stubbornly explained by untenable excuses like "Greek colonies - cities - policies". Moreover, in the case of Turkey, there is a total concealment of artifacts.
What does this mean? This suggests that all these "Greek city-states" have the same relation to Greece as the Egyptian pyramids to the Arabs. We built our cities on the ruins of an alien civilization, and we attribute it to the mythical “ancient Greeks”. In fact, those who built all this were swept away by a catastrophic flood, and this flood is obvious to many, and they associate it with the breakthrough of the Atlantic through Gibraltar.
And if the opposite is true? My own observations indicate that the wave came from the north, sweeping through the territory of central Russia into the Black, Azov and Caspian Seas. It was then that Europe separated from Asia. Let me emphasize that it is ASIA that has been correctly preserved in all languages (ASIA), except for ours, where the “C” was deliberately changed to “Z”.
Most likely, Gibraltar, on the contrary, saved Europe from complete destruction, because it worked as a safety valve. The water level rose in the inland sea until the water washed away the isthmus, into which water rushed from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. The water level dropped significantly, but it became much higher than the pre-catastrophic level. Look, I decided to "play" with the sea level, and lowered it by only 31 m:
As they say, feel the difference. On the site of the modern seas, before the breakthrough of fresh (relatively) water from the Arctic Ocean, there was a single continent ASIA. Africa was separated by a chain of inland seas - lakes only conditionally, because there were at least five wide areas of land, along which one could easily get from the continent to the continent by camels and on foot: This is Gibraltar, the Apennine Peninsula, the Balkans west of Cairo, and the Balkans through Turkey. We do not take the Caucasus into account, it is not very comfortable to travel along mountain paths there.
And on the site of the Cyclades archipelago, you see for yourself, there was a mountainous country, the same as most of Turkey and Greece. And now, if we imagine that the level of the Black and Mediterranean Seas has fallen, then the sudden appearance of the archipelago is logical. These underwater peaks were born after a long stay under water. The fact that the level of these seas is falling catastrophically quickly is not a secret to anyone. Not only I got to this point, but also such a famous researcher as Professor Stoleshnikov:
On this issue, the distinguished professor and I differ only on one thing - on dates. I believe that we are not talking about thousands of years, but only hundreds.
Earnestly? Now let us recall what Andrei Stepanenko considers the beginning of the eighteenth century to be the real date of the catastrophe in the Mediterranean-Black Sea basin. Hard to believe? There may be a mistake, but the dear Andrey Georgievich determined the breakthrough of Gibraltar almost exactly. Most likely, it was in the first half of the 18th century that water began to drain into a washed-out isthmus in Gibraltar like from a bathroom into a sewer. That's when the construction of Sevastopol, Nikolaev, Odessa, Kerch, and Feodosia became relevant. Then everything becomes explainable logically, and without exaggeration. Previously, they did not build because they did not need a fleet in the inland sea - the lake. And with the breakthrough of Gibraltar, a southern exit to the Atlantic appeared. If it had not appeared, then the oceanic fleet on the Black Sea would not have appeared, to this day.
This also explains the construction of the admiralty not in Suzhuk (Novorossiysk), nor in Taman, nor in Kerch and Sevastopol, not even in Odessa, but on Poros, and the emergence of the archipelago itself can be safely attributed to the middle of the 18th century. When the Russians came there, the islands were just beginning to be populated, and therefore they were no one before the arrival of "tourists" from Russia.
But that's not all! This phenomenon has given rise to the appetites of the British! They ceased to depend on Russia in matters of navigation. Previously, they had to use the ports of Arkhangelsk and Murmansk to pass to southern Europe, Africa and Asia, but now they have an alternative way! Short and reliable! And whoever owned Gibraltar received a bonus of disproportionate value. He opened up such opportunities that for the sake of mastering him, you can sell your mother with giblets, not only disown Russia, and even start an active struggle to capture it. That's when it all started!
England did not have the forces of open confrontation with the mother country. It was easier to "rock the boat" inside Europe, while remaining as if on the sidelines. They staged the "Great French Revolution", then entered into an alliance with her to attack Russia when she was still part of the Holy Roman Empire, then united with the Ottoman Empire. Here are the reasons for Napoleon's campaign in Russia, and the endless string of Russian-Turkish wars, and the Crimean War, and the Franco-Prussian war, even the revolution of 1917, and both world wars, all these are links in the same chain - the confrontation of the breakaway Britain in the 18th century against the Holy the Roman Empire, which itself did not have time to digest the recently absorbed Great Tartary.
This is what the investigation of the history of Russia's acquisition of the Hellenic province leads to. Unexpected but very exciting. Besides, it looks like the truth. After all, if my assumption is correct, then many contradictions and inconsistencies in the official history become clear.
But how did Russia lose its Hellenic province? On December 28, 1783, Russia and Turkey signed the "Act on Peace, Trade and Borders of both States", which canceled Article (article) 3 of the Kuchuk-Kainardzhiyskiy Peace Treaty on the independence of the Crimean Khanate. Thus, the Cyclides province of the Russian Empire was transferred to the Ottoman Empire in exchange for renouncing the territorial claims of the Turks to the Crimea.
Thus ended the short history of Russian Hellas.
Author: kadykchanskiy