The next stage of the "hot phase" of the incessant war of civilizations was the event that humble scientists called the "Peasant uprising led by Yemelyan Pugachev." We see nothing new in this situation. One and the same scenario: Again a thief, only a False Peter, again a vagabond and a criminal, and again stupid men who, by virtue of their natural "passionarity", are rebelling, not understanding against what.
"God forbid to see a Russian revolt, senseless and merciless!" - wrote in "The Captain's Daughter" A. S. Pushkin. Oh, and the crafty was "our everything"! After all, despite the revelations of historians, in fact he had the rank of chamberlain, which corresponds to the rank of major general. Moreover, he served in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, and his chief was Ivan Kapodistrias.
And as follows from the archives, Kapodistrias was in charge of the Special Expedition (one of the departments of the foreign intelligence service), responsible for collecting information in Eastern Europe. Pushkin was the head of the station in Bessarabia, where, by the way, he became a member of the Masonic lodge in Chisinau. And, of course, the official rank of the chamber-junker was the "legend" of a high-ranking intelligence officer. That is why he received permission to access secret archival documents related to "The Pugachev Uprising" when he was working on writing a "historical novel". Probably, the irony of Pushkin, or, as they would say now, "trolling", was expressed in the very title of the work. After all, the rank of the chamber junker, which was officially listed as Alexander Sergeevich, corresponded to the rank of the captain.
And since Pushkin was one of those who rewrote history, in fact, was one of the authors of the newly created "Russian nation", there is no doubt that the novel was ordered and paid for by the managers. Those who divided the post-Flood world into countries, nations, religions and cultures. A similar order would later receive another "pillar of Russian literature" L. N. Tolstoy. Only he will be instructed to create a false story of another episode of the "hot phase" of the war between the West and the East, which was called the "Patriotic War of 1812". But we'll talk about this a little later.
So what could Pushkin have discovered while working in an archive with secret documents? We are unlikely to ever see them, so it remains only to follow the clues left by Pushkin himself, other authors, and common sense. However, Alexander Sergeevich overdid it, fulfilling an order to confirm the official version that Pugachev was a maniac, sadist and a simple criminal.
The captive Emelyan Pugachev.
Apparently, realizing that very few people would believe such an absurdity, Pushkin endowed False Peter III with human features, touching and inspiring respect for him. And how else! So many people would not follow the maniac and the murderer. Russian people are not inclined to close their eyes to sins and vices. If Emelyan was what the Romanovs portrayed him, then he would not have been able to collect gangs of criminals numbering more than a hundred sabers. If you believe the historians, then it is necessary to admit that the entire Russian people was totally depraved, and everyone, without exception, had no idea about sin and virtue. But this is not the case! Our ancestors have always been a highly moral people who were extremely negative about any manifestation of deceit, deception and money-grubbing.
This was noted by all Europeans who happened to be among ordinary Russian people. For Western civilization, the ability to achieve a goal at any cost, including with the help of cunning and deception, is considered a dignity. For the Russians, this was completely unacceptable. We respect only an honest fight, in which not the cunning, but the stronger in spirit, will win. And the attitude towards murderers, stealots and rapists at all times in Russia was unambiguous - "For a stake!" And scientists want to make me believe that such a people could go for a murderer? No way! There was no such thing in the history of Russia. Only those who have deserved by deeds, and not by words, the right to be called "father, father" or "king-father" can count on nationwide support.
Promotional video:
Russians never obeyed someone they did not respect. And at all times, those who were dissatisfied with their ruler called the Russians "slaves" for this. Well, what else could they do in their impotent anger? Therefore, I categorically do not believe that Emelyan Pugachev could be an unworthy person. And this can be considered the first clue on the way to the reconstruction of the true events of 1773-1775. The second clue is the geography of the events in question. Here's what the official sources say:
It's already warmer. The same region rebelled that rebelled against the boyar thieves who settled in Moscow after the end of the First Russian Revolution. Then the militia of Tartary, led by the Great Tsar Alexei Cherkassky, whose governor was Stepan Razin, went to Moscow to restore justice and drive out the impostors in power.
It is obvious that the resistance, led by Pugachev, had the same goals and objectives that their predecessors had almost a century earlier. And this is just one of the most amazing historical coincidences in a series of similar ones. It seems incomprehensible, but studying the history of military operations of the troops of Yemelyan Pugachev, you begin to experience deja vu. The fact is that for those who are well familiar with the course of the civil war of 1917-1922, the almost complete coincidence of the chronicles of the defeat of the armies of Kolchak and the armies of Pugachev simply cannot but be striking. The same geographical names, the same actions of the troops of the opposing sides. The only difference is in the weapons, the lack of equipment among the Pugachevites, and the interventionists in the eighteenth century were not the British with the Americans, but the Turks.
Yes, this is a fact little known to a wide circle. But Pugachev, like Kolchak later, had foreign support from his troops. His army had units consisting of Poles, French and Germans. And here is the time to remind once again that Turkey, formerly part of Great Tartary, never stopped trying to lead the entire empire. True, she did it very hesitantly, surreptitiously, trying to keep a good face in a bad game. The Turks secretly financed the purchase of gunpowder for the "rebels" army. Persia, which at one time was also annexed to Great Tartary by Tamerlane, clearly defined its position.
The Iranians preferred a tit in the sky to a crane in the sky and decided to refuse military assistance first to Cherkassky, and then to Pugachev. They treasured their newly acquired independence too much to get involved in military adventures. Indeed, in the event of the defeat of Tartary, the Moscow troops will march to the Tigris and Euphrates, and all of Persia may again become one of the southern provinces of Muscovy.
The next involuntary clue can be considered the rather strange behavior of Paul I, who, as you know, did not approve of the policies pursued by his mother Catherine. This fact is well known to historians, but they failed to explain its essence. I mean the famous "Kexholm prisoners".
After accession to the throne, Emperor Paul began to repeal the decrees and laws passed by his mother Catherine II. In an effort to do everything in spite of, he even began to release from prison criminals convicted during the reign of his predecessor on the throne. He even pardoned the thief Novikov, who, according to Catherine II, was more dangerous than Emelka Pugachev, and released him from the Shlisselburg castle. But when it came to the relatives of Pugachev, Pavel Petrovich showed inexplicable cruelty. Here is what Makarov, a collegiate adviser to the Secret Expedition, who was specially dispatched to carry out an audit of the Keskholm fortress, wrote in his note to the emperor:
From the report it is unconditionally clear that the inmates do not pose any danger both to society and to the existing government. But Paul decides not to release them. Why? Whatever versions historians put forward, there can be only one explanation for such an act: the wives, daughters and son of Emelyan Pugachev, being illiterate and having nothing to do with the "peasant revolt", knew the main thing. Namely, the real reasons and essence of the civil war. They were dangerous for the autocracy because they knew the truth about the war between the captured outpost of the Holy Roman Empire - Petersburg, and Tartary. That is why the unfortunate captives were never released, and they even buried them all in secret so that there would not even be graves left.
Another remarkable point. As you know, in the eighteenth century in Muscovy, polygamy was prohibited for a long time. However, Pugachev had two wives, and no one is trying to refute this fact. Historians have found an explanation for him quite logical. The pier threw his libertine Sophia in his native village of Zimoveevskaya (now the village of Pugachevskaya in the Kuban), and while he wandered through prisons and prison, but was on the run, he lived, they say, also Ustinya. It seems that there is nothing to doubt about, however, in the light of the data sounded above, the picture may look completely different and no less logical.
Firstly, attention is drawn to the fact that Pugachev was born in the same village as Stepan Razin. Coincidence? May be. Or maybe not. It may well be that both Razin and Pugachev were not rootless Cossacks, but representatives of one ancient family, rooted, like the Cherkassk family, in ancient times. If we compare the portraits of Tamerlane and Razin, then it is impossible not to notice their external similarity. It may well turn out that Razin was a representative of the generation of Chakatai, to which Tamurbek Khan belonged, and this generation came from one of the sons of Genghis Khan himself. Well, and then it becomes clear that if so, then Pugachev, as Razin's fellow countryman, could well trace his ancestry from the Chakatai.
If the guess is correct, then it becomes clear for what purpose the version was invented that Pugachev declared himself alive by Peter III. To declare a person a thief is a tradition among the Romanovs. Pugachev, indeed, could lay claim to the throne of all Tartary according to the law of blood, which was decisive in the inheritance law of all Great Khans. It is understandable then why he had two wives, because this is also part of the Tartar law. According to the laws of the Moghulls, after the death of her husband, a woman could not remain without a breadwinner, so a widow most often became the wife of one of her husband's close relatives.
It even happened that a son married his mother, if, once a widow, there was no one to take care of her. But this does not mean at all that incest was practiced among the Moghulls. No, just marriage was a social institution and did not imply the obligatory fulfillment of "matrimonial duties" by husband and wife. And if Ustinya was the widow of one of Pugachev's relatives or even some officer from his army, then everything falls into place, without the need to accuse Pugachev of debauchery. This conjecture is also confirmed by the fact that Pugachev's wives lived together and got along quite well with each other, which would be practically impossible if Sophia was a deceived wife. Well, there were no "Swedish families" in Russia at that time.
It would be very helpful in investigating this issue to establish the true personalities of Razin and Pugachev. But for this, they were given such nicknames so that no one could subsequently trace the pedigree of these "thieves". And even academic historians have no doubt that these people were actually called differently. Although, there is still such a chance. It is known that Pugachev's father was the Winter Ataman Ivan Izmailov (Ismagilov), and this is another indirect confirmation of the version of Pugachev's Mogul origin. After all, if you decompose the surname (nickname) of his father into parts, it turns out that he is "from the Mogulls." This is not even a surname, but an indication of the origin of his family. Izmailov means literally "(originally) from the Mughals (Maguls / Mungals / Monguls / Mongols / Moals)". Another hit, in my opinion.
A reasonable question arises. Where did so many conflicting testimonies about the character, actions and even appearance of Pugachev come from? The answer to this question may be surprisingly simple. The fact is that so much information has been preserved about the acts of the "rebel" that it is simply impossible to fit all the events into the dates of one person. Pugachev from historians turns out to be some kind of ubiquitous and completely different, like the book doctors Jekkil and Haidu.
It turns out that the rebel had the support of the Turkish Sultan himself, then it suddenly turns out that he was in Simbirsk on his way from the town of Vetka (now Lithuania), where the headquarters of the White Order of schismatics was located, who had an extensive spy network in Muscovy. How could one person simultaneously wander across the Don and Ural steppes and at the same time live in Lithuania under the protection of the Poles?
It seems to me that here we are faced with a not uncommon, in general, phenomenon when the actions of two different characters are artificially attributed to one. The goals of such falsifications are obvious: this is done in the case when the personality of a decent, but unwanted person needs to be demonized. Precisely this situation was repeated at the beginning of the twentieth century with the personality of Vladimir Ulyanov, when they combined the deeds and deeds of Vladimir Ilyich, an intellectual from Simbirsk, with the deeds and deeds of Nikolai Lenin, who arrived in Russia from the United States. And the real surname of the American Lenin, which coincided with the party nickname of Ulyanov, was the best fit for creating a myth about the true identity of a former student of the law faculty of Kazan University.
And most likely, Emelka Pugachev, a spy of the White Order, sent by the Poles to Muscovy to organize unrest on religious grounds, actually existed. And after his escape from the Kazan prison, Yemelyan Ivanovich Izmogullov, a hereditary khan from Cherkasy Tartaria, the authorities accused the schismatic and Polish spy who had escaped (or secretly killed in prison) from Kazan for sins.
Autograph of * illiterate * Pugachev.
It is probably written in one type of writing, common in Tartary. Outwardly, it resembles the writing of the Yugurs, which was used by the Mogulls.
The version is not indisputable, of course, but it is at least logical and explains many inconsistencies in this dark story with "Pugachevism".
As for my assumption about the organized elimination of the real Pugachev in Kazan, it is based on facts indicating that, in fact, there was no sense for him to run. Historian and ethnographer of Kazan A. I. Artemiev, who served as a librarian at the Imperial University and had access to many materials, wrote the following:
Therefore, it is highly likely that the real robber Emelka Pugachev simply ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. When the authorities needed his name to organize an information war against Yemelyan Izmailov, Pugachev could have been released by staging his escape further away, and the committed crimes could have been attributed to the leader of the liberation war that Tartary waged against the Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp bridgehead in St. Petersburg. Yes. For a hundred years, there have been cardinal changes in power. The thieves of the Romanovs by that time had already been replaced by other thieves who already belonged to the branch of government that now calls itself the Windsors.
And the fact that the story of Pugachev's escape from Kazan is documented almost every minute, says just that it was organized by the authorities with the help of the very merchant Vladimir Shchelokov. If the flight were secret, then where would all the details of what happened later come from? And then it becomes clear why Senator A. A. Bibikov, the son of General-in-Chief Alexander Ilyich Bibikov, who led the united troops of St. Petersburg in the war with Tartary, gives a verbal portrait of Pugachev completely different from the description preserved in the testimony of the investigation given by Pugachev's wife Sophia.
Bibikov speaks about a man of about thirty with a small, short, but broad shoulders. And Sophia described her husband as above average growth, forty years old. Obviously, they are talking about different people. And most likely, Emelka, released from the Kazan prison, made a deal with the authorities: in exchange for freedom, he had to play a public role of a villain in order to turn the people against the real Emelyan Ivanovich. Just like during the Great Patriotic War, special teams of SS men, dressed in the uniform of the Red Army, rampaged in villages and villages in order to attract civilians to their side.
So Pugachev, having gathered gangs of bandits, began to seize state property, rob the civilian population, and he did all this, calling himself the Great Tsar Peter Fedorovich. If everything was so in reality, then the skill of the Secret Expedition at the College of Foreign Affairs in St. Petersburg will not be denied. The operation was performed brilliantly. Moreover, even by the standards of modern special services. With the help of intelligence, Catherine II achieved what even a million-strong army could not have achieved. That is the answer to the question why the national war was lost. The main role in the defeat of Tartaria in the next war was played by the superiority of the West in the conduct of hybrid wars, in which a competently planned and implemented information component that accompanies battles in theaters plays an important role.
Modern historians tirelessly argue that such a high degree of secrecy of all materials related to the "Pugachevism" is due to the fact that Pugachev's connections leading to France were allegedly revealed. Let's admit. But centuries later, can such information really harm our relationship with the French Republic? An obvious nonsense. And it is all the more incomprehensible then why, after Catherine II, all the key participants in that war, the bearers of the highest state secrets, left one after another. General-in-chief A. I. Bibikov was poisoned in Yelabuga even before the end of hostilities.
And then, as a result of "self-poisoning" and "duels", three cousins died - the Potemkin Counts. Lieutenant-General P. M. was also shot in a duel. Golitsyn. But the "cleansing" of the witnesses did not end in the first year after the death of Empress Catherine. The last victim was already in the nineteenth century and A. S. Pushkin. He touched the mystery of the Pugachev war and, like his predecessors, was eliminated in the old proven way - an inspired duel. So what is it that is contained in those documents, if they are so “harmful to health” and have not been fully declassified to this day?
There is no unambiguous and convincing answer to this answer yet, but the scale of the concealment indicates the importance for the modern history of the events that are called the "Pugachev revolt". And, of course, this is not interference in the internal affairs of the French and the Confederates, who were supposedly the "puppeteers" of Pugachev. There was something more important here, because even Pugachev himself only miraculously made it to Moscow alive.
During his delivery from Simbirsk, one of the bribed guards tried to poison a prisoner who was sitting on a cart in a wooden cage. Probably, this was feared, because a doctor was unexpectedly included in the staff of the convoy, who saved Pugachev. And he said then that if he lived to the end of the stage, he would tell the whole truth only during a personal audience with the empress. But, as you know, Ekaterina never met the "thief". And on Bolotnaya Square, Pugachev was quartered, and the name of the artist who depicted the execution of the conspirator, ironically, was Bolotov. How can we not remember the uprising of Ivan Bolotnikov, which is also one of the "tiles" in the mosaic of the confrontation between Tartary and Europe.
Execution of Pugachev. Drawing by A. Bolotov.
The execution of Pugachev and his "generals" took place on January 10, 1775 in Moscow at the Execution Ground. Pugachev was brought in a sleigh and brought to the scaffold. Then the royal manifesto was read, and the executor signaled the katam. They rushed to Pugachev, tore off a white mutton sheepskin coat and a raspberry half-coat. A moment later, a bloody head, grabbed by one of the kats by the hair, was already hanging over the crowd of Muscovites.
How the victory over Tartary in the war of 1773-1775 turned out for Moscow and St. Petersburg is now clear. Only after the defeat of the troops E. I. Izmailov for the Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp, finally, free access to Turan / Katay / Siberia and its riches was opened. Previously, pseudo-novelists were simply not allowed there. But this was not the only terra incognita that existed at that time. At exactly the same time, there was another in the Western Hemisphere, which, for some reason, was also not studied.
Map of North America 1720 London.
Note. If the central and western parts of North America were a blank spot on the map because of their savagery, then why, at the same time, the entire territory of South America was already mapped in detail? Was it more accessible to researchers? As they say, the tradition is fresh, but hard to believe. The "unexplored, uninhabited and wild" territories in a strange way coincide with the statements that the territory of Great Tartary at that time coincided with precisely those areas on the maps that were "unexplored".
Agree, a strange situation is developing. Earlier maps contain information about the indicated lands, but newer ones no longer. This can be explained, but the explanation is quite ridiculous. Everything falls into place, if we assume that Professor Stephen Kotkin did not accidentally make a reservation about tartare in America, but knew exactly what he was talking about. If Tartary existed until the end of the eighteenth century within the boundaries that historians now call "wild and unexplored", then it is clear that from the west they could not penetrate into Siberia, and from the east the Native Americans did not let the invaders.
The old maps were no longer suitable, because after the catastrophic events there had been tremendous changes in geography. And new cards could not be created because the tartars did not allow foreigners into their territory either from the west through the Urals, or from the east through the Mississippi. And this resistance was a serious obstacle to the completion of the "era of geographical discoveries", which were actually a revision and fixation of the changes that took place on the planet after the global catastrophe.
This version is confirmed by the fact that in the same year 1775 the Romanovs gained access to Siberia, and the Yankees were finally able to begin "conquering the Wild West." Doesn't such a coincidence seem to be a pattern? And there are other confirmations of this version. They were most fully formulated by Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky in their New Chronology.
Attention is drawn to the fact that the Romanovs tried to get ahead of the colonialists of America and stake out the former possessions of Tartary in Alaska, California, Hawaii and Malaysia. Few people know, but Fort Ross was not the only one on the American continent. To this day, there is another Fort Ross on the shores of Hudson Bay, although tourists are not taken there, and not everyone can get there. There is an opinion that there were trading posts of the Russian-American Trade Company in the territories of the current states of Washington and Colorado.
Despite the fact that there is no material evidence for this fact today, we cannot reject this version only on this basis. It is foolish to agree that Russian colonies existed in the Arctic zone of Canada, but in Washington and Colorado, convenient and advantageous in all respects, they could not exist. It would rather be the other way around. But no! Fort Ross in Canada exists! And finally, the Romanovs lost the ability to control the former lands of Tartary in America, most likely as a result of the Yankees' power pressure and the usual pirate treaty. As you know, international law is the development of the law of the sea. And the law of the sea is nothing more than a "business custom" adopted by pirates. Simply put, this process is known here as "by concepts."
And as a result of such an agreement between the Romanovs and their relatives from the Anglo-Saxon branch, which during the First World War were called by the real name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and after it took the name of Windsor, the partition of Great Tartary was completed. The Siberian part of Great Tartary with the capital in Tobolsk, the Romanovs left for themselves, and its lands in North America went to the same thieves as the Romanovs were.
First, the Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp adopted the surname of their natives and became the Romanovs, and later their closest relatives, the Saxe-Coburg-Gothans, did the same, who took the surname typical of the natives of England and turned into the Windsor. This happened as a result of massive German pogroms that swept across Great Britain during the war with Kaiser Germany and its allies. The patriotic sentiments of the British, who fiercely hated everything German, frightened the British monarchy so much that the born nobles of the Holy Roman Empire immediately renounced their origin and "repainted" as "native Englishmen". Probably, the family was pushed to such a step by King George V, who was the cousin of Nicholas II "Romanov" - the "Russian" tsar.
After the partition of Great Tartary, the Russian Empire also got Independent Tartary with its capital in Samarkand, which still had to be conquered. And as you know, as a result of a four-year war in 1868, the Romanovs took Samarkand by storm. Therefore, this country finally ceased to exist only seven years after the opening of the London Underground. By historical standards, yesterday. Is it any wonder that all references to the Great Tartary were deadly to the power of the Romanovs! That is why there was censorship, which with such diligence blotted out any mention of the conquered empire. Katay had to be turned into China, the Tartars became Tatars, and the Mogulls became Mongols.
But let's go back to the eighteenth century and turn to the map of Great Tartary, published in the encyclopedia "Britannica" edition of 1771. As we can see, the "Age of Discovery" in no way touched the western coast of North America. This means that until 1771 inclusive, no European ship approached this part of the world. This moment is very important for us. After all, if you believe historians that from 1772 to 1867 Alaska belonged to the Romanovs, then why did neither they nor their Windsor relatives have maps of the territories that allegedly belonged to them? Only if they did not actually belong to them. Who? It turns out that the tartars.
But not only the Tartars were hostile to Western expansion. The Japanese also perceived the West as a potential threat and until 1860 did not allow Europeans to enter their islands at all. They were probably taught by the bitter experience of Tartary and understood that the same fate awaited them.
Summing up the above, I will again recall the main conclusions that can be reached by studying the history of the "Pugachev rebellion":
- It was a global war going on in the eastern and western hemispheres at the same time: in the Volga and the Urals, and in the American Wild West.
- Regular professional armies with colossal resources participated in the war on both sides: the Romanovs drew them from Europe, and Tartary from the Urals. After all, all the Ural factories worked for the army of Pugachev (Izmailov), continuously replenishing the army with new weapons, sabers and swords.
- The forces of the armies were approximately equal, and it is not known how the matter would have ended if the Russian-Turkish war had not ended, and reinforcements had not been transferred to the eastern front under the command of the best of the generals of that time A. V. Suvorov, who became the main character for the Romanovs, “the savior of Russia”.
- In America, Tartaria was less organized, trained and consisted mainly of natives who did not really want to obey military discipline. In addition, the resources there were limited: the Yankee army had heavy cavalry and artillery, which had virtually nothing to oppose. Moreover, the use of biological weapons, in the form of plague-infected household items, which the Indians did not disdain to accept as a gift from the enemy, played a role.
- In Asia, the outcome of the case was decided not only by the troops of Suvorov, but also by the methods of warfare that were unusual for Tartar. For the first time they had to fight the enemy, who had better organized intelligence and planned a number of shadow provocations that were part of the information weapon. Thus, the Great Tartary, which still fought with the enemy in a fair battle, was not ready to resist cunning, cunning and dishonest methods of warfare that violated the rules existing at that time. As a result of defeat in this war, Tartaria lost almost everything, but in fact it did not cease to exist. Another, yet another, but not the last battle lay ahead. And we will talk about her further.
Author: kadykchanskiy