"Berezina out-of-context & mis-translated" Topic

From : link
This has some out-of-context and mis-translated sources being peddled as "primary sources" for the actions of the Russians at the Berezina, which the author of the post seems to think was a great French victory.

The first quote is from von Clausewitz. As an example of the over-eager and biased phrasing, the translator has used the English "afraid of" for the German "gefürchtet". The German word here did not have the connotation of any active or physical "fear", but rather "dread". The implication of the original passage is not terror, but rather distaste for an uncomfortable or difficult task.

But, don't believe me …. just read the original : link

===============================

Next we have a quote from a contemporary Russian, Rafail Zotov. The first problem is that Rafail Mikhaylovich Zotov was an impressionable and rather excitable 16 year-old volunteer in the Saint-Petersburg militia in 1812, recovering from a rather severe head wound at the time fo the Berezina. He went on to a career as a writer most famous for his ballet critcism, and also romantic dramas with racy titles such as "A Jealous Wife" (Ревнивая жена) and "The Rogue of the Bohemian Forests" (Разбойник богемских лесов). His rather Bonapartist historical romances took part in the "golden legend" of Napoléon, earning him some disapprobation among his countrymen.

The quote is taken from his "Рассказы о походах 1812-го и 1813-го годов" (Stories from the campaigns of 1812 and 1813), published in 1836. Agian the translation is, in my opinion, rather lurid – although perhaps a dramatist like Zotov would approve.
As an example, the transaltor gives us: "The whole Berezina affair seemed to us as pathetic and suspicious."
The original Russian : "Все березинское дело казалось нам слабо, вяло, не чисто."
Which I would translate : "The whole Berezina action seemed to us slack, sluggish, unclear."

Again, don't believe me …. just read the original : link

===============================

The bit from Wilson is just plain out-of-context.
He writes in English, and the work is easy to read on-line : link

The interesting part of the passage is not the supposed quote from Alexander, which mostly expresses an endorsement of Wilson himself and Alexander's distaste for his own great nobles – but what comes before and after.
Before the quote is a rather balanced asessment of Kutuzov. Wilson says that opinions on Kutuzov's conduct of the campaign will forever be divided. The young, the ardent, the "hopeful in disposition" will condemn him for his laggardly operations. While the "old and cautious – those whom knowledge of the world has rendered distrustful of fortune, and experience of war doubtful of battle – will commend the prudence which produced such great success at so small a risk, and secured the destruction of the greatest army ever prepared by man without the hazardous chance of a general engagement."
Wilson's comments after the quote are also interesting – giving his conclusions as to the major factors in the desruction of the French armies : the great distances, the undeveloped nature of the country, the Russian Cossack and Native light cavalry and "the heroic devotion of the Russian people".

===============================

So, there is actually lots more interesting material in all three of these works than some out-of-context, to some extent mis-translated, little snippets – if one is more interested in researching the topic than making "points" supporting some particular biased view.

- Sasha

Poor Kevin's having a rough time of it these days, it seems. :)

Jeffrey,

Yeah, well ….

His "little snippets" approach leaves him open to someone else actually looking at the sources.

I do not know why Kevin tries to be such a cheerleader for Napoléon. The thing is that he is a diligent (if somewhat language-limited) researcher and – maybe most importantly – he writes really well. I love the plain "reading" of his work. But the "national" biases he shows can be enervating. All the research and writing skill in the world cannot improve a sub-text like this:
- French, Americans = great in every way
- British = good here and there
- Germans = don't exist
- Prussians = aggressive
- Austrians = hapless
- Russians = primitive

A little nuance goes a long way, ya know?

- Sasha

I did forgot one of the "little snippets" ….

The paparagraph which starts, "Kutusov avoided the enemy and, remaining in one place ….", and which Kevin maybe thinks was written by Wilson (as there is no other attribution), is actually not from a primary source at all. It is from Yevgeniy Viktorovich Tarle and was published in a popular history of the 1812 conflict that helped rally the nation against foreign invaders in 1941. In line with stalinist and soviet "historical theory", and the needs of 1941, the rôle of the common soldier and peasant partizan was glorified by Tarle, and that of the noble generals minimized.

In the given passage, Tarle says he is paraphrasing one the peoples-heros, Davydov, for the comments about Kutuzov.
Well, I could not find the original in Davydov's "Memoirs". Maybe I missed it. Davydov himself was nowhere near either headquaters at the time – but rather leading an avant-garde detachment. Here are Davydov's memoirs : link
Here is Tarle's work itself – as always, you do not have to take my word for it : link

Sidenote and full-disclosure : Tarle was a member of my wife's family, virtually all of whom were academicians. Except for Tarle, the whole family (and quite a few other similar families) resolved not to allow soviet poltics to influence their academic work. Some family members were shot by Stalin for this. The others faced discrimination. For example, my mother-in-law worked for many years, until in the 1980's, as the "acting" head of her cancer institute because she would not join the communist party.

So what Kevin thought was a "primary source" really was (i) a translation, (ii) of a soviet secondary source, (iii) that – at best – paraphrased a memoir, (iv) which was written years after the events, (v) by a someone who was not present at the events decribed. Not cool, not cool at all.

- Sasha

I'm wondering why if you have issues with a post from another forum you don't respond there.

It seems disingenuous to be posting this here.

Interesting,nice to have an accurate attribution for that, Sasha--thanks!

Ochion,

I am banned there, for disagreement with some of their editorial policies (including disagreement about banning people for questioning the editors …. a sort of meta-banning, I suppose). That forum, unlike TMP, is not wholly owned by a single person, and has a sort of editorial executive that administers it. However, if you express disagreement with their unilateral decisions, or even attempt any detailed discussion of their decisions (on the public forum, or via private messages), they "invite" you to leave.

Actually, there are several people that are either banned there or here, but that read both fora. You will see TMP threads quoted there as well.

Anyway, I like TMP better. TMP has history + uniforms/painting + gaming. The other forum is more like history + social/political/cultural topics. Also, TMP has many many more members, so you get many more viewpoints and contributions.

- Sasha

P.S. The author of the post on which I was commenting *does* participate here regularly. So there is no question of "going behind his back".

thanks for putting those "quotes" into context, it clearly shows how important it is to cross check and to mistrust translations.

@ Sasha

I'll begin by saying how much I appreciate your posts. Nor do I necessarily reject the basic premise of your OP. It is the personal reference I think may become an issue.

I don't think you were here when the TMP Napoleonic boards were a nightmare of 'cheap shots'.

I think it will be a negative thing to use these boards to continue "discussions" from elsewhere. If the Napoleonic Series allows TMP posts to be quoted, so be it. That's their look-out.

By all means open a thread that examines whether the Berezina was a French victory but please, please don't make it about personalities.

I "went missing" during the last unpleasantness. I can't say I'd be any great loss but if we revive the flame wars here, I'll do the same.

:) I think we're still safely at Defcon 5… At the risk of hijacking the thread from facts to opinion, I'm finding the majority of the arguments losing steam/getting answered quickly due to the amazing quantity of material available online, and much more of a, "primary source or else," attitude towards assertions. A decade ago, you'd have huge rows over interpreting a small trove of sources; then it seemed to move to "which language are you using?" or "which source(s) are you using?" as people tracked various references down in libraries. This is where we were at 3-4 years ago on TMP.

Even the Nap series forum seems largely about discovering references these days--the uber shouting matches are about silliness in the main (imho), and one person seems to be primarily responsible for stirring the pot. :) My only real concern, Russia aside, is that we've seemed to have pretty much emptied the cupboards on primary sources…where is scholarship to go?

Don't really know what the original fuss is about but some interesting remarks by Alexandra (Sasha) on Tarle, I had read some of his work (in translation of course) but never really made the link with the Soviet empire of Stalin, does put some things into perspective. BY the way a lot of French authors seem to think the Berezina was a great victory, remember reading an article claiming just that in Napoléon Ier magazine, I have it here somewhere but cannot find it now.

BY the way a lot of French authors seem to think the Berezina was a great victory,

Certainly Kevin has reported that way here in the past.

TMP link

Well Alex, I feel your pain! I have had similar run-ins with a certain person on this and another forum. I post first hand accounts almost every time, but said person still goes by 'for example' his Housssaye, Ropes, Elting, Siborne, Cronin etc, I'll say no more.

Good post by the way!

Paul :)

"My only real concern, Russia aside, is that we've seemed to have pretty much emptied the cupboards on primary sources…where is scholarship to go?"

My concern is another, are we prepared to read them – to make an interpretation and are willing to change our minds according to that or do we still go in blind faith with Chandler, Elting, Houssaye, Lachouque, et al??

about the Beresina I have mixed feelings, on one hand it could have been the total destruction of the remainder of the Grande Armée – in case Kutusov would feed the intelligence he had to Tschitchagov – and Wittgenstein would have acted more active.
There I am not able to read Russian, I have to trust on that translated Russian sources, and seemingly there was quite a lot of infighting in the Russian Army between the generals, as For example Yermolov describes.

The Grande Armée made its excape depsite Napoleon who ordered the destruction of the bridge train and was quite downcast, but the other leaders stepped up and re kindled the morale of N who was able to fool the Russian army.

It must have been a kind of re – birth for the Allied Grande Armée – being in an almost hopeless position and then brake out – due to the sacrifice of the soldiers.

The losses on the other hand were horrific.

speaking about secondary sources ;-)., a good one – which is discussing and disclosing a lot of primary ones, in that case is the book by Mikaberidze

I must admit it feels like a successful battle for the French as they should perhaps have been trapped and utterly defeated. But always good to hear from more sources

This posting is a response to the opening posting to this thread.

First, gefurchtet is translated as either ‘dreaded' or ‘feared.'

And as you mentioned ‘dread' as a definition of ‘gefurchtet in the posting, the definition of ‘dread' is:

Dread:
1.to fear something that will or might happen
2. to fear greatly
3.to feel extreme reluctance to meet or face
4. to be apprehensive or fearful

So, it seems that the translation of ‘gefurchtet used in Clausewitz's campaign study of the Russian campaign in regard to Tshtshagov, Wittgenstein, and Kutusov is correct. The term ‘scared' is identical to ‘fear.'

And I believe that Clausewitz's meaning is moral fear and denotes a lack of character on Kutusov's part. Whether or not it meant physical fear, I have no idea. But the term 'scared' is appropriate and accurate.

Therefore, your conclusion as a mistranslation of the term is incorrect.

Regarding the other two comments used, they can be found, along with others, in Alexander Mikaberidze's The Battle of the Berezina on pages 224-242, The Conclusion.

Further, I did not use Tarle as a reference, though I do have the volume. Considering the time-frame in which Tarle wrote, care has to be taken when using that volume. It's a good and useful book, but the Soviet influence has to be taken into consideration.

For the two quotations I did use you can see the sourcing in the footnotes of the book referenced.

You can also take a look at Dominic Lieven's excellent Russia Against Napoleon on page 270 where Kutusov says to Yermelov regarding the Berezina situation: ‘Look, brother Aleksei Petrovich, don't get too carried away and take care of our Guards regiments. We have done our bit and now it's Chichagov's turn.' If you have the volume, you can take a look at the sourcing for the quotation.

Kutusov wrote to Tshitshagov before the battle began at the Berezina that ‘if General Wittgenstein is pinned down by Victor and St. Cyr and won't be able to help you to defeat the enemy, you should be strong enough together with the forces of Lieutenant-General Oertel and Major-General Luders to destroy the fleeing enemy army, which has almost no artillery or cavalry, and is being pressed from behind by me.'

These two letters are a definite indication that Kutusov had no intention of supporting the Russian operations against Napoleon at the Berezina.

If you have problems with the Russian translations, as you apparently have, perhaps you should attempt to consult both Professor Mikaberidze and Professor Lieven. I do believe that both are Russian-speakers and are more than able to translate from Russian to English. I have met and talked to Professor Mikaberidze a few times and have found him to be an excellent historian and a good man. He is also an excellent historian.

You can also consult The Czar's General, which are the memoirs of Alexey Yermelov and edited by Professor Mikaberidze. I have found it to be most helpful. The bottom line with Yermelov is that he did not agree with Kutusov's conscious decision not to support Tshitshagov and Wittgenstein at the Berezina.

And in my opinion Clausewitz is correct in his assessment of the Russian generals fear of Napoleon. It seems to me that Kutusov did not want to fight Napoleon again, especially after Krasny, as he did not want to lose again. And the term that Clausewitz used translates to ‘fear' and ‘dread.' And the definition of ‘dread' is ‘fear.'
The bottom line to your posting is that you are wrong on both counts and accusations. And I agree with Ochoin that your posting of this is disingenuous, among other adjectives that could be used to describe your methods and intentions.

And your other comments such as the ‘cheerleader' nonsense as well as your ‘nuanced' assessment of how I present the combatants of the period is incorrect and rather ignorant. It is too bad that you have to resort to ad hominem personal attacks when attempting to get a point across on the forum. What you have written in the posting says much more about you than me, and none of it is complimentary.
And, yes, the French won at the Berezina both tactically and strategically. If you wish to discuss that without rancor I would be more than happy to. However, I don't believe that you are able to be in a discussion without condescension and personal attacks. If you wish to continue this ‘discussion' off-line, my email is:

Boulart198@yahoo.com.

I usually don't post here any longer, mainly because of your conduct.

Sincerely,
Kevin F. Kiley

I've always wondered if anyone could really logically hold that that both Borodino and the Berezina were victories for the same side. The reasons normally advanced for awarding victory to one side in the first battle would seem to demand that the other side be awarded the laurels of the second.

If you don't agree, then attempt to show it. Stopping the French from crossing and escaping was the Russian goal at the Berezina and they failed badly.

The French objective was to build two bridges over the river, successfully defend them and the crossing and get the remnants of the army over the river and continue their retreat. Napoleon and the French were successful.

And in the process the French defeated two Russian armies-those of Tshitshagov and Wittgenstein.

Perhaps you should read Alexander Mikaberidze's book on the battle. It would be very helpful to you to understand the action.

B

Two things muddy the waters in terms of the Berezina being a French victory.

Firstly is the horde of stragglers who elected not to cross.

Secondly is the later disasters which decimated the French even further after the battle.

However, both are irrelevant in strictly assessing this battle's outcome.

I have read many discussions on this very topic & from recollection it comes down to if you can wrest victory from defeat, it's a victory.

If you believe the 1940 Dunkirk evacuation was at least a moral triumph for the British, I really don't see how the Berezina was at least this.

@Kevin,

If you don't agree, then attempt to show it.

Who are you addressing in your last post?

Och and LG – agree on some of that. Borodino seems a strange battle – victory perhaps only in teh sense that teh Russians retreated afterwards. But Beresina feels to me a victory – the fact stragglers did not cross feels an odd reason to argue it was not.

And I say these as a Naps gaming fan, but not a pro-French fan boy, just a gamer (who loves his Swiss units ).

At Borodino the French pushed the Russians out of a strong defensive position and then Kutusov decided to retreat. Napoleon actually had about 30,000 troops that were uncommitted while Kutusov had to commit nearly every man and gun.

Napoleon actually expected to continue the battle the next day.

While Borodino was not the decisive victory Napoleon wanted, it was a victory nonetheless, although only an 'ordinary' one.

Unconvincing. That seems like changing the definition of victory to suit oneself at the given moment.

Winners and losers is such a "Wargamer" concept, not a very useful historical issue. Even the greatest victory came at a cost to the victor as the Spanish showed when the war against them was lost despite the number of battles in which they were defeated. And Napoleon was rarely at a loss to "write a victory" when the propaganda required it. A successful rearguard action is often the most difficult to achieve. There are many wargame rules which try to replicate this by defining objectives such as holding out for a certain number of moves.

In my opinion, one of the greatest graphic images of all time is that drawn by Minard in 1869

link

This tracks the relative movement and losses of the French Grand Armee between the Nieman and Moscow, both inbound and outbound.

II and VI Corps, with approximately 30,000 men joined the remnants of Napoleon's central column, suggesting approximately 50,000 men were present at the Berezina crossing. That number reduced to approximately 28,000 immediately following the crossing, which ultimately dropped to 4,000 at the time MacDonald's X Corps joined in the days before they recrossed the Nieman. The losses incurred between the Berezina and the Nieman were almost entirely due to fatigue, cold and malnutrition. Those same factors had been affecting the fighting capacity of the army before the Berezina too – you only have to read Mikaberidze's book to get an understanding of the deplorable state of Napoleon's Moscow column as witnessed by Oudinot and St.Cyr's men at their meeting prior to the Berezina. They were simply shocked. It was essentially Oudinot's men that undertook the fighting at the Berezina.

The reality was that Kutuzov, shadowing and nipping at the heels of Napoleon's Moscow column, had witnessed the veritable destruction and collapse of that force between Moscow and the Berezina. But Kutuzov's forces had been equally as fraught and degraded by the cold and conditions. Wittgenstein, tracking Oudinot and St. Cyr from Polotosk, and the Admiral approaching from the south had the primary task of closing Napoleon's line of retreat. In that they failed – In simple terms it was a miracle that even 28,000 men had evaded capture at the Berezina, the words victory and defeat seem out of place in the context of what actually happened.

Reminds me of the argument that Falaise Pocket during the Normandy campaign in WW2 was a failure because 50,000 Germans escaped, never mind that they killed or captured ~400,000 men and 99% of all German hardware in the campaign.

Indeed. It's very hard to view military behaviour of another age without applying a modern view. We would consider that the Russians would be fighting a modern war, intending the total destruction of the enemy, rather than a Nineteenth century dynastic war where the destruction of the enemy's ability to fight was desirable, but not their annihilation. The continued existence of Buonaparte as a defeated and essentially powerless player would be better than his complete destruction, as a means to balance Austria and Prussia in the new Europe. This was one of the reasons why Austria was reluctant to destroy Buonaparte in 1813-4, as the destruction of France as a player would open N.Europe to Prussian hegemony.

I don't subscribe to the view of "our ancestors were so different from us we can't possibly understand them."

You more often so such a view directed at ancient history topics but we have it here (above) as well.

It is suggested that the concept of 'limited war' is so far removed from our ken we cannot comprehend a C19th use of it.
Limited wars are not so foreign to the C20th:

The Korean War?

Vietnam?

Falklands?

A little intellectual vigour tinged with some imagination will go a long way.

Excellent posting, Ochoin, and spot on.

I find it hard to understand that the "Russians" did not want to remove Napoléon from power, there existed certainly several political fractions in the high command and the Russian emperor himself.

I was under the impression that the Russian emperor wanted to liberate Europe from the tyranny of N.

Kutusov may had a different opinion, but then instead of speaking about the Russians, it would be better to speak about Kutusov in that case.

I didn't say that we can't, or that it is impossible to view 19th Century warfare without the filter of a modern mindset, I said that it is difficult. There were limited wars then, there have been limited wars in recent times. However, there have been total wars in living memory, which have certainly coloured our views of earlier warfare, especially major wars, like the Napoleonic Wars. I repeat, it is hard for a modern person to imagine a situation where an invading army of aggression might not be pursued to destruction, rather than be ushered out of one's territory.

Interestingly, in grad school studying for a master's degree in military history, the study of what 'total war' actually is may or may not have actually either existed or was practiced.

It's an interesting subject, but one that is usually ignored and the term used to describe any long, vicious war between major powers in the 20th century.

So, if 'total war' is exclusively a C20th concept, how do you describe the Punic Wars?

Or, possibly the most horrific war ever, the Thirty Years War?

I sometimes think we stick a label on something so we can avoid too much thought.

Are you deliberately misreading or misunderstanding what I'm writing? Or, I suppose, you could be raising questions yourself that have nothing to do with other member's posts. Could you explain which it is? I've certainly never suggested that total war, however defined, was exclusive to the 20th C.

Have you retreated from your position that is "hard for a modern person to imagine…" etc?

My point, that I would of thought was crystal-clear, perhaps needs restating.

The human condition is universal. History is often a cycle.
The Past is not a foreign country. Without too much strain most of us can understand a "limited war".

I'm not sure if you're familiar with recent British military history but in the Falklands War, HM's government refrained from attacking the Argentine mainland, seeking only to re-establish control over the islands. This would be a war with limited aims, not unlike the concept of Russia seeking to drive Napoleon from its soil & then halting after the Grande Armee had moved into the Polish territories.

I hope you don't misunderstand or misread that but if so, ask & I will try with further elucidation.

The French "won" the Berezina as the British "won" at Dunkirk.

Victory is in the eyes of the beholder.

Bob

That analogy really doesn't work. The British and their allies were quite literally driven into the sea but were rescued by the Royal Navy.

At the Berezina, the Grande Armee saved itself and fought its way out and across the river, defeating two Russian armies during the battle.

There is quite a difference.

Yes, the analogy doesn't work because the British and their Allies pretty much all got away whereas even if you think that Napoleon won at the Berezina, then the Grande Armee lost half its men in its victory. Or "victory".

"Have you retreated from your position that is "hard for a modern person to imagine…" etc?"

Not at all. Perhaps you find it hard to grasp?

"My point, that I would of thought was crystal-clear, perhaps needs restating."

"Would have thought", perhaps? If you need help with English grammar, please don't hesitate to ask….

I made a general point about the difficulty experienced by modern minds understanding views of the century before last, and you choose to create an argument about it? Why?

"I'm not sure if you're familiar with recent British military history but in the Falklands War, HM's government refrained from attacking the Argentine mainland, seeking only to re-establish control over the islands."

Very familiar, actually, but please don't let that stop you from making patronising posts about things that you don't have knowledge of!
Please point out where I have suggested that limited wars have been limited to other centuries, or that total war has been limited to the 20th. If you can't, it will make your rather snide remarks look rather foolish.

"That analogy really doesn't work. The British and their allies were quite literally driven into the sea but were rescued by the Royal Navy."

Rescued by whom? Care to reference that?

As I said, the Royal Navy.

It was called Operation Dynamo, where the greater majority of the British and French troops were lifted off by the Royal Navy with both warships and the hasty mobilization of anything that could float and make it across the Channel to France.

All of the tanks, vehicles, artillery, and heavy weapons were left on the beach.

Guys, this is an interesting discussion, don't get sidetracked into talking about Dunkirk.

@ Chouan

You wrote something foolish & now you're covering it with rudeness rather than respond to, or ignore, my explanation. "Snide": not intended. My earlier posts were not intended to be rude. This one is.

I just looked up your profile. Possibly, you were an officer and a … well, possibly an officer at any rate.

Please feel free to maintain the past is populated with the unknowable. Yes, it was a minor point you brought up. I made a minor point by disagreeing with you. Is it against the law to disagree with you? My apologies Oh Captain! Oh my Captain!
In case you're wondering about my reference to the Whitman poem, I'm mourning the loss of good manners in this thread. It's also a rather witty reference to your putative rank.

BTW it's always amusing when someone corrects someone else's grammar. They almost always then proceed to make an error themselves.

eg

about things that you don't have knowledge of!

It's generally accepted not to end a sentence with a preposition. This rule has lapsed somewhat in these lax days but as you're such a Grammar Nazi, I thought I'd mention it.

+1 (Not to the part about agreeing with me. That would be smug. Rather to the first bit).

"As I said, the Royal Navy.

It was called Operation Dynamo, where the greater majority of the British and French troops were lifted off by the Royal Navy with both warships and the hasty mobilization of anything that could float and make it across the Channel to France."

"I would also just like to confirm that the BEF and its allies at Dunkirk were rescued by the RN; Dynamo was an RN operation."

The RN were involved, obviously, but a significant number, if not the majority, were rescued by the MN, on MN ships.

See what you started, Sasha…? :-) We've gone all the way from solid info on Tarle's background to opinions on Dunkirk.

We can indeed. However, to assert that the BEF were rescued by the RN is factually incorrect. The exact numbers of BEF personnel rescued by the RN, MN, or other civilians can be discussed, as can the number of RN, MN and other civilians involved, as can the number of RN, MN and other civilian vessels involved. However, that the MN and other civilians were unquestionably involved means that the assertions made are, as I said, factually incorrect.

As far as my profile is concerned, when I first joined the forum some years ago, my opinions were challenged by some members members on academic grounds, and on Service grounds, with the suggestion, for example, that I wasn't qualified to discuss the RN as only RN and ex-RN people were qualified so to do. As a consequence, I listed my qualifications in my profile. Does my explanation satisfy your amusement?

Just as an observation, I hadn't posted in this forum for a considerable period, owing to the level of unpleasantness and personal invective in many of the posts, especially in this sub-forum. It is depressing to see that the level of immaturity, personal invective and pettiness hasn't improved…..

Not at all, I thought that my explanation, indeed all of my explanations, were quite reasonable.