France Invades Russia

[Larry1]

203 years ago today!

On June 24, 1812 Napoleon led a massive army across the Neiman River into Russia.

I won't go into much depth on the cause of the invasion.  By 1812 Napoleon's only effective remaining opponent was Britain, whose navy commanded the seas and whose army had pushed the French out of Spain. Napoleon had conceived of his "Continental System", under which the countries of continental Europe cowed by Napoleon would not trade with Britain. Russia needed trade with Britain so it abandoned the Continental system.

Napoleon  reportedly said:

“I have come once and for all to finish off these barbarians of the North ... The sword is now drawn. They must be pushed back into their ice, so that for the next 25 years they no longer come to busy themselves with the affairs of civilized Europe.”

He gathered up a massive army for the invasion. Its size has been estimated to be from 450,000 to 680,000, some of which were French and the remainder taken from the countries Napoleon dominated.

The army crossed the Nieman River, near present-day Belarus. It pushed East straight across the country, fighting skirmishes at the towns of Polotsk and Vitebsk. The Russian armies pulled back, in order to avoid a pitched battle with Napoleon's troops. As they pulled back they burned crops so that they would  not be available to feed Napoleon's troops and their horses. Armies of the day moved with many horses, both cavalry horses and draft horses to pull supply wagons. These horses needed to eat large quantities of food. Napoleon relied on being able to steal food from the farms near his invasion route. By burning crops, the so-called "scorched earth" policy, the Russians denied the French this food supply.

Napoleon's army brought with it only a 40 day supply of food because it expected a quick victory over the Russians army.

If there is sufficient interest in this thread I will update it to include the two major battles that took place, and the other important events of the invasion.

[HoundDaddyLee]

This is great Larry. Please post more!


HDL

[alex330]

Yes, good stuff, keep it going!

[Patagonie]

Continue Larry!
Tell us about the whole campaign!

[Anotherkiwi]

Continue Larry!
Tell us about the whole campaign!

...and then Pat will tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth the French version of what REALLY happened! 

[STaty]

...and then Pat will tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth the French version of what REALLY happened! 

  By the way, is also the Russian version of this truth

[DatingCoachUSSR]

...and then Pat will tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth the French version of what REALLY happened! 

LOL

[Darth_Budda]

I tried to read " War and Peace " Once....

I found it interesting, but it was extremely hard to keep track of all the characters...

I love history... Post more...

[STaty]

I tried to read " War and Peace " Once....

I found it interesting, but it was extremely hard to keep track of all the characters...

I love history... Post more...

You are well done! Not all Russians have read this book. It is difficult, but interesting book. I like more than watching a movie about it.

[Boethius]

Not all Russian prochilali this book

Not all Russians have read this book.

[Boethius]

Not trying to correct you, STaty - I just thought others wouldn't understand what you were saying.

[STaty]

Not trying to correct you, STaty - I just thought others wouldn't understand what you were saying.

Hi, Boethius! Thanks for the help. It will help me to be more attentive!

[mendeleyev]

When the little French midget finally arrived at the outskirts of Moscow, he expected that as according to European custom the city fathers would surrender peacefully, and offer him a key to the city. His party of generals waited on Poklonnaya Hill, a spot overlooking Moscow. This is the location of the famous "Victory Park" which celebrates both victory over Napoleon and Hitler.



This mural of the Battle of Borodino can be seen in the Metro station Park Pobedy ("Victory Park"). Napoleon is the midget in the centre.

The Russians sent a delegation to tell him that if he really wanted the city, to come and take it like a man. As the delegation rode back toward Moscow, the French midget watched in horror as the city below began to burn.



The "Triumphal Gate" stands along Victory Square, near the entrance to Victory Park in the middle of busy Kutuzovsky Avenue. The avenue, and a nearby Metro station, are named for General Mikhail Kutuzov who commanded the Russian army and was instrumental in defeating the French invasion.



Ironically, Napoleon later decided to dynamite much of Moscow's historic treasures when it became obvious that he must tuck his tail up his behind and leave. His engineers laid massive lines of explosive powder which were designed to blow up much of the Kremlin, the Cathedrals, etc.

As his army marched out of Moscow, the order was given for the fuses to be lit.

It began to rain.

[BdHvA]

I hear Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture.

[Hammer2722]

Just a slight correction on your initial post Larry. The British did not finally push the French out of Spain until around 1814. By then, Napoleon was fighting his final battles within France itself.

[Larry1]

In September of 1812 the Battle of Borodino was fought. It was one of the bloodiest battles of the Napoleonic wars.

Mikhail Kutuzov commanded the Russian army and Napoleon commanded the French army. After fighting the Battle of Smolensk in the previous month the Russians continued to retreat and let the French supply lines become longer and more vulnerable to attack.

The principal architect of the harrying of French supply lines was General The Prince Bagration, Prince of the aristocratic Bagrationi family of Georgia (and made also a Prince of Russia).  Bagration ordered small units of cavalry to coordinate with partisans to harry the French supply lines in guerrilla warfare.

I will not go into much depth about the battle, although if anyone else wishes to do so I hope they will post. Bagration led his troops at the most vulnerable position - the left of the Russian defensive line. He personally led his troops, which resulted in his being mortally wounded at Borodino.

Prince Bagration was acknowledged by Napoleon as the best Russian general of the Napoleonic wars: "Russia has no good generals. The only exception is Bagration."

Borodino was essentially a draw, although the Russians withdrew from the field and retreated, which left Moscow open to occupation by the French.

[Slumba]

In September of 1812 the Battle of Borodino was fought. It was one of the bloodiest battles of the Napoleonic wars.

Mikhail Kutuzov commanded the Russian army and Napoleon commanded the French army. After fighting the Battle of Smolensk in the previous month the Russians continued to retreat and let the French supply lines become longer and more vulnerable to attack.

The principal architect of the harrying of French supply lines was General The Prince Bagration, Prince of the aristocratic Bagrationi family of Georgia (and made also a Prince of Russia).  Bagration ordered small units of cavalry to coordinate with partisans to harry the French supply lines in guerrilla warfare.

I will not go into much depth about the battle, although if anyone else wishes to do so I hope they will post. Bagration led his troops at the most vulnerable position - the left of the Russian defensive line. He personally led his troops, which resulted in his being mortally wounded at Borodino.

Prince Bagration was acknowledged by Napoleon as the best Russian general of the Napoleonic wars: "Russia has no good generals. The only exception is Bagration."

Borodino was essentially a draw, although the Russians withdrew from the field and retreated, which left Moscow open to occupation by the French.

There is the lovely "Borodinsky bread" named after this event, though, Wikipedia seems to think it is a legend rather than fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borodinsky_bread

[John of Hesperia]

Amazing the parallels between Napoleon's and Hitlers invasions of Russia. 

Napoleon:  Vast army, started June 24. Only viable enemy left standing was Britain'
Hitler:  Vast army, started June 26, only viable enemy left standing was Britain.

If either had started their campaign a couple month earlier, there's a really good chance that either could have completely conquered Russia.

BTW, I was born 6/28/41 and survived the war.  Sometimes I feel like it was 6/28/1812 ((;oD)

[mendeleyev]

Interesting observations, John.

That body of water, the English Channel, between Britain and the rest of Europe is a great natural defense. Much of battle is about geography.

Today, the threat of nuclear weapons and long range ballistic missiles might make some of history's wars play out much differently. That is scary.

[Larry1]

Amazing the parallels between Napoleon's and Hitlers invasions of Russia. 

Napoleon:  Vast army, started June 24. Only viable enemy left standing was Britain'
Hitler:  Vast army, started June 26, only viable enemy left standing was Britain.

If either had started their campaign a couple month earlier, there's a really good chance that either could have completely conquered Russia.

I suspect that in both wars the Russians wouldn't have lost unless they decided to throw in the towel.  Napoleon took Moscow and expected this would bring the Tsar to the negotiating table. This had been what had happened after some of his earlier victories. Napoleon could do nothing further because he was badly overextended and also because he had lost so many troops. The only course open to him was to retreat. He returned to France with only a tiny fraction of the troops with which he began his invasion.

In the second world war even had the Nazis taken Moscow I don't think they would have won the war. Like the French in 1812 they too were overextended. Once the Soviets were able to bring West forces from all over the USSR they were able to roll the Nazis back. The Soviets just had considerably more manpower than the Nazis had.

Interesting observations, John.

That body of water, the English Channel, between Britain and the rest of Europe is a great natural defense. Much of battle is about geography.

Napoleon would have loved to have invaded Britain but the Royal Navy's Channel Fleet kept the French bottled up by a very effective blockade of French harbors. Admiral Nelson's smashing of the combined fleets of France and Spain at Trafalgar gets all the attention, but the Channel fleet under Admiral William Cornwallis deserves credit for keeping France from invading Britain.

[SANDRO43]

Bagration ordered small units of cavalry to coordinate with partisans to harry the French supply lines in guerrilla warfare.

Except they were not called "partisans" then, and were not "people's militia" but formations equipped by local landowners .

My great-great grandfather organised a group of Cossack cavalry from his lands around Voronezh, and this earned him the title of "Benefactor of the Motherland" - or some such - and the right for his progeny to attend the prestigious "Lycée de L'Empereur Aleksander I", which prepared for a state diplomatic or administrative career. 

[John of Hesperia]

I suspect that in both wars the Russians wouldn't have lost unless they decided to throw in the towel.  Napoleon took Moscow and expected this would bring the Tsar to the negotiating table. This had been what had happened after some of his earlier victories. Napoleon could do nothing further because he was badly overextended and also because he had lost so many troops. The only course open to him was to retreat. He returned to France with only a tiny fraction of the troops with which he began his invasion.

In the second world war even had the Nazis taken Moscow I don't think they would have won the war. Like the French in 1812 they too were overextended. Once the Soviets were able to bring West forces from all over the USSR they were able to roll the Nazis back. The Soviets just had considerably more manpower than the Nazis had.

 

I agree with you on Napoleon's actions and expectations, but not on WW11.  Napoleon was restricted by foot and fodder, but the Nazis were not.
Blitzkreig was an amazingly successful tactic, and the Russians had no defense until later in the war, thanks to their improve armor and Studebaker trucks.

What lost that campaign and ultimately the entire war for the Germans was Hitler's slavish backing of his friend and mentor, Benito Mussolini, whose military forces were losing in their ill fated invasion of Yugoslavia, when he came to Il Duce's aid by delaying Operation Barbarossa for a couple months in order to save the Italian bacon.
If Barbarossa had started on schedule, the krauts would have at least conquered all of European Russia to the Urals, and would have had the all important oilfields to the south, ensuring a bomb-proof petroleum supply, and further threatening the Brits in North Africa from the east. 
Carried to its next logical conclusion, if that had happened, the Mid-Eastern oil producers could have been easily convinced to instead divert their petroleum products to Japan, , thus averting the attack on Dec. 7, forcing FDR to seek another excuse for joining the Brits against the Axis. 
While I remember very little of WW11, I had several uncles in three branches of the service, four Marines, two Army Air Corps, one ground, and the rest Navy.  They were reluctant to discuss their participation, and two were casualties. The three Marine survivors, one was part of the US occupation force in (then) Danish colony of Iceland, caused by FDR's expansion of the Monroe Doctrine; and two shooting at Jap Zeros in Pearl Harbor.  The fourth was in the Phillipines on that day, and was MIA.  One uncle, died in his B17 over Europe, one Navy lost in a Kamikazi attack at Okinawa.  That war was, and still is very personal to me, both my grandmothers had gold stars in their windows.  My father was 4F.

[BdHvA]

Brass to the reality!

[Larry1]

I agree with you on Napoleon's actions and expectations, but not on WW11.  Napoleon was restricted by foot and fodder, but the Nazis were not.
Blitzkreig was an amazingly successful tactic, and the Russians had no defense until later in the war, thanks to their improve armor and Studebaker trucks.

... If Barbarossa had started on schedule, the krauts would have at least conquered all of European Russia to the Urals, and would have had the all important oilfields to the south, ensuring a bomb-proof petroleum supply, and further threatening the Brits in North Africa from the east. 

I disagree. Hitler decided upon a three-pronged invasion of Russia, one prong to take Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), one to take Moscow, and one to go South to the oilfields of the Caucasus. Some of his senior generals knew Germany didn't have sufficient forces for all three of those thrusts. And, as it turned out, it didn't have sufficient resources to succeed in any of these thrusts. By December of 1941 the Soviets counterattacked, supported by units from the Soviet Far East and other regions of the USSR.

[Patagonie]

I agree with you on Napoleon's actions and expectations, but not on WW11.  Napoleon was restricted by foot and fodder, but the Nazis were not.
Blitzkreig was an amazingly successful tactic, and the Russians had no defense until later in the war, thanks to their improve armor and Studebaker trucks.

What lost that campaign and ultimately the entire war for the Germans was Hitler's slavish backing of his friend and mentor, Benito Mussolini, whose military forces were losing in their ill fated invasion of Yugoslavia, when he came to Il Duce's aid by delaying Operation Barbarossa for a couple months in order to save the Italian bacon.
If Barbarossa had started on schedule, the krauts would have at least conquered all of European Russia to the Urals, and would have had the all important oilfields to the south, ensuring a bomb-proof petroleum supply, and further threatening the Brits in North Africa from the east. 
Carried to its next logical conclusion, if that had happened, the Mid-Eastern oil producers could have been easily convinced to instead divert their petroleum products to Japan, , thus averting the attack on Dec. 7, forcing FDR to seek another excuse for joining the Brits against the Axis. 
While I remember very little of WW11, I had several uncles in three branches of the service, four Marines, two Army Air Corps, one ground, and the rest Navy.  They were reluctant to discuss their participation, and two were casualties. The three Marine survivors, one was part of the US occupation force in (then) Danish colony of Iceland, caused by FDR's expansion of the Monroe Doctrine; and two shooting at Jap Zeros in Pearl Harbor.  The fourth was in the Phillipines on that day, and was MIA.  One uncle, died in his B17 over Europe, one Navy lost in a Kamikazi attack at Okinawa.  That war was, and still is very personal to me, both my grandmothers had gold stars in their windows.  My father was 4F.

The improve armor of the germans dont resist to a serious analysis.

Germans had many problem with their 37mm and even their 50 mm gun to destroy russian and even french tanks. For example the the B1 was a challenge for the german antitanks gun and Mark III (Panzer 3)
In fact during all the war Russia always had a great variety of tank challenging the german production. It is only after 1943 with the Tiger and the adaptation of the aerial 88mm version (also used as an antitank battery) that they got a killer tank with a front plate of 200 mm. They selected this gun because it was famous for his aerial version used against tank during desert battles especially. But those tanks were very expansive, underpowered and not robust on the battlefield in term of maintenance, contrary to the russian production.
You need to figure out, in the beginning of the war, how depleasant were the view of a KVI or a french D1 for a german tank or any german antitank gunner. The englishs also with the Matilda were a difficult catch (in the beginning of the struggle) for the Afrika Korps.
You need to remember the large variety of SU 122 SU152 SU100 IS1 IS2 IS3 and even the T34-85 were serious challengers for the german tanks.
However, often, training, communications and commandment were the ones to do the difference.