The theme of war in the great epic novel “War and Peace” begins with an image of the war of 1805 by L.N. Tolstoy shows both the careerism of staff officers and the heroism of ordinary soldiers, modest army officers, such as Captain Tushin. Tushin's battery took the full brunt of the French artillery strike, but these people did not flinch, did not abandon the battlefield even when they were given the order to retreat - they also took care not to leave the guns to the enemy. And the courageous captain Tushin timidly remains silent, afraid to object to the senior officer in response to his unfair reproaches, afraid to let down another superior, does not reveal the true state of affairs and does not justify himself. L.N. Tolstoy admires the heroism of the humble artillery captain and his fighters, but he shows his attitude to the war by depicting the first battle of Nikolai Rostov, then still a newcomer in the hussar regiment. There is a crossing over the Enns near its confluence with the Danube, and the author depicts a landscape of remarkable beauty: “blue mountains beyond the Danube, a monastery, mysterious gorges, pine forests filled to the top with fog.” In contrast to this is what happens next on the bridge: shelling, groans of the wounded, stretchers... Nikolai Rostov sees this through the eyes of a man for whom war has not yet become a profession, and he is horrified by how easily the idyll and beauty of nature are destroyed. And when he first meets the French in open battle, the first reaction of an inexperienced person is bewilderment and fear. “The enemy’s intention to kill him seemed impossible,” and Rostov, frightened, “grabbed a pistol and, instead of shooting from it, threw it at the Frenchman and ran to the bushes as best he could.” “One inseparable feeling of fear for his young, happy life controlled his entire being.” And the reader does not condemn Nikolai Rostov for cowardice, sympathizing with the young man. The writer’s anti-militaristic position was manifested in the way L.N. shows. Tolstoy’s attitude towards the war of soldiers: they do not know what and with whom they are fighting, the goals and objectives of the war are incomprehensible to the people. This was especially evident in the depiction of the war of 1807, which, as a result of complex political intrigues, ended with the Peace of Tilsit. Nikolai Rostov, who visited his friend Denisov in the hospital, saw with his own eyes the terrible situation of the wounded in hospitals, dirt, illness, and the lack of essentials to care for the wounded. And when he arrived in Tilsit, he saw the fraternization of Napoleon and Alexander I, ostentatious rewarding of heroes on both sides. Rostov cannot get out of his head the thoughts of Denisov and the hospital, of Bonaparte, “who was now the emperor, whom Emperor Alexander loves and respects.”
And Rostov is frightened by the naturally arising question: “Why are the torn off arms, legs, and killed people?” Rostov does not allow himself to go further in his thoughts, but the reader understands the author’s position: condemnation of the meaninglessness of war, violence, and the pettiness of political intrigue. War of 1805-1807 he assesses it as a crime of the ruling circles against the people.
The beginning of the War of 1812 is shown by JI.H. Thick as the beginning of a war, no different from others. “An event contrary to human reason and all human nature took place,” writes the author, discussing the causes of the war and not considering them to be in any way justified. It is incomprehensible to us that millions of Christian people would kill and torture each other “due to political circumstances.” “It is impossible to understand what connection these circumstances have with the very fact of murder and violence,” says the writer, confirming his idea with numerous facts.
The nature of the war of 1812 has changed since the siege of Smolensk: it became a people's war. This is convincingly confirmed by the scenes of the fire in Smolensk. The merchant Ferapontov and the man in the frieze overcoat, setting fire to barns with bread with their own hands, the manager of Prince Bolkonsky Alpatych, the residents of the city - all these people, with “animated joyful and exhausted faces” watching the fire, are seized by a single patriotic impulse, the desire to resist the enemy. The best of the nobles experience the same feelings - they are united with their people. Prince Andrei, who once refused to serve in the Russian army after deep personal experiences, explains his changed point of view: “The French have ruined my house and are going to ruin Moscow, and have insulted and insulted me every second. They are my enemies, they are all criminals, according to my standards. And Timokhin and the whole army think the same.” This united patriotic impulse is especially clearly shown by Tolstoy in the scene of a prayer service on the eve of the Battle of Borodino: soldiers and militias “monotonously greedily” look at the icon taken from Smolensk, and this feeling is understandable to any Russian person, as Pierre Bezukhov understood it when he toured the positions near the Borodino field. This same feeling of patriotism forced the people to leave Moscow. “They went because for the Russian people there could be no question: whether it would be good or bad under the rule of the French in Moscow. It was impossible to be under the control of the French: it was the worst thing,” writes L.N. Tolstoy. Having a very extraordinary view of the event of that time, the author believed that it was the people who were the driving force of history, since their hidden patriotism is not expressed in phrases and “unnatural actions”, but is expressed “imperceptibly, simply, organically and therefore always produces the strongest results.” . People left their property, like the Rostov family, they gave all the carts to the wounded, and to do otherwise seemed shameful to them. “Are we some kind of Germans?” - Natasha is indignant, and the countess-mother asks her husband for forgiveness for recent reproaches that he wants to ruin the children without caring about the property left in the house. People burn houses with all their goods so that the enemy does not get it, so that the enemy does not triumph - and achieve their goal. Napoleon is trying to rule the capital, but his orders are sabotaged, he is completely out of control of the situation and, according to the author’s definition, “is like a child who, holding on to the strings tied inside the carriage, imagines that he rules.” From the writer’s point of view, the role of an individual in history is determined by the extent to which this individual understands his relevance to the course of the current moment. It is precisely because Kutuzov feels the mood of the people, the spirit of the army and monitors its changes, corresponding to it with his orders, explains L.N. Tolstoy is the success of a Russian military leader. No one except Kuguzov understands this need to follow the natural course of events; Ermolov, Miloradovich, Platov and others - everyone wants to speed up the defeat of the French. When the regiments went on the attack near Vyazma, they “beat and lost thousands of people,” but “they did not cut off or overthrow anyone.” Only Kutuzov, with his senile wisdom, understands the uselessness of this offensive: “Why all this, when one third of this army melted away from Moscow to Vyazma without a battle?” “The club of the people’s war rose with all its formidable and majestic strength,” and the entire course of subsequent events confirmed this. The partisan detachments united officer Vasily Denisov, demoted militiaman Dolokhov, peasant Tikhon Shcherbaty - people of different classes. But it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the great common cause that united them - the destruction of Napoleon's “Grand Army”.
It is necessary to note not only the courage and heroism of the partisans, but also their generosity and mercy. The Russian people, destroying the enemy army, were able to pick up and feed the drummer boy Vincent (whose name they changed to Vesenny or Visenya), and warm Morel and Rambal, an officer and an orderly, by the fire. Kutuzov’s speech near Krasny is about the same thing - about mercy for the vanquished: “While they were strong, we did not feel sorry for ourselves, but now we can feel sorry for them. They are people too." But Kutuzov had already played his role - after the expulsion of the French from Russia, the sovereign no longer needed him. Feeling that “his calling had been fulfilled,” the old military leader retired from business. Now the old political intrigues of those in power begin: the sovereign, the Grand Duke. Politics requires continuing the European campaign, which Kutuzov did not approve of, for which he was dismissed. In the assessment of L.N. Tolstoy’s foreign campaign was possible only without Kutuzov: “The representative of the people’s war had no choice but death. And he died."
Highly appreciating the people's war, which united people “for the salvation and glory of Russia,” J1.H. Tolstoy condemns a war of European significance, considering the interests of politics unworthy of man's purpose on earth, and the manifestation of violence as inhumane and unnatural to human nature.
Tolstoy's novel partisan war French
Attitude of L.N. Tolstoy's approach to war is contradictory and ambiguous. On the one hand, the writer, as a humanist, considers war “the most disgusting thing in life,” unnatural, monstrous in its cruelty, “the purpose of which is murder,” a weapon — “espionage and treason, deception and lies, called stratagems.” War, in Tolstoy’s opinion, brings only violence and suffering, divides people and embitters them, forces them to break universal moral laws... And at the same time, Tolstoy, being a patriot, glorifies a war that “does not fit any previous legends,” a partisan war, “which began with the enemy’s entry into Smolensk” and, according to the author, was one of the main reasons for the defeat of the French in Russia and the death of Napoleonic army. Tolstoy characterizes this “war not according to the rules” as spontaneous, comparing it with a club, “rising with all its formidable and majestic strength and, without asking anyone’s tastes and rules, nailed the French until the entire invasion was destroyed.” Generated by a “feeling of insult and revenge,” personal hatred of the French, which was experienced by the residents of Moscow, who left their homes and left the city so as not to submit to Napoleon’s army, and by the men who burned all their hay so that the French would not get it, the idea of this war gradually spread to all levels of society. The awakened national consciousness and reluctance to be defeated by Napoleon united various classes in the struggle for freedom and independence of Russia. That is why partisan warfare is so diverse in its manifestations, and partisan detachments are so different from each other: “there were parties that adopted all the techniques of the army, with infantry, artillery, headquarters; there were some Cossacks, there were peasants and landowners.” Napoleon's Grand Army was destroyed piece by piece, thousands of Frenchmen - backward marauders, foragers - were exterminated by the partisans, their numerous "small, combined, foot and horse" detachments. The heroes of this war are representatives of different classes, having little in common, but united by the common goal of defending their homeland. This is the sexton, “who took several hundred prisoners a month,” the hussar Denis Davydov, “who took the first step” in legitimizing the partisan war, the elder Vasilisa, “who killed hundreds of Frenchmen,” and, of course, Tikhon Shcherbaty. In the image of this partisan, Tolstoy embodies a certain type of Russian peasant, not meek and humble, like Platon Karataev, but unusually brave, not devoid of a good, moral principle in his soul, but in many ways acting instinctively. That’s why he easily kills the French, “does no harm to them, but he beat about two dozen marauders.” Tikhon Shcherbaty, “one of the most necessary, useful and brave people in the party,” is distinguished by his dexterity and ingenuity: “No one else discovered cases of attack, no one else captured him and beat the French.” But at the same time, the reckless cruelty of Tikhon, who used to not use tongues and not take prisoners, but who beat his enemies not out of hatred and malice, but because of his underdevelopment, contradicts Tolstoy’s humanistic beliefs. This hero, as well as Dolokhov, who commanded a small party and fearlessly went on the most dangerous forays, is associated with a peculiar ideology of guerrilla warfare, reflected in the words of Prince Andrei: “The French ruined my house, they are my enemies, they are all criminals. They must be executed. Dolokhov considered it “stupid courtesy”, “chivalry” to leave the French alive, who would still “die of starvation or be beaten by another party”. However, such a hero as Denisov, who released prisoners “on receipt”, “had no conscience.” one man" and "who did not want to sully the honor of a soldier", as well as Petya Rostov, "who felt love for all people", who felt pity for Vincent Bosse, a young drummer taken prisoner, embody Tolstoy's ideas of humanism, compassion and love for people. Laws peace, according to the author, will certainly triumph over the war, because hostility and hatred towards the enemy is replaced by pity and sympathy. So, after the battle of Krasnoye, Kutuzov appeals to the army that “while the French were strong, they beat them. , and now you can feel sorry for them, they are people too,” and the captive Italian admits to Pierre that “to fight with such a people as the Russians is a sin, because they, having suffered so much from the French, do not even have any malice against them...”.
IMAGE OF THE WAR OF 1805-1807.
The narrative moves to the battlefields in Austria, many new heroes appear: Alexander I, the Austrian Emperor Franz, Napoleon, the commanders of the armies Kutuzov and Mak, military leaders Bagration, Weyrother, ordinary commanders, staff officers... and the bulk - soldiers: Russian, French, Austrian , Denisov's hussars, infantry (Timokhin's company), artillerymen (Tushin's battery), guards. Such versatility is one of the features of Tolstoy’s style.
- What were the goals of the war and how did its direct participants view the war?
The Russian government entered the war out of fear of the spread of revolutionary ideas and the desire to prevent Napoleon's aggressive policy. Tolstoy successfully chose the scene of the review in Braunau for the initial chapters of the war. There is an inspection of people and equipment.
What will it show? Is the Russian army ready for war? Do the soldiers consider the goals of the war just, do they understand them? (chapter 2)
This crowd scene conveys the general mood of the soldiers. The image of Kutuzov stands out in close-up. Starting the review in the presence of Austrian generals, Kutuzov wanted to convince the latter that the Russian army was not ready for a campaign and should not join the army of General Mack. For Kutuzov, this war was not a sacred and necessary matter, so his goal was to keep the army from fighting.
CONCLUSION: the soldiers’ lack of understanding of the goals of the war, Kutuzov’s negative attitude towards it, mistrust between the allies, the mediocrity of the Austrian command, lack of provisions, the general state of confusion - this is what the review scene in Branau gives. The main feature of the depiction of war in the novel is that the author deliberately shows the war not in a heroic way, but focuses on “blood, suffering, death.”
What way out can be found for the Russian army?
The Battle of Shengraben, undertaken on the initiative of Kutuzov, gave the Russian army the opportunity to join forces with its units coming from Russia. The history of this battle once again confirms the experience and strategic talent of Kutuzov, the commander. His attitude towards the war, as when reviewing the troops in Branau, remained the same: Kutuzov considers the war unnecessary; but here we were talking about saving the army, and the author shows how the commander acts in this case.
BATTLE OF SHENGRABEN.
- Brief description of Kutuzov’s plan.
This “great feat,” as Kutuzov called it, was needed to save the entire army, and therefore Kutuzov, who was so protective of people, went for it. Tolstoy once again emphasizes Kutuzov’s experience and wisdom, his ability to find a way out in a difficult historical situation.
What is cowardice and heroism, feat and military duty - these moral qualities are clear to everyone. Let us trace the contrast between the behavior of Dolokhov and the staff, on the one hand, and Tushin, Timokhin and the soldiers, on the other (chap. 20-21).
Timokhin's company
Timokhin's entire company showed heroism. In conditions of confusion, when the troops taken by surprise fled, Timokhin’s company “alone in the forest remained in order and, having sat down in a ditch near the forest, unexpectedly attacked the French.” Tolstoy sees the heroism of the company in their courage and discipline. Quiet and seemingly awkward before the battle, company commander Timokhin managed to keep the company in order. The company rescued the rest, took prisoners and trophies.
Dolokhov's behavior
After the battle, Dolokhov alone boasted of his merits and wounds. His courage is ostentatious; he is characterized by self-confidence and pushing himself to the fore. True heroism is accomplished without calculation and exaggeration of one’s exploits.
Battery Tushin.
In the hottest area, in the center of the battle, Tushin’s battery was located without cover. No one had a more difficult situation in the Battle of Shengraben, while the results of the battery’s firing were the greatest. In this difficult battle, Captain Tushin did not experience the slightest fear. Talk about the battery and Tushino. In Tushino, Tolstoy discovers a wonderful man. Modesty, selflessness, on the one hand, determination, courage, on the other, based on a sense of duty, this is Tolstoy’s norm of human behavior in battle, which determines true heroism.
BATTLE OF AUSTERLITZ (part 3, ch. 11-19)
This is the compositional center; all the threads of the inglorious and unnecessary war go to it.
The lack of moral incentive for waging war, the incomprehensibility and alienness of its goals to the soldiers, distrust between the allies, confusion in the troops - all this was the reason for the defeat of the Russians. According to Tolstoy, it is in Austerlitz that the true end of the war of 1805-1807 lies, since Austerlitz expresses the essence of the campaign. “The era of our failures and shame” - this is how Tolstoy himself defined this war.
Austerlitz became an era of shame and disappointment not only for all of Russia, but also for individual heroes. N. Rostov behaved not at all the way he would have liked. Even the meeting on the battlefield with the sovereign, whom Rostov adored, did not bring him joy. Prince Andrei lies on Pratsenskaya Mountain with a feeling of great disappointment in Napoleon, who used to be his hero. Napoleon appeared to him as a small, insignificant man. A feeling of disappointment in life as a result of realizing the mistakes made by the heroes. In this regard, it is noteworthy that next to the Austerlitz battle scenes there are chapters telling about Pierre’s marriage to Helen. For Pierre, this is his Austerlitz, the era of his shame and disappointment.
CONCLUSION: General Austerlitz - this is the result of volume 1. Terrible, like any war, with the destruction of human life, this war did not have, according to Tolstoy, even a goal that explained its inevitability. Started for the sake of glory, for the sake of the ambitious interests of Russian court circles, it was incomprehensible and not needed by the people and therefore ended with Austerlitz. This outcome was all the more shameful because the Russian army could be courageous and heroic when the goals of the battle were at least somewhat clear to it, as was the case at Shangreben.
IMAGE OF THE WAR OF 1812
Crossing the French across the Neman" (part 1, ch. 1-2)
French camp. Why did “millions of people, having renounced their human feelings and their reason, have to go to the East from the West and kill their own kind?”
There is unity in the French army - both among the soldiers and between them and the emperor. BUT this unity was selfish, the unity of the invaders. But this unity is fragile. Then the author will show how it disintegrates at the decisive moment. This unity is expressed in the soldiers’ blind love for Napoleon and Napoleon’s taking it for granted (the death of the lancers during the crossing! They were proud that they were dying in front of their emperor! But he didn’t even look at them!).
The Russians abandoned their lands. Smolensk (part 2, chapter 4), Bogucharovo (part 2, chapter 8), Moscow (part 1, chapter 23)
The unity of the Russian people is based on something else - on hatred of the invaders, on love and affection for their native land and the people living on it.
BATTLE OF BORODINO (vol. 3, part 2, ch. 19-39)
This is the culmination of the whole action, because... firstly, the Battle of Borodino was a turning point, after which the French offensive fizzled out; secondly, this is the intersection point of the destinies of all the heroes. Wanting to prove that the Battle of Borodino was only a moral victory for the Russian army, Tolstoy introduces a battle plan into the novel. Most of the scenes before and during the battle are shown through the eyes of Pierre, since Pierre, who understands nothing about military affairs, perceives the war from a psychological point of view and can observe the mood of the participants, and this, according to Tolstoy, is the reason for victory. Everyone talks about the need for victory at Borodino, about confidence in it: “One word - Moscow,” “Tomorrow, no matter what, we will win the battle.” Prince Andrei expresses the main idea for understanding the war: we are not talking about an abstract living space, but about the land in which our ancestors lie, for which soldiers go into battle.
And under these conditions you can neither “pity yourself” nor “be generous” with the enemy. Tolstoy recognizes and justifies the defensive and liberation war, the war for the lives of fathers and children. War is “the most disgusting thing in life.” This is Andrei Bolkonsky speaking. But when they want to kill you, deprive you of your freedom, you and your land, then take a club and defeat the enemy.
Thunderstorm of the twelfth year
It has arrived - who helped us here:
The frenzy of the people
Barclay, winter or Russian God?
A. S. Pushkin
One of the most important problems that L.N. Tolstoy posed in his work was his attitude to war. A brave officer, a participant in the Crimean War and the defense of Sevastopol, the writer thought a lot about the role of war in the life of human society. Tolstoy was not a pacifist. He distinguished between just and unjust wars of aggression. We are convinced of this when we reflect on how two wars are shown in War and Peace - the campaign of 1805-1807 and the Patriotic War of 1812.
Russia entered the war against Napoleonic France in 1805, as the tsarist government was afraid of the spread of revolutionary ideas and wanted to prevent Napoleon’s aggressive policy. Tolstoy himself has a sharply negative attitude towards this war and conveys this attitude towards the senseless destruction of people through the experiences of the inexperienced, naive, sincere Nikolai Rostov. Let us remember Nikolai’s morning conversation with the German, the owner of the house in which Rostov lives, their friendliness, the joy caused by the beautiful morning, and the exclamation: “Long live the whole world!”
Why war if Russian and German, military and civilian, feel the same, love each other and the whole world?!
But during the truce, Russian and French soldiers talk. They laugh so merrily that after that they would have to throw down their guns and go home, “but the guns remained loaded... And just as before, they remained facing each other... the guns removed from the limbers.” These lines contain the bitterness of the author, who hates war.
Tolstoy was sure that the reasons for the defeat were the lack of unity in the Allied army, lack of coordination of actions, and most importantly, that the goals of this war were incomprehensible and alien to the soldiers.
The theme of war receives a fundamentally new solution in War and Peace when depicting the events of 1812. Tolstoy convincingly proves the need for a just, defensive war, the goals of which are clear and close to the people.
We are watching how unity is born - a community of people who understand that their fate, the fate of future generations, and, more simply, the fate of children and grandchildren is being decided. “Love for one’s native ashes, love for one’s father’s tombs” (A.S. Pushkin) does not allow inaction.
People of different classes, different estates unite to repel the enemy. “All the people want to attack!” - this is the key to understanding why, during the abandonment of Smolensk, the merchant Ferapontov burns his property; The Rostovs, leaving Moscow, give the carts to the wounded, losing all their property; Prince Andrei, forgetting about his misfortunes, goes into the active army; Pierre goes to the Borodino field, and then remains in Moscow captured by the French to kill Napoleon.
National unity is what, according to Tolstoy, determined the moral and then military victory of Russia in 1812.
The principles of Tolstoy’s depiction of war also changed. If, when talking about the military events of 1805-1807, he reveals mainly the psychology of an individual person or groups of people, then when depicting the Patriotic War, the writer is focused on the mass of the people, the individual person interests him as a particle of this mass. Material from the site
Broad pictures of people's life at the front and in the rear unfold before us. Each of the heroes of the novel, albeit in different ways, is involved in this life, begins to feel what the people feel, and relate to the events taking place the way the people relate to them. For Prince Andrei, for example, it is very important that Timokhin and the entire army think about the war the same way as he does; The militias “put on white shirts” before the Battle of Borodino, and Dolokhov apologizes to Pierre - this is also a kind of “white shirt”, purification before a holy cause, and maybe even before death. The soldiers and officers of Raevsky's battery are fearless and calm; majestic Kutuzov, confident that victory will be won, that Borodino will be the beginning of the death of the army of conquerors.
That's how it all happened. “The club of the people’s war rose... and nailed the French call until the entire invasion was destroyed.”
Thus, depicting military events in “War and Peace”, L. N. Tolstoy emphasizes the sharp difference between the nature of the war with Napoleon (1805-1807), the goals of which were incomprehensible and alien to the people, and the Patriotic War of 1812 as a people’s war, just and necessary for the salvation of Russia.
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
On this page there is material on the following topics:
Arts and entertainment
Many people are interested in what Tolstoy’s attitude towards the war was. This is quite simple to understand. You just need to read the novel “War and Peace.” In the process, it will become completely clear that Tolstoy hated war. The writer believed that murder is the most heinous of all possible crimes, and it cannot be justified by anything.
The enthusiastic attitude towards military exploits is not noticeable in the work. Although there is one exception - a passage about the Battle of Shengraben and Tushin’s act. Depicting the Patriotic War, the author admires the unity of the people. People had to unite in order to act together against the enemy.
What did Tolstoy think about war? Let's figure it out. Going through the materials that reflected the events of 1812, the writer realized that, despite all the criminality of the war with its numerous deaths, rivers of blood, dirt, betrayal, sometimes people are forced to fight. Perhaps in other times these people would not harm a fly, but if a jackal attacks him, he will finish him off in self-defense. However, while killing, he does not feel any pleasure from it and does not think that this act is worthy of admiration. The author shows how much the soldiers who were forced to fight the enemy loved their homeland.
Tolstoy's attitude towards war is, of course, interesting, but even more interesting is what he said about our enemies. The writer speaks with disdain about the French, who care more about their own self than about the nation - they are not particularly patriotic. And Russian people, according to Tolstoy, are characterized by nobility and self-sacrifice in the name of saving the Motherland. The negative characters in the work are also those people who do not think at all about the fate of Russia (Ellen Kuragina’s guests) and people who hide their indifference behind feigned patriotism (most of the nobles, not counting some worthy personalities: Andrei Bolkonsky, the Rostovs, Kutuzov, Bezukhov). In addition, the writer openly has a bad attitude towards those who enjoy the war - Napoleon and Dolokhov. It shouldn't be this way, it's unnatural. The war depicted by Tolstoy is so terrible that it is surprising how these people can derive pleasure from battles. How cruel do you have to be for this?
The writer likes those people who, realizing that war is disgusting, vile, but sometimes inevitable, without any pathos, stand up to defend their country and do not get any pleasure from killing their opponents. These are Denisov, Bolkonsky, Kutuzov and many other people depicted in the episodes. From here Tolstoy’s attitude towards war becomes clear. With particular trepidation, the author writes about the truce, when the Russians show compassion for the crippled French, humane treatment of prisoners (Kutuzov’s order to the soldiers at the end of the bloodshed is to take pity on defeated opponents who have received frostbite). The writer is also close to scenes in which enemies show humanity towards the Russians (Bezukhov’s interrogation with Marshal Davout). Do not forget about the main idea of the work - the unity of people. When peace reigns, the people, figuratively speaking, unite into one family, but during war there is disunity. The novel also contains the idea of patriotism. In addition, the author extols peace and speaks negatively about bloodshed. Tolstoy's attitude towards war is sharply negative. As you know, the writer was a pacifist.
What does Tolstoy say about the Patriotic War? He claims it's a crime. The writer will not divide the soldiers into defenders and attackers. Countless people committed so many atrocities that at other times would not have been accumulated over several centuries, and what’s most terrible is that no one in this period regarded this as something unacceptable.
This is what war was like in Tolstoy’s understanding: blood, dirt (both literally and figuratively) and outrages that horrified any conscious person. But the writer understood that bloodshed was inevitable. There have been wars throughout the history of mankind and will continue until the very end of its existence, nothing can be done about it. But our duty is to try to prevent atrocities and bloodshed, so that we ourselves and our families can live in peace, which, however, is so fragile. It must be protected with all our might.
Current
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
