- 'The situation seems to be simplified,' - added Insarov. - 'Napoleon dominates almost all of Western and central Europe. There comes the moment when the period of his brilliant instant victories comes to the end, then passes rather short period of the Peace Treaties of Tilsit, fierce fight of Napoleon on two fronts begins: against Russia and against England.

But in reality, the situation remained difficult. Seven years separates the summer of 1807, when Treaties of Tilsit were signed, from September 1814, when the Congress of Vienna began. And who could have known what would happen in this seven-year period ...'

Insarov has kept silent for a moment and has continued:

- 'About how events developed after the Treaties of Tilsit (1807) , we know now. Napoleon's invasion to Russia. The surrender of Moscow. Skillful actions of Kutuzov. Early winter and others, adverse for the French army, circumstances. The soldiers of the Great Army remained in the snows of Russia.

No less interesting is another. How would events for Russia became develop, if the Treaties of Tilsit were not signed?'

Kamensky looked interestedly at Insarov:

- 'Do you show tendency to a peculiar genre of historical hypotheses, to forming of historical analogies, mister Insarov?

It is obvious that without the Treaties of Tilsit would continue collisions between Napoleonic France and Russia . Despite the fact that their armies needed to rest, replenishment, restoration of forces.

The political fate of Prussia would not be enviable.'

Insarov has continued the reflection:

- 'The Treaties of Tilsit didn't aim to create the opposition between England and Napoleon. Not the Treaties of Tilsit made Britain and Russia the allies in 1812, after the start of the invasion. By 1807, by the time of the signing of the Treaties of Tilsit England already was with Napoleon at war.

England fought against pre-Napoleonic France and Napoleonic France since 1792 - except for the short period of the Treaty of Amiens (1802-1803).

First, there were trade contradictions between England and France. And these contradictions arose long before 1792.

Second, the people's uprising on 10 August 1792 overthrew Louis XVI from the throne, and he and his family were imprisoned in the Temple. In January 1793 Louis XVI was executed. The execution of the former king was described by England as "the most heinous of all known atrocities in history." For the European monarchies - is a significant argument.

Napoleon became the head of France in November, 1799'.

- 'What was the expediency of The Treaties of Tilsit?' - directed the attention of the interlocutor Insarov. And continued:

- 'Receiving the Bialystok district? Russia had no significant interest in this territory. A small territory has been put on one bowl of the scales. On the other bowl - a historical reputation ...

Time for preparation for new collision with Napoleon? But Russia was preparing for the confrontation with Napoleon after the beginning of the Russo-Prussian-French war of 1806-1807. And, maybe, earlier? We will remember the Italian campaign of Suvorov of 1799 - during existence of the 2nd anti-French coalition. Russia was included into the coalition against republican France in March, 1793.

England continuously was at war with Napoleon since 1803 - and until his final leaving from the political scene in 1815.

On the one hand, in the signing of the Treaties of Tilsit there was a logic. First, in general a lean compromise is better than a fat lawsuit. Secondly, there was a probability that this peace will become "eternal"? Or not?

If to watch at the Treaties of Tilsit as on the come true historic fact, then he can remind someone not the world, but truce. Truce before resolute collision.

On the other hand, from 1807 for 1812 Napoleon has collected, has organized, has provided with food and arms enormous army. He prepared and then invaded Russia.

Someone will find both "pluses", and "minuses" in the Treaties of Tilsit.

What outweighs?

However, historical acts seldom deserve unambiguously positive assessment. Or unambiguously negative.

Pay attention, mister Kamensky, to such feature of military contraposition as its duration. If to take for examples such powers as England and Russia, resisting to Napoleon, then the following picture appears.

The French revolution of 1789 at first has attracted some sympathies of the English bourgeoisie.

The radicalism of the French revolution and parallel growth of radicalism in England has alarmed ruling classes.

The successes of the French Revolution, occupation of Belgium, - the main way of the English sale on the continent, - and threat of occupation of Holland have forced England to join enemies of revolutionary France; war has begun (at the beginning of 1793).

In England the legislation protecting integrity of human beings has been suspended, and the laws which have limited freedom of press and meetings are issued; radical clubs have been closed.

War - by one of estimates of its duration - continued 22 years. In historical literature the opinion is expressed that this war was war both on external, and on the internal front. For example, it was necessary to resolve both social, and national contradictions.

Between the year 1803 and Waterloo (18 June 1815; time of 7 anti-French coalition) were created: 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th anti-Napoleonic coalitions. As you might guess, all of these listed 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th coalitions ended in such a way, that the 7th coalition became necessary.

And, despite the fact that one of the coalition was been replacing with another, England did not stop uninterruptedly - almost 12 years (if we count from 1803) - to fight against Napoleon.

And if you count not from 1803, but from the beginning of 1793, when the French National Convention (Convention nationale) declared war on England, and to subtract approximately one year of duration of "peace of Amiens", it turns out - about 21 years!

About 21 years of active military contraposition! Such historical phenomenon is deserving attention, dear mister Kamensky, doesn't seem to you? In such difficult situation England had a complex of the most difficult questions: budgetary, personnel, internal political and others!'

- 'England was separated from Napoleon's army by the Strait,' - Kamensky have reminded . - 'England had a strong fleet which has broken the Spanish-French fleet in the Trafalgar battle in 1805. England could resist to Napoleon nearly 12 years uninterruptedly (from 1803 to 1815): Napoleon couldn't destroy England.