with platonov's archive, of course , something very difficult for further researchers happened. rgali then pushkin's house, the family archive, and there it was also necessary to dig through these very publications supposedly being prepared there, that is, in order to verify a special textual one, as if certified by himself.

because, well, he was not repressed, yes, he was not arrested, although, although in fact, it is of course amazing that he was not arrested, especially considering that almost all the police officers who worked under his leadership in voronezh, they all went to prison at the end of the twenties, that's the obvious way, he was the only one who wasn't touched, it's just that he went to moscow and in some sense got lost, but it happened in the very same year when he was scolded for the chronicle in the prog, because...

in my opinion, not a single soviet writer was scolded, that's how much fury stalin spread around himself and which his subordinates saluted, that barrage of crazy criticism that was poured on platonov, that he was very hard pressed, he was actually thrown out of literary life for two years and a half, in a sense his happiness was that he said about himself, i am a technical person, and for him literature, i am a technical person, yes, for him literature was never the main thing, as he thought, in life, and the main thing was engineering, there is melioration, well, here you go again, well, because he understood perfectly well that he was a writer and as if i were a technical person, it is very good that he had such a profession, by the way, malsannu, again, i was always very indignant when they wrote that he was sweeping the yard there, because he always worked, he always worked, among other things, but of course he understood his gift perfectly, he perfectly... understood that he was

a writer, a great writer, maybe even so, you know, eh, here again, as if some kind of inspiration, to me in general, when the conversation turns to platonov on the topic, a soviet person, not a soviet person, excuse me, of course, all this does not matter, absolutely, does not matter, that is, this interesting for a biography, there for how to say, and so on, but he is a great writer. in the new season on the first, today we were auditioned for the choir gracheva, great, yura, you definitely need to sing, come on, sing, what a unique gift you have, you take such notes, what an upstart you think you are, larka, it's you, don't you recognize me, or what, it's me, andryukha, that means life is a success, you have everything that the advice is about.

sing so that the sun rises. choir. premiere of a multi-part film. coming soon, on the first. dear friends, we continue. this is a podcast life of the remarkable. i am with you, its leading

writer alexey varlamov. we are talking about andrey platonov and my interlocutor elena shobina, a philologist and publisher. well, in my understanding, platonov still has advice. what we call the concept of a soviet writer , a person for whom this is important, a person who is inspired by this project, it seems to me, initially, as if his spring, this is the moment that pushed him into literature, his entire creative life so, no? i mean precisely the impulse, then, in many ways, of course, he leaves this project, but again same as he leaves, it seems to me, i may be wrong, but he has a terrible crisis in the early thirties, including because he understands that what he dreamed of did not work out, well, it did not work out,

then fate sends him turkmenistan, he goes to turkmenistan in 1933, here are his turkmen notebooks, the story dzhan is absolutely amazing, yes, because the story dzhan, as it seems to me, is in some sense such an antonym of chevingur, because if in chevingur he shows people, yes, who decided that they were at the forefront of the revolution, that they had built socialism in a single place, and he, with tenderness, bitterness, sarcasm, pain, compassion, he is such an emotional person, describes the tragedy of this city, which ultimately perishes, it is not clear from the reds or from the whites, since we are touching on this topic, that jan, as it seems to me, is a story about how, after all, this small people, lost in the sands of central asia precisely thanks to the soviet project, still receives life, which i would say, thanks to the soviet project, or the main idea for this writer, whether it concerns turkmenistan, not

turkmenistan, the pit, chevingur, the epefan sluices, the search for a separate meaning of common existence, you understand, for me he is more of a philosopher than...

here is this mythological version that andrei platonovich got infected from his dying son. marya alsanna, categorically banned, she

simply, she perceived it simply as an insult, because she said that she made sure that it was in another room, it was there, well, in general, in short, yes, but here, what can you say, well , it's just a terrible life, i'm saying, in this book of letters, all this is there, there is...

in some sense, well, i don't know what verb to choose correctly, but as

andrei platonovich himself very well said, to semyon lipkin, that andrei doesn't scold you anymore, i'm now a recovering member of the team, yes, yes, that is, during the war, they published him, they recognized him, this is terrible, remember that after the war, in general, everyone really had the feeling that having experienced such a thing, there was no return it will be that already here, as it were , a decree is issued about the magazines zvezda and leningrad. and in the same forty-sixth year, when the story is published, the brilliant story of andrei platonov's return or the ivanov family in novy mir, and this was the first story that simonov published, becoming the editor-in-chief of novy mir, simonov opens his editorship with this story, and for him this is important, and an article by literary critic ermilov is published, which simply destroys this story, destroys platonov, and of course, his the last years - it's a disease, it's...

and they threw at this person, in general, if we talk about nagibin, there was another interesting plot in platonov's life, but it was before the war, and he communicated very little with anyone, after all, that's how it is, but there was such a writer sergei budantsev, he had what is called, his wife, the translator vera ilyina, he had what is called a salon, in which there were, but as they would say now, writers not of the first rank, lev gumelevsky.

they then come out with rokach, they say: well, andrei polatovich, well, the story is bad, well what are you talking about? he says: okay, the main thing is that he doesn't act up in the entryways, imagine vagulevsky, the priest's son, you know, a very large man, positive, by the way, he was very popular later, he published molodyozhny guard, not just

a series of giselle, there's a great engineer, a great something there, you shouldn't confuse him. it's a pity that our time has come to an end, we can talk about platonov endlessly, what can i say, my dears, read platonov, not because he's 125 years old, but because that is true, this is the deepest, the smartest, the most accurate, in my opinion, russian writer, philosopher, wizard, magician, sorcerer, in the 20th century, amazing and theatrical productions that are going on now, the platonov festival in voronezh, and the films that are poorly, poorly filmed according to platonov, although i still do not understand how it is possible not to film kotlavan, chivingur, the same thing to be filmed, i think that it is possible, i think that this is a challenge to modern directors, if i were a director, i would try to film this, because

true challenge to you, here, but in any case we still have to platonov, as andrey said. in russian history of the xix century there were two pavlovichs, first alexander pavlovich, alexander i, then nikolai pavlovich, nikolai i, i would call them, you know, two political fluxes, on different sides, nikolai pavlovich was forced from the very first

days of his reign to deal primarily with internal affairs.

some character traits dominated in him, and with this split personality did not occur, somehow it somehow managed to coexist in him, that's possible the legacy of my grandmother catherine, who once said that i would get along just fine, both in athens and in sparta, where there are two completely different poles, and the same thing... was with alexander pavlovich in his younger years , he could spend the whole day in gatchen, doing, so to speak, marching and military affairs with his father, as for his upbringing, you and i remember who raised him, it was the republican laharpe, a swiss, yes, who later became , among other things, the head of republican switzerland,

well, klyuchevsky said a lot about this ironically, he said: the contradiction in my opinion follows precisely from the need to maneuver in youth and in childhood, then in youth between grandmother ekaterina alekseevna and, accordingly

, father pavel petrovich, because the poles are different, and it was necessary to put on and take off different masks all the time, this pretense or , according to pushkin, cunning, let's talk about this , we'll debate, i think, it seems to me, became a distinctive feature of alexander i, it is no coincidence that napoleon at one time called him a hit. even after the occupation of moscow, that's right, not fled from petersburg, did not flee from petersburg, his relatives, his mother, wanted to flee, he insisted that he stay, he showed

a certain courage, because at that moment after the burning of moscow, well, there is, witnesses tell an episode when he went to church, the people stood sullenly, absolutely silently, and he, he felt this rejection. invasion, so to speak, he lived through all of this, and he withstood it, here we need to remember the episode associated with the palace coup, with the murder of his father, because alexander himself knew about the coup, that it was being prepared, and he actually gave it his sanction, uh, that's why he didn't actually order his father to be killed, there was such an episode, small, but very characteristic, when napoleon shot the duke of enghien, yes, yes, a bourbon who was kidnapped from a neighboring state. that's why alexander, since russia was independent then, hadn't yet fought with france, reacted to this very harshly, they put a diplomatic note, to which napoleon

responded, so to speak, truly slapped, he what if your the imperial number knew that your father's killer was a couple of kilometers from your border, didn't you take all measures to capture them, given that all of europe knew that the killer of alexander i's father was in st. petersburg in its outskirts, and so alexander. that is , he demonstrated the continuation of the napoleons with the napoleonic wars , perhaps not because of some personal courage, but because of some of his

mysticism, because after the war of 812 this change occurred in him very sharp, but he believed in some kind of divine providence, in his special mission, and stood very often and more than once it happened, under the cannonballs fell. in the story with asperansky, who was called, an outstanding reformer, whom klyuchevsky called the second reformer after the ordinand shchokin, a reformer of the 16th century in the russian hierarchy. politicians standing at the throne. spiransky was in demand after the terzito peace, after the defeat of russia by podstrelitz and friedland, the country needed reforms, a lost war in general often leads

to reforms. and spiransky, who did not come from the upper class, created a whole program of reforms. there is the state duma, there is the division into three estates, there is the gradual abolition of serfdom. but the conservative nobility spoke out against it. spiransky was sent for nothing, basically an exile to siberia, then spiransky will restore his position, but the reform will remain buried. in this sense, with his liberal convictions, it seems to me, these were still the convictions of his youth during the times of the secret committee, when only immediately after the death paul was an attempt at reform, when around not... here this princely youth was grouped, here alexander i changed all this. two historical figures who opposed

each other, alexander. and napoleon, two such policies, it is necessary to understand why, strictly speaking, the war took place in 1812, if before that it was possible to find different other motives, because there alexander there he took on obligations to protect there someone or something, and here, well, there was telzite, the first peace of telzite, they there on...

alexander already behaved differently, he already with many did not agree, well, we also know his phrase about the fact that if you shout there, because at some point napoleon threw his cocked hat there and almost started to trample on it, he acted out hysterics, well , he acted out hysterics, he acted out, he knew how to do that , yeah, yeah, he was actually a cold-blooded person, so no, it was a joke, but alexander responded to this accordingly, if you continue like this... then, well, i 'll just leave, that's all, and napoleon immediately calmed down, but i have the impression that in erfort alexander already felt, well , he had a presentiment, or something, that he would become the head of the anti-napoleonic coalition, because he had already begun to speak as, partly as a pan-european leader and as an opposition

to napoleon. finally, well , there are several reasons for the war of 812, but of course, the most important, probably, is the question of the continental blockade, yes, it is probably necessary to explain that this was napoleon's policy of prohibiting trade with great britain, which was supposed to undermine british power, the prohibition of europe , controlled by napoleon, to trade with great britain, which was supposed to undermine british power, to bend britain to the french emperor, because the main... napoleon's opponent from the very beginning of his career until the very end was, of course, great britain, yes, but it turned out that - a blockade is a blockade, if there is at least 1 meter of free space on the border, then through this meter everything will go, everything will go, but it turned out that since trade with great britain was extremely

important for russia, well, actually the main trading partner, of course, therefore at a certain stage and russia began to open the border, so to speak, in one way or another, including english ships under the american flag began to come to russia, so for napoleon he would have a simple choice: either he abandons his entire policy of continental blockade, because it loses its meaning, or... it was necessary to force russia to actually join this blockade to follow this blockade. both countries were preparing for war before the twelfth year, that is , russia was also preparing for war, it's just that france managed to prepare first, napoleon the first managed to gather a great army. alexander was also ready for war, there was no way around it. but here it should be added that there were other contradictions connected with the eastern question, because since 806 there has been a war with turkey, it

has been going on all this time. alexandrovskaya. warned alexander that he should not give battle to napoleon, it would end badly, well, i'm exaggerating, of course, but the meaning was this: alexander insisted, he wanted laurels then after all, well, young blood was probably still playing, laurels of the conqueror of napoleon, plus there was numerical superiority in this battle of three emperors, what was there, respectively the austrian emperor, the russian emperor on one side of the barricades and napoleon on the other, kutuzov's prediction came true,

so that... what did alexander dislike kutuzov? alexander disliked kutuzov, including because of the fact, because of the australian, first of all, yes, because he considered it fair to us. considered that yes, he was young, inexperienced, but kutuzov, instead of saying, he warned, of course, but very much so, but instead of to say clearly and distinctly that it is impossible, he said, in the end, what can i do, now we need to remember, so to speak, about the main architects, actually, of the final victory, well, there are different versions here , different names are mentioned, but the most common...

so to speak, with an order from alleran, he came to alexander and explained to him that, in general , it was enough to play the fool, to run after napoleon, when the situation in paris was already such that one could go there, it would be less work, we need to take the capital, in the end the final decision was made by alexander himself, and he had to persuade the allies with great difficulty, so to speak, and so on, but nevertheless he... stood his ground, and the coalition went to paris, the battle was short-lived, but bloody, and the russians suffered the most losses, because they were on the alert for attack, there were only 9,000 men there, i think,

six of them were russians, they took paris, yuli borisovich khariton, i know what kind of bombs were dropped on japan, wrote a technical assignment in which he says: that we we will work on two types of bombs. tromer asked when the soviet union would be able to create an atomic bomb, and pimberi thought and said: "it's hard for me to name a time frame." trumar said: and i know when, never. the creation of nuclear weapons required a gigantic concentration of forces, this is something new that had to be created in the shortest possible time, there was tension in everyone.

the atomic bomb is the personal business of man x, the premiere is on sunday on channel one. this is a historical podcast, we continue to understand the personality of emperor alexander i. victory, of course, alexander also consisted in the fact that napoleon was waiting near moscow, the keys to moscow, he didn't get anything, then he burned moscow, but according to one version napoleon, according to another version, the muscovites themselves burned it, that's exactly it, they burned everything there. and just chaos also burned, the riots themselves already burned, well, it's true that kutuz ordered the fire extinguisher to be taken out of the country from moscow, on one side of the scale was the burned moscow, and alexander rode into paris

on a white horse, which calincourt, the french ambassador, had imprudently given him at one time, here is the enthusiastic applause of the parisians, they showered him with flowers, he did it. paris is like this: well, alexey petrovich, what will they say in petersburg now? after all, there really was a time when we considered the great napoleon me a simpleton, that is.