Kolchak, a traitor and state traitor, double agent, is testified by presidential adviser Wilson
In connection with the scandalous opening in St. Petersburg of a memorial plaque in honor of war criminal Kolchak, a lot of materials appeared on the network that reveal the true historical the role of Admiral Kolchak.
Recently stumbled upon came across an interesting article. Historian Arsen Martirosyan raised a new topic for me in “Kolchak Studies”. I don’t hide the suspicions that were “before”: the mysterious disappearance of Kolchak in July of 1917, his voyage to England, the USA and Japan, the arrival in Omsk only in November of 1918 of the year ...
Interesting facts are also reported by A.Kolchak himself in the letters of A.Timireva: "December 30 1917. I am accepted to the service of His Majesty the King of England"
"Singapore, 16 March. (1918) Met by the order of the English government to return immediately to China to work in Manchuria and Siberia. It found that it would be preferable to use me there in the views of allies and Russia in front of Mesopotamia."
As well as some strange things - when he was in the harbor of Sevastopol Bay, he was blown up for some unknown reason and the powerful battleship "Empress Maria" was sunk. On the eve of the explosion, the dismissals from the ship to the coast were forbidden, and most of the sailors from the crew in 1200 died. Under him, the Black Sea Fleet also lost several smaller ships with crews - even before contact with enemy ships.
And now the word A. Martirosyan. Here is what he writes:
"... It is no secret that Kolchak was recruited by British intelligence when he was still a captain of the 1st rank and commander of a mine division on the Baltic navy. It happened at the turn of 1915-1916 ... "
So, we proceed to the study.
Hiding the truth
"Red Star", 15 oct 2008.
The appearance on the wide Russian screen of the film "Admiral" prompted me to take up a pen. Undoubtedly, modern Russia needs a true picture of its great and at the same time long-suffering past. But one can not once again “redraw” the story contrary to the available facts and disorient the cinema viewer for the sake of commerce and market conditions. It's not about the talent and charm of the actors or the director's skill, but about the attitude to the history of our country.
It is no secret that Kolchak was recruited by British intelligence even when he was a captain of 1 rank and commander of a mine division in the Baltic Fleet. It happened at the turn of 1915 -1916's. It was already a betrayal of the king and fatherland, to whom he swore allegiance and kissed the cross! Have you ever wondered why the Entente fleets in 1918 quietly entered the Russian sector of the Baltic Sea? After all, he was mined! Moreover, in the confusion of two revolutions of 1917, no one removed the minefields because the pass ticket for entering the service of His Majesty for Kolchak was the English exploration of all the information about the location of the minefields and obstacles in the Russian sector of the Baltic Sea area! After all, it was he who carried out this mining, and he had all the maps of minefields and obstacles in his hands.
Further. As you know, 28 June 1916, Kolchak was appointed commander of the Black Sea Fleet. However, this happened with the direct patronage of a resident of British intelligence in Russia, Colonel Samuel Horus and the British ambassador to the Russian Empire, Buchanan. This is the second betrayal, because Kolchak, becoming the foreign patron of the commanders of one of Russia's most important fleets then, assumed certain obligations to British intelligence, very "sensitive" to Russia's military activity in the areas adjacent to the Black Sea straits. And in the end, he simply abandoned the fleet and in August 1917 of the year secretly flew to England.
Kolchak received the title of admiral from the hands of the Provisional Government, to whom he also swore allegiance. And that also betrayed! At least by the fact that, having escaped to England, he already in August 1917, together with the Chief of the Naval General Staff of Great Britain, General Hall, discussed the need to establish a dictatorship in Russia. Simply put, the question of the overthrow of the Provisional Government, of a coup d'etat. Swear allegiance to the Provisional Government, get a promotion in his rank and betray him too!
Then, at the request of the American ambassador to England, Kolchak was sent to the United States, where he was also recruited by the diplomatic intelligence of the US State Department. The recruitment was carried out by former Secretary of State Eliah Ruth. That is, by the way, the British were also betrayed. Although the "Britons" of course knew about this recruitment ...
As a result, becoming a double Anglo-American agent, after the October coup 1917 of the year, Kolchak appealed to the British envoy in Japan, C. Green, asking the government of His Majesty King George V of England to officially take him to the service! So he wrote in his petition: "... I fully place myself at the disposal of his government ..."
“His Government” means the government of His Majesty English King George V. 30 December 1917, the British government officially granted Kolchak’s request. From that point on, Kolchak had officially switched to the side of the enemy, who had dressed himself in an ally toga.
Why the enemy? Yes, because, first, even 15 (28) November 1917, the Supreme Council of the Entente made the official decision to intervene in Russia. Secondly, already 10 (23) of December 1917, the leaders of the European core of the Entente - England and France - have signed a convention on the division of Russia into spheres of influence (for information of readers: officially this convention has not been canceled). According to her, the allies deigned to divide Russia as follows: North of Russia and the Baltic states fell into the zone of English influence, France got Ukraine and South of Russia.
If Kolchak had simply collaborated (suppose, in the framework of military-technical supplies) with former allies on the Entente, as many White Guard generals did, then this would be one thing. Even in spite of the fact that they also assumed not too benevolent obligations. However, at least they de facto acted as something independent, formally not switching to the service of a foreign state. But Kolchak officially switched to the service of Great Britain. The British General Knox, who oversaw Kolchak in Siberia, at one time openly admitted that the British were directly responsible for the creation of the Kolchak government. All this is now well known, documented, including from foreign sources.
So it's time to end the collective moaning of the supposedly innocently murdered admiral. Without denying his former undoubted scientific merit to Russia, it is impossible not to notice that he crossed them off with his own hand. In the documents of British intelligence, the US State Department, in the personal correspondence of the "gray cardinal" of American policy during the First World War, Colonel House A.V. Kolchak is directly called their double agent (these documents are known to historians) ...
11 On November 1918, in the suburbs of Paris Compiegne, the Compiègne Agreement was signed, marking the end of the First World War. When he is remembered, it is usually very “elegantly” forgotten to mention that it was just an armistice agreement for a period of 36 days. In addition, it was signed without the participation of Russia, which had borne the brunt of the war as an empire, and then, after becoming Soviet, had rendered its enormous service to the events in Germany a tremendous service to the same Entente. Without her help, the Entente would have been busy with Kaiser Germany for a long time ...
The XI NUMX article of the Compiegne Armistice Agreement stated: "All German troops that are now in the territories that constituted Russia before the war should equally return to Germany as soon as the Allies admit that this is the moment, taking into account the internal situation of these territories ". However, the secret subparagraph of the same article 12 already directly obliged Germany to keep its troops in the Baltic to fight Soviet Russia until the arrival of the troops and fleets (in the Baltic Sea) of the member countries of the Entente. Such actions of the Entente were frankly anti-Russian, because no one had the slightest right to decide the fate of the occupied Russian territories without Russia's participation, I stress, even Soviet.
During the period of the actual German occupation, as well as after the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, the German occupying authorities to the Baltic territories were forcefully massacred huge pieces of purely Russian territories. To Estonia - parts of the Petersburg and Pskov provinces, in particular Narva, Pechora and Izborsk, to Latvia - Dvina, Lyudinsky and Rezhitsky districts of the Vitebsk province and part of the Ostrovsky district of the Pskov province, to Lithuania - parts of the Suvalka and Vilna provinces inhabited by Belarusians.
The attempt, by armed means, to recapture the Baltics, Lenin, if he did not treat him personally, was absolutely de facto right and, which is especially important in this connection, de jure. Because official diplomatic relations were unilaterally severed from Soviet Russia by Kaiser Germany, which collapsed soon, and the Brest-Litovsk Treaty with the Germans automatically lost any kind of force. Consequently, the Baltics remained under the German occupation and de facto, and de jure, turned into the illegally rejected and occupied by troops of the territory of Russia that had died in the Bose state. Purely from a military geopolitical point of view, the beginning of 13 in November 1918, the armed onslaught of the Bolsheviks against the Baltic, was absolutely justified objectively necessary counter-offensive in order to protect its own territory of the state.
Despite the failure of this armed campaign, the fate of the Baltic territories could not be solved without the participation of Russia, even if represented by a traitor. And this vile affair Entente laid on Admiral Kolchak. 26 May 1919, the Supreme Council of the Entente, sent the admiral (his actions on behalf of the Allied Command were led by the aforementioned British General Knox and military intelligence officer J. Halford Mackinder, later known British geopolitics), in which, reporting about the break in relations with the Soviet government, He expressed readiness to recognize him as the supreme ruler of Russia. And that's typical. To admit they recognized him, but only de facto. And with all this, they demanded purely legal actions from him - they put forward a tough ultimatum, according to which Kolchak had to agree in writing to:
1. The separation of Poland and Finland from Russia, in which there was no point, especially with regard to Finland, was except for the fierce desire of London to furnish everything so that these countries gained independence allegedly from the hands of the Entente.
The fact is that the independence of Finland was granted by the Soviet government as early as December 31 of 1917, which, by the way, Finland is still celebrating. That was the right step, because its presence as part of Russia, where, according to the 1809 Treaty of Friedrichsgam, Alexander I included it (at the request of the ancestor of the future Finnish ruler Mannerheim), was not only meaningless, but also dangerous because of the separatism that was there purely nationalistic. As for Poland, after the events of October 1917, it already became independent - Lenin did not interfere with this.
2. The transfer of the question of the separation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania (as well as the Caucasus and the Transcaspian region) from Russia to the League of Nations arbitration in case the necessary agreements to the Entente are not reached between Kolchak and the “governments” of these territories. Along the way, Kolchak was presented with an ultimatum in that he recognized the right to decide the fate of Bessarabia for the Versailles Conference.
In addition, Kolchak had to guarantee that he would not restore "special privileges in favor of any class or organization" and the old regime in general. A little explanation. Simply speaking, the Entente was not satisfied with the restoration of not only the Tsarist regime, but even the regime of the Provisional Government. And if it is simpler, then a united and indivisible Russia as a state and country.
12 June 1919, Kolchak gave the Entente a written answer, which she found satisfactory. Once again I draw attention to the special meanness of the Entente. Kolchak, after all, she recognized only de facto, but she put an ultimatum de jure.
And the answer from the de facto recognized "supreme ruler" of Russia was the Entente de jure. As a result, Kolchak in one fell swoop crossed all the conquests of Peter the Great and the Nishtad Treaty itself between Russia and Sweden from August 30 on August 1721. Under this agreement, the territories of Ingermanlandia, parts of Karelia, all of Estland and Livonia with the cities of Riga, Revel (Tallinn), Dorpat, Narva, Vyborg, Kexholm, Ezel Islands and Dago transferred Russia and its successors into full, undeniable and perpetual possession and ownership. Before World War I, for almost two centuries, no one in the world tried to dispute this, especially since the Nishtad Treaty itself was confirmed in writing and guaranteed by the same England and France ...
When Kolchak fulfilled the tasks entrusted to him and the huge chunks of the territory of the Russian state were de jure rejected, his fate was decided. The moor has done his job - the moor can retire, and even better if he is removed from the arena - preferably with someone else's hands. By the hands of the representative of the Entente under Kolchak - General Janin and with the assistance of the Czechoslovak Corps. Admiral, who failed to become Cromwell Russia, "passed" without remorse of conscience. It remains to say about the following. On what did the Anglo-Saxons “take” Kolchak, whether on immense vanity, on the use of drugs (Kolchak was an inveterate cocainist) or on both of them at the same time, or on something else — no longer installed. But you can still assume something. It is possible that in Kolchak a kind of generic revenge was inflamed for his distant ancestor - the commander of the Khotyn fortress in 1739, Ilias Kalchak-pasha, from which the Kalchak family began in Russia. Ilias Kalchak-Pasha — that was how his name was written in the 18th century — was forced to surrender to Russian troops under the command of Minich during the next Russian-Turkish war. Through 180 years distant descendant of Ilias Kalchak-pasha - A.V. Kolchak - surrendered to the West all the conquests of Peter I and his heirs. That's who they are trying to present today as a true patriot of Russia and an innocently killed victim. (all selections in the text are mine. - arctus)
* * *
This side of life should be known, studied not only by opponents, but also by apologists of Kolchak. It is better not to be mistaken than to be mistaken. And it happens. Talleyrand, the famous French foreign minister, until the fall of Napoleon, worked as an agent of Russian influence.
Information