Military Review

The reverse side of the fate of Maria Bochkarova

44
Social myths are created in certain historical periods and with well-defined goals. These are ideological products for contemporaries. They are bad, and, sometimes, destructively affect the historical consciousness of descendants. An example of such mythologization is the difficult fate of a woman volunteer, who led in 1917 the "First Women's Military Command of the Death of Maria Bochkareva." We turn over some pages of her life and, a century later, try to separate the truth from fiction.


The reverse side of the fate of Maria Bochkarova


The source of historical distortion and factual inaccuracies

The main biographical source for many decades is considered the book of memoirs of Maria Bochkareva “Yashka. My life is a peasant woman, officer and exile "(hereinafter - the book" Yashka "), which, ostensibly, is based on the true facts of her life. In our opinion, this is not the case. We explain our point of view on this issue.

Memories M.L. Bochkareva was written because of her illiteracy not by herself, although sometimes her autobiography, first published abroad in 1919, is sometimes called. It would be more correct, in our opinion, to relate this book to the section of the lifetime literary record of her stories about her life and destiny. The American journalist I. Don Levin performed this work. The very figure of this correspondent is ambiguous. Yes, and their meeting on American soil in the summer of 1918, the year was not accidental. Surely, this former subject of the Russian Empire was not the only Russian-speaking journalist who was able to record and translate oral recollections of Mary into English. But the choice fell on this young Jew of Russian origin, who had already managed to publish his book about the revolution in Russia.

In fairness, we will not criticize Maria Leontyevna for the inaccuracies and distortions made in the text. After all, this text is not she wrote. She did not even have the opportunity to simply read and edit the record made from her words. Firstly, she was illiterate to express her thoughts in writing in literary Russian. Secondly, even if she could read and write in Russian, that would not help her either, since Don Levin immediately wrote down her stories in his translation into English. And she did not know English any more.

Therefore, it is not necessary to talk about the high degree of reliability of the events and facts of the memories stated in the book. In addition, the book “Yashka”, which reached the Russian reader only in 2001, actually underwent a translation twice: direct from Russian into English and vice versa - from English to Russian. This alone significantly reduces the credibility of the presentation of Lieutenant Bochkareva’s memories, since it is known that when translating from one language to another, linguistic inaccuracies and semantic distortions inevitably arise as a result of the subjective understanding of the text by the translator himself. In addition, much in the life and fate of Mary was associated with military service in the Russian army. In her stories there was a lot of such that it was not at all easy to even understand Isaac Don Levin, who had not served in the army, not to mention that they also needed to translate everything that was not understood into English. Most likely, the calculation was made on the fact that the book was addressed only to the Western, moreover, to the English-speaking reader, for whom these blunders and errors in the text are imperceptible. Nearly a 100-hour story by Maria Bochkareva over the course of several days, a former citizen of the Russian Empire immediately recorded in English. Published in 1919 in New York, and then in Britain, the book “Yashka” in English was later translated into other languages. But, when Bochkareva’s memories became available to the Russian reader, the distortions and textual inaccuracies began to attract attention.

Doubtful authorship and inaccuracies in the title

The name and surname of Bochkareva are indicated on the cover, which implies its authorship. However, I. Don Levin in the preface calls himself as the author of the book. “For Bochkareva and me as an author,” he wrote, “the main thing in the narration was the exact reproduction of facts.” And it is precisely with the authenticity of the facts and the description of the events of those years that questions arise. And starting with the name of the book, where it is indicated that Mary is an exile (eng. - exile). In other versions, this word is translated as exile. In some book titles in English, instead of the word "officer" (officer), the word "soldier" is indicated. In several editions, the order of words in the title of the book has been changed. The subtitle of individual editions of the Yashka books says that this is an autobiography, although it is known that Bochkarev did not write the book herself.

Much of the text of the book contradicts historical facts and even its own memories. For example, it is known for sure that Maria Leontyevna was neither an exile nor an exile. Exile from the country, as well as the link - these are different types of criminal punishment. In the first case, a person is forcibly expelled from the state under the penalty of imprisonment or even the death penalty. Usually this punishment involves deprivation of citizenship and the right to return to the country. This is a very serious sanction applied by a court decision. In the second case, again by a court decision, the right of free movement throughout the country is restricted. For the place where the sentence is served, the remote territory within the state is, as a rule, elected. As is known, prior to her arrest at the beginning of 1920, no judicial actions were applied against Bochkareva. She voluntarily left Soviet Russia in April 1918 of the year and later also returned freely in August of the same year through the Northern region of Russia. In the fall of 1919, she moved to Tomsk, where her parents then lived.

Memories of the service "full of" fiction and inaccuracies

A lot of inaccuracies and gross errors in the description of what is connected with the military service Bochkareva. For example, the book mentions its presentation for military distinctions to the Order of St. George 4 degree twice. She could not have been unaware that until 1917, this order was the highest military award for officers. The lower ranks before the provisional reforms of the Provisional Government did not introduce themselves to such an award and were not honored with this order. Obviously, we could talk only about the soldier's badge of distinction "St. George's Cross".

Nothing but a smile from a reader who served in the army does not evoke the description of Bochkareva’s farewell to her colleagues in the 28 th Polotsk Infantry Regiment. It’s impossible to imagine a regiment built for the wires of a junior non-commissioned officer in the line. Indeed, in such a system, standing nearby on the same line about 4 thousand people will stretch about 2 kilometers!

Or what is worth mentioning about how during the feast the regiment commander drew another strip on her shoulder straps with a pencil, thereby making Bochkareva a senior noncommissioned officer. However, for some reason, until June 21, 1917 continued to wear epaulets of the junior non-commissioned officer of the Polotsk Infantry Regiment. And there are quite a few such annoying inaccuracies in the pages of the book. Where and what did Maria Leontyevna embellish herself, where Don Levin, a native of Belarusian Mozyr who did not serve in the Russian army, didn’t understand her anymore. But it should be recognized that the book “Yashka” became the primary source of historical distortions, inaccuracies in the facts and events described.

At the same time, the role of Lieutenant L. Filippov, who, as Bochkareva recalled, performed during her overseas trip as her military assistant, adjutant and representative in negotiations with publishers, remains unclear. For some reason, the personnel officer either could not or did not want to make changes to the text regarding the features of the service in the Russian army.

On the waves and off-road memory

The memory more than once let the narrator down, despite the fact that Don Levin emphasized that "... one of Bochkareva’s natural talents is a brilliant memory."

Due to illiteracy, she perceived all the information "by ear", without being able to read it. This often failed Maria Leontyevna when she told about herself, her fate and social circle at the front and in revolutionary Petrograd. She was confused in dates, was mistaken in the names of places of past events and in the names of their participants. Therefore, in the book “Yashka” by General Baluev, with whom she actively and directly communicated, she said, being at the front, she persistently calls Valuev. And the ladies of high society Duchess Leuchtenberg (Leuchtenberg) and Princess Kekuatova (Keykuatova) in her memoirs become, while retaining their titles, respectively Lichtenberg and Kikutova. Among the participants in the events are people who, for objective reasons, could not attend them.

For example, the military and naval minister Kerensky was not present at the presentation of the banner “The First Female Military Command of the Death of Maria Bochkareva” to the formation of volunteers, contrary to the memoirs of Maria Leontyevna and the movie “Battalion”. Moreover, he was not in Petrograd at all, since from 14 of June until the end of June he was traveling along the fronts. This is evidenced by the journals of meetings of the Provisional Government. For this reason, he could not, as Bochkareva states in the book "Yashka", personally attach to her officer shoulder straps. In general, the production of Bochkareva as an officer is a special story that requires separate consideration.

And "venerable" historians are wrong too

The annoying mistakes crept into the preface to the Russian edition of the book “Yashka”. But the truth, in our opinion, is possible and necessary to restore. For example, in the preface of S. Drokov, it is incorrectly stated that Captain Chagall led the instructors assigned to the women's battalion. At the same time, the historian cites the article “The Women's Battalion” in the magazine “Military Story” (Paris), in which Captain Chagall himself writes that he was the commander of the 3 Company of a completely different female formation - the First Petrograd Women's Battalion. This women's battalion was formed after the death team Bochkareva went to the front. Moreover, Pavel Vasilievich Chagall was the assistant to the commander of the women's battalion of the captain of the Life Guards Kexholm regiment A.V. Loskova and participated in a military parade on Palace Square, together with his battalion 24 October 1917 year.

All this confusion is aggravated by the fact that among the photo illustrations in the Yashka book, more than a dozen photographs reflect life, military life, and combat training of the First Petrograd Women's Battalion headed by Captain Loskowy, not Bochkareva’s death team. At the same time, two more photos refer to the Moscow Women's Death Battalion.
So read the memories of Maria Bochkareva should be carefully, with a pencil in hand and clarifying the accuracy of the dates, names and events in the book.

Recent stories about life "under the protocol"

There is another source that gives an idea of ​​the life and fate of Maria Bochkareva. It is about her criminal case No. XXUMX, which was investigated by the Cheka during the period from January to May 796. Protocols of 1920 interrogations of Lieutenant Bochkareva were published in the journal "Domestic Archives" in 4 year. However, there are a lot of factual errors and inaccuracies, because in this case the information was recorded from her words. The only difference is that Don Levine wrote down her story about himself in the American hotel, and the investigators of the Cheka contributed to the interrogation protocols her answers to the questions they posed in prison conditions.

By a strange coincidence, each interrogation was conducted by a new investigator. At the same time, investigators were from different, though related, departments: from the special branch of the Revolutionary Military Council of the 5 Army, from the Tomsk Cheka, and from the special department of the Cheka of the 5 Army. Naturally, the interrogation tactics were also constantly changing, as was the information interesting for the investigators.

By the way, according to Bochkareva, protocol No. XXUMX states that she was awarded for fighting with the Germans with all four degrees of the Cross of St. George and three medals. In fact, which is documented, in November 4, she received the St. George Cross of the 1916 degree. Prior to that, she was awarded the St. George medals of the 4 and 3 degrees and the Medal for Diligence. She did not have any awards from the Provisional Government; therefore, it remains a mystery from where, during her trip to America and Britain in April-August 4, a second St. George's Cross appeared on her uniform.

In conclusion, in her criminal case, the investigator formulated the final accusation against her on the basis of serving as an officer in the army of Kolchak and forming a women's battalion, who "took part in the fight against the Soviet authorities in Petrograd." At Kolchak she served a few days, having only managed to organize a military-sanitary detachment in her own name. Neither she herself nor the volunteers from her team took part in the events in Petrograd. At that time they were on the German front. No material evidence in the case was indicated.

Nevertheless, M. Bochkareva agreed with the accusations and declared: “I plead guilty to the Soviet republic”. But even in spite of her confession, the investigative commission of the special department of the Cheka 5 of the 21 Army on April 1920 of the year decided to send her investigative case "together with the accused person" to the Moscow Cheka. However, at this time, a high-ranking KGB officer I. Pavlunovsky arrived from the capital and was given special powers. He 15 May with his stroke of the pen - "shoot" - completed the earthly journey of this woman with a complex and broken fate. In January, 1992, she was rehabilitated. No evidence of the enforcement of the sentence was found. This gave rise to several unconfirmed versions of her happy deliverance from death.
Author:
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Olgovich
    Olgovich 5 May 2018 05: 50
    +15
    However, at that time, a high-ranking Chekist I. Pavlunovsky, endowed with special powers, arrived from the capital. On May 15, with his stroke of the pen - “shoot” - he completed the earthly journey of this woman with a complicated and broken fate.
    Her fate was simple, bright and direct: she voluntarily devoted her life the holy cause of the defense of the Fatherland, and in the most difficult place, at the front. Fought bravely, was awarded the St. George Cross and medals
    : St. George medal 4 tbsp. No. 656471, 28th Polotsk Infantry Regiment, volunteer Maria Bochkareva:

    “In the battles of March 5, 1916, near the village of Zanaroch, Bochkareva worked tirelessly on the battlefield for 2 weeks, helping the wounded, often under strong enemy gun and artillery fire, set an example to the lower ranks of valor and selfless duty, drawing them forward in a dangerous environment. During the attack of March 18, 1916, near the village of Blizniki, she took out from the sphere of destructive fire a seriously wounded officer of the 14th company of ensign Grishanov ”

    This is the main thing. Everything else is trifles against this background.
    You can compare her bright fate with the worthless and shameful fate of her who shot Pavlunovsky: he did not work for a day, he did not fight for a day, he conducted anti-state activities even during the war.
    In 1937 they shot their own and dug it in the middle of nowhere .... .....
    Her name will be remembered for centuries.
    His name is forgotten forever.
    1. rkkasa xnumx
      rkkasa xnumx 5 May 2018 06: 10
      +14
      Kolchak banged in a skirt, and rightly so - there is nothing to hobble with the invaders.
      1. Lieutenant Teterin
        Lieutenant Teterin 5 May 2018 08: 04
        +15
        Is this the admiral of the Russian Imperial Fleet an “occupier” for you? You’re a strange person, if you call a Russian officer, who has served Russia honestly all his life, explored the Russian Arctic, commanded a destroyer in the Russian-Japanese destroyer that destroyed the Japanese cruiser Takasago, and his theoretical ideas for defending St. Petersburg were used during the Great Patriotic. Do you understand? In 1941, Petersburg was covered from the Nazi fleet by mines based on the developments of the "occupier" Kolchak!
        1. rkkasa xnumx
          rkkasa xnumx 5 May 2018 08: 42
          +15
          Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
          Is this the admiral of the Russian Imperial Fleet an “occupier” for you?

          Invaders, these are our Western "partners." And kolchaks in trousers and in skirts, hobbled with them. And the Bolsheviks were right when they allowed these litter to flow.
          1. Lieutenant Teterin
            Lieutenant Teterin 5 May 2018 09: 30
            +10
            Quote: rkkasa 81
            Invaders, these are our Western "partners."

            To ask for help from the allies of your homeland in the fight against terrorists who seized power is for you to “lie in bed” (a word, by the way from the disgusting criminal jargon!) And “hobble”, and to expand the army and then give the enemy half of the country's industrial potential is normal ? You know, this kind of contempt for Russia and its heroes I have previously met only with outspoken Russophobes.
            1. rkkasa xnumx
              rkkasa xnumx 5 May 2018 10: 11
              +15
              But tell me, for example, the Donbass people are terrorists, right? No, well, the Verkhovna Rada has the right to remove the president? It has. Which she did. Then BP appointed the president’s IO, then an extraordinary presidential election in which Poroshenko was elected. That is - everything is according to the law, all the rank-and-file, all countries recognized the new power ... but Donbass residents did not recognize, and do not obey it.
              So - they are terrorists in your opinion. And if the legitimate president Poroshenko, along with Masha Bochkareva (oh, sorry - with Nadia Savchenko) will ask their Americans allies for help in the fight against these terrorists, you will of course justify the savchenka powders and the Americans.
              Is everything right?
              1. Lieutenant Teterin
                Lieutenant Teterin 5 May 2018 11: 35
                +11
                I urge you — do not leave the topic of discussion, trying to draw not quite appropriate analogies between the Civil War in Russia and present-day Ukraine. Although, if you so wish, I will remind you that the current Ukrainian government was formed as a result of the unconstitutional coup in 2014, which painfully resembled the actions of the Bolsheviks in 1917. And, if we draw parallels, then the current Ukrainian government is equivalent to the Bolsheviks, and the republics of Donbass are just the analogue of the White Guards who rose up against lawlessness and usurpation of power. The late Oles Buzin, a man of white, pro-Russian views, for whom he was killed by Ukrainian Nazis, held the same position.
                1. rkkasa xnumx
                  rkkasa xnumx 5 May 2018 13: 04
                  +8
                  Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                  the current Ukrainian government was formed as a result of the unconstitutional coup in 2014, which painfully resembled the actions of the Bolsheviks in 1917

                  There were riots in Ukraine? There were. And they were in Russia.
                  Was pressure exerted on Yanukovych? It turned out. And on Nicholas II, too. And the top crushed. And both of them eliminated themselves.
                  By the way, about the unconstitutionality - the Parliament has the right to remove the president, and in the Republic of Ingushetia there was no law allowing to change the monarchy to the republic. So the coming to power of the EaP is much more illegal than the coming to power of Poroshenko.
                  Who came to power? And there and there - the oligarchs, and their proteges.
                  Have the EP and the new Ukrainian leadership recognized other countries? Received. And very fast. Unlike the Bolsheviks, and the same DNR-LNR.
                  In general, the events in Ukraine are just like the coming to power of the EaP, and not the Bolsheviks.
                  Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                  Oles Elderberry, a man of white

                  I know very well that White has a bad knowledge of history, and with logic.
                  1. Olgovich
                    Olgovich 5 May 2018 14: 20
                    +7
                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    So the coming to power of the EaP is much more illegal than the coming to power of Poroshenko.

                    Emperor Nikolai appointed Lvov as head of the Government and called on the people to obey him. Emperor Michael called for the same.
                    The Soviets recognized and created the EP.
                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    and in the Republic of Ingushetia there was no law allowing a change of monarchy to a republic.

                    In March, there was no republic - WAS it what happened to you ?! lol And in May, June-July, was not. Perform "Three U"!
                    1. rkkasa xnumx
                      rkkasa xnumx 5 May 2018 14: 51
                      +5
                      So after the FR in Russia was a monarchy? Well, you give a pancake fool laughing
                      1. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 6 May 2018 06: 16
                        +2
                        Quote: rkkasa 81
                        So after the FR in Russia was a monarchy? Well, you give a pancake fool laughing

                        Perform the "Three U" of the foreign tourist: the system determined the constituent assembly. yes
                        The EaP announced RR in September, but had no right to do so.
                  2. Lieutenant Teterin
                    Lieutenant Teterin 5 May 2018 15: 27
                    +8
                    Your logic is amazing. Approximately in this style: “a cat and a horse have 4 legs, a tail, eyes, hair and walk on the ground. "So they are similar, so the horse, like a cat, can climb trees!"
                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    There were riots in Ukraine? There were. And they were in Russia.
                    Was pressure exerted on Yanukovych? It turned out. And on Nicholas II, too. And the top crushed. And both of them eliminated themselves.

                    Riots in Ukraine erupted for several months across the country — in RI, one Petrograd was unrest in the course of a week.
                    Yanukovych under pressure from the top did nothing to rectify the situation — Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich crushed the front of the Grand Dukes, appointed General Ivanov as commander of the expedition of loyal troops, and in the end rushed to personally understand the reasons for the failure to comply with his orders.
                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    By the way, about the unconstitutionality - the Parliament has the right to remove the president, and in the Republic of Ingushetia there was no law allowing to change the monarchy to the republic. So the coming to power of the EaP is much more illegal than the coming to power of Poroshenko ..

                    You obviously do not understand what I'm telling you. And you do not understand the essence of the institution of legitimizing power. The EP was preoccupied with DOCUMENTARY confirmation of the transfer of power to itself. And after the EaP came to power, no one immediately proclaimed a republic. The EP clearly stated the purpose of its existence to maintain power until the election of the Constituent Assembly, which was the will of Mikhail Alexandrovich, a person who received authority from the legal Emperor. Unlike the extremists who seized power in Ukraine in 2014.
                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    Who came to power? And there and there - the oligarchs, and their proteges.

                    The oligarchs? In the year 1917? You are clearly kidding me. The industrialists of those years neither directly nor indirectly gained influence in the EaP.
                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    In general, the events in Ukraine are just like the coming to power of the EaP, and not the Bolsheviks.

                    You would like to present the events in this vein, but please be objective — I warned you that it is impossible to measure events of a hundred years ago with modern standards and draw direct parallels.
                    Quote: rkkasa 81
                    I know very well that White has a bad knowledge of history, and with logic.

                    But now you intentionally or not have offended the memory of the Russian hero. Oles Buzin was a man of pure honesty, fought against neo-Nazism in Ukraine and had the courage to defend Russian interests. And with logic and knowledge of history, everything was in perfect order with him. Unlike.
                    1. rkkasa xnumx
                      rkkasa xnumx 5 May 2018 16: 37
                      +5
                      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                      The EP was preoccupied with DOCUMENTARY confirmation of the transfer of power to itself ... Unlike the extremists who seized power in Ukraine in 2014.

                      You have poor eyesight, since you can’t read in any way, that - The Rada has every right to remove the president. That is - that the EaP, that the current rulers of Ukraine - both those and these, came to power in about the same way.
                      Or doesn’t it reach you? Well then the problems are different lol
                      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                      The oligarchs? In the year 1917? You are clearly kidding me. The industrialists of those years neither directly nor indirectly gained influence in the EaP.

                      You are clearly not in the subject.
                      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                      it is impossible to measure events of a century ago by modern standards and draw direct parallels

                      But you draw these very parallels.
                      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                      Elderberry was a man of pure honesty, fought against neo-Nazism in Ukraine and had the courage to defend Russian interests

                      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
                      Whether you intentionally or not offended the memory of the Russian hero

                      We are now not about honesty and courage, but about knowledge of history, and logic. The man who claimed that - the current Ukrainian government is equivalent to the Bolsheviks, had obvious problems with both history and logic.
                      And by such comparisons, he insulted smart and decent people, real patriots.
                  3. would
                    would 6 May 2018 13: 13
                    +1
                    By the way, about the unconstitutionality - the Parliament has the right to remove the president,


                    Does not have, read the constitution of Ukraine. The Council can only initiate a rather complicated impeachment procedure with the direct participation of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Court of Ukraine. If at least one of the last two does not like something, then there will be no impeachment.
            2. sigdoc
              sigdoc 5 May 2018 10: 42
              +7
              And what did the terrorists who seized power in February, destroyed the army and plundered Russia, which formed the national governments of Ukraine and the Caucasus, and began the dismemberment of the country, which during the intervention took foreign money and weapons and paid for them exterminating thousands of their fellow citizens, sweeter than you who seized power in October?
              1. Lieutenant Teterin
                Lieutenant Teterin 5 May 2018 12: 52
                +8
                First, the Februaryists were conspirators, not terrorists. They committed a different crime.
                Secondly, the Februaryists thought of themselves as part of Russia and furnished their coming to power with many Pharisee tricks in order to comply with the appearance of legality. The Provisional Government was holding a document delegating power to him from Mikhail Alexandrovich, to whom the legitimate Emperor Nicholas II transferred this power. You can argue for a long time about the legal force of these documents, but the fact remains immutable — the VP did everything to look legitimate under Russian laws. Unlike the Bolshevik terrorists, who, like modern terrorists in the Middle East, simply seized power and began to kill everyone who disagrees with their actions.
                Thirdly, the EaP, agreeing to the autonomy of the national suburbs, kept them under tight control — the same Ukrainian Council worked under the supervision of the commissar of the EaP, and the Finnish Senate, after trying “independent” actions, was banally dispersed by Russian troops on the orders of the EaP.
                Fourth, the White Movement’s requests for funds were due to the need to combat the Bolsheviks who had created violence against the people, who, by the way, were not shy about exterminating our fellow citizens on a social basis (see the statements of Latsis and Ulyanov).
                1. Monarchist
                  Monarchist 5 May 2018 18: 43
                  +4
                  Lieutenant, I partially agree with the swamis: the VP was really Pharisee and trying to sit on two chairs: all the “revolutionary” crackling and DESTRUCTION OF DISCIPLINE - an attempt to earn cheap credibility. Already this is enough to BAT them! On that historical stretch, MONARCHY was LIGITIMATE.
                  "By agreeing to the autonomy of the national suburbs, it kept them under tight control," I would say I tried to keep the autonomy under control
                2. sigdoc
                  sigdoc 6 May 2018 19: 35
                  +3
                  Tell me, did you think about how many people of those killed by the White were really Bolsheviks?
                  At the same time, those same people who defended Soviet power during the years of intervention, defended the country during the Second World War, and those who fought on the side of the whites, also served the Nazis in 41-45, who are directly in the ranks of the SS, like Krasnov and Shkuro, who are in punitive detachments in Greece, Yugoslavia and China, who engaged in espionage, who engaged in ideological provocations against the USSR.
                  What part of Russia did these people think of themselves?
              2. Olgovich
                Olgovich 5 May 2018 14: 14
                +6
                Quote: sigdoc
                at which the national governments of Ukraine and the Caucasus were formed, and the dismemberment of the country began

                What are the "national governments"? Find these words in those days.
                ALL declarations of independence AFTER THE THIEF: after the Bolsheviks declared the right to self-determination. FACTS teach, not just speculation.
          2. Olgovich
            Olgovich 5 May 2018 14: 10
            +6
            Quote: rkkasa 81
            Invaders, these are our Western "partners."

            Germany and Turkey, who have just killed millions of ours in the Second World War. became your partners: outcasts found outcasts.
            Then your partner killed another 27 million of ours.
            You have found "good" partners!
            1. rkkasa xnumx
              rkkasa xnumx 5 May 2018 14: 32
              +3
              It was about YOUR partners. For example, the British - very much! they love Russians, the whole history of relations between the UBR and Russia, this proves laughing
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 6 May 2018 06: 33
                +2
                Quote: rkkasa 81
                It was about YOUR partners. For example, the British - very much! they love Russians, the whole history of relations between the UBR and Russia, this proves laughing

                There were different relationships and everyone thought about themselves.
                But Chop yourself a bundle on your nose: NEVER for all the time RI, RI VBR did not give anything away.
                And again with an ax in the same place: yours the first and then long-term “partners” angry with which you "broke through" fool isolation, there were direct killers of the Russian people who killed in two world 30 million people ours.
                And even after that you the only oneswho fought for a united and strong Germany (since 1943) fool angry
                "Thank you" for the saved monster, ready for TMV. fool
          3. Olgovich
            Olgovich 5 May 2018 14: 22
            +6
            Quote: rkkasa 81
            the Bolsheviks were right when these litter was allowed to flow.

            В consumption let these Bolsheviks forgot?
            As enemies of the people and spies ... WEST! lol laughing
          4. Weyland
            Weyland 5 May 2018 19: 35
            +1
            Quote: rkkasa 81
            Invaders, these are our Western "partners." And kolchaks in trousers and in skirts, hobbled with them.

            the occupiers are the Rothschilds. And their fellow tribesmen, of whom the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks comprised 85%, hobbled with them and sold Russia to them!
          5. unknown
            unknown 6 May 2018 07: 02
            0
            Do not write nonsense. These are the Bolsheviks-traitors who seized the country with Western money and Western help and turned it into a colony of the West. Until now, we cannot get out of this.
        2. Alf
          Alf 5 May 2018 18: 54
          +7
          Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
          Is this the admiral of the Russian Imperial Fleet an “occupier” for you?

          Well, good deserter. That's better ?
          What can be called the officer who filed a request for the transfer to military service of another power?
          1. Weyland
            Weyland 5 May 2018 19: 40
            +2
            Quote: Alf
            What can be called the officer who filed a request for the transfer to military service of another power?

            Who is lucky ... If in his own power the bandits came to power who made a treacherous separate peace with the enemy, it’s worthy to go to serve with an ally who continues the struggle! Why isn’t de Gaulle reproaching the same thing, comrade red-bellied? Because he was lucky not to be captured by the Vichy traitors - otherwise Kolchak’s fate would have awaited him (with the amendment that he would not have been shot, but beheaded)
            1. Alf
              Alf 5 May 2018 20: 02
              +6
              Quote: Weyland
              go to the service of an ally,

              Is this not the kind of ally who planned the division of Russia?
              The expression "Britain has no permanent allies, Britain has permanent interests" says nothing?
              So you can say about Vlasov.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 6 May 2018 06: 52
                +3
                Quote: Alf
                Is this not the kind of ally who planned the division of Russia?

                This is to an ally who really fought with the invaders, who, in cooperation with the Bolshevik traitors in Brest, took FOREVER a third of the country.
                About the plans: the Bolsheviks not only planned, but really supported the revolution in Europe and carried the happiness of the bayonets there in 1918-1920 m. Forgot?
          2. Olgovich
            Olgovich 6 May 2018 06: 39
            +3
            Quote: Alf
            What can be called the officer who filed a request for the transfer to military service of another power?

            In relation to WHO is he a deserter?
            On the contrary, he is consistent and petitioning, CONTINUED the war against the German invaders: the Bolsheviks betrayed and surrendered, but he continued.
            What is not clear? request
        3. albert
          albert 5 May 2018 21: 13
          +5
          Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
          Is this the admiral of the Russian Imperial Fleet an “occupier” for you?

          He actually adopted foreign citizenship, a monarchist.
          1. parma
            parma 7 May 2018 10: 49
            0
            By the time the petition was filed for the country in which he was a citizen, the navy and the army in which he was taking the oath were not there either ...
        4. zoolu350
          zoolu350 7 May 2018 06: 03
          +1
          This condottier at the service of His Royal Pigmy of Little Britain is an occupier for us. Vlasov also fought against the Germans until he became what he was - a Traitor, like Kolchak.
  2. Cheburator
    Cheburator 5 May 2018 08: 14
    +25
    I agree with Olgovich.
    Well, inaccuracies ...
    And marshals sometimes wet such bloopers in memoirs, and armor-piercers from ptrs burn completely “tigers”.))
    Yes, and many arguments should be clarified. About wires for example. Why not? Or maybe the regiment was not in one, but in several lines? And was there 4000 people in it? More precisely, the combat structure of 3600 PIECES (not FUN) directly - but this is according to the state. We know what many regiments were like in the summer of 1915 (bleeding) or in the summer of 1917 (after leaks under various pretexts to the rear).
    The main thing is a fighting woman, she fought for her homeland. Organizer and soldier. And already 10 goals higher than the different rear executioners, Jews, who took her life.
    Well, political preferences are a matter of personal conscience. Russia was split, and everyone saw its fate in different ways. And it is still unknown who was closer to the truth.
  3. XII Legion
    XII Legion 5 May 2018 08: 26
    +20
    Wonderful personality.
    And it is wonderful that she was given increased attention.
    Thank you!
  4. moskowit
    moskowit 5 May 2018 08: 57
    +4
    "People Need Legends ..." from the movie "For Family Circumstances"
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 5 May 2018 10: 41
      +3
      The need for fairy tales will never disappear, such is human nature.
  5. Monarchist
    Monarchist 5 May 2018 18: 02
    +3
    Quote: rkkasa 81
    Kolchak banged in a skirt, and rightly so - there is nothing to hobble with the invaders.

    She is the same Kolchak as you are Vyshinsky
  6. Monarchist
    Monarchist 5 May 2018 18: 26
    +3
    Quote: rkkasa 81
    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
    Is this the admiral of the Russian Imperial Fleet an “occupier” for you?

    Invaders, these are our Western "partners." And kolchaks in trousers and in skirts, hobbled with them. And the Bolsheviks were right when they allowed these litter to flow.

    Bochkarev practically did not serve at Kolchak and did not participate in battles against the Soviet power. Then Govorov can be recorded as an enemy: the officer was in the army of Kolchak. Bochkareva: "having managed to create a military-sanitary unit of his own name." The military sanitary unit is approximately medical battalion in modern times. It was only the Nazis who shot ambulance trains. Pavlovsky ordered her to be shot for having formed a medical battalion!
  7. Monarchist
    Monarchist 5 May 2018 18: 54
    +1
    [quote = rkkasa 81] It was about YOUR partners. For example, the British - very much! they love Russians, the whole history of relations between the UBR and Russia
    Actually, if we admit that February destroyed RI and contributed to the Revolution ("this is a fact), the British contributed to the February revolution (Samsonov had this), and it stems from the February revolution. In this case, the British have" merits "before the Proletarian revolution?
  8. DimanC
    DimanC 5 May 2018 18: 55
    +2
    Well, to begin with, the word officer is not so much an “officer” as an employee, employee ...
  9. Monarchist
    Monarchist 5 May 2018 19: 25
    +2
    Quote: rkkasa 81
    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
    the current Ukrainian government was formed as a result of the unconstitutional coup in 2014, which painfully resembled the actions of the Bolsheviks in 1917

    There were riots in Ukraine? There were. And they were in Russia.
    Was pressure exerted on Yanukovych? It turned out. And on Nicholas II, too. And the top crushed. And both of them eliminated themselves.
    By the way, about the unconstitutionality - the Parliament has the right to remove the president, and in the Republic of Ingushetia there was no law allowing to change the monarchy to the republic. So the coming to power of the EaP is much more illegal than the coming to power of Poroshenko.
    Who came to power? And there and there - the oligarchs, and their proteges.
    Have the EP and the new Ukrainian leadership recognized other countries? Received. And very fast. Unlike the Bolsheviks, and the same DNR-LNR.
    In general, the events in Ukraine are just like the coming to power of the EaP, and not the Bolsheviks.
    Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
    Oles Elderberry, a man of white

    I know very well that White has a bad knowledge of history, and with logic.

    But Teterin is somewhat right to the river: LDNR, they don’t reach me: why they won’t unite? "revolutionaries", dissatisfied regions were forced to defend their interests and beliefs. In Russia, those dissatisfied with the seizure of power were forced to defend themselves, and by the way, YES began to take shape close to the current LDNRs. Here I agree with Teterin and Oles Buzin was really not a communist, their communists flirted with the nationalists (remember how the leader of their party showed off in an orange scarf?], And now they’re “huddled under the bench and are silent,” and Buzina was really more likely an anti-communist
  10. Monarchist
    Monarchist 5 May 2018 19: 30
    +3
    Quote: rkkasa 81
    So after the FR in Russia was a monarchy? Well, you give a pancake fool laughing

    Yes, it was a monarchy, and de facto God knows that, after all, the CSS should have chosen a form of government
  11. Monarchist
    Monarchist 5 May 2018 20: 07
    +3
    What Bochkarev says in different headings is that the officer can be explained as a soldier: ALL military personnel are soldiers of their homeland. In the Russian Charter, as it was written: "the first general and the last private in the army are called a soldier." Regarding the "exile", this is a question for DonLevin why he wrote this. Maybe he gave such a title deliberately in order to draw attention to his book? He then wanted to sell it, and what interests their public had in FIGs knows him. Regarding photo illustrations, one can also explain: he needed illustrations and the more the better, so he collected everything.
    In fact, Bochkareva is innocent before the Soviet regime: she was not in Petrograd and did not fight against the NE, and the note: “I plead guilty to the Soviet republic” is worthless: she was illiterate and that the investigator had no idea there. If different investigators interrogated her and we have no idea what was happening there, and who can guarantee that the penultimate investigator did not captivate Bochkareva, and she, by analogy with the previous one, could also sympathize with the last investigator. We know from history that forging and non-such documents. Maybe he didn’t read everything at all, or did this postscript appear later? We will not know how it was