Military Review

Uprising on the battleship "Potemkin"

36
June 14, 1905 on the newest ship of the Russian Imperial fleet the squadron battleship "Prince Potemkin - Tauride" rebellion broke out.

The all-Russian armed uprising that the RSDLP was preparing for was to begin in the fall of 1905. Preparing for it under the leadership of the Bolsheviks and the sailors of the Black Sea Fleet. However, on the battleship Potemkin a spontaneous rebellion began much earlier.

Uprising on the battleship "Potemkin"


The battleship was on the roadstead, the team tested the guns and was engaged in the provision of shooting. The cause of the uprising served as a fatal incident. On June 14 the sailors of the armadillo refused to have dinner, resenting about the spoiled meat. The command of the ship tried to stop a riot on the vine, but the sailors quickly disarmed the officers. During the shooting that broke out, several people from the battleship command were killed, including the captain of the ship. The rest of the officers were taken hostage.

The Bolshevik G. N. Vakulenchuk took over the leadership of the insurgent sailors. But during the shooting he was mortally wounded, and another member of the RSDLP, AN N. Matyushenko, stood at the head of the revolutionary uprising.

After the battleship was captured, the sailors chose their commanders, the ship's commission, determined the rules of protection. weapons, the ship and those arrested. Destroyer team number 267 also raised the revolutionary red flag of the uprising.

1905. Constant


The emperor rightly considered the uprising on “Potemkin” a very dangerous signal. The commander of the Black Sea Flotilla, Vice-Admiral Chukhnin, was ordered to immediately suppress the uprising by any means, up to flooding the battleship, along with the team that violated the sacred military oath.

17 June squadron, consisting of the battleships "St. George", "Three Saints", "The Twelve Apostles" and the mine cruiser "Kazarsky", went to sea to pacify the rebels. However, the first meeting of the revolutionary ship with government courts ended in an unexpected victory for the Potemkin. On the morning of June 18, a rebellious battleship stood on the outer roadstead of Odessa. A squadron of 11 ships approached him: six destroyers and five battleships. She was commanded by senior flagship Vice Admiral Krieger. The rebels, going out to sea towards the government ships, did not plan to open fire first. The sailors believed that the crews of these ships would decide to join the uprising. Daring Potemkin refused to negotiate with the fleet commander and went to the ram "Rostislav" - the flagship of Krieger. At the last moment, the rebels changed course and marched between Rostislav and the battleship of Rear Admiral Vishnevetsky Three Saints, cutting through the squadron system and holding the admiral ships under the guns of their guns. And the squadron teams refused to shoot at the rebels and greeted the Potemkin team with shouts of “Hurray!”, Despite the bans of the commanders.

Appeal to the commands of the battleship Potemkin and the destroyer No. 267 - "To the entire civilized world"


Feeling the mood of the crews of the ships, Krieger at high speed led the squadron into the open sea. However, the battleship George the Victorious did not follow the admiral's ships: his team talked with the Potemkins and supported them, putting their officers under arrest. But later among the rebels on the "Pobedonosets" there was a split, and he surrendered to the authorities.

After this meeting with the command of the fleet, the Potemkin returned to Odessa, but could not get water and provisions there. The team decided to go to Romania. The battleship and the accompanying destroyer No. 267 came to Constanza on June 19, but the local authorities also did not give the rebels any fuel, food or water. Before leaving the Romanian waters to Feodosiya sailors - revolutionaries published appeals in newspapers under the headings “To the whole civilized world” and “To all European powers”. In them they tried to explain the causes and goals of their rebellion.

The position on the battleship has become critical. The boilers had to be fed with outboard water, which destroyed them. "Potemkin" came to Feodosia in the early morning of June 22, but gendarmes and regular troops were already waiting for the rebels. The rioters decided to return to Romania.

Arrested sailors - participants in the uprising on the battleship "Potemkin"


Arriving in Constanza on June 24, the rioters considered it an honor to hand over their ship to the Romanian authorities. The next day they lowered the red flag and went ashore as political emigrants.

The ships of the Black Sea Fleet arrived on the Romanian coast 26 of June in order to return to Russia the Romanian squadron battleship Prince Potemkin - Tavrichesky the next day.

After the October coup "Potemkin" became known as "Fighter for Freedom". The rebellious ship awaited an unenviable fate. In 1918, he was captured by the troops of the Kaiser, and later joined the army of General Denikin. When the Red Army was preparing to storm the Crimea, the ship, which became the first symbol of the Russian distemper, blew the Anglo-French invaders leaving Sevastopol.

Participants in the uprising on the battleship Potemkin, the Prut training ship and the battleship George the Victorious. From left to right: I.A. Lychev, I.P. 60th, M.P. Panfilov, A.I. Swan, A.F. Tsarev (1955, Sevastopol)
Author:
36 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Prometey
    Prometey 14 June 2012 09: 16
    +2
    Eh, not this fate should have been with this beautiful ship. If the Black Sea Fleet ships joined the Rozhdestvensky squadron, Japan would never have become a naval power.
    1. construction battalion
      construction battalion 14 June 2012 09: 44
      +11
      The Black Sea Fleet could not join the Pacific Squadron - the Turks did not pass through the Bosphorus to harden the arrogant Saxos, so they had to urgently order Aurora and the Varyag in the USA, but the coffeemen refused to put towers on the main caliber guns.
      Japan became a sea power in TWO years before Tsushima - England built them the entire Tsishima squadron for free.
      In addition, I also give the author Vienna Key a shalaban on the forehead - he "forgot" to remind that the English queen bestowed her citizenship on the entire amusing team. What a disobedience they were hanging on the yard in the English navy.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 14 June 2012 11: 29
        +3
        So it seems that "Varyag" was still built before the war what Only it is not clear how ours could accept such a "trough" into their fleet - with open artillery and defects in the steering system.
        Quote: building battalion
        Japan became a sea power in TWO years before Tsushima - England built them the entire Tsishima squadron for free.

        The Angles never did anything to anyone for free - they always had their own interests. And the samurai got into the category of first-class powers after Tsushima, which was supposed to be our victory angry
        1. pilot mk
          pilot mk 14 June 2012 18: 06
          +2
          The then England as well as the current USA do not like to do war with their own hands. The Russo-Japanese War was organized by the British revolution of 1905. Their same work was done, for example, due to revolutionary sabotage. 2 Pacific squadron did not manage to arrive in the Far East before the fall of Port Arthur. By the way, this war ended with Japan being the first to offer peace talks, and then the work of the (then liberal) Witte.
          1. Pancho
            Pancho 15 June 2012 21: 04
            0
            It seems to me that Witte did not deserve such a nickname.
        2. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 14 June 2012 22: 53
          +2
          Quote: Prometey
          how could our people take such a "trough" into their fleet - with open artillery


          This is called an "armored cruiser", a common occurrence in those years smile
          1. rainer
            rainer 15 June 2012 05: 46
            0
            And he probably didn't even see the scheme of the German "Breslau" ...
          2. 77bor1973
            77bor1973 15 June 2012 07: 04
            +1
            At the Pacific Fleet, he, "Varyag", was not otherwise called a "pleasure yacht"! Combat value, minimal!
    2.  pistons
      pistons 14 June 2012 11: 57
      +1
      An interesting approach .. But was Japan no longer a naval power?
      And the most interesting and where is the Christmas and the 2nd Pacific Squadron? You take a look at the term of commissioning the battleship (and at the same time on the date of the uprising) and correlate with the beginning of the Tsushima battle. and even better with the release date of the 2nd Pacific Squadron in the campaign.
    3. borisst64
      borisst64 14 June 2012 12: 43
      +2
      Quote: Prometey
      Rozhdestvensky squadron


      I note a common mistake - the name of Admiral Rozhestvensky.
      1. 755962
        755962 14 June 2012 22: 12
        +2
        But this is something new.Battleship Potemkin is the ship of the Ukrainian, not the Russian revolution, Ukrainian Defense Ministry said
        The battleship Potemkin is the ship of the Ukrainian revolution, not the Russian one, and Russia's Black Sea Fleet consisted mainly of Ukrainians. Such statements were made by the messenger of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense "Army of Ukraine", "Rosbalt" reports.

        "The board of Potemkin, who rebelled in June 1905," the article says, "which, under the crimson Cossack flag for eleven days was an island of freedom, a floating Cossack republic, free from Russian tsarism, can be fully called the ship of the Ukrainian revolution on the Black Sea and the forerunner of the all-Ukrainian revolution. 1917-1918. After all, the uprising was the most vivid manifestation of popular anger in the Black Sea Fleet, which at that time was predominantly Ukrainian. "
        Earlier, the director of the Ukrainian branch of the Institute of CIS Countries, Vladimir Kornilov, has already stated that the authors of Ukrainian history textbooks are falsifying facts: in his opinion, the current Ukrainian history is based on blatant distortions and falsifications, and not just on the silence of facts, as it was in Soviet times, notes Rosbalt. "This is alarming, because in the textbooks, which are approved by the Ministry of Education, the same Prince Oleg is shown as a Ukrainian prince, although there was no Ukraine then, and Yuri Dolgoruky - as a villain, a Russian prince who seized Kiev," he gave an example Kornilov. http://newsru.com/world/07jul2009/potemkin.html And how do you like this ???
        1. Tyumen
          Tyumen 15 June 2012 21: 19
          0
          That is, they themselves, voluntarily, take responsibility for those 70 years? )
  2. Yoshkin Kot
    Yoshkin Kot 14 June 2012 10: 13
    +1
    n-dya, what is the name of such activity when a war is going on? so that Vlasov had good teachers of Marxism
    and there were problems with meat in all fleets, then refrigerators had just begun to appear, so that this was not something exceptional
    1. rainer
      rainer 14 June 2012 10: 58
      0
      By the way, the funniest thing - problems with meat is already a post-revolutionary myth ... There, a specially Bolshevik cell provoked everything ...
      1. borisst64
        borisst64 14 June 2012 12: 49
        +2
        Provoke a provocation, then tell me what it consisted of. The crew of warships was recruited from the most literate and capable people, and treated them like everyone else. And if the peasant endured the dentistry from the landowner, then the sailor, controlling the mechanism capable of tearing down a small city, considered this a blatant injustice!
        1. rainer
          rainer 15 June 2012 05: 22
          -1
          Well, if you don’t know, then the RSDLP (b) and the Socialist-Revolutionaries were extremely interested in fomenting a revolutionary situation in the army and navy ... And the goal is the defeat of Russia in the REV. And on the account of the ill-treatment, please bring the facts first with reference to the sources and then we will analyze them ...
      2. mind1954
        mind1954 15 June 2012 05: 46
        0
        From this place in more detail, please ?!
        Those. The RSDLP and the Socialist Revolutionaries planned an uprising later,
        and the Bolsheviks arranged earlier by throwing rotten meat,
        or they broke the refrigerator ... ??? !!! What for ???
        1. rainer
          rainer 25 June 2012 08: 43
          -1
          The fact of using stale meat for food on the Potemkin has not been proven - the ship returned from the cruise, the captain ordered to buy fresh meat in Odessa ... And what the "revolutionaries" said to their colleagues because of what a riot broke out on the ship, I don't know for sure. ..
  3. vostok
    vostok 14 June 2012 11: 10
    0
    Oh, and they love to arrange riots with us!
  4. morehod73
    morehod73 14 June 2012 11: 31
    +1
    The eternal problem is when the lower classes do not want ...., but the top cannot .....
  5. high school student
    high school student 14 June 2012 11: 44
    -1
    The period of the Russian-Japanese war of 1905 marked by two events related to warships: the cruiser Varyag and the battleship Potemkin. One is an example of courage, loyalty to the oath, and the other is an example of betrayal of the oath and your military duty. stale food is not a reason to break the oath, kill officers, seize a ship. I remember that during the period of military service in the SA we were also fed not with delicacies, especially there was such a dish "marinated fish". being dressed, I saw this herring in a barrel, separated from the bones, with the appropriate smell. But we perceived this as hardship and deprivation of military service (as stated in the oath). no one broke into the armory rooms for this and did not kill the officers.
    1.  pistons
      pistons 14 June 2012 12: 23
      0
      Wow, how emotional .. And surrendering to the Japanese 4 armadillos together with the commander is certainly a heroic act. ?
      1. borisst64
        borisst64 14 June 2012 12: 51
        +1
        Read Novikov-Priboy, and if you do not consider the Tsushima battle heroism, then you were clearly born under a different flag.
        1.  pistons
          pistons 14 June 2012 12: 54
          +1
          I asked a specific question. the surrender of 4 armadillos to the Japanese together with the commander is a heroic act. ?
          Novikov-Surf I read.
        2. Tirpitz
          Tirpitz 14 June 2012 13: 00
          +4
          I also read "Tsushima", about the mediocre organization of the campaign that is very well written. But sailors are heroes.
          1. Prometey
            Prometey 14 June 2012 13: 13
            +1
            Quote: Tirpitz
            it’s very well written about the mediocre organization of the campaign.

            For all its content, Novikov's book cannot claim to be an accurate documentary source. It carried a specific ideological task - to accuse "tsarism" of defeat. Therefore, the author attracted some of the facts by the ears.
            And speaking about the "mediocre organization" of the campaign - do you have anything to compare with? (Magellan's voyage does not count - the scale is not the same). As far as we know, this is an unprecedented case in history, when such a large squadron passed through 3 oceans without losing a single ship, nor actually having a single base of its own along the way.
            1. Tirpitz
              Tirpitz 14 June 2012 13: 17
              +1
              And what is the result? You go to work to bring money to your family, if you are a brilliant employee and do your job perfectly and instead of a salary you carry a letter home, how will your wife rate you ?.
              1. Prometey
                Prometey 14 June 2012 13: 59
                -1
                Tirpitz
                So what is the mediocrity of organizing a campaign?
      2. Tirpitz
        Tirpitz 14 June 2012 13: 01
        +3
        the most modern battleships were already at the bottom by this time.
        1.  pistons
          pistons 14 June 2012 13: 05
          0
          They lay. And the fact that the handed over ships then sailed under the Japanese flag and even managed to fight against Russia. Doesn't leave sediment in the shower?
          1. Tirpitz
            Tirpitz 14 June 2012 13: 09
            +2
            In hindsight, all the heroes, but you and I were not there and did not experience all that horror of helplessness from beating the squadron.
            1. Prometey
              Prometey 14 June 2012 14: 49
              0
              Quote: Tirpitz
              In hindsight, all the heroes, but you and I were not there and did not experience all that horror of helplessness from beating the squadron.

              And here is heroism? There was no beating; one should not judge a fight from a book of art alone. There are new more objective studies to analyze the causes of the defeat of the Russian fleet. Japanese ships burned there no less than Russian. But the topic is not about that.
    2. 77bor1973
      77bor1973 15 June 2012 07: 20
      +2
      As for the battle in Chemulpo here with a pitchfork on the water! The "Varyag" team, when it was driving home, was getting ready to go to prison, and then there was an orchestra with flowers, heroes! At least they chose a place deeper!
      1. rainer
        rainer 25 June 2012 08: 50
        0
        Have you seen the depths of the port of Chemulpo? If you find, show on the map ... And even there foreign hospitals still stood, they ruined Rudnev a lot of blood ...
  6. 8 company
    8 company 14 June 2012 13: 46
    +2
    I wonder how the members of the RSDLP sailors campaigned? What did they promise? Probably, land for peasants, factories for workers, and for sailors ... water?
    1. high school student
      high school student 14 June 2012 15: 46
      -1
      Quote: Company 8
      I wonder how the members of the RSDLP sailors campaigned? What did they promise? Probably, land for peasants, factories for workers, and for sailors ... water?


      Probably, they promised ..... "fire water" as much as you like.
  7. Leisure
    Leisure 14 June 2012 13: 49
    +3
    Tsushima, this is the moment when it was not possible to throw hats.
  8. Tirpitz
    Tirpitz 14 June 2012 13: 55
    +1
    Quote: building battalion
    The Black Sea Fleet could not join the Pacific Squadron - the Turks didn’t pass through the Bosphorus to harden the arrogant Saxon

    Thus, they saved the Black Sea Fleet from destruction near Tsushima.
  9. 8 company
    8 company 14 June 2012 14: 47
    +4
    According to Tsushima, as far as I know, the purely commander is to blame. I went into the Japanese arc in two columns, the Japanese with the whole squadron shot the lead ships one after the other, and that's all - kapets. So "reactionary autocracy" has nothing to do with it. Would Makarov, for example, he would have arranged for the Japanese Tsushima on the contrary, unambiguously. Then I would walk to Tokyo, a couple of volleys across the city and the emperor would ask for peace on Russian terms.
    1. ivagulin
      ivagulin 19 June 2012 12: 34
      0
      not everything is so simple, do not forget that the Japanese had a shimoza, and our shells, even when hit, did not always explode
  10. Tirpitz
    Tirpitz 14 June 2012 17: 14
    +3
    Quote: Prometey
    So what is the mediocrity of organizing a campaign?


    The immediate reason for the decisive victory of the Japanese fleet in the battle was the movement of the Russian squadron at a low, 9-knot speed in the inflexible system of the wake column. Taking advantage of a speed advantage of 7 knots, the Japanese admiral concentrated his ships near the head of the Russian column and alternately subjected the head battleships to a lengthy (about 5 hours) concentrated execution, which disabled them. The return fire of the Russians for various reasons was ineffective. The death of the three newest battleships and the exhaustion of the fourth combat resources predetermined the defeat of the Russians.
    For over a hundred years, Russian military historians and experts have wondered: how could this happen? As a result of discussion [54], in general, the following causes of the Tsushima disaster were established.
    1. In terms of domestic and foreign policy - the loss of control of the country, army and navy by the leaders of the state and the Naval Department, which was manifested in the extreme uncoordinated actions (both before the war and during its course) of politicians, diplomats, financiers, military, shipbuilders, engineers -artillerymen, fortifiers, sailors, military personnel, railwaymen, as well as various units of the Maritime Department: personnel, reconnaissance, staff, Baltic, Far Eastern, training, military, etc. All this led, in particular, to low combat readiness of the army and fleet, the country's unpreparedness for war.
    2. In terms of the operational-tactical - lack of initiative shown by the Russian admirals, which was expressed in the absence of an operational battle plan (and, therefore, the unpreparedness of the flagships and commanders for battle), indecisive maneuvering in battle, inflexible battle formation, low-speed movement, loss of control in battle, etc. Closely adjacent to this is the lack of proper combat training of Russian sailors in general and artillery in particular, who did not fight a day [55].
    On the contrary, the Japanese flagships seized the initiative in battle from the very first salvos, acted decisively, relatively independently, and the crews of the Japanese ships fought for more than a year and had great combat experience, in particular, the experience of group firing, the experience of firing at long (at that time) distances . All this allowed the Japanese side to achieve unprecedented concentration of artillery fire.
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 14 June 2012 22: 00
      +5
      Tirpitz
      Let me also make a small contribution.
      Firstly, all that you wrote is a half-answer to the question what is the reason for the defeat, and in no way did the mediocrity of the organization of the campaign manifest itself? Well, God be with him on a hike.
      As for your answer - this is an entrenched point of view that never gave full answers to the reasons for the defeat of our squadron. Yes, in part, all that you wrote is true, but only in part.
      When they write about the mediocrity of our commanders of ships or specifically the admiral himself, the low training of sailors, then the Japanese fleet is almost extolled to heaven. And what - was it a model of ideal? Or did the Japanese have tremendous experience in naval wars, as well as in other countries?
      Further, on the tactical and technical side of the battle. For some reason, the majority of "specialists" criticize our bulky, clumsy wake formation, but the fact that the Japanese fought in this formation is a super solution.
      After Tsushima, the course of the battle was studied very closely by the British. In their opinion, the Russian and Japanese squadrons fought on equal terms - for comparison, they took the percentage of hits and the rate of fire of Russian and Japanese shells - virtually the same result (and this was written by independent experts, let's say). After analyzing the data on the damage to the Russian ships, it was concluded that the Japanese "miracle shells" were superior to the Russians in the degree of destruction and damage to the unprotected parts of the ship, but they were absolutely helpless against the armor belt. Unlike the Japanese, the Russian shells did not produce such devastation on the decks, but caused great damage when the ships' hulls were penetrated (Mikasa received greetings with ten 12 "shells and it was only for his luck that they did not hit him below the waterline). The Japanese, by the way, tried to hide the data on their losses on ships, as well as the degree of their destruction and the data here are very sparse, but the fact that Japanese ships burned during the battle is a confirmed fact (in contrast to almost 80% of the marriage of Russian shells).
      In general, there is no place to paint everything. The main reasons for the defeat of our squadron were named - the low speed of the formation movement, overloading of ships, as a result of which the stability and security and concentration of the fire of the Japanese squadron on 1-2 ships of the Russian squadron decreased. At the same time, the battleships "Oslyabya" were sunk by direct artillery fire - 100% death due to overload, "Borodino", and "Alexander III" - violation of stability, roll to the bow. The newest battleships "Suvorov" and "Eagle" received a huge number of hits from Japanese shells of various calibers, and were not sunk by artillery fire and did not have a penetration of the armor belt.
      1. rainer
        rainer 15 June 2012 05: 35
        +4
        And also forgot a number of factors:
        1. The crew’s fatigue is primarily moral from a long transition through the tropics and the nervous atmosphere around the campaign as a whole. It’s good to talk about it at the computer, but what was it like for people on ships?
        2. Wet pyroxylin in shells and tight fuses in the Russian fleet - though I really knew about that. By the way, the use of ammonol by the Japanese in shells is somewhat controversial because of the properties of picric acid - Hi Mikasa ...
        3. It is easy to criticize the commander of the squadron while sitting in a chair - but try to command yourself under enemy fire.

        So not everything is as simple as you want the lovers of the Russian Empire. Consequently, the conclusions of Soviet historiography are semi-random ...
  11. svetlana4821
    svetlana4821 15 June 2012 03: 12
    -3
    I'm just shocked! I just entered my data (name, surname and date of birth) here [http://tinyurl.com/sngsearch] and my occupation, hobbies, place of residence, contacts knocked me out. I thought it was just a coincidence, but then I checked on my friends, the same garbage !!! How is this possible?
  12. Yoshkin Kot
    Yoshkin Kot 15 June 2012 08: 33
    +1
    So not everything is as simple as you want the lovers of the Russian Empire. Consequently, the conclusions of Soviet historiography are semi-random ...

    I do not agree, the conclusions are not accidental! they are politically engaged, moreover, in fact, we can APPROVE that the Bolsheviks and all other social revolutionaries directly received British funding and fought with arms in their hands against Russia on the side of Japan, and no matter what slogans they hide behind, the fact of CHANGE TO THE MOTHERLAND remains a FACT !
    1. rainer
      rainer 25 June 2012 08: 47
      -1
      I agree with you a certain part of the bias in Soviet historiography is present, but they also consider the objective sides of the problem as extremely skew and one-sided ...