Military Review

White emigration. Foreign higher military-scientific courses under the guidance of Professor Lieutenant-General N.N. Golovina

14
22 March 1927 White General Nikolai Nikolaevich Golovin founded and headed the Foreign Higher Military Scientific Courses in Paris, which were a kind of successor to the Imperial Academy of the General Staff. In the years that followed, courses were opened in a number of other White emigration centers. These courses formally ceased to exist only after the start of the Second World War. We invite you to familiarize yourself with history these courses. The text is taken from the collection "The Russian army in exile."


Upon leaving the remnants of the White Army abroad, her command began to think about a possible future. Everyone was sure that the Soviet government would not be able to stay in Russia for a long time. Sooner or even later, she will be overthrown. And, as at the end of 1917, anarchy will prevail. Then the Russian Army, returning home, will not only restore order, but also restore the military power of the Russian state. This restoration of military power and the complete reorganization of the Red Army would have been demanded by a large number of officers sufficiently knowledgeable of both the experience of the First World War and the impact it had on military science. In addition, the officers should have had an influence on the upbringing of the new officer corps, since the commanding staff of the Red Army, under the conditions of its recruitment and training, could turn out to be in short supply suitable for this.

After the withdrawal of the army abroad, few officers with higher military education remained at the disposal of General Wrangel. And he was fully aware that in the absence of a trained officer cadre, it would be impossible to either restore order in Russia, much less restore its military power. Therefore, already in the 1921 year, when he began to transfer parts of his army from Gallipoli and from Lemnos to the Slavic countries, General Wrangel intended to open the Russian Academy of the General Staff in Serbia, in Belgrade. Then he turned to General N.N. Golovin with the proposal to organize such an academy and take over the leadership of it.

General Golovin presented to General Wrangel the inconsistency of such an undertaking, indicating that the experience of the past world war has not yet been studied, no conclusions have been drawn from it, no allowances are available to study this experience. In addition, there are no sufficiently trained managers who could be assigned to teach. General Wrangel agreed with these arguments and instructed General Golovin to prepare all that was necessary for the opening of the academy.

Having received a proposal to prepare the opening of the Higher Russian Military School abroad, he wholeheartedly took up the matter. This training went in two directions. First of all, it was necessary to compile the main scientific work, which would describe in detail the combat experience gained by each kind weapons during the First World War, as well as all the changes caused by this experience, both in the organization of the armed forces of the state and in its domestic policy in peacetime. This scientific work entitled “Thoughts on the structure of the future Russian armed forces” was compiled by General Golovin with the direct participation of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich. Having studied each question, General Golovin submitted to the Grand Duke a draft of each chapter, and the text was read by them twice. During the first reading, the Grand Duke made fundamental changes, while at the second a final wording was established. The Grand Duke wanted this work to be a guidebook for improving the military knowledge of the officers of the Russian Army abroad, as well as for training young people who received a secondary education abroad and who want to join the ranks of the officers of the future Russian Army.

Simultaneously with this work, General Golovin also took up the second task - the preparation for the opening of the Higher Military School. He sought and trained persons who could become both professors and adjutants. Those and others had to ensure the correct scientific life and progress of such a school. Obviously, for this purpose, General Golovin, with the help of General Wrangel, establishes in the centers of settlement of the Russian military emigration military self-education circles, to which individual prints of the heads of his main work were sent as they were printed. Soon these circles were merged into the “Courses of Higher Military Self-Education”. In 1925, the number of such circles reached 52, with more than 550 participants.
In 1925, the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich became the head of the Russian emigration. He increased the material support of the correspondence military-scientific circles and took an active part in the preparation of the opening of the Higher military-scientific courses in Paris.

About five years of active scientific work of General Golovin was required for the preparation of the main manual - the book “Thoughts on the structure of the future Russian armed force”. In this work, all the influence of the experience of the First World War on military science and on the related experience of the reorganization of military units of all kinds of weapons was clearly presented. Only when General Golovin finished this work did the upper ranks of the Russian military emigration create confidence that the scientific data for studying all the changes in military science and for organizing different kinds of weapons are sufficiently developed and are a good foundation for studying the provisions of the newest military science. As for the number of officers who may wish to complete a course of military science, the extensive participation of officers in the circles of higher military self-education allowed us to think that the number of people wishing to enroll in the Higher Military Scientific Courses will be more than sufficient. The Grand Duke, having received confidence both in sufficient theoretical preparation for the opening of courses, and in that there would be enough listeners, gave his consent to this.

In But General Golovin still decided to verify this in practice. At the beginning of winter 1926 / 27, General Golovin decided to read five public lectures at the Gallipoli meeting in Paris about the First World War. These lectures turned out to be an event in the life of the Russian military emigration. From the very first lecture, the hall of the Gallipoli meeting was overcrowded. Listeners stood not only in the hall aisles, but also filled the hallway in front of the hall. The same thing happened in the next lectures. It was clear that listeners with great interest perceive the material offered to them. This interest has created the confidence that when opening the Higher Military-Scientific Courses in Paris will be enough. After the corresponding “treasure of General Golovin, the Grand Duke gave his consent to the opening of these courses. Giving his consent, the Grand Duke among the main orders made the following three.

1) The provision on courses should be the provision on the former Imperial Nicholas Military Academy, as amended by 1910, and graduates of the courses are given the right to be assigned to the General Staff of the future Russian Army.
2) In order to emphasize how close to his heart was the creation of the Higher Military-Scientific Courses, the Grand Duke decided to include the monogram of the Grand Duke with the Imperial crown in the academic symbol appropriated by successfully completing the courses. Name the courses: "Foreign Higher Military-Scientific Courses of General Golovin."

The purpose of this emigrant military school was to provide Russian officers abroad with the opportunity to receive a higher military education; support the works of the training personnel of the Russian military science at the level of modern requirements and distribute military knowledge among the Russian All-Military Union. Already at the end of the third lecture, General Golovin announced the decision to open in the near future the Higher Military-Scientific Courses in
Paris All officers wishing to enroll in these courses were required to file a report for enrollment in the number of students for a certain period of time. It was necessary to attach to this report information about the service and the recommendation of the unit commander or the senior representative of his unit or association.

At the opening of the courses, all officers who graduated from military schools during the war were enrolled as valid students. Since a fairly large number of reports was filed by officers, pro. General Golovin, harassed for distinguishing himself from the volunteers, immediately established military-school courses for them, the completion of which gave the right to enter the Higher military-scientific courses. Two students of military-technical courses who had a higher civil education were simultaneously admitted to the course of the Higher military-scientific courses as volunteers, so that with the completion of the military-technical courses they are automatically made valid students of the Higher military-scientific courses.

Subsequently, young people who received a secondary education abroad and were in Russian youth organizations entered the military school courses. Many of them, having graduated from military school courses, joined the ranks of students of the Higher military science courses. By order of General Miller, chairman of the Russian All-Military Union, who graduated from military school courses, he was promoted to second lieutenant.

By the spring of 1927, the preparatory work of the organization of the Higher Military Scientific Courses was completed, and 22 in March of 1927, General Golovin solemnly opened them with his opening lecture.

The organization of the Higher Military Scientific Courses was laid, as the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich pointed out, the organization of the Imperial Nikolaev Military Academy. The entire course was designed for four and a half to five years and was divided into three classes: junior, senior and additional. In the junior class, the theory of combat is studied in the framework of a division. At the same time, tactics of arms delivery and other military disciplines are held, the knowledge of which is necessary for understanding and resolving many issues arising from a detailed study of the combat operations of a division. In the senior class, the use of divisions in the corps and in the army is being studied. Finally, in an additional class, disciplines of a higher order are passed, on a national scale, in other words, strategy and related issues.

While General Golovin was working on a book about the structure of the Russian armed forces, all those scientific information, more precisely, those military scientific disciplines, the knowledge of which is necessary for every officer of the General Staff to solve all sorts of problems in a rapidly changing military situation, were gradually clarified. The extent of the wide range of information that is useful for each General Staff officer, especially for a high post, to know, is shown in the list below of military science disciplines and leaders who were given instruction at various times:

1) Strategy - Professor General Golovin
2) Infantry tactics - Professor Colonel Zaitsov
3) Tactics of cavalry - General Domanevsky160, General Shatilov, General Cheryachukin161
4) Artillery tactics - General Vinogradsky162, Colonel Andreev
5) Air Force tactics - General Baranov
6) Battle Chemistry - Colonel Ivanov163
7) Field military engineering and tactics of technical troops - General Stavitsky164, captain Petrov165
8) General tactics - Professor Colonel Zaytsov
9) Higher Tactics - Professor Colonel Zaytsov
10) Review of classic tactics exercises - General Alekseev166, Professor Colonel Zaytsov
11) Logistics and Logistics Service - General Alekseev
12) General Staff Service - Professor General Golovin, Professor General Ryabikov167
13) Automotive Service - General Secrets168
14) Wireless Service - Colonel Trikoza169
15) Military engineering defense of the state - General Stavitsky
16) Russian military history - Colonel Pyatnitsky170
17) Modern state of naval art - Professor Admiral Bubnov171
18) General History of World War 1914 — 1918 - Professor General Golovin, General Domanevsky, Professor Colonel Zaytsov
19) The history of the newest military art - Professor Colonel Zaitsov
20) Military Psychology - General Krasnov172
21) Military Geography - Colonel Arkhangelsky
22) Device of the Armed Forces of the Major European States - Honored Professor General Gulevich173
23) War and international law - Professor Baron Nolde
24) War and economic life of the country - Professor Bernatsky
25) Mobilization of industry during the Great War and preparation for future mobilization - I.I. Bobarykov174.

The basis for the study of all these disciplines was the idea that knowledge for the military has value only when he knows how to apply it. Therefore, the courses not only try to expand the mental outlook and clarify the knowledge of the listener, but also teach him to apply this knowledge when the appropriate setting is created. Such a skill is achieved by applying the applied method, when students comprehensively study the questions proposed by their leader, offer these or other original solutions, and then listen to criticism of the manager and their colleagues. So, gradually get used to comprehensively cover the issue and quickly find one or the other solution. The completion of training by such a method is a war game in which those participating in the decision of each course of the game show the degree of their training.

General Golovin believed that training the student in all three classes would require up to 800 training hours. Half of these hours, that is, 400, will take listening to compulsory lectures. The rest were intended for conversations, seminars, solving tactical tasks and, finally, a war game. Mandatory open lectures, for which, on a par with the course participants, each member of the All-Military Union was admitted, took place on Tuesdays from 21 to 23 hours. Practical classes, to which only course participants were allowed, took place on the same hours on Thursdays. With this calculation, the use of scheduled training hours should have taken 50 — 52 a month.

In the month of March 1927 of the year, by the time of the opening of the courses, the assistant general manager for the combat and economic part, Lieutenant General M.I. Repyeva175 gathered more than a hundred reports of officers who want to get a higher military education. General Golovin, first of all, selected the reports of officers produced from volunteers. To these officers, he proposed earlier admission to military school courses and already after passing the officer exam - the right to enter the junior class of the Higher military science courses.
The rest of the officers were divided into 6 groups, and each such group was like a separate class. Group A-1 was composed exclusively of regular officers, mostly already in headquarters officer ranks, which for two years already worked under the guidance of General Golovin in extramural military higher education circles. It also included generals who wanted to complete a course in higher military sciences, as well as two volunteers, who had a higher civil education. Groups A-2 and A-3 were made up of regular officers who did not participate in extramural military self-education circles. Groups A-4 and A-5 included officers who graduated from military schools during the Great War, and finally group A-6 consisted of officers who graduated from military schools during the Civil War.

General Golovin believed that gentlemen leaders should take into account the general training of students and accordingly make some differences in the methods of study and in their requirements, but strictly remaining within the framework of teaching. In order to get to know the listeners better, it was recommended to call them up during each session and lead them in such a way as to form an idea how the listener understands the subject and how much it absorbs it. The leaders had to ensure that the students learned this military-scientific discipline not by cramming, but by conscious perception. Finally, managers, examining various issues during practical exercises, should be especially tactful about the opinions and decisions expressed by the listeners, avoid insisting on their decision so that the listeners do not have a kind of mandatory stencil or template for solving a specific kind of questions.

After ten months of classes, the chief executive of 15 December 1927 asked gentlemen heads to submit to him 1 January 1928, an assessment of the success of the participants in the practical exercises of the Higher military science courses. They had to be evaluated in five degrees: 1) outstanding, 2) good, 3) satisfactory, 4) unsatisfactory, and 5) completely unsatisfactory. Each assessment managers had to add a few words, more accurately characterize it. The same leaders who carried out the home tasks should have justified this assessment on the basis of the home task. In making this assessment, the gentlemen leaders had to take into account not only the knowledge acquired by the listener, but also the degree of his general development, interest in military affairs, decisiveness and ability to think.

This assessment provided by gentlemen leaders allowed the main course leader to form a well-known opinion about each student.
From the first day of opening the courses, the classes went on in a normal way. But for many listeners regular attendance of classes turned out to be too much. Indeed, at the same time with scientific studies, it was necessary to roll up for life not only for one’s own life, but - for the family - and for the maintenance of the family. Therefore, the younger class was a kind of filter: all those who could not keep up with their classmates fell away. There were about half of such students in the junior class of each course.

The courses went so well that as early as the fourth month of their existence, the head manager turned to the gentlemen leaders with a proposal to work out the text of the home task within two weeks. This text should have been subdivided into the following headings: a) a general task, b) private tasks for each of the questions asked, c) an indication of what should be decided by each of the questions. Then 2 July 1927, the exact order of how tasks should be distributed to solve at home, when students are required to pass the decision; then the order of individual analysis and, finally, a general analysis. It was stated that individual analyzes should be made as brief as possible, since each group is given only one practical exercise. The leader in individual debriefing plays a passive role, prompting the audience to a short debate, which, by the way, may also indicate known shortcomings in his lectures.

The general analysis takes only one two-hour lecture. It should begin with a reading of the task and the decision that the supervisor himself made with the same details that were required of the listeners, since all the written answers and orders were read and the cards also showed what the listeners had to show on the tracing paper. In the second part of the general analysis, the manager must indicate other solutions to this task. But this must be done so tactfully so that the listeners do not think that a stencil is being imposed on them.

In the third part of the general analysis, the manager dwells on the mistakes he encountered in the decisions. This instruction should be accompanied by an explanation of those questions of the theory, the poor assimilation of which led to these errors. General Golovin almost always checked in detail every tactical task, as well as the task manager’s solution before proposing a solution to the audience.

In the spring of 1928, the transition time from the junior to the senior class began to approach. Among the listeners, the question arose by what tests and testing of knowledge this transition will be conditioned. - The order of the chief course director from February 1 of 27 indicates that these tests will consist of: a) rehearsals, b) a war game and c) a reporting tactical task with her oral explanation.


Nikolay Nikolaevich Golovin
White emigration. Foreign higher military-scientific courses under the guidance of Professor Lieutenant-General N.N. GolovinaThe rehearsals were established at the request of the listeners themselves, who expressed the wish that prior to the war game the knowledge of all courses be tested. Rehearsals should be carried out before a commission chaired by the main course leader or his deputy. The programs of each rehearsal will be divided into 15 - 20 tickets, which are the main questions that the listener will have to answer after thinking about them. Therefore, when drawing up a program, you should pay attention to the fact that the contents of the ticket is a program of the answer that is expected from the listener to the main question set in the ticket.

The purpose of the rehearsal is a test: how consciously the students learned the military-scientific disciplines they learned. The rehearsal order was as follows. The next listener, taking the ticket, in which the main question proposed to him is listed, ponders and prepares the answer at a separate table, using the benefits taken with him, for half an hour. Then, before presenting to the commission, he must report to the commission in full, but briefly, within 15. After that, some members of the commission ask the listener volatile questions.

Listening to this report, members of the commission should have paid attention to the fact that it was not a simple retelling of the relevant excerpts of the manual, but would provide a reasonable consideration of the main issue, even with the personal conclusions of the listener.

Evaluation of the answer was made by the following marks: excellent (12), very good (11), good (10 — 9), quite satisfactory (8 — 7), satisfactory (6). In cases where the answer is unsatisfactory, the listener is announced about re-examination.

In order to enable the highest ranks of the Russian Army to get acquainted with the work of the Higher military science courses, General Golovin invited the generals Ye.K. to a rehearsal on the knowledge of “Thoughts on the structure of the future Russian armed force”. Miller and Postovsky176; for a rehearsal on infantry tactics - generals A.P. Kutepova and Holmsen177; for a rehearsal for cavalry tactics — generals Shatilova and Cheryachukin; for a rehearsal on artillery tactics - General Prince Masalsky178; for a rehearsal on the tactics of the air forces - General Stepanov XXNX and Colonel Rudnev XXNX; for a rehearsal for military field engineering - General Bem179.

At the end of October, 1928 was announced a new admission of students to the junior class of the Higher military science courses. 7 November 1928, General Golovin issued the following order: “I opened a new junior class. Classes will be held on the same programs and to the same extent as was the case for the first regular participants. Some of the changes that I have to make because of my cash constraints are as follows: students in the current junior class will listen to lectures on Tuesdays along with the older ones. Special classes on the junior class program will be conducted on Mondays.

These classes should be: a) the nature of lecture conversations and b) exercises on the map. Taking this into account, I have increased the number of such classes compared to the previous course. ”

Mandatory attendance by all students of the courses of each general lecture on Tuesdays began to give the latter a very special character. These lectures began to fall out of the general system of the passage of military sciences. The topics of the lectures on Tuesdays were mainly new questions and theories, based both on the experience of the war and on the improvements in weapons, which were analyzed in the latest military-scientific foreign literature. At these lectures, the works of the officers who graduated from the Higher Military Scientific Courses were considered later. So, I.I. Bobarykov, on the instructions of the Honored Professor General A.A. Gulevich, made a study on the work of industry in Russia and in France during the 1914 — 1918 war, and gave two lectures on the history and experience of this mobilization. He also, on the instructions of General Golovin, traced the influence of the works of the generals Manikovsky and Svyatlovsky, as well as other Soviet researchers on the development of plans for the first and second five-year plans. It should be noted that in the 13 years of the official existence of the courses, none of the lectures read on Tuesdays was repeated a second time.

The broad attendance of these lectures by “outsiders” military listeners who were not part of the courses allowed General Golovin to speak with the head of the Belgrade military science courses, General Shuberskiy182, who carelessly said that Paris courses are a kind of people's university. General Golovin was referring to the military knowledge that foreign military visitors receive lectures on Tuesdays. General Shubersky understood this expression literally. Therefore, in his book (“On the 25 anniversary of the establishment of the Higher Military Science Courses in Belgrade,” p. 13), he says: “At the very first meeting of the Training Committee, it was decided to organize Courses on the model of our former Academy. By this, the organization of the Belgrade Courses differed from the Paris Courses organized on the basis of a popular university. ” With such a view of the Paris courses, it is quite normal to say that “the composition of the course participants ... consisted ... also from civilians, if they were recommended by the Military Organizations” (ibid., P. 9). This, of course, would have been normal at the University of the People, but this, as mentioned above, was not in the Paris courses. When meeting with General Shubersky, one of the leaders proved that the Paris courses differed from the Belgrade courses with only one extra lecture per week, which did not directly concern the topics studied at the moment in the courses. General Shubersky admitted his mistake.

The only drawback of the Paris courses was the absence in the first years of their existence of research and rehearsal for the course on the actions of the armored forces. This situation was caused by the fact that Russia actually emerged from the war almost immediately after the 1917 revolution, and its army had only the first armored cars. She was not aware of the latest all-terrain vehicles, nor caterpillar Tanks, as well as issues of their use and tactics. Massive tank operations on the Western Front began much later than the February Revolution. Their experience and conclusions from it were very contradictory. This defect was corrected in the 30s by Professor Colonel Zaitzov. He took up the study of new paths in the theory of military affairs, and in particular the work of the British military scientist and armor specialist General Fuller. In 1936, 8 lectures by Professor Colonel Zaitzov were held on the topic: “New ways in military affairs - armored forces”. They were among the general lectures, that is, they were intended for students of all three classes: junior, senior and additional. In 1938, another 5 lectures were held on the same grounds (for all students of the courses) on the topic: “Tactics of armored forces”. The lectures of Professor Colonel Zaitzov attracted the greatest attention of the audience. At the same time, units of mechanized troops were introduced into the tasks of the war game for students of courses.

Meanwhile, the top military leadership of the French and British armed forces did not react with sufficient interest to the theories of General Fuller, up to the 1939 year. And the troops of the Western powers took to the battlefields in 1940 with a large number of tanks, but with completely outdated basics of tank tactics. Large units of German tanks with a new tactic quickly won a complete victory over the forces of the Anglo-French.

A very serious test of knowledge learned by the audience was a two-sided war game, in which 25 lessons were assigned. This game took place when the senior class of courses completed the study of higher tactics. It was produced as follows: the entire senior class was divided into two groups. Lead each mediator - experienced senior leader. By the beginning of the game, the authorities chose a battle site on the map that would correspond to the task that they wanted to base the game on. Then, for each group, information was prepared that allowed each group to form a known idea of ​​the enemy, as well as understand the existing situation and, in accordance with this data, take one or the other decision. The mediator of this group determines between the participants different positions, starting with the commander of this higher unit and ending with that which the last member of the group will occupy. Then the mediator invites them - starting with the commander of the formation and ending with the last occupied post - to write, respectively, the positions of each, orders and instructions. All this must be completed by the end of the session, when it is dealt to the mediator. The two mediators of the parties study together the work and determine what could have been noticed by intelligence or in any other way with respect to the other group, as well as those actions of both groups that could somehow affect the situation. At the next lesson, the mediators, having individually reviewed the decision, orders and instructions, again redistribute posts, and it was recommended that participants be transferred from one position to another each time. Then they are informed of new information about the enemy. Group members must write all orders and orders, given the new data on the situation. During the whole game, group mediators produce light individual criticism of mistakes, both in the basic fulfillment of the task of command and in the formulation of orders and instructions.

Initially, after the end of a tactical task or a war game, it was intended to make a field trip to the places where this task was theoretically taking place. But the very first trip to the Viller-Kottre region attracted the obvious attention of gendarmes; General Golovin decided not to make more such trips.
During the transition from the senior to the additional class, students had to go through rehearsals: 1) for the military engineering defense of the state, 2 for the history of military art and 3 for the highest tactics. Assistants at these rehearsals were: for the military engineering defense of the state — General Bem, and for the highest tactics — General Miller.

The rehearsal in the first year on the history of military art was canceled, because the lectures were not yet lithographed. In addition, the role of the test was played by decisions during the war game in the classroom and at home: on tactics, the General Staff service and the supply and rear services, in the corps reporting task.

While the first course was completing the study of sciences that were part of the senior class program, and preparing for the transition to the supplementary one, General Golovin, in his order from 8 in May 1929, introduced into the additional class program a large written work not exceeding its 20 page size. This work should have the character of the independent creative work of the listener. In fact, she replaced the oral “second topic” of the course of the Imperial Nikolaev Military Academy. At the Higher military science courses this topic will be a purely written work. The order also indicates the reasons for such a deviation from the Academy program. The reasons are as follows: 1) spring rehearsals showed the listeners ’ability to make oral presentations, 2) in writing, it is easier to judge the development and knowledge of the listener and 3) the design of such oral presentations for each listener would take a lot of time as well as expenses for hiring the hall.

Each supervisor was supposed to submit ten topics for each of the courses he had read by 20 May 1929 of the year. These topics should address the latest issues. The works presented by the audience on these topics will be considered by General Golovin and the leader who gave the topic. Topics should be chosen and formulated so that the listener can limit to one or two manuals. These written works are a test of the ability of students to independently study any classic or new military printed work.

Finally, a special instruction regulates the production of special final tests on strategy, top tactics and the service of the General Staff. This test is intended to test the examiner's ability to independently think in these areas of military knowledge. The main part of this is the 15-minute report for a given examiner a few days before a particular topic. This report should be the conclusions of the listener from the particular case specified in the topic. It is recommended that when answering to submit charts, cartograms and tables. In the evaluation, attention will be paid to the richness of its content, the form of the report, clarity of thought, convexity of the content and precise use of the time provided.

At the end of this report, the listener and following the instructions given by the chief manager, the listener will be asked a few volatile questions on the courses of strategy, top tactics and the service of the General Staff. The answers given to the examinees will be evaluated not from the point of view of the factual side, but from the point of view of understanding the modern theory of military art. The distribution of topics among the examinees will be made by lot. The presence of the tests is mandatory for all students of the extra class, even those who are not being examined on this day.

The final exam of the 1 course was very solemnly furnished. General Gulevich, Emeritus Professor of the Imperial Nikolaev Military Academy, two more generals of the Academy Professor, former Chief of the Imperial Naval Nikolaev Academy, Admiral Rusin 183 and General Generals of the General Military Union: General E.K. Miller, General Erdelyi, General Postovsky, General Shatilov, General Prince Masalsky, General Kusonsky, General Suvorov184. Thus, the examination commission consisted of four professors, a specialist in higher military education, and a number of generals who graduated from the Military Academy before the First World War and, therefore, are familiar with the program and requirements for officers of this Academy.

General Golovin closely followed the work of each student and, long before they finished their courses, he outlined which of them might be capable of further scientific work. The best of them were assigned to the departments immediately after the courses, and then after a year or two, they were appointed to the departments to carry out various works and trial lectures. Such were: Colonel Pyatnitsky, Colonel Kravchenko, Colonel Prokofiev 185, Staff Captain at the Yekivsky 186, Staff Captain Konashevich187, Staff-Captain Osip A.V.188, Lieutenant Kuznetsov189, Second Lieutenant Galay190, Snoopho, Zyfxxxxxxxxxx, Lieutenant Lieutenant Kuznetsov191, Lieutenant Galai192, Sn.

In general, General Golovin set himself the task of not only helping those who want to get a higher military education, but also to prepare people who could, in the event of a change in political position, return to Russia, put the Higher Military School there at the proper height.

The organization in Paris of Higher military science courses with the program of the Academy of the General Staff could not help but attract the attention of the Soviet government. There is every reason to assume that one of the students of the 1 course, the head officer who ran, according to him, in 1923 from Soviet Russia, listened to the entire course, successfully passed all the work and tests, one or two weeks before the release, the excluded from the list of courses and then completely disappeared from Paris, - was sent to courses by the Soviet authorities. This assumption is all the more reasoned that soon the information sheet of the Organization of Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich notified all its members that this headquarters officer was a Soviet secret agent.

It should also be recalled that in the first year of the courses, when classes were getting better, the Soviet envoy in Paris demanded their closure. General Golovin, having learned of this demand, turned to Marshal Foch. The latter, together with General Golovin, went to the chairman of the Council of Ministers. In a conversation with the latter, Marshal Foch pointed out that a new war with Germany was inevitable, and Russian military emigration was widely admitted to France, as a magnificent fired shot that could be very valuable for France and that it would be ridiculous to prevent this frame from maintaining knowledge. The way out was found in the fact that the courses will continue their work under the name “Institute for the Study of Problems of War and Peace”.

In the future, all students who graduated from the courses were assigned to the Institute for the Study of Problems of War and Peace. In this way, they could better communicate with each other, use books from the course library, attend general lectures on Tuesdays, and sometimes carry out separate assignments from Professor General Golovin in the military science unit.

The courses, as such, formally ceased to exist when France entered the war in September 1939. In fact, they existed in the 1940 year before the start of the German occupation of Paris and produced 6 releases. Total graduated from their 82 listener.

In order to give an opportunity to get a higher military education and to those officers who lived outside of Paris, General Golovin opened 1 January 1931, correspondence courses, according to the program of the Higher Military Scientific Courses in Paris. Information about the work of correspondence courses are not preserved.

At the end of 1930, the opportunity arose to open a branch of the Foreign Higher Military-Scientific Courses in Belgrade to provide an opportunity to get a higher military education for officers living there. Courses have been opened 31 January 1931 of the year. At the head of the Belgrade courses, General A.N. was appointed by General Golovin to the General Staff. Shuber Belgrade courses graduated 77 students.

Excerpt from the article by Colonel A.G. Yagubova193


The academy was supposed to be opened in Serbia in 1921, that is, without any prior training, without any trained teachers, not a single modern textbook. The students were supposed to provide material to save them from worries about a piece of bread. The head of this academy was proposed to General N.N. Golovin.
General Golovin convinced General Wrangel that such a hasty discovery of the Higher Military School, without serious preliminary preparation, cannot give positive results. And behind the loud sign "Academy" there will be insignificant content.

According to General Golovin, the Higher Military School should be created by means of long-term labor for the education of the teaching staff, united by the unity of the military doctrine, which still needed to be worked on. It was necessary to compile textbooks that fully meet the modern level of military knowledge, and to make a selection of students. As for the latter, with the inevitable limitation of their number and with their material support, the Higher Military School could be filled with people, not so much eager for knowledge, as if they wanted to get rid of their worries about earning their livelihood.

According to General Golovin, the right higher military education should not only provide the necessary knowledge for the top leadership, but also select strong-willed people.

Proceeding from this, General Golovin believed that the émigré Higher Military School should not give students any material benefits, but on the contrary, demand from them sacrifice and perseverance in achieving the goal they set themselves. Under such conditions, General Golovin expected that only people who really wanted to gain knowledge, people who were nationally inclined and believed in the bright future of their people, would go to the Higher School.

The goal of the Emigrant High School, General Golovin, set the following: 1) maintaining the works of the Russian military science education personnel at the level of modern requirements; 2) the creation of a frame of Russian officers with European military education, capable of thinking and creating in the aggregate of all phenomena of war.

The first goal he set for himself was accomplished thanks to a brilliant selection of leaders, such as Professor General Gulevich, Professor Colonel Zaytsov, Generals Stavitsky, Domanevsky, Baranov, Vinogradsky and Colonel Ivanov. As for the second goal, more than 300 officers passed through Paris courses at different times and for different periods. Of these, 82 successfully completed a five-year course and received the right to wear a badge.




159 First published in a separate brochure under the same name: BM, 1977.
160 Domanevsky Vladimir Nikolaevich, p. 12 March 1878 in St. Petersburg. Page Corps (1897), Academy of the General Staff (1903). Officer l.-gv. Horse artillery, commander of the 14 hussar regiment. Major General, and. D. Chief of Staff of the Amur Military District. George Knight. In the white troops of the Eastern Front; from February 1918 at General Horvath’s in Harbin, from February 1920 the Chief of Staff of the Commander-in-Chief in Vladivostok at the Social Revolutionary Government. Lieutenant General. In emigration to France, by the time of 1931, he led the group of L.-GW. Horse artillery in Paris. Died 4 on April 1937 in Saint-Genevieve-des-Bois (France).
161 Cheryachukin Alexander Vasilievich, p. 18 March 1872 g. Of the nobles VVD, the son of an official, a Cossack art. Epiphany. Don Cadet Corps (1890), Mikhailovsky Artillery School (1893), Academy of the General Staff (1899). Officer l.-gv. 6 th Don Cossack battery. Major General, Commander of the 17 Don Cossack Regiment, Chief of Staff of the 4 Cavalry Division, Commander of the 2 Cossack Combined Division. In the Don Army; until 12 February 1918, the commander of the North-Western Front, then hiding in the area of ​​art. Grushevskaya. From 4 in May 1918 was again in the army, from 5 in May to July and in September-December 1918 was Deputy and Ataman of the “Winter Village” - Ambassador to Ukraine, in July – September 1918 in Germany (member of the delegation with the Duke of Leuchtenberg to the emperor Wilhelm). In December, 1918 played an important role in the rescue and evacuation of several hundred Russian officers to Germany. From December 1918 to the beginning of 1920, Ambassador of VVD in Poland, from March 1920, Director of the Don Cadet Corps until its disbandment in 1923, was evacuated from the corps to Egypt. Lieutenant General (September 30 1918). In emigration in France, a worker at the factory, by 1931, a member of the L.-H. Horse artillery, until 1 September 1930, the chairman of the Union of Don Artillery in Paris, until 1934, deputy troop ataman VVD, by 1 January 1934, a member of the Society of General Staff officers. Died 12 on May 1944 in Nice (France).
162 Vinogradsky Alexander Nikolaevich, p. 24 April 1874 g. Page Corps (1893), Academy of the General Staff (1899), Officer Artillery School. Officer l.-gv. Horse artillery. Major General, Commander of the 15 Artillery Brigade, Head of the Russian Artillery Mission in the Romanian Army. George Knight. In the Armed Forces of the South of Russia. Evacuated in December 1919-March - March 1920. In May 1920, in Yugoslavia. In emigration in France, in 1931, a member of the training committee of the Higher Military-Scientific Courses in Paris, on 1934, a member of the Court of Honor of the Chief Board of the Union of Pages; by November 1934 in Lausanne. 2 died on December 1935 in Saint-Genevieve-des-Bois (France).
163 Ivanov N.P. Colonel In emigration in France, in 1931, a member of the training committee, from 1933, a teacher, in 1938, the head (assistant manager) of the Higher military science courses in Paris.
164 Stavitsky Petr Petrovich. Lieutenant General. In emigration to France; for December 1924, the chairman of His Majesty the Railway Regiment's unification, in 1931 headed the regiment group in Boulogne, in 1931 a member of the training committee of the Higher military science courses in Paris.
165 Petrov Alexander Markovich. Second lieutenant. In the Volunteer Army. Member of the 1-th Kuban ("Ice") campaign. Captain. In emigration to France as part of the Drozdovsky regiment. He graduated from the General Staff courses in Paris, then a teacher of the same courses. He died in Paris.
166 Alekseev Nikolay Nikolaevich, p. 25 March 1875 Polotsk Cadet Corps (1892), Mikhailovsky Artillery School (1895), Academy of General Staff (1902). Officer l.-gv. 3-th artillery brigade. Major General, Commander of the 26 Army Corps. In the Don Army; from 18 in October, on 20 in November 1918, Commander of the Northern Group, in February 1919, Chief of Staff of the Mamontov Group; from 23 in February 1919, Head of Staff in 1 of the Don Army, in 12 in May 1919 and 23 in April 1920. the commander of the 1 Don Special Corps, from 23 April to December 1920, the Chief of Staff of the Don Army and the Great Don Army (from 28 in November 1919 - the marching headquarters of the Don Ataman). Lieutenant-General (April 18 1920). In emigration in France, on 20 in May, 1938 in Issy-les-Mouline, then in Paris, in 1931, member of the training committee of the Higher Military Scientific Courses, by 1 in January 1934, member of the Society of Officers of the General Staff, with 1949 g Chairman of the Union of Russian Cadet Corps, in November 1951, the senior representative of the lgv association. 3-th artillery brigade. Died 15 September 1955 in Paris.
167 Ryabikov Pavel Fedorovich, p. 24 March 1875. Son of Lieutenant Colonel. Polotsk Cadet Corps (1893), Konstantinovsky Artillery School (1896), Academy of the General Staff. Officer l.-gv. Finnish regiment. Major General, Professor of the Academy of the General Staff. George Knight. In the white troops of the Eastern Front; The 2 th quartermaster-general of the Supreme Ruler, from October 2 to November 8 1919, Chief of Staff of the Eastern Front, at the same time in 1918 —1919. Professor of the Academy of the General Staff. Member of the Siberian Ice Campaign. In emigration in Japan, in Shanghai, in Czechoslovakia, in 1931, a member of the training committee of the Higher Military Science Courses in Paris. Died 27 August 1932 in Prague.
168 Sekretev, Alexander Stepanovich, p. 8 August 1881, in Art. Chernyshevskoy. Of the nobles, the son of an officer of the VVD, Cossack art. Lower-Chirsk Region of the Don Cossacks. Don Cadet Corps (1899), Nikolaev Cavalry School (1901). Officer l.-gv. Ataman regiment. Colonel, commander of the 24 Don Cossack Regiment. In the Don Army; in April — May 1918, commander of the 1 Horse Regiment near Novocherkassk, in 1919, Major General, Brigade Commander, Commander of the 2 Don Separate Corps, in May 1919, Commander of the Equestrian Group of Two Divisions, then Head of 9 Don Don Horse Division, at the beginning of 1920, commander of 4 of the Don Corps, from March 1920, commander of a horse group (former General A.A. Pavlov) before the evacuation of Novorossiysk. In the Russian Army without a post. Lieutenant General. In emigration from November 1920, from 1921 in Bulgaria, at the end of 1922 he returned to the USSR. 14 August 1930 was arrested. Shot in the case of the Cossack Bloc 8 in May 1931 in Moscow.
169 Trikoza Evgeny Vladimirovich, p. in 1881, the Nikolaev School of Engineering (1902). Colonel, military engineer. In emigration in France, a teacher of the Higher military-scientific courses in Paris. Died 30 March 1974 in Paris.
170 Pyatnitsky Nikolay Vladimirovich, p. in 1890 Esaul Kuban Cossack troops. In the Volunteer Army. Member of the 1-th Kuban ("Ice") campaign, the commander of the Kuban battery. In VSYUR, the Chief of Staff of the 34 Infantry Division, in the fall of 1919, the staff officer for missions to the headquarters of the Caucasian Army. Colonel Evacuated at the beginning of 1920 from the Crimea on the ship "Konstantin". Gallipolian In emigration to France. He graduated from the Higher Military-Scientific Courses in Paris (1-th edition), then a teacher, a librarian in 1931, a treasurer, in 1938 a manager (assistant manager) of the same courses, in 1941 - 1944. editor of the newspaper Office of the Russian emigration "Signal" in Paris. Convicted for 10 years, until 1952 was in a French prison. Died 19 on November 1962 in Paris.
171 Bubnov Alexander Dmitrievich, r. in 1883 in Warsaw. Of the nobles, the son of an officer. Gymnasium, Maritime Corps (1903), Maritime Academy (1913). Rear Admiral, Head of the Naval Directorate of the Supreme Command. From December 1918 to 1920, a member of the Russian delegation to the Versailles Conference from Admiral Kolchak. In VSYUR and the Russian Army; from May 1919 the commander of the destroyer division, from August 20, 1919 but February 8, 1920 the chief of staff of the Black Sea fleet. Evacuated to Turkey. June 29 (October 2) 1920, he returned to the Russian Army in the Crimea (Sevastopol) on the ship "Constantine". In exile in France and Yugoslavia; in 1923-1941 Professor at the Yugoslav Maritime Academy. He died on February 2, 1963 in Kralya (Yugoslavia).

172 Krasnov Petr Nikolaevich, b. September 10, 1869 in St. Petersburg. From the nobility of the VVD, the son of a general, a Cossack st. Karginskaya Oblast Don Cossacks. Alexander's Cadet Corps (1887), Pavlovsk Military School (1889), Officer Cavalry School. Officer L.-GV. Chieftain's regiment. Major General, commander of the 3rd Cavalry Corps. George Knight. From October 25, 1917, he headed the struggle against the Bolsheviks near Petrograd. In the winter of 1917/18 he was hiding in st. Konstantinovskaya. From May 3, 1918 to February 2, 1919, the military chieftain of the VVD, general from the cavalry (August 26, 1918). In the North-Western Army from July 22, 1919; until September 9, 1919 in the reserve of ranks at the army headquarters, then the head of the propaganda department, in January 1920, the Russian military representative in Estonia, a member of the liquidation commission of the North-Western Army. In exile in Germany, from March 1920 near Munich, to November 1920 in Berlin, from November 22, 1921 in Santeny (France), from April 1936 in Dalewitz, near Berlin. In December 1924, Honorary Vice-Chairman of the Life Guards Association. Chieftain's regiment. On March 31, 1944, he was head of the Main Directorate of the Cossack Troops under the Ministry of the Eastern Regions of Germany Issued by the British in Lienz on May 19, 1945 and exported to the USSR. Executed in Moscow on January 16, 1947. 
173 Gulevich Arseny Anatolyevich, p. 14 February 1866 in Moscow. 3 Moscow Cadet Corps (1883), Alexander Military School (1885), Academy of the General Staff (1892). Officer l.-gv. Finnish regiment, commander L.-GV. Preobrazhensky Regiment. Lieutenant-General, Commander of 21-th (37-th) army corps. George Knight. Stayed in Finland. From December 1918, a participant in the organization of a campaign of volunteer formations from Finland to Petrograd, a representative of the North-Western Army in Finland, and up to 1920, head of the Red Cross institutions in Finland. In emigration in France, from 1920 in Paris to December 1924, deputy chairman and chairman of the historical committee of the Guards Association, commander of the Preobrazhentsov Union, chairman of the Union of officers of the war participants, Chairman of the Preobrazhentsov Union, professor of the Higher Military Scientific Courses in Paris, in 1931, member of the training committee of courses, from October 1933, Vice-Chairman of the Union of Invalids, since September 1934, Deputy Guards Association, from 1937, Chairman of the Guards Association. Died 12 on April 1947 in Paris.
174 Boborykov (Bobarykov) Ivan Ivanovich, p. in 1890, the MFA official. Wartime officer. In December, 1918 was in the 1-th separate artillery division of the Russian Corps in the Hetman's army. At the beginning of 1919 in Germany at the Inter-Union Commission on Prisoners, then in an English officer school. In VSYUR and the Russian Army from January 1920 in the 3 Army Corps before the evacuation of the Crimea. Gallipolian In the autumn of 1925 in the secondment to the 6 artillery division in France. Collegiate secretary. In emigration to France. He graduated from the Higher military-scientific courses in Paris (1-th edition), in 1938, the head (assistant manager) of the same courses. Died in 1981
175 Repyev, Mikhail Ivanovich, p. September 14 1865. From the nobles of the Simbirsk Province. Simbirsk Cadet Corps (1882), Konstantinovsky Military School (1884), Officer Artillery School (1908). Major General, Chief of the 166 Infantry Division and Chief of the 18 Army Corps. George Knight. In the Volunteer Army and the All-Soviet Union, at the disposal of the Black Sea Military Governor, from September 1918, the artillery inspector of the Astrakhan Corps, 1-th Army Corps, then in reserve at the headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief of the VSYUR, from July 24, in September-October 1919, the inspector of artillery 5 of the cavalry corps, from November 13 1919 - Kiev region troops, then in the reserve of military officials of the same region, from December 8 1919 in the reserve of military officials of the Novorossiysk region (March 25 did not arrive on March 1920), the head of defense Novorossiysk. Evacuated. 30 May 1920 returned to the Russian Army in the Crimea (Sevastopol) on the ship "Poti". In the Russian Army, the artillery inspector of the 1 Army, in October 1920, the inspector of artillery of the Russian Army before the evacuation of the Crimea. Lieutenant General (January 27 1919). On December 18 1920 in Gallipoli, artillery inspector of the 1 Army Corps. In emigration from April 1922 in Bulgaria, then in Yugoslavia, from 1924 in Paris. The first chairman of the General Board of the Society of Gallipoli and the Society of Gallipoli in France, in 1931, was an assistant in the combat and economic units and a member of the training committee of the Higher Military Scientific Courses in Paris, and from 1933 was the assistant to the commander of the 1 Army Corps. Chairman of the Society of Artillery Officers in France, Chairman of the Association of the Simbirsk Cadet Corps. Died 29 on April 1937 in Paris.
176 Postovsky Alexander, r. 7 January 1861 city. Of the nobles, the son of Lieutenant General. Voronezh Gymnasium (1877), Pavlovsk Military School and Mikhailovsky Artillery School (1880), Academy of the General Staff (1888). Officer l.-gv. 3-th artillery brigade. Lieutenant General, at the disposal of the Minister of War. George Knight. In exile in 1931, the chairman of the Society of General Staff officers. In emigration to France. Died 23 March 1941
177 Holmsen Ivan Alekseevich, p. 28 September 1865 Finnish Cadet Corps (1886), Academy of the General Staff (1896). Officer l.-gv. Semenov regiment. Major General, Commander of the 1 Brigade of the 53 Infantry Division (held captive from 1915). George Knight. In 1919 — 1920 the representative of Admiral Kolchak in Berlin, then the military representative of the All-Soviet Union and the Russian Army, in the summer of 1921, the head of the Russian delegation in Germany, from April 1922, the representative of General Wrangel in Paris. Lieutenant General (1919). In emigration in France, from 1924, the head of the 1-th division of the EMRO, from December 1926, a member of the association L.-GW. Semenovskiy regiment, from 1930, the chief treasurer of the EMRO, chairman of the Grenadier Association, by 1 January 1934, a member of the Society of Officers of the General Staff. Died 19 March 1941 in Oslo.
178 Prince Masalsky Vladimir Nikolaevich, p. 31 October 1860 g. Page Corps (1880). Officer l.-gv. Horse artillery. General of artillery, artillery inspector of the Romanian front. George Knight. In the white troops of the Northern Front; from 18 in November 1919, the Chief of Artillery of the Murmansk Front to 20 in April 1920. In emigration to France. Chairman of the Society for Mutual Aid Horse artillery. Died 10 on April 1940 in Paris.
179 Stepanov Ivan Petrovich. Polotsk Cadet Corps, Mikhailovsky Artillery School, Sevastopol aviation School (1913). Lieutenant Colonel of the 28th Artillery Brigade, inspector of aviation of the South-Western Front. St. George Knight. In the Armed Forces of the South of Russia, pilot, assistant combat chief for combatant combat. Evacuated in early 1920 from Novorossiysk on the ship "Panama". In the Russian Army in aviation units before the evacuation of Crimea. Major General. On December 18, 1920, in the 1st company of the Air Battalion of the Technical Regiment in Gallipoli. In exile in France. He died on March 3, 1951 in Paris.
180 Rudnev Evgeny Vladimirovich. Alexander Cadet Corps, Nikolaev Engineering College (1906). Captain, Head of the Moscow Aviation School of the Imperial All-Russian Aeroclub. From 1918 in the hetman army in Odessa. In the Volunteer Army and VSYUR from 16 September 1918, in the secondment to the mobile air base of the army, from 17 in October 1918, the commander of the 3 aviation squad, from 1 in November 1918, in secondment to the fleet, from 20 in December 1918 and . about. Inspectors of Aviation of the Odessa region, from 8 August 1919, the head of the organizational department of the aviation chief of the VSYUR (from 12 August - also the head of the frontline commander), from 1 March 1920, on secondment to the Sevastopol Aviation School, from June 29 - to the management of the head Aviation VSYUR, with 12 July Vrid assistant chief of the technical department.
Colonel (February 12 1920). In emigration to France. Died 7 June 1945 in Paris.
181 Bem Evgeny Yulievich, p. 1 March 1870 Nicholas Cadet Corps, Nikolaev Engineering School (1889), Academy of the General Staff (1896). Major General, commander of the 18-th engineering regiment, inspector of the engineering part of the Kiev military district. In the white troops of the Northern Front; Head of the military communications of the Arkhangelsk and Murmansk fronts, from 1919 to January 1920 in the headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief of the Northern Region, from January 1920 his representative in Finland. In emigration to France. The organizer of the Military Engineering courses, in 1931, the head of the Higher military technical courses, from 1943, the head of the 1 department of the EMRO. Died 17 May 1951 in Paris.
182 Shubersky Alexander Nikolaevich, p. 20 August 1875 in St. Petersburg. Page Corps (1895), Academy of the General Staff (1904). Officer l.-gv. Horse artillery. Major General, and. D. Chief of Staff of the Guards Rifle Brigade, Chief of Staff of the 3 Caucasian Army Corps, Quartermaster General of the Kiev Military District. George Knight. From 1918 in the Hetman Army; a member of the military scientific committee at the General Directorate of the General Staff, 30 in November 1918 was appointed and. about. Chief of General Staff; in November — December 1918 in Kiev. In the Armed Forces of the South of Russia; in the reserve of the ranks at the headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief of the All-Soviet Union, from 28 on April 1919, the chief of staff of the 2 of the Kuban Corps, from September 17 on 1919, the quartermaster general of the Kiev region troops, then in the reserve of the officers of the Kiev region, from 8 in December 1919. in the reserve of the ranks of the troops of the Novorossiysk region (25 did not arrive on March 1920). Evacuated to 1919 —1920 from Novorossiysk to Constantinople on the ship "Constantine". On May 1920, in Yugoslavia. In exile there, on 10 in August 1928 in Belgrade, a member of the lg. Jäger Regiment, in 1930, he organized the Higher Military-Scientific Courses in Belgrade, in 1935 he headed the Military-Scientific Institute in Belgrade. After 1945 in the south of France, the chairman of the department of the Union of Russian military invalids in Nice, the chairman of the department of the Union of Page. Died 11 June 1963 in Menton (France).
183 Rusin Alexander Ivanovich, p. 8 August 1861 Marine Corps (1881), Maritime Academy (1888). Admiral, Chief of the Maritime Academy, Chief of the Naval Staff of the Supreme Command. In emigration in France, in 1932, he left the Cabin Company in Paris for the Maritime Assembly; Chairman of the All-Diaspora Sea Maritime Organization, Chairman of the Cabin Company in Paris, in 1931, member of the training committee of the Higher Military Science Courses in Paris; on 31 January 1944, honorary member and from 20 January 1949, honorary chairman of the Society of Former Russian Naval Officers in America. Died 17 — 18 on November 1956 in Casablanca (Morocco).
184 Suvorov Mikhail Nikolaevich, p. 15 August 1877 g. Of the nobles of the Kaluga Province. The son of an officer. 2 Moscow Cadet Corps (1894), Moscow Junior School (1896), Academy of the General Staff (1906). Officer l.-gv. Egersky regiment. Major General, and. D. Chief of Staff of the Guards Rifle Division, Chief of Staff of the 2 th Latvian Rifle Division, commander of the 121 th Infantry Regiment. Taken hostage in September 1918 in Petrograd. He worked in an underground organization. In the Northwest Army; From May to 12 August 1919 Member of the Political Conference under General Yudenich. In emigration to France, on 10 August 1928 in Paris, a member of the lgv association. Jäger Regiment, from 1930, member of the Honor Court of the Paris merger group, by 1 in January 1934, member of the Society of Officers of the General Staff. Died 1 February 1948 in Paris.
185 Prokofiev Sergey Alexandrovich. In VSYUR and the Russian Army before the evacuation of the Crimea. Gallipolian In the autumn of 1925, as part of the Alekseevsky Artillery Division in France. Colonel In emigration there, a member of the association of the Konstantinovsky Military School. He graduated from the Higher military-scientific courses in Paris (1-th edition), in 1938, the head (assistant manager) of the same courses.
186 Yanovsky Vladimir Georgievich, p. in 1897, in the All-Soviet Union and the Russian Army before the evacuation of the Crimea. Evacuated from Sevastopol on the ship "Chersonese". Headquarters captain. In emigration to France. He graduated from the Higher military-scientific courses in Paris (1-th edition), in 1938, the head (assistant manager) of the same courses.
187 Konashevich Philip Andreevich. The officer. In the Volunteer Army in the autumn 1917 in the Kornilov shock regiment. Member of the 1-th Kuban ("Ice") campaign. In VSYUR and the Russian Army in the 2-th Kornilov regiment before the evacuation of the Crimea. Headquarters captain. On December 18 1920 in the 5 Company of the Kornilov Regiment in Gallipoli. In the autumn of 1925, as part of the Kornilov regiment in France. In emigration in France, in 1934, member of the Board of the Society of Gallipoli in Paris, employee of the EMRO. He graduated from the Higher military-scientific courses in Paris (2-th edition), in 1938, the head (assistant manager) of the same courses. Died 2 September 1970 in Paris.
188 Osipov Alexey Vladimirovich, r. in Saratov lips. Volunteer. In the Volunteer Army; in June — September 1918, the bombardier on the armored train No. 1 (“General Alekseev”), from 10 in November 1918, the ensign. In VSYUR and the Russian Army in armored train units before the evacuation of the Crimea. Lieutenant. Evacuated to about. Again on the ship "Kizil Yermak". Gallipolian On 30 December 1920 g. In the 1-th battery of the 6-th artillery battalion. In the autumn of 1925 as part of the 6 artillery division in France. Headquarters captain. In emigration to France. He graduated from the Higher Military-Scientific Courses in Paris (2-th edition), in 1938, the head (assistant manager) of the same courses, a member of the editorial board of the magazine "Army and Navy." After 1945 in the USA, in 1950 — 1951. Member of the Gallipoli Society in California, for 1956 in Los Angeles. Died after 1963
189 Kuznetsov Georgii Mikhailovich. Lieutenant. George Knight. In VSYUR and the Russian Army before the evacuation of the Crimea. Gallipolian In emigration to France. He graduated from the Higher Military-Scientific Courses in Paris (4-th edition), in 1938, the head (assistant manager) of the same courses, in 1938 — 1939. member of the editorial board, secretary, editor of the magazine "Army and Navy" in Paris. After 1945 in the USA. Captain, representative of the US Commander in Chief, editor of the Military Herald in New York, from 1976, the head of the EMRO department in the USA. Died 19 January 1982 in New York.
190 Galai Nikolai Yakovlevich, p. in 1903, in the All-Soviet Union and the Russian Army before the evacuation of the Crimea. Since the summer of 1919, a volunteer in the 3 battery of the Drozdovskaya artillery brigade. Gallipolian In the autumn of 1925 as part of the Nikolaev School of Engineering in France. Second lieutenant. He graduated from the Higher Military-Scientific Courses in Paris (1-th edition) and taught them, in 1938, the head (assistant head) of courses, a member of the UCIS, during the Second World War on the Eastern Front, the head of the school for retraining of surrendered Soviet officers, then at the Institute for the Study of the USSR. He died in 1969 in Munich.
191 Khvolson Konstantin Vladimirovich. School of Law (1917 — 1918). Lieutenant Lieutenant Izmailovo regiment. In emigration to France. He graduated from the Higher Military-Scientific Courses in Paris (1-th edition), then the teacher, in 1938, the head (assistant manager) of the same courses, from 1938, member of the editorial board of the Army and Navy magazine, in November 1951, secretary and treasurer of the Union of Izmailovcet department in France. Died 3 June 1969 in Paris.
192 Vlasov Andrey Alekseevich, r. in 1899 in the All-Soviet Union and the Russian Army in armored train units before the evacuation of the Crimea. George Cross 4 st. Second Lieutenant 6 artillery division. In emigration to France. He graduated from the Higher military-scientific courses in Paris (5-th edition), in 1938, the head (assistant manager) of the same courses. By 1969, an employee of the magazine "Military History". 13 died December 1980 in Shell (France).
193 Yagubov Alexander Georgievich. The son of an officer. Simbirsk Cadet Corps, Konstantinovsky Artillery School. Colonel, commander of the battery of the 36 artillery brigade. Member of the campaign Iasi-Don. In the Volunteer Army and the All-Soviet Union in the 3 th battery of the 3 light artillery battalion, from January 3 1919 in the 1 armored car division of the same (later Drozdovskaya) brigade, then the commander of the 3 division, from the 24 of the first brigade of the same brigade. Gallipolian In the autumn of 1919, as part of the Drozdovsky artillery division in France. In emigration in Bulgaria and France, from 3, the chief of security of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. He graduated from the Higher Military-Scientific Courses in Paris (2-th edition) and taught them, then the deputy head, and 1920 of the head (assistant head) of the courses; in 1925, a member of the board of the Society of Gallipoli in Paris. 1923 died on August 2 in Paris.
Originator:
http://statehistory.ru
14 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Volkhov
    Volkhov 2 February 2013 12: 18
    0
    In exile, the military set the tone and failed everything, doing secondary affairs in the first place - how could an army, let alone an academy without a state, be for graduates only in a foreign army, for example, in the Abwehr.
    It was "not cool" to take the example of Jews or Gypsies - first create a distributed state structure, then find a territory even in Honduras, then a network in Russia, then an enclave in hard-to-reach areas like Kamchatka or Chukotka, where even at 48 revolted prisoners held the district for six months as a result, they were deceived and shot, the ditches did not even fill up).
    That is an example of academicians - how not to do it. The resistance after 93 collapsed in about the same way - they also believed the generals.
  2. washi
    washi 2 February 2013 14: 46
    +2
    Instead of working for their MOTHERLAND, it was not clear what they were doing. Really it was not clear in 1927 that Soviet power was for long. If so, then all the assassination attempts on Stalin and his associates are true. And purges of the 30s were necessary. And how we lacked competent personnel.
  3. Jaros81
    Jaros81 2 February 2013 17: 49
    0
    And what do you, gentlemen, do not like about white and tsarist officers? By the way, in 1927 it was really unclear how firmly the new government was on its feet.
    1. Zynaps
      Zynaps 3 February 2013 23: 52
      +1
      And what do you, gentlemen, do not like about white and tsarist officers?

      It’s very cool to watch how former pioneers and children of workers and peasants flaunt the word "gentlemen", like some graduates of the Corps of Pages.

      specifically Golovin was an excellent and intellectually honest expert on the problems of the Russian Army in WWI. his work "Russia's Military Efforts" helped to avoid mistakes in the future. There is only one claim to Golovin - during the war he became a confidant of General Vlasov and helped him in every way.

      to other whitewarers who did not cooperate with the enemies and did not crap, there are no special complaints. they lost, and this played a positive role for the further fate of the country. if they won, it would have been much worse - given the heterogeneity and sometimes cardinal contradictions among the whitewarers, Russia was waiting for the fate of the Warlords and the payment of the Entente’s bills for help. there was no question of any industrialization and revival of the country.

      Quote: Jaros81
      By the way, in 1927 it was really unclear how firmly the new government was on its feet.


      and this is called arrogant red pursuit. 1927 - the first military alarm. a crisis that we were able to overcome, and which set the impetus for forced industrialization.
      1. Jaros81
        Jaros81 4 February 2013 00: 27
        0
        I’ve never been a pioneer, and wasn’t even going to join there, although I was suitable by age
        1. Zynaps
          Zynaps 4 February 2013 01: 18
          0
          and was a brave little scout among the red-necked cattle?
          1. Jaros81
            Jaros81 4 February 2013 01: 22
            0
            I also did not sign up for scouts. Me and the Yankees are out of my way
  4. albert
    albert 3 February 2013 09: 16
    0
    82 graduate listeners? Somehow all this is not serious.
    1. Jaros81
      Jaros81 3 February 2013 15: 59
      0
      Well, I think so, they trained military theorists, a kind of scientists, but there are not many of them. Moreover, they did not want to be allowed to command troops. Their task is theory and strategy.
  5. stolbovsn
    stolbovsn 3 February 2013 16: 00
    0
    The most interesting question is whether at least one student of the courses showed himself in real hostilities after graduation and on whose side did he participate in WWII?
    1. Jaros81
      Jaros81 3 February 2013 23: 06
      +2
      some officers went to the service of the Wehrmacht in the ROA, but their end is deplorable. Most were transferred to the USSR, where they received appropriate punishment.
      But such a famous general as Denikin refused to cooperate with the Germans. Moreover, he called on emigrants not to support Germany in the war with the USSR, repeatedly calling all representatives of emigration collaborating with Germans "obscurantists", "defeatists" and "Hitler fans"
      1. Zynaps
        Zynaps 3 February 2013 23: 56
        0
        Quote: Jaros81
        such a famous general as Denikin refused to cooperate with the Germans


        this is explained ridiculously simply: Denikin was an Anglophile and the same Krasnov from Shkuro - famous Germanophiles - rated below the baseboard since the time of the Civil. but after the war, the dearest Denikin called on the Americans and allies to bombard the USSR and begin a military invasion before it recovered from the war. he was such a principled gentleman and lover of the motherland. in my own way.
        1. Jaros81
          Jaros81 4 February 2013 00: 49
          0
          I explain it even easier. He was a patriot and not alone. For example, I cited Denikin as the most prominent person and famous general
          1. Zynaps
            Zynaps 4 February 2013 01: 17
            +1
            approximately like Solzhenitsyn - the same patriot snitch who demanded to drop the atomic bomb on the USSR. Well, not a talent. not Slushchev, and especially not Svechin. Denika the hanger - and nothing more.
            1. Jaros81
              Jaros81 4 February 2013 01: 21
              0
              Listen to you, all the generals are "informers-patriots", but executioners like Trotsky, Frunze, Tukhachevsky, etc. - straight samples of a real officer