September 1919: betrayal or a chain of mistakes? The mystery of General Selivachev

67
September 1919: betrayal or a chain of mistakes? The mystery of General Selivachev
World War I: General Selivachev in the foreground


The hero of Denikin's story


The army commander sat in the cabin of his carriage, thoughtfully looking at the laid out map. The thick colored line of the general Soviet front - in the sector of his army - turned into a dotted line of an indefinite outline: it was impossible to determine the exact location of the division; and the blue arrows depicting the directions of the white columns - straight, sharp - seemed to break the web of the front, straighten the wedge that had descended to the south and pierced deep into the position of the red ones. One arrow drawn from the side, from the east, to the intersection of the railway line, was always ahead of the movement of the headquarters echelon. They're about to take over...
The operation was completely and hopelessly ruined.
The army commander folded the map, leaned back in his chair, and thought. “This time, perhaps, we won’t be able to get out safely...”

The above lines are from the short story “Confession”, written by Lieutenant General A.I. Denikin. Anton Ivanovich was a good prose writer, and by no means only a talented and brave military leader who proved himself on the fields of the Russian-Japanese, the First World War and in the initial period of the Civil War, when he saved the Volunteer Army from destruction after the death of the general L. G. Kornilov from infantry.



The hero of the above quotation, not called by name in the work: Lieutenant General V.I. Selivachev, in August 1919, headed one of the two strike groups (Denikin was mistaken in calling him an army commander) of the Southern Front, which included the 8th and 13th yu army.

The second, Special, consisting of the 9th and 10th armies, was commanded by Colonel V.I. Shorin. We talked about the unsuccessful attack on Tsaritsyn by the 10th in the previous article: "August 1919: Battle of the Walls of White Verdun".

The 8th Army was commanded by Colonel A.I. Rataisky. At the head of the 13th was Captain A.I. Hecker. Obviously, the army commander is not a captain’s position at all, but the true leadership of the troops was carried out by the chief of staff of Hecker, a famous military theorist and later the author of a substantive stories First World War, Infantry General A. M. Zayonchkovsky.

As we see, no painters from the plow, only military professionals, a significant part of whom had behind them the Nikolaev Academy of the General Staff. However, not all of them turned out to be up to par. The same Rataisky, according to the memoirs of G.I. Teodorovich Okulova, a member of the RVS of the 8th Army:

He was already an old man, probably very tired. During the reports that the operational unit workers gave him, he often fell asleep.

From prisoner to commander


But these words cannot be applied to Selivachev. In August he turned 52. Behind us: the experience of the First World War and the Russian-Japanese. 1917 Vladimir Ivanovich met the corps commander, supported Kornilov’s speech, was arrested, released, and finally drafted into the Red Army, then again arrested on charges of belonging to a secret anti-Bolshevik organization.

In some ways, the biography is typical for a career military man. So, in 1918, Zayonchkovsky was arrested a couple of times, and in 1919, the former commander-in-chief of the Red Army, Colonel I. I. Vatsetis.

That is, when recruiting military experts to serve, part of the Bolshevik leadership - I.V. Stalin, for example - treated them with distrust, as a class alien element, and suspected them of sympathy for the enemy, sometimes not without reason.

Article "Wrangel as a commander: the assault on Tsaritsyn" I mentioned the commander of the 9th Army, Colonel N.D. Vsevolodov, who went over to the side of the whites, which largely predetermined the fall of Red Verdun, in which a year earlier, on the orders of Stalin (he was engaged in food issues there, but also intervened in the military), Colonel A was arrested . L. Nosovich.

Later, at the insistence of the People's Commissar of Military Affairs L.D. Trotsky, he was released, but six months later Nosovich still fled to the whites and wrote memoirs, including about the future leader of the USSR.


Trotsky, who patronized Selivachev and, apparently, did not completely doubt his loyalty to the Soviet government

But in the case of Selivachev, two details are interesting.

First: he arrived on the Southern Front almost immediately after leaving prison, without having commanded anything in the Red Army for a day.

Second: his appointment immediately to such a high position took place thanks to the patronage of Trotsky and despite the doubts of V.I. Lenin (I had to read about the latter’s skeptical attitude towards military experts, but the memoirs of a major general are in the Soviet Army: lieutenant general - V.D. Bonch-Bruevich corrects this kind of ideas).

The Bolsheviks in this case can be understood: they can’t win without military experts, and they don’t have much trust. The commissars, of course, looked after the former gold chasers, but, as we have seen, not always successfully.

Selivachev was immediately entrusted with a powerful group with an important strategic task, even in conditions when he did not prove, unlike Shorin (as I mentioned in the previous article, he had a successful Izhevsk-Votkinsk operation), his loyalty to the Soviet government was a matter of fact.

I think the appointment of Vladimir Ivanovich was influenced by the general military-political situation in the mid-summer of 1919: in an effort to implement the “Moscow” directive, the Armed Forces of Southern Russia in July successfully attacked in the Kamyshin, Balashov, Kiev and, most importantly, Kharkov-Kursk directions.

Hostile whirlwinds were approaching the red capital. The mood in the Soviet leadership is evidenced by Lenin’s letter “Everyone to fight Denikin,” excerpts from which I cited in the previous material.

Wresting the initiative from the enemy has become a matter of life and death for the Kremlin. That’s why they remembered Selivachev. At that time, it was not the best thing for a seasoned military professional to pace a prison cell.

The command of the Southern Front placed impressive forces at Selivachev’s disposal: on August 15, 1919, the 13th Army had 26 bayonets, 672 sabers, 1 machine guns, 633 guns. The 490th Army had 94 bayonets, 8 sabers, 25 machine guns, 359 guns.

Opposing them on a front of 410 km, the combined forces of the Volunteer and Don armies numbered 18 bayonets, 100 sabers, with 12 guns and 300 machine guns.

The group’s task was to strike in the direction of Biryuch - Valuiki - Kupyansk. We recall from a previous conversation that Shorin’s goal was primarily Tsaritsyn and, looking at the map, we shrug our shoulders in bewilderment: both fists of the Southern Front fought in divergent directions, exposing the flanks of both groups to the attack of the enemy, who had superior cavalry, and depriving them of operational cooperation.


Reason: the prevalence of political considerations over the actual military ones. This was expressed in the desire of the commander-in-chief of the Red Army, Colonel S. S. Kamenev, to break through to Novocherkassk and the Donbass with two powerful blows, albeit in divergent directions, to return the coal so necessary for the Soviet government, and also to separate the Kuban and Don Cossacks.

And if the task of Shorin’s Special Group was to capture Tsaritsyn as an important transport artery, with the subsequent development of an offensive against both the Don capital and the Headquarters of the All-Soviet Socialist Republic - Taganrog, then Selivachev’s goal was a strike in the Kharkov direction, with the subsequent separation of volunteers and Don people.

Before moving on to the operation itself, I will cite the lines published in A. Ganin’s work dedicated to Vladimir Ivanovich from Trotsky’s message to his deputy E. M. Sklyansky via direct wire for transmission to the Central Committee, dated August 14:

Visited the 13th and 8th armies again. A huge job has been done. The ready strike force of both armies is thirty thousand bayonets, two thousand sabers, perfectly equipped with artillery, armored trains, and armored detachments. The mood of the units is quite offensive. By all circumstances, success in this direction is guaranteed. Success will immediately affect the Ukrainian front by stopping Denikin’s offensive, which will enable the 14th Army to use all the material and organizational elements given to it to transform into a combat-ready army. I go to the left flank to get acquainted with the main strike group.

As we see, “Lion of the Revolution” trusted his protégé, who, by the way, not only headed the strike group, but also took the position of assistant to the crew.

Malicious intent or mistakes of higher command?


The group’s offensive began on August 15 with a strike at the junction of the Volunteer and Don armies, and at first it was successful.

On the left flank of the latter, the 3rd Separate Don Corps of Lieutenant General M. M. Ivanov operated. His command did not have information about the enemy’s offensive plans and had the task of advancing to Korotyak and Ostrogozhsk.

The first days of success were especially important for the Reds against the background of the raid of the corps of Lieutenant General K. K. Mamontov that began on August 10 and caused a commotion in the rear of the Southern Front. It was necessary to transfer the 8st Infantry Division from the 31th Army against him.

Selivachev himself suggested that the local authorities rely on local communists when defending against the Mammothites (in modern language, forming terrorist defense units), which gave Ganin reason to see in the military leader a person ready to conscientiously serve the Reds.

I share this point of view. Otherwise, Selivachev would have shown interest in weakening the strike fist at the junction of the two white armies. And no one would suspect him of treason.

At the headquarters of the volunteer army commander, Lieutenant General V.Z. May-Maevsky, they expected an enemy attack in the direction of Kharkov, but suddenly the 13th Army turned southwest - towards Belgorod.


General Denikin with his daughter Marina. In emigration, Anton Ivanovich fully revealed his talent as a writer

Here is how Denikin wrote about this in the work mentioned above:

Only fifty miles separated the victorious red regiments from the important southern center when the army commander, unexpectedly for his headquarters, turned the army to the west.
This maneuver was discussed at an evening meeting of the department heads and, although it somewhat surprised everyone with its direction, did not raise any objections from the military experts... Only Comrade Guly, a communist, the chief of supply - recently a foreman of the Shosten gunpowder factory - allowed himself, and quite sharply, to criticize the army commander's directive.
- I just can’t understand, Comrade Army Commander: why the hell, if I may say so, turn off the straight road when everything is going smoothly and our people are about to capture this very city...

By an important southern center we must mean Kharkov. Further, Anton Ivanovich in his story carries the idea of ​​the Red commander deliberately exposing the left flank, which was exposed to attack by the Don cavalry.

But Selivachev did not deliberately lead his armies to defeat, but carried out the order of the commander of the Southern Front, Major General V.N. Yegoryev, reacting to it as follows:

I am at a loss about the direction given by the directive, and asked for clarification, believing that there was an error, you answered me that this was not an error. Do not refuse to look at the map again and listen to me. The general direction, if I understand it correctly, remains to the Belgorod - Kupyansk line through Volchansk, and then, again, if I understand this correctly, to Kharkov. Thus, if the first half of my strike group, i.e., the 13th Army, heads for Belgorod - Volchansk, then the second half should head for Volchansk - Kupyansk.

Accordingly, my answer to the question in the subtitle: command error. In pursuance of the directive, Selivachev took Volchansk, Korocha and Valuiki. An undoubted success. But at the same time, reports began to arrive at the group headquarters about the concentration of large enemy forces on the left flank.

Plus, the Whites held important transport hubs Belgorod and Kharkov, which allowed Mai-Maevsky to quickly maneuver his troops.

It should be noted that, despite the beginning of the August offensive of the Southern Front, volunteers continued to advance in the Kursk direction, which could not but cause concern for Selivachev.

And yet he continues to advance, trying to fulfill Yegoryev’s directive. In the last days of August, his troops took Kupyansk, finding themselves 40 km (the patrols reached 19 km) from Belgorod and Kharkov.

Denikin reacted promptly, ordering the concentration of the 3rd Kuban Corps of Lieutenant General A.G. Shkuro north of Belgorod with the aim of striking in the direction of Novy Oskol - at the base of the wedge of the red group, the length of which along the Korocha-Biryuch line was 200 km.

From the opposite side, the attack was carried out by the equestrian group of Lieutenant General A.K. Guselshchikov, separated from the 3rd Separate Don Corps. However, Selivachev quite successfully counterattacked the latter in a number of areas.

Nevertheless, the general situation for the Red strike group after the attack on both of its flanks by the Kuban and Don cavalry was unfavorable. There could no longer be any talk of any occupation of Belgorod and Kharkov. I had to retreat.

However, the Whites also did not have the strength to arrange Cannes for the enemy due to the insufficient number of infantry.

On top of that, Yegoryev ordered Selivachev to defend Voronezh, which Mamontov’s corps was approaching.

But the most interesting thing: in the first days of September, when the Reds were already retreating, leaving Kupyansk, and in some parts of the strike group panic began to spread just yesterday, Trotsky continued to trust Selivachev, proposing to appoint him commander of the Southern Front instead of Yegoryev, and subordinate the group to Colonel A. I. Egorov - the future commander and subsequently Marshal of the Red Army.

Kamenev did not object, but expressed doubts about Yegorov’s ability to direct the actions of two armies, and even at the stage of retreat.

During a critical period of struggle for the group, Selivachev personally went to the headquarters of the 8th Army in order to take over its leadership. This is an important detail. For after the sudden death of Selivachev on September 17, almost the entire staff went over to the side of the whites.

Ganin writes the following about this:

Did a White Guard conspiracy really take place at the headquarters of the 8th Army? Was Selivachev involved in it? Could he have become his victim? Unfortunately, the documents known to us do not yet allow us to unambiguously answer these questions.

The historian also cites in his book the text of his note, which was not published in the complete collected works of Lenin, with the following content:

Sklyansky only personally and especially secretly (Lenin). Should I send the following telegram to Sokolnikov in a particularly secure code: Take personally all measures to closely monitor Selivachev’s political integrity. Report your observations and their results more often.

The lack of communication with Selivachev from September 8 until his death (after which it suddenly improved almost immediately) made the Bolshevik leadership very nervous. The same Trotsky tried to the last to find his protégé and, on September 12, expected to appoint him commander of the youth.

The situation for the Reds was aggravated by the above-mentioned transition, almost immediately after the death of Selivachev, to the Whites of the headquarters of the 8th Army, led by its chief, Colonel A.S. Nechvolodov.

Accordingly, there is reason to assume the presence of a White Guard conspiracy at the headquarters of the 8th. The only question that remains unanswered is: was Selivachev involved in it?

His diaries have now been published - intimate and not written for prying eyes, they testify to the honesty and high morality of the military leader.

Yes, there is reason to suspect him of a critical attitude towards the Bolshevik government, but it is unlikely that he will betray it. In any case, the defeat of Selivachev’s group was the result of the mistakes of Yegoriev and Kamenev (the offensive of both strike groups in diverging directions and without sufficient operational communication with each other), as well as the actions of Mamontov in the red rear, rather than, as Denikin believed, the conscious steps of Vladimir Ivanovich . He was not that kind of person.

It also remains a mystery: was Selivachev poisoned or died from natural causes (acute gastric intestinal disease, presumably cholera)?

No autopsy or exhumation of the corpse was carried out. The general was buried in the village of Kostomarovka. Alas, the grave has not survived. Just as over the years, the memory, carefully preserved only among people close to the general, has been erased.

However, I think that Vladimir Ivanovich will have better luck with the people's memory in modern Russia. He deserves it. Because - and here I will express my answer to the question posed in the title of the article - Lieutenant General Selivachev was not a traitor.

Использованная литература:
Ganin A.V. The last days of General Selivachev: Unknown pages of the Civil War in the South of Russia. M.: Kuchkovo field. 2012.
Denikin A.I. Armed forces of the South of Russia. // White matter. Selected works in 16 books. M., 1996.
Directives of the Red Army Front Command. M; 1972. T 2.
Egorov A.I. The defeat of Denikin, 1919 // Civil War in Russia: The defeat of Denikin. St. Petersburg, 2003.
Kakurin N. E. How the revolution fought. M., 1990. T. II.
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    10 June 2024 04: 11
    Your Anton Ivanovich was a traitor. For which he was buried in the USA in 1947 with honors as the commander-in-chief of the army allied with the USA.

    And in literature he was definitely strong if, as a “US ally,” he freely used terms such as “self-supply” or “legitimate spoils of war.”
    1. +3
      10 June 2024 05: 27
      Your point is clear. Thank you. The only thing: who did Denikin cheat on?
      1. +3
        10 June 2024 05: 33
        Quote: Igor Khodakov
        The only thing: who did Denikin cheat on?

        Yes, perhaps he didn’t cheat on anyone, not even Nicholas II
        1. +3
          10 June 2024 05: 58
          Of course. Considering that Nicholas II abdicated the throne.
          1. +2
            10 June 2024 08: 18
            Quote: Igor Khodakov
            Considering that Nicholas II abdicated the throne.

            So the imperial generals were the first to betray him.
            1. +1
              10 June 2024 15: 28
              What was the betrayal?
              1. +2
                10 June 2024 16: 51
                Quote: Igor Khodakov
                What was the betrayal?

                On the morning of February 28, 1917, the sovereign sent General Nikolai Ivanov to Tsarskoye Selo with a battalion of St. George's cavaliers to suppress the uprising in Petrograd, but Nicholas II did not know that immediately after his departure, his chief of staff, General Alekseev, would suspend the allocation of troops to suppress the revolution and begin technical organization coup d'etat. The Tsar followed through Bologoe-Dno to Pskov, to the headquarters of the Northern Front, to General Ruzsky, where he actually arrested Nicholas II. Providing him only with information beneficial to the conspirators, he convinced him on the evening of March 2 to abdicate the throne.
                In fact, all the adjutants general, starting with Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, betrayed the head of state and their supreme commander-in-chief, committing an act of high treason against him. Remembering the situation in which the abdication took place, Nicholas II told Anna Vyrubova: “Wherever I look, I see betrayal everywhere.” The tsar was struck “especially painfully” by Nikolai Nikolaevich’s telegram.
          2. 0
            10 June 2024 09: 12
            Thanks for the interesting article, Igor.
            My opinion, I do not impose it on anyone:
            The betrayal happened in February/March 1917, and then it went from there. And the main traitor was the Commander-in-Chief - Colonel Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov. It was he who, by his renunciation, and in fact desertion, turned a riot in the capital into the All-Russian Revolution, soldiers' and sailors' unrest into a bloody massacre of commanders and members of their families, facts of disobedience in the troops into the general disintegration of the army and navy.
            And with the collapse of the monarchy, the officers lost their moral support and were busy surviving in the current circumstances. At the same time, the overwhelming majority had a well-founded contempt for all the warring parties, both the Red commissars and the zoo-loving generals. So these were not betrayals, but forms of “foresight”. Recently we ourselves have been convinced of this more than once.
            1. 0
              11 June 2024 00: 34
              It was he who, by his renunciation, and in fact desertion, turned a riot in the capital into the All-Russian Revolution, soldiers' and sailors' unrest into a bloody massacre of commanders and members of their families, facts of disobedience in the troops into the general disintegration of the army and navy.

              Evona how! And I, a sinful thing, thought that renunciation and other good things were a CONSEQUENCE of mediocre domestic and foreign policy, the arbitrariness of the authorities and the lawlessness of tsarism. But no. It turns out that everything provoked renunciation. What provoked the revolution of 1905-1907? For some reason I assumed that every event should be preceded by some development of the situation with reasons/prerequisites and logic.

              Upd/ Having no doubt at all about the inferiority of tsarism, not being a fan of emperors and other bourgeois-slate camarilla, maybe it’s still worth trying to objectively evaluate the abdication of Nicholas 2 as an attempt to smooth out a long-standing socio-economic conflict? Maybe this is precisely his positive historical merit?
              1. 0
                11 June 2024 07: 23
                Having no doubt at all about the inferiority of tsarism, not being a fan of emperors and other bourgeois-slate camarilla, maybe it’s still worth trying to objectively evaluate the abdication of Nicholas 2 as an attempt to smooth out a long-standing socio-economic conflict? Maybe this is precisely his positive historical merit?

                Historically, tsarism is the only possible form of government in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century. This was so ingrained in the consciousness of the people that they could not imagine any other way of life. The transition to a constitutional monarchy (attempt in 1905) showed that apart from intellectual chatter, nothing was changing in the Duma. All responsibility still lies with the Tsar-Father, and all ministers and heads of departments are only royal servants. The reason is simple, in an absolute monarchy there are no citizens, but only subjects. They are ready to perform, but not to create. So the fall of the monarchy before the Bolsheviks came to power turned out to be a huge hole into which Russia slipped. And Lenin, at the head of Russia, was perceived by the masses precisely as a new, just Tsar, and not at all a symbol of some abstract freedom.
                The only member of the Central Committee who understood this and brought it to life was Stalin. Having carried out major transformations in the country and while maintaining the main advantages of the monarchy, he managed to raise the first generation of citizens, which gave the main result after his death. Despite the Trotskyist revenge of 1953 - 1964. the country was able to achieve enormous success. The fatal role was played by the presence of a non-state, but autocratic body - the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee. The final formation of civil society was curtailed until the infamous perestroika.
                And the merit of Nicholas II is that, having become cowardly in the face of the conspirators, he betrayed his supreme destiny, effectively decapitating the warring power in the face of external threats and internal problems. If you are a fan of the universal humanity of Soros and the Rothschilds, then yes - he is a great figure!
                1. 0
                  11 June 2024 12: 44
                  And the merit of Nicholas II is that, having become cowardly in the face of the conspirators, he betrayed his supreme destiny, effectively decapitating the warring power in the face of external threats and internal problems. If you are a fan of the universal humanity of Soros and the Rothschilds, then yes - he is a great figure!

                  Hand face! I didn’t think that so many bakers could gather on one page. Moreover, they are very far from history as a science.
        2. 0
          10 June 2024 22: 50
          The only thing: who did Denikin cheat on?

          If he could not betray those to whom he took the oath, then this does not at all indicate his legitimacy in the changed conditions.
      2. 0
        10 June 2024 06: 49
        Is it called something else to be an ally of the interventionists and call yourself a “Russian patriot”? Only their own people betray, that is, patriots....

        PS Plus for your post about Nicholas 2, since the generally accepted interpretation of loyalty to the oath given to the Tsar, who abdicated, is nonsense.
        1. +1
          10 June 2024 07: 00
          Firstly, there is no need to exaggerate the role of the interventionists. In addition, the Whites themselves considered the Brest Peace Treaty to be treason, and they saw the Bolsheviks as agents of the German General Staff. I’m not saying that they were right (the Bolsheviks were not German agents), I’m talking about their – the same Denikin – vision of the Bolshevik power as a whole. They did not consider it national, on the contrary, hostile to Russia. And not without reason: anti-church escapades, including the use of foreigners - the Chinese, the Magyars.
          1. +2
            10 June 2024 07: 24
            Your arguments are very strange. And if, according to your logic - - who did the Bolsheviks betray by making peace with the Germans? After all, after the Crimean or Japanese wars and the Republic of Ingushetia, peace had to be made.... Then no one betrayed anyone?

            Moreover, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty was annulled in November of the same year... ..

            The Bolsheviks were accused simultaneously of betrayal for the Brest-Litovsk Peace and of betraying the World Revolution because, for the sake of the survival of the RSFSR, they concluded the Brest-Litovsk Peace...

            I remember at VO in 2018 there was an article about how the Bolsheviks unsuccessfully tried to defend the Rostov region. And they lost territories up to the Don region and the borders of the Kursk region... ..

            Well, what were Denikin and his comrades doing at that time? Did you also observe the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? Krasnov even had his own representative office in Germany at that time.. What is it like, nothing?
          2. 0
            10 June 2024 08: 44
            Come on, Denikin and other tsarist officers, already two weeks after the October Revolution, began to create armed armies in the south of Russia to overthrow the Bolsheviks, when there was not even a hint of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty.
            And if your beloved White Guards were for the First World War, then why didn’t their armed armies fight against the Germans who occupied Russia?
      3. -3
        10 June 2024 06: 52
        Weird question . Are you not familiar with the concept of collaboration? And the enemies of the Soviet people first do something, and then are unable to explain why. Just as they have been unable to explain for 32 years why they captured the USSR, they are also unable to explain why, for what and for whom, after the October Revolution they started a war against the Bolsheviks?
        1. +1
          10 June 2024 06: 54
          How was Denikin’s collaboration expressed?
          1. -3
            10 June 2024 06: 58
            Again a strange question. You don’t understand anything at all, but you start writing articles on historical topics. Collaboration in world history is cooperation with the occupiers of one’s homeland. And the White Guards and White Cossacks, beloved by the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people, collaborated with the occupiers of their homeland both during the Civil War and the Great Patriotic War, and together with them they killed their fellow citizens.
            1. 0
              10 June 2024 07: 29
              Again a strange question. You don’t understand anything at all, but you start writing articles on historical topics. Collaboration in world history is cooperation with the occupiers of one’s homeland.

              Haven’t you read the memoirs of guard Frunze?
              Written in Soviet times.
              http://militera.lib.ru/memo/other/gyorkey_j01/index.html
          2. 0
            13 June 2024 22: 33
            Quote: Igor Khodakov
            How was Denikin’s collaboration expressed?

            Together with Kornilov, he received German shells through Krasnov, which he fired at the Bolsheviks. Denikin’s operational subordination was the so-called Astrakhan Army, a proxy military formation in the service of Germany, which was supposed to try to seize oil fields in the Caucasus and the routes for transporting Caspian oil along the Volga. The Bolshevik Kirov, having organized the defense of Astrakhan, thwarted this plan of the German revanchists and the lackey of the German revanchists, Denikin's comrades. Apparently the defeats near Astrakhan made Denikin a little smarter and in 1941, unlike Krasnov, he did not dare to openly become an SS member.
    2. -7
      10 June 2024 09: 43
      Quote: ivan2022
      Your Anton Ivanovich was a traitor. Why he was buried in the USA in 1947 with honors

      Hero, patriot and loyal servant A.I. Denikin was the father of the Fatherland, for which he was buried with honors in the center of Russia, in the heart of Moscow, in the Donskoy Monastery, where a memorial complex to white soldiers was erected.

      The traitors were the servants of the German-Turkish interventionist occupiers, the Bolsheviks, who gave them FOREVER a third of European Russia in Brest - it is difficult to imagine a greater betrayal of the 3-year military labor of millions of Russian patriotic soldiers
      .
      Brest was cancelled, defeating the Germans, the Entente.
  2. -1
    10 June 2024 06: 15
    It also remains a mystery: whether Selivachev was poisoned or died from natural causes
    Is the poisoning process known? Did the security officers forcefully inject the poison by twisting their hands? How did Salieri poison Mozart in the famous play? Or did people in white coats sneak in on a dark rainy night and give an injection? Or did he “accidentally” eat a sandwich with arsenic while drinking tea? Or was he served tea with arsenic?
  3. 0
    10 June 2024 06: 47
    Couldn’t there be such a version of poisoning? The officers, having learned about Selivachev’s appointment, poisoned him, knowing that they would not be able to involve him in the conspiracy, and then left. Although, as I say, the officers... poisoned their comrade... only “bloody” security officers were capable of this.
  4. +2
    10 June 2024 08: 21
    In a civil war, either everyone is a traitor or no one is a traitor.
    1. +1
      10 June 2024 14: 04
      In a civil war, either everyone is a traitor or no one is a traitor.

      And without a civilian one, too. All military personnel of the USSR Armed Forces as of August 1991.

      I, a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, joining the ranks of the Armed Forces, take the oath and solemnly swear to be an honest, brave, disciplined, vigilant warrior, to strictly maintain military and state secrets, to unquestioningly carry out all military regulations and orders of commanders and superiors.

      I swear to conscientiously study military affairs, to protect military and national property in every possible way, and to be devoted to my people, my Soviet Motherland and the Soviet government until my last breath.

      I am always ready, by order of the Soviet government, to defend my Motherland - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and, as a warrior of the Armed Forces, I swear to defend it courageously, skillfully, with dignity and honor, not sparing my life to achieve complete victory over the enemy.

      If I violate my solemn oath, then let me suffer the harsh punishment of Soviet law, the general hatred and contempt of the working people.

      hi
      1. -1
        10 June 2024 16: 39
        What is your attitude to the issue under discussion? There was no civil war in August 1991. No one gave the army the order to shoot into the crowd.
        1. +1
          10 June 2024 17: 08
          What is your attitude to the issue under discussion? There was no civil war in August 1991. No one gave the army the order to shoot into the crowd.

          That’s what I’m saying: without civilians, too, either everyone is a traitor or no one is a traitor.

          Everyone swore to be loyal to the Soviet Motherland and the Soviet government. And where is this government now? laughing
          1. -1
            10 June 2024 17: 30
            “Everyone swore to be loyal to the Soviet Motherland and the Soviet government. And where is this government now?”

            The government is exactly where it was, just called differently.
        2. +1
          10 June 2024 19: 28
          There was no civil war in August 1991. No one gave the army the order to shoot into the crowd.
          Well, yes, they didn’t shoot in 1991. Shot in the fall of 1993.
          1. 0
            13 June 2024 22: 36
            Quote: Aviator_
            Well, yes, they didn’t shoot in 1991. Shot in the fall of 1993.

            In Moscow, maybe a few people were killed in 1991, but in Azerbaijan and Armenia, many Armenians and Azerbaijanis were killed, and in Tajikistan, Russians. Russians in Turkmenistan were actually reduced to a state of slavery.
            1. +1
              14 June 2024 07: 40
              In Moscow, maybe a few people were killed in 1991
              If you are talking about three idiots who threw themselves in front of the equipment leaving Moscow in August, then they deserve a Darwin Award. I'm talking about the shooting of the Supreme Council in the fall of 1993.
              1. 0
                14 June 2024 15: 32
                Quote: Aviator_
                If you are talking about three idiots who threw themselves in front of the equipment leaving Moscow in August,

                The collapse of the USSR was carried out by the KGB in the national republics and special departments of military units stationed outside of Russia. Do you know how the return of the Crimean Tatars from Central Asia was provoked? Many families received letters on government letterhead inviting them to return to their places of residence from where they were deported in 1944, with a promise to compensate all expenses upon returning to Crimea. When they arrived in Crimea, the Crimean Tatars could not understand who promised to pay them compensation for their return and provide them with housing selected in 1944. You understand that information about special settlers was kept in the archives of the KGB of the Ukrainian SSR and Uzbekistan, and in order to write such a letter there had to be full cooperation between the leaders of the KGB of Uzbekistan and Ukraine. In Uzbekistan, an entire people who did not show zeal in Islamic extremism, Russophobia and the collapse of the USSR with mass executions, rape and general deportation was demonstrably repressed. It seems that in Tashkent there was a military school where Afghan officers were trained in 2 or 3 months. Local Uzbeks regularly attacked Afghans in droves and beat them. When the Afghans were convinced that the attackers were not only covered by the local KGB, but were being directed by them, they, armed with entrenching tools and weapons without ammunition, went into the city to beat all the Uzbeks without regard to gender and age. After this, attacks on Afghan cadets stopped. After the fall of the communists in Afghanistan, ordinary participants from the cadets who took part in the punishment of the Uzbeks tried to find the people who organized the cadets for an action of retaliation. Couldn't find anyone. It is believed that they were executed after the request of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
      2. +1
        10 June 2024 19: 27
        I'm always ready by order of the Soviet government come out in defense of my Motherland - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
        Was there such an order?
        1. 0
          10 June 2024 19: 47
          I am always ready, by order of the Soviet government, to defend my Motherland - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
          Was there such an order?

          It wasn't, it wasn't. So there were no traitors. And there was no USSR. wink
  5. +2
    10 June 2024 08: 46
    Quote: Igor Khodakov
    They did not consider it national, on the contrary, hostile to Russia. And not without reason: anti-church escapades, including the use of foreigners - the Chinese, the Magyars.


    The question remains open of how “national” the pre-revolutionary autocracy was. If the Russian people were actually deprived of the opportunity to develop their culture, and the elite was thoroughly imbued with a non-Russian, European spirit. Even the British in India did not trade local natives at the market, as our supposed Russian aristocratic landowners traded in Russian peasants.
    The Whites represented the interests not of Russia, but of the “St. Petersburg Horde,” which behaved in Russia like an invader in a conquered country.
    1. +6
      10 June 2024 12: 24
      Our “believers” skillfully see here, but don’t see here. For example, they tear their shirts on their chests, claiming that there was no intervention. Intervention, in their opinion, is an occupation. But they forget that the last occupiers were expelled in 1940 from Bessarabia, which was occupied by Romania in 1918 and included in Romania by decision of the Entente. Since 1918, Soviet Russia did not recognize this fact. But Denikin recognized it. There were no attempts on the part of the All-Soviet Union of Socialists to return Bessarabia back. Or civil war. They shed a tear, brother, went after my brother. And the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907? Is this different? January 9, Bloody Sunday? Brothers, shot at brothers. Brothers, during the period 1905-1907, under the leadership of Wrangel, Rennenkampf and many other brothers, suppressed tens of thousands of peasant uprisings, various protests in cities. The December armed uprising in Moscow, brothers, suppressed in blood. Anarchist militants, Social Democrats and Socialist Revolutionaries, died many times less than the civilian population, since they fired not at the barricades from cannons, but at the squares. But then the “brothers” won. And these two years are not called a fratricidal war. It’s like that itself, that’s different. Selivachev, this is according to the article, ended up in the “bloody” dungeons of the Cheka, on the slander of those who participated in the conspiracy. He sat, they figured it out, and lo and behold! They sent him to the front, not to command a platoon, but an army. If they hadn’t figured it out. Shot.
      1. 0
        10 June 2024 12: 38
        Thank you, I liked the term “zabelodeltsy”.
        There is no need to be surprised here. We can only have an impartial attitude towards events on foreign territory and in a time distant from us.
  6. +4
    10 June 2024 08: 50
    Quote: carpenter
    Yes, perhaps he didn’t cheat on anyone, not even Nicholas II


    The biggest traitor and deserter was Nikolai.
    He not only abdicated the throne, but also voluntarily left the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief during the war.
    But we wrote him down as a saint, which is typical.
    1. +3
      10 June 2024 09: 22
      The enemies of the USSR who captured the USSR have a primitive justification for their capture of the USSR. They are automatically, without understanding, AGAINST everything and everyone, FOR what and who the Bolshevik Communists and their supporters were, AND FOR everything and everyone, AGAINST who and what the Bolshevik Communists and their supporters were AGAINST.
      So, if the Bolsheviks and their supporters were against Nicholas II, then their enemies praise him “to the skies.” declared a Saint, threw out from his reign all the facts that were unfavorable to them - 8 years of famine in 20 years of peace, large-scale political repressions and executions for the Republic of Ingushetia, mass deportations of hundreds of thousands of people of “unreliable” nationalities in 1914-1916, numerous shootings of rallies.
  7. -10
    10 June 2024 09: 25
    However, I think that Vladimir Ivanovich will have better luck with the people's memory in modern Russia. He deserves it. For - and here I will express my answer to the question posed in the title of the article - Lieutenant General Selivachev was not a traitor.
    He was a traitor, submitting to the absolutely illegitimate and illegal power of the anti-people power of the Bolsheviks, whom no one elected anywhere, but who seized power by force, thereby unleashing a terrible fratricidal war with losses ten times greater than those in WWII.

    His son Boris, a zoologist, was shot in 1937 - another reward for faithful service to traitors.

    The truth is that it was possible to serve the legitimate government only with a certain courage and self-sacrifice, taking into account the following:

    : Stalin. Proceedings. T. 11. pp. 231–234.
    Archive: RGASPI. F. 558. Op. 1. D. 3278. L. 1

    Order
    May 1919:

    "It is hereby declared:
    The families of all those who sided with the whites will be immediately arrested, wherever they are.
    The land from such traitors will be immediately taken away irrevocably.
    All property of traitors will be confiscated.
    There will be no return for traitors. Throughout the Republic the order was given to shoot them on the spot.
    The families of all commanders who betrayed the cause of workers and peasants are taken as hostages...
    Whites must be exterminated every single one. Without this there will be no world.
    Whoever takes even one step towards the whites will die on the spot.
    This order should be read in all companies.
    Chairman of the Defense Committee G. Zinoviev
    By authority of the Council of Defense of the Republic I. Stalin"

    Source: Stalin. Proceedings. T. 11. pp. 231–234.
    Archive: RGASPI. F. 558. Op. 1. D. 3278. L. 1.
    1. +4
      10 June 2024 09: 38
      Well done, Olgovich!
      Thank you for publishing this Stalin Order!
      These are the words of a true leader: everything for victory, stopping at nothing. They follow such people, and with such people at their head they win. It is not surprising that despite huge mistakes, the Reds won the Civil War. And then, having defeated the striking force of imperialism, the Red Army conquered half of Europe.
    2. +4
      10 June 2024 10: 28
      “He was a traitor, submitting to the absolutely illegitimate and illegal power of the anti-people power of the Bolsheviks, whom no one elected anywhere.”

      So it is so, but just who was the legal, legitimate power in Russia at that time (by the way, this word is new, they didn’t use it then)? And who protected her?

      The Tsar was kicked out by their own generals, and no one elected him either, the Duma was just as elected as the Soviets, on whose behalf the Bolsheviks acted, the constituent assembly never had time to elect anyone...

      Power was lying under our feet.

      In general, one of the properties of power is that whoever takes it and holds it is the legitimate power. Like the Taliban, for example.
      1. +1
        10 June 2024 10: 33
        just who was the legal, legitimate power in Russia then?
        The power that sat in Smolny and the Kremlin
      2. -9
        10 June 2024 12: 16
        Quote: S.Z.
        So it is so, but just who was the legal, legitimate power in Russia at that time (by the way, this word is new, they didn’t use it then)? And who protected her?

        The Tsar was kicked out by his own generals, and no one elected him either, the Duma was just as elected as The Soviets, on whose behalf the Bolsheviks acted, The constituent assembly did not have time to elect anyone...

        more The councils, on whose behalf the Bolsheviks acted, DIRECTLY indicated in the decree that their government was TEMPORARY-UNTIL the USSR, which they recognized until they realized that they had won the elections..

        The Provisional Government called for submission to the Constitution, and both Nikolai and Mikhail and the 1st legitimate Congress of Soviets called for submission.

        So from all sides the US, which was supposed to form and legitimate Government of Russia-legitimate power.
        Quote: S.Z.
        Power was lying under our feet.

        .

        If it was “lying around,” then why did millions fight to the death, what nonsense?
        1. -1
          10 June 2024 12: 32
          If it was “lying around,” then why did millions fight to the death, what nonsense?

          Do not exaggerate. The Bolshevik Central Committee, Kolchak and his comrades fought for power, and Pyotr Nikolaevich also tried. As for tens of thousands of White Guards and White Cossacks, as well as hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers opposing them, they were an instrument in the hands of the current government (Bolsheviks) or loser pretenders (others).
          I deliberately did not mention all kinds of outlying separatist nationalists. In fact, they were opposed only by the Soviet Government, although not always consistently. It was the storm petrels of the World Revolution who did a lot of damage to the General Staff.
          1. -6
            10 June 2024 13: 36
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            Do not exaggerate. The Bolshevik Central Committee, Kolchak and his comrades fought for power, and Pyotr Nikolaevich also tried. As for tens of thousands of White Guards and White Cossacks, as well as hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers opposing them, they were an instrument in the hands of the current government (Bolsheviks) or loser pretenders (others).

            5% of the population took part in the Civil War; these were millions of non-cogs fighting for power.

            And tens of millions more took part in voting in the Constitutional Court - this is their choice and their position for power.
            1. -1
              10 June 2024 13: 58
              Come on, 5% are mostly mobilized transport workers. There were sixty thousand active bayonets in the Kolchak army. The AFSR is also there - in fact, a couple of buildings from the First World War. Well, they were opposed by five or six nominal corps of the Red Army.
              There were also the Greens, but these, like the operetta forces of all kinds of nationalists, were also not millions.
              It was not for nothing that, having attacked the completely mobilized Polish army, the Red Army was unable to use at least some reserves.
              So the “epoch-making events of that era” are more of a legend, especially from the side of the winners. Many more people were taken away by famine and epidemics.
              1. -6
                10 June 2024 14: 07
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                Come on, 5% are mostly mobilized transport workers. There were sixty thousand active bayonets in the Kolchak army. The AFSR is also there - in fact, a couple of buildings from the First World War. Well, they were opposed by five or six nominal corps of the Red Army.

                Come on: only the Russian army - 1023000 people in 1919, the All-Soviet Union of Yugoslavia - 270 thousand in 1919 and millions of cranes
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                So the “epoch-making events of that era” are more of a legend, especially from the side of the winners. Hunger and epidemics took many more people.

                that is yes.
                1. +1
                  10 June 2024 14: 18
                  I don’t know what the “Russian Army” is, but Kolchak’s runaway Russian Army (running to the Volga and back) is real. Well, there were at most 100 thousand there (that’s only half of them active). And the Red Army had even less when going on the offensive. And yet the victory went to the Reds.
                  It is especially pleasant that one of the platoons was commanded by my grandfather, a participant in the Brusilov breakthrough.
                  By the way, about the transport workers, he said that they were not touched, but were simply remobilized with horses and carts into the Red Army.
                  1. 0
                    10 June 2024 20: 35
                    Sorry, Andrey, for not addressing you by name. Doesn't show up on iPhone.
        2. +1
          10 June 2024 12: 42
          “So from all sides the US system, which was supposed to form the legitimate Government of Russia, is the legitimate power.”

          :) The US did not play any role, could not defend itself and disappeared. A government that cannot defend itself is not a government.

          “If she was lying around, then why did millions fight to the death, what nonsense?”

          The words are not mine, it seems, Lenin’s, but I agree with them. The Bolsheviks took power, and then the whites fought against them.
          1. -7
            10 June 2024 13: 52
            Quote: S.Z.
            The US did not play any role, could not defend itself and disappeared. A government that cannot defend itself is not a government.

            Quote: S.Z.
            The US did not play any role, could not defend itself and disappeared. A government that cannot defend itself is not a government.

            played a huge role - with the US there would be NO GW.
            But the fact that he simply didn’t want to kill his fellow citizens doesn’t come to mind? The Bolsheviks most vilely called for the power of the US, under the pretext of elections to it, they seized power and stabbed it in the back.
            Quote: S.Z.
            The words are not mine, it seems, Lenin’s, but I agree with them. The Bolsheviks took power, and then the whites fought against them.

            You never know he was talking stupid nonsense (for example, State and Revolution"), but they were fighting for power already from October 25, 1917 and for TENS OF YEARS after (hundreds of thousands of people were shot, millions were already in camps for the ANTI-SOVIET struggle after GV)
            1. +3
              10 June 2024 14: 32
              Quote: Olgovich
              played a huge role - with the US there would be NO GW.


              :) There was GW, and there was US, it didn’t hurt.

              Quote: Olgovich
              But the fact that he simply didn’t want to kill his fellow citizens doesn’t come to mind?


              Is not coming. Back then they fired at people in vain, the war taught them to blood, and even before the war there was a revolution, “troikas”, terrorist attacks, Bloody Sunday, etc. Just weaklings.

              Quote: Olgovich
              The Bolsheviks most vilely called for the power of the US, under the pretext of elections to it, they seized power and stabbed it in the back.


              In war there is no meanness, there is military cunning :) Just like in politics.

              Quote: Olgovich
              You never know he was talking stupid nonsense (for example, State and Revolution"), but they were fighting for power already from October 25, 1917 and for TENS OF YEARS after (hundreds of thousands of people were shot, millions in camps for the ANTI-SOVIET struggle after the Civil War)


              Well, why stupid nonsense, he seized power and retained it, unlike the others, which means he turned out to be smarter than everyone else. And Lenin cannot be blamed for what happened after his death; he was no longer in power.

              In all countries there is a struggle for power, and even more so after revolutions. Only our revolution came a little late, and it’s almost a carbon copy of the French one.
              1. -4
                10 June 2024 17: 59
                Quote: S.Z.
                There was a GV, and there was a US, it didn’t hurt

                Don’t teach your Bolsheviks: Civil War - from the spring of 1918 - AFTER US
                Quote: S.Z.
                Is not coming. Back then they fired at people in vain, the war taught them to blood, and even before the war there was a revolution, “troikas”, terrorist attacks, Bloody Sunday, etc.

                Absolutely ALL parties did EVERYTHING to avoid GW. And avoided
                The Civil War program is only for the weak (but beasts) Bolsheviks
                Quote: S.Z.
                There is no meanness in war, there is military cunning :) Just like in politics

                there was no war, and the scoundrels who promised the greatest honesty - please
                Quote: S.Z.
                Well, why the stupid nonsense

                have you read that nude about the abolition of the army, police, courts? He made mistakes, put people down, tried something else, put them down again until he found a solution.
                Quote: S.Z.
                held, unlike the others, which means he turned out to be smarter than everyone else

                remember this when you are robbed in the alley: he is stronger, which means he is right.
                1. 0
                  11 June 2024 07: 47
                  "Don’t teach your Bolsheviks: Civil War - from the spring of 1918 - AFTER US"

                  Why mine - ours! This is our story. So the US military could not prevent wars and could not protect itself either. This is not power.

                  “there was no war, and the scoundrels who promised the greatest honesty, please”

                  There was no war, but there was politics. “Honest politician” is like a white Negro, an oxymoron.

                  “He made mistakes, put people down, tried something else, put them down again, until he found a solution.”

                  Unlike others who also killed people, but never found a solution.

                  “Remember this when you are robbed in the alley: he is stronger, which means he is right.”

                  Any successful politician from an ordinary moral point of view is a thief at best. “Right” - what is it about? I'm not involved in politics.

                  And to rob me - the state has already robbed me at least 1991 times since 4 on a large scale, not counting small things.

                  Of course, it’s his own fault - he’s too trusting. Well, at least the children don’t trust anyone, and that’s good.
            2. +4
              10 June 2024 16: 27
              don’t scare us with the scale of repressions in the millions... these are no longer the Yeltsin and Gorbachev times... there is enough information
    3. +2
      10 June 2024 16: 32
      alas for you, “historians” of the civil war... in the Red Army, prisoners from only one regiment of the All-Soviet Union of Socialist Republics - the Samur Infantry Regiment - were subject to execution... because it was staffed by defectors from the spacecraft to the White Army... regarding the mass executions of family members - these tales went well twenty to twenty five years ago
      1. 0
        10 June 2024 21: 29
        Prisoners of war were used by both sides.
        1. +1
          11 June 2024 08: 54
          then why do some people provide a comment in the form of an order with a date but without a number or indication to whom it was sent :-) and most importantly a link to the collected works which has long been nowhere to be found in real life :-)
  8. +1
    10 June 2024 09: 25
    Regarding the divergent attacks of the Red Army in August 1919. Most likely, there is no smell of treason here.
    It’s just that Egoriev decided to repeat the operations of the German army in the first half of 1918, when two diverging attacks then closed deep behind enemy lines. Extremely impressive, but this requires a multiple material superiority and an advantage in mobility, which was not the case.
    So, just like Ludendorff, it didn’t happen with Yegoryev.
  9. 0
    10 June 2024 16: 26
    the author of the article either does not know or deliberately ignores that the ranks of the old Russian imperial army to the Red Army were abolished ... and appeared only in 1936
    1. +2
      10 June 2024 21: 28
      I mention the ranks in the Imperial Army. For comfort. Ranks in the Red Army were introduced not in 1936, but in 1935.
      1. 0
        11 June 2024 08: 51
        Yes. in September 1935 and then supplemented in 1940
  10. 0
    11 June 2024 13: 23
    Quote: Olgovich
    The traitors were the servants of the German-Turkish interventionist occupiers, the Bolsheviks, who gave them FOREVER a third of European Russia in Brest - it is difficult to imagine a greater betrayal of the 3-year military labor of millions of Russian patriotic soldiers
    .
    Brest was cancelled, defeating the Germans, the Entente.


    Where did the third come from? Eastern Poland with Finland - a third? And these are originally Russian territories? Do those who lived and live there now agree with this?

    Brest was abolished by the Bolsheviks themselves. The territories given to the Germans were contaminated with the “poison of Bolshevism.” The poison worked, provoking a revolution in Germany and collapsing the Western Front, which brought Germany to zugunder. The Bolsheviks were successful where the tsarist generals failed, who ended up further from Berlin in 1917 than in 1914.
    The Entente did not defeat Germany. Or in your alternate reality, Entente troops captured Berlin and marched victoriously through the German capital?

    Yes, yes, the Russian warriors were burning with military enthusiasm, nosebleeds - give yesterday's peasants the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles (otherwise their wives won't be allowed home). It is not clear why desertion flourished so much and the “patriotic soldiers” listened with open ears to the agitators - the Bolsheviks and anarchists. Another interesting question is how these “bawlers-leaders” ended up in the ranks of the warring army, if at first there was an order from the tsarist government not to draft subversive revolutionary elements into the army...
  11. 0
    11 June 2024 13: 34
    Quote: Olgovich
    5% of the population took part in the Civil War; these were millions of non-cogs fighting for power.

    And tens of millions more took part in voting in the Constitutional Court - this is their choice and their position for power


    The absolute majority is on the side of the Bolsheviks, which is typical. Like - NON-cogs, then?
    Mercy for such recognition.

    Moreover, more than half voted for completely revolutionary parties: Socialist Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks and anarchists.
    Doesn't such a choice and position mean that Russia was pregnant with revolution?
    Especially when compared with the number of those who voted for the preservation of the old order, so dear to the “crystal bakers” of autocracy. By the way, can you remind me who was in favor of autocracy there, what political party or movement?

    And the work of the Council was paralyzed when the Bolsheviks and their allied Left Socialist Revolutionaries left the meeting of this venerable assembly. No GV or even domestic violence (at the pendel level) was required. The delegates lost their quorum and were unable to find it again. And the words of the anarchist sailor Zheleznyak are only recognition of this obvious fact, which no one began to dispute.

    Swan, Cancer and Pike did not work together for long, and it could not have been otherwise. You can’t walk in different directions at the same time, your butt will break.
  12. 0
    17 June 2024 09: 14
    So many comments and not a single one on the topic of the article! :-) This only confirms the incompetence of the majority of commentators on the issue of the Civil War, who are very eager to talk about this and that having grabbed the upper hand.
    Okay... Why do we need geography if there are taxi drivers...
    Of course, General Selevachev was not a traitor in the Red camp. It does not reflect what prompted him to decide to serve as Red. Lenin’s note to Bonch-Bruevich could be very relevant here:
    *I propose to appoint three responsible employees to urgently carry out everything requested for the Arkhangelsk Front and indicate three former generals who will be shot if the task is not completed*
    And Bonch-Bruevich himself wrote:
    *The tragedy of my situation is aggravated by the fact that at the operational helm of the army are either military dropouts who have no combat experience, or military specialists who are knowledgeable, but have lost their professional mind and will out of fright. Both of these categories of military men either simply did not work, or were more concerned about coordinating their decisions with certain political figures who do not understand the requirements of military affairs and who more than once declared in conversations with us that the art of war is a bourgeois prejudice*
    By the way, it was the second that was reflected in the command of Yegorov mentioned here, near Warsaw.
    So the politicking demagogues from the Revolutionary Military Council constantly travel around the fronts, giving ridiculous orders that were not agreed upon either by the command or with each other, and when their activities led to military disasters, they blamed them on former officers.