Military Review

Mysterious death Commissar

48
Mysterious death CommissarNinety years ago, on October 31 on 1925 of the year, the USSR People's Commissar of Defense and the Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council, Mikhail Frunze, died. He was an extraordinarily gifted and strong-willed person, just like him, made up the "golden fund" of the Bolsheviks.
Frunze took part in the armed uprising in Moscow in December 1905 and in October 1917. Revolutionary underground activist, functionary of the RSDLP - he was twice sentenced to death, but she was still replaced with hard labor, where Frunze spent six years. He happened to prove himself in various posts. He headed the Shuya Soviet of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, was a deputy of the Constituent Assembly from the Vladimir Province, headed the Ivano-Voznesensky Provincial Committee of the RCP (b) and the Executive Committee.


But, of course, first of all, Mikhail Vasilyevich became famous as an outstanding commander-nugget. In 1919, at the head of the 4 Army of the Red Army, he defeated Kolchak. In the year 1920 (together with the Rebel Army N.I. Makhno) took Perekop and crushed Wrangel (later he directed the “cleansing” of the Makhnovists themselves).

And in the same year he led the Bukhara operation, during which the emir was overthrown and the People’s Soviet Republic was established. In addition, Frunze was a military theorist and creator of the military reform of 1924 – 1925. He lived a bright life, and his death caused many questions.

1. Unclear reasons


Frunze died after surgery caused by a stomach ulcer. According to the official version, the cause of death was blood poisoning. However, later another version was put forward - Mikhail Vasilyevich died of cardiac arrest, as a result of the effects of anesthesia. The body tolerated it very badly, the operated one could not fall asleep for half an hour. At first he was given ether, but he did not work, then they began to give chloroform. The impact of the latter in itself is quite dangerous, and in combination with ether everything was more dangerous than doubly. Moreover, the narcotizer (as the anesthetists were then called) A.D. Ochkin also exceeded the dose. At the moment, the “narcotic” version prevails, but not all share it. So, according to the Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor V.L. Popov, the immediate cause of Frunze’s death was peritonitis, and anesthetic death was only an assumption, there is simply no evidence for this. Indeed, an autopsy showed that the patient had fibrinous-purulent peritonitis. And the severity of peritonitis is quite sufficient to be considered the cause of death. Yes, even in the presence of inferiority of the aorta and large arterial vessels. As suggested, it was innate, with this Frunze lived a long time, but the peritonitis exacerbated the whole thing. (Transmission "After death. MV Frunze." Fifth channel TV. 21. 11. 2009).

As we see, so far there is no possibility even to determine the exact cause of death of Frunze. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about murder, at least now. Although, of course, a lot of things look very suspicious. One year after the death of Frunze, people's commissar of health N.A. Semashko said the following. It turns out that the surgeon V.N. Rozanov, who operated on Frunze, suggested not to hurry with the operation. As, however, and his physician P.V. Mandryka, who for some reason was not allowed on the operation itself. In addition, according to Semashko, only a small part of the consultation that made the decision on the operation was competent. However, it should be noted that Semashko himself chaired this council.

In any case, one thing is obvious - Frunze had very, very serious health problems. By the way, the first symptoms he had appeared in the 1906 year. And in 1922, the council of doctors under the Central Committee of the RCP urged him to go abroad for treatment. However, Frunze "recommended" this recommendation, so to speak. It seemed to him that it would distract from the affairs. He went for treatment in Borjomi, and the conditions there were clearly not enough.

2. Trotsky trail


Almost immediately began talking about the fact that the Commissar was killed. Moreover, at first the murder was attributed to the supporters of LD Trotsky. But very soon they went on the offensive and began to blame everything on I.V. Stalin.

A powerful literary “bomb” was made: writer B.V. Pilnyak published in The New World Magazine The Tale of the Unpaid Moon, in which he subtly hinted at Stalin's involvement in the death of Frunze.
And he, of course, did not name either one or the other, the people's commissar was bred under the name of commander Gavrilov, a completely healthy man, but practically forced to go under a surgeon’s knife. Pilnyak himself felt it necessary to warn the reader: “The plot of this story suggests that the reason for writing it and the material was the death of M.V. Frunze. Personally, I hardly knew Frunze, I barely knew him, I saw him twice. I don’t know the actual details of his death - and they are not very significant for me, because the purpose of my story was not to report on the death of the military commissar. All this I find it necessary to inform the reader so that the reader does not look for real facts and living faces in him. ”

It turns out the following. On the one hand, Pilnyak dismissed all attempts to link the plot of the story with real events, and on the other, he pointed to Frunze. For what? Maybe so that the reader just does not have any doubts about who and what is at stake? Researcher N. Nad (Dobryukha) drew attention to the fact that Pilnyak dedicated his story to the writer AK To Voronsky, one of the leading theorists of Marxism in the field of literature and a supporter of the Left Opposition: “The archives contain evidence of how the idea of ​​the Tale arose. It began, apparently, with the fact that Voronsky, as a member of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, was included into the composition of the “Commission on the organization of a funeral comrade. Mv Frunze. Of course, at the meeting of the Commission, in addition to ritual issues, all the circumstances of the “unsuccessful operation” were discussed. The fact that the “Tale of the Unsettled Moon” Pilnyak dedicated to Voronsky speaks for the fact that Pilnyak received the main information about the reasons for the “unsuccessful operation” from him. And clearly from the "point of view" of Trotsky. No wonder that already in 1927, Mr. Voronsky, as an active participant in the Trotskyist opposition, was expelled from the party. Later Pilniak himself will suffer. So, Pilnyak was part of Voronsky’s literary circle, which, in turn, was part of Trotsky’s political circle. As a result, these circles closed ”. (“Who killed Mikhail Frunze” // Izvestia.Ru)

3. Opponent of the "demon of revolution"


Let us not rush to conclusions about the involvement of Trotsky in the death of the commander. We are talking about the attempt of the Trotskyists to push everything on Stalin - here everything is absolutely clear. Although Lev Davidovich had every reason for dislike for Frunze — he was the one who replaced him at the post of Commissar of Defense and the head of the FARC. However, the strings can be pulled in times of civil war.

The relations between Trotsky and Frunze were strained then, to put it mildly. In 1919, there was a serious conflict between them.
At that time, the Kolchak army led a successful offensive, moving swiftly and energetically towards the regions of Central Russia. And at first Trotsky became generally pessimistic, saying that it was simply impossible to resist this onslaught. (By the way, it is worth recalling that at one time the vast expanses of Siberia, the Urals and the Volga region departed from the Bolsheviks during the uprising of the White Czechs, which was, to a large extent, provoked by Trotsky, who ordered them to disarm.) However, then he nevertheless gathered with in spirit, he gave the order: to retreat to the Volga and build fortifications there.

The commander of the 4 Army Frunze did not obey this decree, having received the full support of Lenin. As a result of a powerful counterattack, units of the Red Army threw Kolchak troops far to the east, freeing the Ural region, as well as certain areas of the Middle and Southern Urals. Then Trotsky suggested stopping and transferring troops from the Eastern Front to the South. The Central Committee rejected this plan, and the offensive was continued, after which the Red Army liberated Izhevsk, Ufa, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Tyumen and other cities of the Urals and Western Siberia.

Stalin recalled all this in a speech to trade union activists (19 June 1924): “You know that Kolchak and Denikin were considered the main enemies of the Soviet Republic. You know that our country breathed freely only after defeating these enemies. And so, история says that both of these enemies, i. Kolchak and Denikin finished off our troops in defiance of Trotsky's plans. Judge for yourself: It happens in the summer of 1919. Our troops are attacking Kolchak and are operating near Ufa. The meeting of the Central Committee. Trotsky proposes to delay the offensive along the line of the Belaya River (near Ufa), leaving the Urals in the hands of Kolchak, withdraw part of the troops from the Eastern Front and transfer them to the Southern Front. There is a heated debate. The Central Committee does not agree with Trotsky, finding that it is impossible to leave Ural with his factories, with his railway network in Kolchak’s hands, where he can easily recover, muster a fist and find himself again at the Volga — you must first drive Kolchak behind the Ural Mountains to the Siberian steppes , and only after that do the transfer of forces to the south. The Central Committee rejects Trotsky's plan ... From this moment on, Trotsky departs from direct participation in the affairs of the Eastern Front. ”

In the fight against Denikin's troops, Trotsky also showed himself to the full - from the negative side. At the beginning, he very “successfully” commanded that the whites captured the Eagle and moved to Tula. One of the reasons for such failures was a quarrel with N.I. Makhno, whom the "demon of the revolution" outlawed, although the men of the legendary Farther stood to death. “It was necessary to save the situation,” notes S. Kuzmin. - Trotsky proposed to deliver the main attack on Denikinians from Tsaritsyn to Novorossiysk, through the Don steppes, where the Red Army would meet on its way a complete lack of roads and numerous White-Kazakh gangs. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin did not like this plan. Trotsky was removed from the leadership of the operations of the Red Army in the south. " ("Contrary to Trotsky")

One gets the impression that Trotsky did not want the victory of the Red Army at all. And quite possibly, it was so. Of course, he did not want to defeat. Rather, his plans included tightening the Civil War as much as possible.
This was also included in the plans of the “Western democracies”, with which Trotsky was associated, who insistently proposed that the entire first half of 1918 of the year should conclude a military-political alliance with England and France. Thus, in January 1919, the Entente proposed to hold a joint conference with white and red, make peace and maintain the status quo - everyone dominates within the territory controlled at the time of the truce. It is clear that this would only prolong the state of a split in Russia - the West did not need a strong and united one.

4. Fail Bonaparte


During the civil war, Trotsky showed himself to be an inveterate Bonapartist, and at some point was even close to seizing power, relying on the army.

31 August 1918, the attempt was made on the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Lenin. He was in the worst condition, and this inevitably posed the question: who will be at the head of the country in the event of his death? The chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTSIK), Ya.M. Sverdlov, who simultaneously headed the rapidly growing apparatus of the RKP (b). But Trotsky also had the strongest resource - the army. And so, on September 2, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopts the following decree: “The Soviet Republic is turning into a military camp. At the head of all fronts and military institutions of the Republic is the Revolutionary Military Council. All the forces and means of the Socialist Republic are put at its disposal. "

Trotsky was put at the head of the new body. It is significant that neither the Council of People's Commissars or the party participate in the adoption of this decision. Everything is decided by the Central Executive Committee, or rather, its chairman, Sverdlov. “It is noteworthy that there was no decision of the Central Committee of the RKP (b) to create a Revolutionary Military Council, notes S. Mironov. - It is not known about any plenum of the Central Committee in these days. Sverdlov, who concentrated all the top party posts in his hands, simply removed the party from the decision to create the FAR. A "completely independent state power" was created. Bonapartist-type military power. No wonder contemporaries often called Trotsky the Red Bonaparte. ” ("The Civil War in Russia").

When Lenin recovered from his illness and took up state affairs again, an unpleasant surprise awaited him. It turned out that the power of the pre-council committee was severely curtailed, and the creation of the RVS played an important role in this. Ilyich, however, was not so easy to cut off, and he quickly found a way out of this situation. Lenin responded to one apparatus maneuver with others, creating a new body - the Union of Workers 'and Peasants' Defense (from 1920 onwards - the Union of Labor and Defense), at the head of which he himself rose. Now the megastructure of the RVS was forced to obey another - CPRC.

After Lenin's death, throughout the entire 1924 year, Trotsky’s supporters were removed from the top army leadership. The greatest loss was the displacement from the post of the Deputy RVS E.M. Sklyansky, who was just replaced by Frunze.

Commander of the Moscow Military District N.I. Muralov naughtlessly offered "the demon of the revolution to raise troops against the leadership. However, Trotsky did not dare to do this, he chose to act by political methods - and lost.
In January, 1925 Commissar-General and Chairman of the RVS became his opponent Frunze.

5. Thinker of the new army


The new Commissar was not only an outstanding commander, but also a thinker who created a coherent system of ideas about what the army of a new state should be. This system is rightly called the “single military doctrine of Frunze”.

Its foundations are set out in a series of works: “Reorganization of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army” (1921), “Unified Military Doctrine and the Red Army” (1921), “Military-Political Education of the Red Army” (1922), “Front and Rear in the Future War »(1924),« Lenin and the Red Army »(1925).

Frunze gave his definition of "unified military doctrine." In his opinion, it is “a doctrine that establishes the nature of the construction of the country's armed forces, the methods of combat training of troops, based on the prevailing views in the state on the nature of the military tasks before him and the way they are resolved, derived from the class essence of the state and determined by the level of development of productive country forces ".

The new, Red Army differs from the old armies of the bourgeois states in that it is built on ideological grounds. In this regard, he insisted on the special role of party-political organizations in the army. In addition, the new army should be popular, avoid any caste. Moreover, it should be characterized by the highest professionalism.

Ideology is an ideology, but one cannot rely only on it. “... Frunze did not accept the Trotskyist idea of ​​a“ revolution on bayonets, ”notes Yury Bardakhchiev. - Back in the fall of 1921, he claimed that it was unwise to hope for the support of the foreign proletariat in a future war. Frunze believed that "it is entirely probable that an enemy appears in front of us, who will be very difficult to yield to the arguments of revolutionary ideology." Therefore, he wrote, in the calculations of future operations, the main attention should be paid not to hopes for the political disintegration of the enemy, but to the possibility of “actively physically crushing him”. ("The Unified Military Doctrine of Frunze" // "The Essence of Time").

In addition, it should be noted that if Trotsky did not tolerate national patriotism, then Frunze was not alien to him. “There, in the camp of our enemies, there can be no national revival of Russia, which is just from that side and there can be no talk about the struggle for the welfare of the Russian people.

Because it is not because of the beautiful eyes that all these Frenchmen, the British, help Denikin and Kolchak — naturally, they pursue their own interests. This fact should be clear enough that Russia is not there, that Russia is with us ...
We are not a mess like Kerensky. We are in a deadly battle. We know that if we are defeated, hundreds of thousands, millions of the best, steadfast and energetic in our country will be exterminated, we know that they will not talk to us, we will only be hanged, and our whole homeland will be drenched in blood. Our country will be enslaved by foreign capital. "

Mikhail Vasilyevich was convinced that the offensive is at the heart of the military actions, but the most important role belongs to the defense, which must be active. We should not forget about the rear. In the future war, the importance of military equipment will only increase, so this area should be given great attention. It is necessary to develop tank construction in every possible way, even if “to the detriment and at the expense of other kinds weapons". As for air fleet, then "its significance will be decisive."

The “ideocratic” approach of Frunze was clearly different from the approach of Trotsky, who emphasized his extra-ideological nature in matters of army building. CM. Budyonny recalls the military meeting at the XI Congress of the RCP (B) (March – April 1922) and the shocking speech of the “demon of the revolution”: “His views on the military question were directly opposed to those of Frunze. All of us were literally amazed: what he claimed contradicted Marxism, the principles of the proletarian construction of the Red Army. “What is he talking about? - I wondered. “Either he doesn’t understand anything in military affairs, or he deliberately confuses an extremely clear question.” Trotsky declared that Marxism, they say, is not applicable to military science in general, that war is a craft, a set of practical skills, and therefore there can be no science of war. He muddied the entire combat experience of the Red Army in the Civil War, saying that there was nothing instructive there. It is characteristic that during the whole speech Trotsky never referred to Lenin. He bypassed that well-known fact that Vladimir Ilyich, the creator of the theory of just and unjust wars, the creator of the Red Army, that he was in charge of the defense of the Soviet Republic, was developing the fundamentals of Soviet military science. But, noting in the theses the need for decisive offensive actions and educating the soldiers in the spirit of high combat activity, Frunze relied precisely on the works of V.I. Lenin, in particular, was guided by his speech at the VIII Congress of Soviets. It turned out that it was not Frunze who was "refuted" by Trotsky, but by Lenin! "

It is unlikely that Trotsky can be reproached with indifference to questions of ideology, especially in such an important area as the military. Most likely, he simply wanted to enlist the support of broad army circles, positioning himself as a supporter of their independence from party political bodies. Trotsky, in general, was very easily “rebuilt,” based on tactical considerations. He could demand the militarization of the trade unions, and then, after some time, act as an ardent advocate of intra-party democracy. (By the way, when the internal opposition was outlined in its IV International, the “democrat” Trotsky defeated it quickly and ruthlessly in 1930.) It is quite possible that it was Trotsky’s “outside ideology” in military affairs that supported his popularity in the military.

Frunze honestly and openly defended the ideocratic line, he did not need populist gestures, his popularity was firmly won by brilliant victories.

6. Kotovsky factor

The mysterious death of Frunze can be put on with one row with the murder of the hero of the civil war and the commander of the 2-M cavalry corps. Kotovsky. Mikhail Vasilyevich and Grigory Ivanovich were very close. The latter became the commander's right hand. And after Frunze headed the military commissariat and the PBC, he planned to make Kotovsky his first deputy. And he completely deserved it, and not only because of his past merits of the times of the Civil War. In 1923, Kotovsky won the largest military maneuvers, and then spoke at the Moscow meeting of the commanders and proposed to transform the core of the cavalry into armored subunits.

In 1924, Grigory Ivanovich offered Frunze a bold plan for reuniting Russia with his native Bessarabia. It was assumed that he, with one division, would cross the Dniester, immediately defeat the Romanian troops, raising the local population for an uprising (among which he himself was very popular). After this, Kotovsky will create his own government, which will propose reunification. Frunze, however, rejected this plan.

It is impossible to ignore the fact that Kotovsky was in a very conflicting relationship with I.E. Yakir, who was a relative of Trotsky and enjoyed his support in moving up the career ladder. This is what Kotovsky's son, Grigory Grigorievich, says: “During the Civil War, several clashes between his father and Yakir occurred. So, in 1919, at a major station, it seems, Zhmerinka, a detachment of former Galicians rebelled. Yakir, who happened to be at the station at that time, got into the headquarters car and drove off. Then Kotovsky applied the following tactics: his brigade began to dangle around the small streets of the small town, creating the impression of a huge amount of cavalry. With small forces he suppressed this rebellion, after which Yakir caught up with the train. The father was terribly quick-tempered, an explosive person (according to mom's words, when commanders came home, they first of all asked: “How is the commander’s head red or not?”; If red, then it was better not to approach). So, my father jumped into the car to Yakir, who was sitting at his desk, and shouted: “Coward! Zarublyu! And Yakir hid under the table ... Of course, such things are not forgiven. ” (“Who killed Robin Hood of the revolution?” // Peoples.Ru).

Thus, it can be assumed that the killing of Kotovsky in 1925 was somehow connected with the activities of the Trotsky group. Frunze took up the investigation himself, but death did not allow him to complete this case (like many other cases) to the end.
Today it is impossible to answer the question: whether Frunze was killed and to whom his death was beneficial. Stalin, who had a strong and reliable ally in the person of Mikhail Vasilyevich, was hardly interested in this. It is possible that new documents will be discovered that will shed new light on the circumstances of that unfortunate October operation.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/versia/zagadochnaja_smert_narkomvojenmora_716.htm
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. venaya
    venaya 3 November 2015 15: 13 New
    -2
    another version - Mikhail Vasilievich died of cardiac arrest, as a result of exposure to anesthesia. The body tolerated it very poorly

    About 1% of the civilian population cannot withstand anesthesia, while alternative pain relief methods have emerged. The doctors should have known about this, so the version of premeditated murder is quite plausible. I will add: I remember the "operation Spring" - in which the strongest cadres of the Red Army were destroyed.
    1. Russian Uzbek
      Russian Uzbek 3 November 2015 15: 20 New
      +7
      Frunze is a former convict! in hard labor, he "worked out" for himself a whole bunch of chronic diseases ... by the way, he was immediately warned that the heart could not stand it and that in Russia at that time there were no conditions for treatment
      1. BEGA2015
        BEGA2015 3 November 2015 16: 52 New
        +6
        "Russian Uzbek"
        On this site there was already a publication entitled "How and why did the Soviet military leader Mikhail Frunze die?"
        Your post, "Frunze is a former convict! In hard labor, he" worked for himself "a whole bunch of chronic diseases ..."
        Frunze was an intelligent, educated man and an outstanding military commander.
        He had ideals in which he believed and for which he fought. For this, he was sentenced to hard labor. Such people, especially in our time, are difficult to meet. In the above article there is an interesting fact from the biography of M.V. Frunze:
        "During the hostilities in the Crimea, he (Frunze) had a beautiful idea:" What if we offer white officers to surrender in exchange for a pardon? "
        Frunze formally turned to Wrangel: "Whoever wants to will leave Russia without hindrance."
        “At that time, about 200 of thousands of officers believed in the promise of Frunze,” says V. Vozilov. “But Lenin and Trotsky ordered them to be destroyed.” Frunze refused to execute the order and was removed from the command of the Southern Front. "
        “These officers were executed in a terrible way,” continues Z. Borisova. “They were built on the seashore, each one was hung around a neck and shot in the back of the head. Frunze was very upset, fell into depression and he almost shot himself. ”
        Of course MF Frunze knew about his "sores", but in one of his letters you can find: "... I don't want to go to the operation, but he insists ...".
        Who is he"?
        And yet .- M.V. Frunze successfully performed conservative treatment of stomach ulcers, but nevertheless, a little later, he was offered surgery.
        Operation on the stomach, and died of "draft peretonitis".
        Strange, isn't it?
        1. Russian Uzbek
          Russian Uzbek 3 November 2015 16: 58 New
          +2
          do you know what a "draft overtonit" is?
          1. BEGA2015
            BEGA2015 3 November 2015 17: 08 New
            +6
            I know,
            once, in one of the hospitals, one of the "oldest surgeons" accidentally pierced the patient's cecum with a scalpel due to tremor. Pus went into the abdominal cavity ... The patient could not be saved. Please do not confuse with female gynecology ...
            1. Russian Uzbek
              Russian Uzbek 3 November 2015 17: 26 New
              +1
              simply put it is blood poisoning
              Well, what did you see strange? The qualifications of the doctors affected ... all the same, 1925, antibiotics had not yet been invented ... Frunze was immediately offered to go over the hill, but he decided to stay for ideological reasons, they say that the Soviet People’s Fleet is not treating the bourgeoisie with surgery before last pulled so that in general the result is logical
              1. Mahmut
                Mahmut 3 November 2015 18: 09 New
                +4
                Peritonitis is not a blood poisoning, but only favorable conditions for its occurrence - sepsis.
              2. Bayonet
                Bayonet 3 November 2015 18: 29 New
                +5
                Quote: Russian Uzbek
                simply put it is blood poisoning

                For that matter, then peritonitis is a local or diffuse inflammation of the serous cover of the abdominal cavity - the peritoneum.
                1. Russian Uzbek
                  Russian Uzbek 3 November 2015 20: 17 New
                  +5
                  as one doctor told me: do not use medical terms in which you don’t understand a damn;)
                  so I tried to say it easier
            2. Saratoga833
              Saratoga833 3 November 2015 22: 37 New
              0
              Quote: BEGA2015
              due to tremor, he accidentally punctured the patient’s cecum with a scalpel. Pus went into the abdominal cavity ... The patient could not be saved. Please do not confuse female genicology ...

              Absolutely illiterate note in medical terms! You do not know - do not write, you will marry a smart one!
          2. BEGA2015
            BEGA2015 3 November 2015 17: 20 New
            +1
            "spilled overflow" - Is this your only comment, or are you basically not solas with what I wrote?
            1. Russian Uzbek
              Russian Uzbek 3 November 2015 17: 30 New
              0
              "" Is this your only comment or do you in principle disagree with what I wrote? "
              only with the fact that Frunze's death is "strange", absolutely nothing strange
        2. MrK
          MrK 3 November 2015 22: 49 New
          +2
          Quote: BEGA2015
          “These officers were executed in a terrible way,” Z. Borisova continues. - They were built on the seashore, each hung a stone on his neck and shot in the back of the head.


          THERE ARE LIKE BABS. And the head of the museum is Frunze Museum.
          And to be unfounded, let us turn to the book of Baron P.N. Wrangel's "Notes" (November 1916 - November 1920) in two books.
          And in chapter IX "Everything on Wrangel ”of his second book P.N. Wrangel notes: “By September 1, our forces did not surpass 25 000 bayonets and 8000 checkers. And in Crimea, for the prepared fortifications, even a smaller number of the combat personnel of our troops managed to retreat».
          Well, let's say 30 000 backtracked. If each officer in the subordination had at least four to five soldiers, then it turns out
          all in Crimea there were about 6 000 white officers. Total!!!
          Of course they were shot. How many? I suppose a hundred, maybe a little more, whose hands were up to the elbow in the blood.
          Otherwise, where did the thousands of white officers come from in Turkey, Bulgaria, Korea, China, France, the USA, and around the world. Let me remind you that on all fronts (ON ALL) in the white army, only 40 000 officers fought (ON ALL FRONTS).
          That's something like this, and anti-Soviet "black" myths are composed! And seemingly respectable people with advanced degrees.
      2. Drmadfisher
        Drmadfisher 3 November 2015 17: 46 New
        +1
        what's the excitement? Destroyed A.V. Kolchak? It is a pity that the sentence was replaced by hard labor!
        1. Russian Uzbek
          Russian Uzbek 3 November 2015 18: 12 New
          +7
          yes Kolchak then in terms of killing Russian people, the odds will give everyone else
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 3 November 2015 19: 34 New
            -9
            Quote: Russian Uzbek
            yes Kolchak then in terms of killing Russian people, the odds will give everyone else

            Really? And how many Russians he brutally tortured? And if you compare with Stalin, for example, or Dzerzhinsky, or with the one who shot the same 200 thousand captured officers? (Although most likely this is a bike. The whole Wrangel army was:
            Army strength: by May 22–27 thousand units and sub. (in the beginning of 1920 there were about 3,5 thousand people in Crimea, and a total of 35-40 thousand were transferred from the North Caucasus). By the beginning of June, 25 thousand units. and sub. In September 1920, the army with all the rear institutions numbered about 300 thousand people, of which about 50 thousand at the front, about 80 thousand in military camps and approx. 30 thousand wounded. The combat strength of the army in September did not exceed 30-35 thousand people. (in mid-September 33 thousand), in October - 25-27 thousand. Of the 50 thousand officers in the Russian Army, 6 thousand were directly in combat formations, 13 thousand in the immediate rear and 31 thousand in the rear (including patients and the wounded).

            that is, there were only 50 thousand officers in the army
            1. Russian Uzbek
              Russian Uzbek 3 November 2015 20: 14 New
              +5
              Stalin and Dzerzhinsky even created a superpower ... and this only squandered for the glory of the Entente ... and the debts that Kolchak did for a very long time hung on our neck
              1. afdjhbn67
                afdjhbn67 4 November 2015 04: 10 New
                0
                Quote: Russian Uzbek
                Stalin with Dzerzhinsky at least a superpower

                Here is the answer and the root of all of Stalin’s subsequent denigrations - you can’t repeat the result, that’s why you’re oblique - lowering it to consciousness to your level, Mikitka gave a start to it .. and who we have in consciousness and who Stalin
            2. Rattenfanger
              Rattenfanger 3 November 2015 21: 21 New
              0
              Quote: Pilat2009
              And if you compare with Stalin, for example, or Dzerzhinsky

              And how many, interestingly, did the ITT kill?
            3. MrK
              MrK 3 November 2015 23: 08 New
              +1
              Quote: Pilat2009
              Really? And how many Russians he brutally tortured?


              Kolchak, having shot the deputies of the Constituent Assembly, at first received, almost unanimously, the support of the Siberians. But then ...
              All the same requisition, mobilization, and general terror began, surpassing everything that both the Reds and the “provisional oblasts” managed to do. In order not to be unfounded, I will cite two testimonies that at one time emanated from the Kolchak camp.
              Baron Budberg, Minister in Kolchak Government: “A year ago, the population saw in us deliverers from heavy commissar captivity, and now it hates us just as it hated commissars, and even more; and, even worse than hatred, it no longer believes in us, does not expect anything good from us ... The boys think that if they killed and tortured several hundred and thousands of Bolsheviks and muzzled a certain number of commissars, they did a great thing, inflicted a decisive blow to Bolshevism and brought closer the restoration of the old order of things ... The boys do not understand that if they indiscriminately and forcibly restrain, rob, torture and kill, then they instill such hatred towards the authorities they represent that the Bolsheviks can only rejoice at the presence of such grateful, valuable and grateful allies for them».
              In Yekaterinburg province alone, 35 000 people were executed and about 15% of the population were outraged. And they had nothing to do with the Bolsheviks. In Siberia and the Far East, a concentration camp system was also deployed by Admiral Kolchak, the most, perhaps, the most brutal of all the White Guard rulers. They were created both on the basis of prisons, and in those prisoner of war camps that were built by the Provisional Government.
              In more than 40 concentration camps, the regime drove almost a million (914 178) people who rejected the restoration of pre-revolutionary orders. About 75 of thousands of people languishing in white Siberia should be added to this. More than 520 of thousands of prisoners were stolen by the regime for slave labor, almost unpaid, in enterprises and in agriculture.
              The total number of people executed exceeds 100 000 people. And these are not separate “excesses” and not the antics of some special sadists. This happened all over the place. It is easy to imagine how the native Siberians reacted to this, not inclined to cave in before any authorities — and there were weapons in every house before the war ... If in the first months there was a clear division: the Stolypin “new settlers” - for the Reds, the native for Kolchak, now the situation has changed in the most decisive way. ALL opposed Kolchakites.
      3. afdjhbn67
        afdjhbn67 4 November 2015 03: 59 New
        +1
        Quote: Russian Uzbek
        Frunze is a former convict! in hard labor, he "worked out" for himself a whole bunch of chronic diseases ... by the way, he was immediately warned that the heart could not stand it and that in Russia at that time there were no conditions for treatment

        It is unlikely that Stalin was interested in this,

        I agree with this, that is, the habit of making universal evil out of Stalin ..
  2. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 3 November 2015 15: 19 New
    +3
    Trotsky declared that Marxism, they say, is inapplicable to military affairs, that war is a craft, a combination of practical skills, and therefore there can be no science of war. He poured mud over the entire combat experience of the Red Army in the Civil War, saying that there is nothing instructive there.

    Heh heh heh ... I wonder what Semyon Mikhailovich would say about these quotes:
    The Civil War is not a real war, because it was a war without artillery, without aviation, without tanks, without mortars. Without all this, what is this serious war? It was a special war, not modern.

    This is precisely the cult of the traditions and experience of the civil war that must be put to an end, and prevented our command personnel from immediately reorganizing themselves in a new way, on the rails of modern warfare.

    ... the traditions of the civil war reigned in our heads: we did without mines, without machine guns, that our artillery, our people are wonderful, heroes and everything else, we will carry on and on. These speeches remind me of the redskins in America who opposed rifles with clubs and wanted to defeat the Americans with clubs — defeat the rifle with a club — and they all were killed.

    (c) self-aware
    1. jjj
      jjj 3 November 2015 16: 08 New
      11
      I heard how the daughter of Semyon Mikhailovich said that Budenny intensively promoted motorized and armored formations. Showed diaries. And in our historiography it is generally accepted that this is the fruit of the mind of Tukhachevsky. How many of these Trotskyists have harmed. And after the death of Stalin, they rewrote history and surrendered the USSR to the West
      1. Mareman Vasilich
        Mareman Vasilich 3 November 2015 17: 23 New
        +6
        It turns out that there was good and merciful Joseph Vissarionovich, he regretted many. And especially after the war. Now all this Trotskyist and treacherous shushera has climbed out.
    2. BEGA2015
      BEGA2015 3 November 2015 17: 01 New
      0
      To: Alexey RA
      Semen Mikhailovich- Do you mean Budenny?
      And to whom do you quote the quotes?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 3 November 2015 18: 05 New
        +2
        Quote: BEGA2015
        Semen Mikhailovich- Do you mean Budenny?

        He is. After all, it is the article that refers to him. when they talk about Trotsky’s denial of the Civil War experience.
        CM. Budyonny recalls a military meeting at the XI Congress of the RCP (B.) (March – April 1922) and the shocking speech of the “demon of revolution”

        Quote: BEGA2015
        And to whom do you quote the quotes?

        To the main counter-revolutionary and compromiser with world imperialism according to the version of citizen Trotsky. smile

        These are quotes from the final speech of Comrade Stalin, who concluded the meeting at the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (b) of the commanding staff on the collection of experience in fighting against Finland on April 14-17.04.1940, XNUMX
  3. andr327
    andr327 3 November 2015 15: 30 New
    -10
    I don’t analyze, but Shoigu reminds me of Frunze.
    1. dmb
      dmb 3 November 2015 15: 52 New
      +8
      Apparently consonance surnames.
    2. Mareman Vasilich
      Mareman Vasilich 3 November 2015 17: 20 New
      +7
      Do not compare the incomparable. Shoigu to Frunze and all his life is not enough.
      1. Dry_T-50
        Dry_T-50 3 November 2015 17: 52 New
        -11
        Quote: Mareman Vasilich
        Do not compare the incomparable. Shoigu to Frunze and all his life is not enough.

        Wow! What is this? Do you not recognize the merits of S.Shoigu in strengthening the defense capacity of the Russian Federation? Or do you not want to point out that the Soviet army was created from scratch by someone Leib Trotsky, who ascribes his services to other people? I do not I detract from the merits of Frunze during the Civil War, but the truth must face
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 3 November 2015 15: 38 New
    16
    At one time, A.S. Pushkin, launched two colorful versions of Salieri, poisoned Mozart, and at the behest of B. Godunov, they stabbed the young Tsarevich Dimitri ... And these versions are still walking ... So B. Pilignak, launched the myth of that M. Frunze was stabbed to death ... on the operating table ... I agree with the author of the article ... There was no point for Stalin to remove Frunze ... M. Frunze, a consistent Bolshevik, so to speak ... in the Mensheviks, "defencists", "internationalists "did not take part, in any" military oppositions "," workers' platforms "," left communists "did not participate .. During the revolutionary struggle and civil war, he knew his business .. Post of the People's Commissar of Military Mora, earned hump and merit, and not intrigues ..
    1. venaya
      venaya 3 November 2015 15: 57 New
      +8
      Quote: parusnik
      There was no point in Stalin removing Frunze.

      Of course it wasn’t, it’s not worth arguing about this. You can also name other names: Kirov, Zhdanov, Dimitrov, etc., etc. But what does Stalin have to do with it, that he ruled the state alone, he had no enemies? There were many in the country's leadership, as the open processes of the 37th year speak indicatively. I think that it is precisely those who are involved in these killings that are carrying Stalin.
  5. slizhov
    slizhov 3 November 2015 16: 08 New
    +5
    Revolutions of their sons absorb.
    And who survived from the very first, who sang "We are ours, we will build a new world, who was nobody, he will become everything !!!" Budyonny and Voroshilov? And Dzerzhinsky suddenly fell asleep and ... died ... after the performance of his ... And Kirov, the favorite of the party - once and ... sort of like the husband of a mistress. On the Maidans now the same thing, then they will be dragged away from the authorities.
    The stories are repeated, but hardly anyone will say exactly what.
    1. Dry_T-50
      Dry_T-50 3 November 2015 17: 54 New
      +2
      Quote: slizhov
      Voroshilov

      Politburo member until 1960
  6. Comrade Bender
    Comrade Bender 3 November 2015 16: 09 New
    +7
    MV Frunze was the brightest figure, as a military and party leader, during the Civil War and after it. Maybe that’s why there are thoughts about his willful killing. Apparently the final version will be in a state of ambiguity for a very long time.
  7. Roman 11
    Roman 11 3 November 2015 16: 20 New
    -2
    In occasion of Yakira I do not agree. In addition to the wide-openings with Kotovsky, no one spoke bad of him. Is it that Stalin was offended when Yakir asked tete and tete to talk over Voroshilov’s head. Yakir himself, as commander of the Kiev district, has greatly grown from the tactical and strategic sides. They began to pay attention to many things - for example, preparing the territory for action behind enemy lines (caches, camouflaged bases, secret depots). It was under Yakir that a widespread guerrilla war was being prepared in Ukraine. I. Starinov remembered him with kind words, especially the memory of unique coal mines settled in his memory.
    In general, Svechin’s theory was also not alien to Emanuilovich, which later came in very handy.
  8. knn54
    knn54 3 November 2015 16: 20 New
    -2
    No comment, only excerpts from memoirs ...
    1. Stalin made a short grave speech, as if passing by, noting: “Maybe this is exactly what is needed for the old comrades to go down to the grave so easily and so simply.”
    2. "Frunze Stalin was not very happy, but Zinoviev and Kamenev were for him, and as a result of lengthy preliminary bidding for the troika, Stalin agreed to appoint Frunze to replace Trotsky. And, as Zinoviev wrote in a letter to Kamenev, Frunze agreed that “there is no troika, but there is a dictatorship of Stalin”!
    Ex-Stalin’s assistant Boris Bazhanov.
    3. "Stalin wanted to have a Red Army under the reliable command of a man loyal to him, and not such an independent and authoritative politician as Frunze was."
    A.I. Mikoyan.
    1. venaya
      venaya 3 November 2015 16: 56 New
      -2
      Quote: knn54
      “There is no triple, but there is a dictatorship of Stalin”!

      Indeed, Stalin’s authority in the party was the highest, especially since 1921, when he alone managed to save a third of the budget of the young state, none of the leaders in the government at that time had such successes. Hence, its absolute authority is not surprising. Another thing is that we ourselves, without noticing it, throw words, not suspecting that the meaning of words often changes to the opposite, depending on the context, and on many other circumstances.
    2. Basil50
      Basil50 3 November 2015 17: 08 New
      +5
      knn54. Found someone to believe. Too much in falsifications and outright lies is closed, including on Mikoyan.
      1. Wheel
        Wheel 3 November 2015 20: 10 New
        +3
        Quote: Vasily50
        Too much in falsifications and outright lies is closed, including on Mikoyan.

        Hmm, Mikoyan ...
        "From Ilyich to Ilyich without a heart attack and paralysis"
        The adaption is still the one ...
        But the business executive is good.
        1. afdjhbn67
          afdjhbn67 4 November 2015 04: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Wheel
          But the business executive is good.

          Or maybe this is the answer - without other ??
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. afdjhbn67
      afdjhbn67 4 November 2015 04: 22 New
      0
      Quote: knn54
      : “Maybe this is exactly what is needed for the old comrades to descend so easily and so simply into

      Do not give a link where to look ??
  9. made13
    made13 3 November 2015 16: 53 New
    0
    Cesspool, both before and now. Everyone has the benefit, as well as the loss of death of any prominent political or military leader. So you can blame anyone, would be an order.
  10. Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich 3 November 2015 17: 06 New
    +5
    Quote: venaya
    indeed, Stalin’s authority in the party was the highest, especially since 1921



    Yeah, right now, the highest. Full power passed to I. Stalin only when Litvinov was removed from the post of People's Commissar of Internal Affairs, and this was in May 1939. The domestic political struggle was very strong there.
    1. venaya
      venaya 3 November 2015 17: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: Mareman Vasilich
      .. the highest. Full power passed to I. Stalin only when Litvinov was removed from the post of People's Commissar of Internal Affairs, and this was in May 1939. The domestic political struggle was very strong there.

      What is the problem, I completely agree with you. You must agree that power and authority among party members are very, very different concepts. It was the very successful connection of Stalin by Lenin to the highest leadership of the country in the 21st year that created his original authority, after which there was a long exhausting struggle, with varying success, So neither you nor I are in any way contradictory to each other. Apparently there is again a trivial substitution of concepts, which, unfortunately, I often meet in practice. Only Litvinov was removed from the post of People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, he was not the head of the NKVD, but since September 38, L.P.Beria, and Litvinov really influenced everyone, apparently he was removed from the post of the NKID, for greater stability in the country.
    2. knn54
      knn54 4 November 2015 10: 32 New
      +2
      Dear opponents.
      Half a century ago, as a schoolboy, I felt angry with people who worked with Frunze (when he was the People’s Commissar of Ukraine). I managed to get a student into the closed fund of our Central Library. I will say the following:
      Frunze was a man with BIG ambitions. And the fact that he preferred Kamenev and Zinoviev to Stalin could be a collapse not only for the latter, but also for the USSR.
      What concerns Mikoyan. He was (at one time) one of the Cadidats for the post of People's Commissar of the NKVD, and he knew a lot. I want to add:
      1. Let's look at everything in its full spectrum, and not in black and white.
      2. Alas. But not everything can be found on the Internet.
    3. Roman 11
      Roman 11 4 November 2015 15: 50 New
      0
      Foreign affairs.
  11. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 3 November 2015 17: 10 New
    0
    "And so, on September 2, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopts the following resolution:
    “The Soviet Republic is turning into a military camp.
    At the head of all fronts and military institutions of the Republic is
    Revolutionary Military Council. All forces and means of the Socialist Republic
    put at his disposal. "

    The author considers this order of Trotsky wrong?
    1. Alexl
      Alexl 3 November 2015 17: 31 New
      +6
      Trotsky was an enemy of Russia and all his orders were criminal.
    2. Dry_T-50
      Dry_T-50 3 November 2015 17: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      "And so, on September 2, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopts the following resolution:
      “The Soviet Republic is turning into a military camp.
      At the head of all fronts and military institutions of the Republic is
      Revolutionary Military Council. All forces and means of the Socialist Republic
      put at his disposal. "

      The author considers this order of Trotsky wrong?

      The author was told to hang more noodles on the ears of the population
  12. Baloo
    Baloo 3 November 2015 17: 27 New
    +8
    On what day after the operation Frunze died, or is he on the table on the measures. This is a fundamental difference.
    It was operated by surgeons from the old school, not the red cavalrymen in white coats. Surgery does not tolerate unscrupulous, either they plunge into something, or the environment squeezes them out, because most operations are done by at least two surgeons. Who is your partner in human and professional terms matters.
    You understand that doctors are not wizards, their healing art is akin to diplomacy, the art of the possible. Main principle: do no harm!
    Trotsky’s enemy is definitely the enemy of Russia. not Stalin. I saw a photo of Trotsky and the Ambassador of England in tailcoats with the tsar general of the General Staff in full dress. What does it have to do with it? The general and ambassador are relatives. When in 1916 Russia began to weaken the Fritz, the ambassador of England came to the king and said something like this: come on, king, renounce, let there be a constitutional monarchy, and you will be like an English queen. The Tsar said: Nope ... I am the master of the Russian land. Next is the conspiracy of the tsarist generals, on the Anglo-American grandmother the February Revolution. The king calls the queen: sister, they threw me here, there’s nowhere to live, let me pause for a wait. Queen: Nope.
    Baron V.Nikolai sends to the Bolshevik headquarters three dozen German "Social Democrats" (as we were told in the history of the CPSU) in the rank of Oberst to Corporal (we were not told about this). They were called beytsang bureau or something like that, they organized sabotage, were engaged in espionage and recruiting agents.
    Then you already know everything. Through the agent of Colonel V. Nikolai-Parvus (Gelfand), the Bolsheviks are pumped up with stamps. The Bolsheviks seize power. What does German money have to do with it? The striking defense enterprises received more than the workers. Again, the corrupt press, agitators and others. In general, much of what we saw in 1991 and in all the color revolutions. Influence agents relying on lumpens and criminals by corrupt officials undermine the budget-forming sectors and create a commodity-money deficit. A march of empty pots or something like that. And here you have the Maidan revolution, with or without blood. For greater effect, someone is sacrificed. In August 1991, were only these three naive, who believed the CIA agent Yakovlev (the last CPSU secretary in ideology, recruited with former KGB general Kalugin during an internship at Columbia University in the late 50s) dead?
    As for the "Notes of Stalin's Secretary", he was not the only traitor alongside Stalin. What is the name of the person who edited the meeting of the Defense Council and who fled across Europe to the states in 1942? Mlynsky? Or something like that. Why hasn't this figure been properly rated? After all, someone brought him to Stalin?
    As for Frunze, the indication for emergency surgery for peptic ulcer is primarily bleeding from an ulcer, and for perforating ulcer, peritonitis. And then the score can go on for minutes. There were no antibiotics at that time. The outcome of peritonitis was largely determined by the general health of the patient. A lot of obscure. At the central cemetery of Samara there is a monument to Shchors. In the film, he dies in battle. In reality, from the treacherous bullet of Trotsky himself. There is only one conclusion: the 2000 generation needs a truthful and realistic depiction of historical events since at least 1900 with an assessment of the role of a particular person. Of course, the amount of information in a secondary school, institute, specialized department, and graduate school should be of an appropriate volume. Only liberals should not be allowed into history, they were and are enemies of Russia. hi
  13. Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 3 November 2015 17: 55 New
    +5
    "The Mysterious Death of the People's Commissar of Military Mora"?
    What's the riddle? How many of these "mysterious" deaths occur after surgery now? Maybe you should think about who needs such historical discoveries? Who needs to turn "fiery revolutionaries" into a viper of schemers? And everything will fall into place?
    "Today it is impossible to answer the question: was Frunze killed and who benefited from his death." Then, why stir up, shift from empty to empty?
  14. Aleksander
    Aleksander 3 November 2015 18: 44 New
    -2
    he was sentenced to death twice, but she was still replaced with hard labor


    Damned rotten Russian liberalism! Instead of fulfilling LEGAL decision COURTS and to shoot him, like other convicted "revolutionaries" - Rosenfelds, Zalkinds, diamonds, Bronsteins, Lenins - they were actually pardoned! How many troubles the country brought these criminally pardoned! Oh, they are all the mercenaries, quickly led to the nail .....
    1. Heimdall48
      Heimdall48 3 November 2015 19: 47 New
      -3
      Holy man Tsar Nikolai - instead of putting a nugget on a stake, he fed him in hard labor. smile
      1. Saratoga833
        Saratoga833 3 November 2015 23: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Heimdall48
        Holy man Tsar Nicholas

        From his "holiness", how many people washed in blood and said goodbye to life?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Baloo
      Baloo 3 November 2015 22: 50 New
      -3
      They would not have done anything without rot at the top: in the General Staff, in the Duma, in the government, surrounded by the tsar, without corrupt journalists and officials. The agent of influence, Sverdlov, was the fastest to get out after his escape to Europe. Moreover, he managed to subordinate the lesson and actually be the "watchman" in the camera. Kerensky-Mason. Kerensky's grandson: my grandfather was talking about the February revolution ... 12 people got together and called Trotsky in America and that's it ...
  15. Humpty
    Humpty 3 November 2015 18: 45 New
    +4
    The native house of M.V. Frunze has been preserved and is in proper form inside the museum.
  16. MATROSKIN-53
    MATROSKIN-53 3 November 2015 21: 41 New
    +5
    Officers! Have you noticed that over the years we were commanded by fools and would + + ?! Because it’s easier to lead them than smart and visionary. And it is a fact!
  17. RoTTor
    RoTTor 3 November 2015 23: 45 New
    +4
    Alas…
    For all 10 years he studied with Kotovsky's grandson in the same class and was friends, and talked with his grandmother - Kotovsky's wife (in the old film "Kotovsky" she was wonderfully played by Vera Maretskaya). I know a lot about him.

    Conspirological versions - fashion.

    In the Odessa Regional Archive, I stumbled upon the documents about this murder a long time ago. To my chagrin. Everything was more ordinary.
    In fact, he was hired by the duty officer at the headquarters, who went in and found a comcor with his wife, clearly not reading the Capital
    But is it that you make people about the official and REAL hero.
    But heroes are people in all respects. Well, womanizer

    I am sure that everything was easier for Frunze too - an unfortunate medical mistake
  18. yuriy55
    yuriy55 4 November 2015 06: 19 New
    +1
    The same thing is constantly repeated in history: if a person stands out from the gray crowd, then the dullness will not leave her alone. It is strange and then, with the passage of time, they begin to look for the "ins and outs" in the events, the true origin of which could not be established earlier. And this strangeness is caused by one desire to cast a shadow on some historical person, the event itself or time.
    As a result of everything, we should learn that the life that our ancestors lived (and survived, oddly enough !!! went their way with dignity, with victories ... and with defeats, of course, only for our country to exist , our Fatherland, so that the Russian clan continues ...) was wrong, did not fit someone's yardstick and invented standards. If you cannot denigrate (an outstanding person) himself, you need to cast a shadow on his deeds, the environment ... subject every step, every word to a scrupulous analysis ... For what, in fact? To elevate your worthless "I", to fill your spiritual vacuum with some content ... to distract from today for the sake of searching for truth in the past?
    You need to live today, because yesterday has passed, but tomorrow may not come.
    PS Surprisingly to the place the phrase of the movie hero will sound:
    "Some win cups, others engrave the names of the winners on them!"- without shying away from the mistakes and inaccuracies made ... yes
  19. Urri
    Urri 4 November 2015 12: 48 New
    +1
    Trotsky and a steamship of his comrades-in-arms came to make a revolution in Russia from America. That says it all. And about the order for the collapse of the Empire, and about the liquidation of its best representatives, intelligentsia, officers. The sons of watchmakers in leather cases have achieved a lot in this field.
  20. Military Builder
    Military Builder 4 November 2015 13: 18 New
    +1
    Quote: DrMadfisher
    what's the excitement? Destroyed A.V. Kolchak? It is a pity that the sentence was replaced by hard labor!

    Did you like the film "Admiral"?
  21. Military Builder
    Military Builder 4 November 2015 13: 26 New
    +2
    Quote: Pilat2009
    Really? And how many Russians he brutally tortured? And if you compare with Stalin, for example, or Dzerzhinsky, or with the one who shot the same 200 thousand captured officers? (Although most likely this is a bike.

    but why repeat what I’m not sure about.

    PS. and nickname Pilat2009 in no way in honor of the one who washed his hands when the Jews of Jesus Christ determined to be executed