People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR. The mysterious death of the People's Commissar of Military and Marine People's Commissar of Defense of the Second World War

The history of such a totalitarian superpower as the Soviet Union contains many both heroic and dark pages. This could not but leave its mark on the biographies of those who carried it out. Kliment Voroshilov is one of these individuals. He lived a long life, which was not devoid of heroism, but at the same time he had a lot of human lives on his conscience, since it was his signature that was on many execution lists.

Kliment Voroshilov: biography

One of the darkest pages of Voroshilov’s biography was his participation in 1921 in the suppression. After these events, he was appointed a member of the South-Eastern Bureau of the Party Central Committee, as well as commander of the North Caucasus Military District.

From 1924 to 1925 he was commander of the Moscow Military District troops and a member of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR.

Few people know that during the same period Voroshilov patronized the Bolshoi Theater and was known as a great lover of ballet.

At the post of People's Commissar of Defense

After the death of M. Frunze, Voroshilov became chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR and headed the country's naval department, and in 1934-1940 - the People's Commissariat of Defense of the Soviet Union.

In total, he spent almost 15 years in this post, which is a kind of record for the Soviet period. Voroshilov Kliment Efremovich (1881-1969) had a reputation as Stalin's most devoted supporter and provided him with effective support in the fight against Trotsky. In October 1933, he went with a government delegation to Turkey, where, together with Ataturk, he attended a military parade in Ankara.

In November 1935, by decision of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, he was awarded the newly established rank of Marshal of the Soviet Union.

After 5 years, he was removed from the post of People's Commissar, as he did not live up to Stalin's expectations during the Finnish War. However, Voroshilov was not dismissed, but was appointed to the post of head of the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union.

Participation of Kliment Voroshilov in Stalinist repressions

Death and funeral

Kliment Voroshilov, whose career growth stalled in the last decades of his life due to the infirmities of old age, died on December 2, 1969 at the age of 89. The marshal was buried in the capital, near the Kremlin wall, on Red Square. According to contemporaries, this was the first such large-scale funeral ceremony for a USSR statesman in the twenty years that passed after Zhdanov’s funeral.

Family and Children

The wife of Voroshilov Kliment Efremovich - Golda Davidovna Gorbman - was of the Jewish religion, but for the sake of the wedding with her beloved she was baptized and took the name Ekaterina. This act aroused the anger of the girl’s Jewish relatives, who even cursed her. In 1917, Ekaterina Davidovna joined the RSDLP and for many years worked as deputy director of the V. I. Lenin Museum.

It so happened that the friendly Voroshilov family did not have their own children. However, they took in the orphaned children of M.V. Frunze: Timur, who died at the front in 1942, and Tatyana. In addition, in 1918, the couple adopted a boy, Peter, who later became a famous designer and rose to the rank of lieutenant general. From him the couple had 2 grandchildren - Vladimir and Klim.

Awards

Klim Voroshilov is a recipient of almost all the highest awards of the USSR. Including, he twice received the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.

He has 8 Orders of Lenin and 6 Orders of the Red Banner and many other awards, including from foreign countries. In particular, the military leader is a hero of the MPR, a holder of the Grand Cross of Finland, and also an honorary citizen of the Turkish city of Izmir.

Perpetuation of memory

During his lifetime, K. E. Voroshilov became the most glorified military figure of the Civil War, in whose honor songs were composed, collective farms, ships, factories, etc. were named.

Several cities were named in his honor:

Voroshilovgrad (Lugansk) was renamed twice and returned to its historical name only in 1990.
Voroshilovsk (Alchevsk). In this city, the marshal began his labor and party activities in his youth.
Voroshilov (Ussuriysk, Primorsky Territory).
Voroshilovsk (Stavropol, from 1935 to 1943).

In addition, the Khoroshevsky district of the capital and the central district of Donetsk were named after him.

To this day, Voroshilov streets exist in dozens of cities of the former USSR. These include Goryachiy Klyuch, Tolyatti, Brest, Orenburg, Penza, Ershov, Serpukhov, Korosten, Angarsk, Voronezh, Khabarovsk, Klintsy, Kemerovo, Lipetsk, Rybinsk, St. Petersburg, Simferopol, Chelyabinsk and Izhevsk. In Rostov-on-Don there is also Voroshilovsky Avenue.

The award for the most accurate shooters, approved at the end of 1932 and called the “Voroshilov Shooter,” deserves special mention. According to the recollections of people whose youth fell in the pre-war years, wearing it was prestigious, and young people were sure to be awarded such a badge.

A series of KV tanks produced at the Putilov plant were also named in honor of Klim Efremovich, and in 1941-1992 the Military Academy of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces bore his name.

A monument to Kliment Voroshilov was erected on his grave. And in Moscow, at house number 3 on Romanov Lane, there is a memorial plaque notifying about this.

Now you know some facts of the biography of the famous Soviet military leader and party leader Klim Efremovich Voroshilov. A wonderful family man and a great patriot of his Motherland, he, nevertheless, during the years of Stalinist repressions, sent several thousand people to their deaths, most of whom were not guilty of what they were accused of and sentenced to execution.

Contents 1 Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic 2 Commanders of all naval forces of the RSFSR ... Wikipedia

USSR B 6 "Osoaviakhim" ... Wikipedia

Alekseevsky Evgeniy Evgenievich (b. 1906), Minister of Land Reclamation and Water Resources of the USSR since 1965, Hero of Socialist Labor (1976). Member of the CPSU since 1925. Since 1923 in the Komsomol, party, since 1931 in government work in the Tajik SSR, since ...

Great Patriotic War Eastern Front of World War II Political instructor A. G. Eremenko raises fighters to counterattack. Summer 1942 Date June 22, 1941 - ... Wikipedia

The Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917. Formation of the Soviet Socialist State The February bourgeois-democratic revolution served as the prologue to the October Revolution. Only socialist revolution... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

This term has other meanings, see 12th Army. 12th Army of the Red Army Years of existence 1939 – 1943 Country ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see 9th Army. 9th Army (9A) Type: army ... Wikipedia

NKVD People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the USSR, the central government body of the USSR for combating crime and maintaining public order in 1934-1946, subsequently renamed the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR. For... ... Wikipedia

PEOPLE'S DEFENSE COMMISSARIAT OF THE USSR - the highest military department in the 1930-1940s.

The establishment of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR dated June 20, 1934, thereby pre-forming the People's Commissariat sa-ria-ta on military and naval affairs of the USSR. At the head of the NPO and the Red Army was the People's Commissar of Defense, in the quality of the co-ve -a careful organization, a Military Council was established under him. The decisions of the Military Council were ut-awaited by the People's Commissariat and were put into effect in his life.

NPOs of the USSR were involved in tasks connected with the defense country: development of development plans, builder -st-va, armament of the Red Army; organization and construction of all land, sea and air forces, leadership of their combat and political support ready; operational use of troops; development and improvement of weapons and combat equipment; or-ga-ni-za-tsiya pro-ti-vo-vo-soul-noy defense, defensive construction-st-va; pro-ve-de-nie of conscriptions of the city, training of personal so-sta-va and before-conscriptions.

The NGOs of the USSR included: Headquarters of the Red Army (from September 22, 1935, General Staff of the Red Army); management of the Red Army (po-li-ti-che-skoye, ad-mi-ni-st-ra-tiv-no-mo-bi-li-zation, reconnaissance, naval forces, air forces, auto-bro-not-tan-ko-voe, military-training za-ve-de-niy, air defense, artillery, communications, tele-me-ha-ni- ki, engineering, chemical, military-economic, sanitary, vegetable, construction); chief of the military service of the Red Army; from the NGOs of the USSR (iso-bre-te-niy, stan-dar-ti-za-tion, according to the re-mon-ti-ro-va-niy of the con-soc-sta-va, from -da-tel-st-va); in-spec-to-ra (pe-ho-you, ka-va-le-rii, art-til-le-rii, military educational institutions, Air Force, Navy, aviation -bro-non-tank troops, physical training and sports). Under the NGOs of the USSR, there were: Management of the head of the Red Army, financial department, control group -la, Management of de-la-mi.

In connection with the formation of 12/30/1937 of the National Co-miss-sa-ria-ta of the Military Fleet The USSR from the NGOs of the USSR was the Directorate of the Red Army Navy. By the establishment of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on March 13, 1938, the Main Military Council of the Red Army was established under the NCO of the USSR, for which -la-ga-lass-vet-st-ven-ness for the non-compliance of the directive on the preparation of the country's defense and military structure- tel-st-vu.

In July - August 1940, the establishment of a fundamental re-or-ga-ni-za-tion of the entire central ap-pa-ra-ta, taking into account increasing the number and strength of the armed forces. The departments responsible for related issues were not included in the main departments. The number of the most important NGO bodies of the USSR has increased. The number of military personnel and employees in the General Staff of the Red Army has increased more than 2 times. In the first half of 1941, there were transfers to new states with an increase in personnel Main Directorate political pro-pa-ganda and the Main Directorate of the Air Force. The country's air defense department was transferred to the Main Air Defense Directorate. In June 1941, the formation of the Airborne Forces Directorate began.

Which of the leaders of the revolution displeased M.V. Frunze?

Ninety years ago, on October 31, 1925, the People's Commissar of the USSR and Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council, Mikhail Vasilyevich Frunze, died. He was an unusually gifted and strong-willed person; it was people like him who made up the “golden fund” of the Bolsheviks.

Frunze took part in the armed uprising in Moscow in December 1905 and October 1917. An underground revolutionary, a functionary of the RSDLP - he was twice sentenced to death, but it was nevertheless replaced with hard labor, in which Frunze spent six years. He had the opportunity to prove himself in a variety of positions. He headed the Shuya Council of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, was a deputy of the Constituent Assembly from the Vladimir province, and led the Ivano-Voznesensk provincial committee of the RCP (b) and the provincial executive committee.

But, of course, first of all, Mikhail Vasilyevich became famous as an outstanding commander-nugget. In 1919, at the head of the 4th Army of the Red Army, he defeated the Kolchakites. In 1920 (together with the Insurgent Army of N.I. Makhno) he took Perekop and crushed Wrangel (then led the “purge” 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 army reform of 1924–1925. He lived a colorful life, but his death raised 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 poorly; the person being operated on could not fall asleep for half an hour. At first they gave him ether, but it had no effect, then they started giving him chloroform. The influence of the latter is already quite dangerous in itself, and in combination with ether everything was doubly dangerous. Moreover, the anesthetizer (that’s what anesthesiologists were called then) A.D. Ochkin also exceeded the dose. At the moment, the “narcotic” version prevails, but not everyone shares it. Thus, 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 death by anesthesia is just an assumption, there is simply no evidence of this. Indeed, the autopsy showed that the patient had widespread febrinous-purulent peritonitis. And the severity of peritonitis is quite sufficient to consider it the cause of death. Moreover, in the presence of inferiority of the aorta and large arterial vessels. It is believed that this was congenital, Frunze lived with this for a long time, but peritonitis aggravated the whole matter. (Program “After Death. M.V. Frunze.” Channel Five TV. 11/21/2009).

As we see, it is not yet possible to even accurately determine the cause of Frunze’s death. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about murder, at least for now. Although, of course, a lot of things look very suspicious. A year after Frunze’s death, People’s Commissar of Health N.A. Semashko reported the following. It turns out that surgeon V.N. Rozanov, who operated on Frunze, suggested not to rush into the operation. As, indeed, did his attending physician P.V. Mandryk, who for some reason was not allowed into the operation itself. In addition, according to Semashko, only a small part of the council that made the decision on the operation was competent. However, it should be noted that Semashko himself chaired this consultation.

In any case, one thing is obvious - Frunze had very, very serious health problems. By the way, his first symptoms appeared back in 1906. And in 1922, a council of doctors at the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party strongly recommended that he go abroad for treatment. However, Frunze, so to speak, “sabotaged” this recommendation. It seemed to him that this would greatly distract him from his work. He went for treatment to Borjomi, and the conditions there were clearly insufficient.

2. Trotskyist trace

Almost immediately, talk began that the People's Commissar had been killed. Moreover, at first the murder was attributed to supporters of L.D. Trotsky. But very soon they went on the offensive and began to blame everything on I.V. Stalin.

A powerful literary “bomb” was manufactured: writer B.V. Pilnyak published “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon” in the magazine “New World,” in which he subtly hinted at Stalin’s involvement in the death of Frunze.

Moreover, of course, he did not name either one or the other; the People's Commissar was brought out under the name of Army Commander Gavrilov - a completely healthy man, but almost forcibly put under the surgeon's knife. Pilnyak himself considered 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 in no way to report on the death of the People’s Commissar for Military Affairs. I find it necessary to inform the reader of all this so that the reader does not look for genuine facts and living persons in it.”

It turns out the following. On the one hand, Pilnyak rejected all attempts to connect the plot of the story with real events, and on the other hand, he still pointed to Frunze. For what? Maybe so that the reader is left with no doubt about who and what we are talking about? Researcher N. Nad (Dobryukha) drew attention to the fact that Pilnyak dedicated his story to the writer A.K. Voronsky, one of the leading theorists of Marxism in the field of literature and a supporter of the “Left Opposition”: “There is evidence in the archives 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 in the “Commission for organizing the funeral of comrade. M.V. Frunze". Of course, at the Commission meeting, in addition to ritual issues, all the circumstances of the “failed operation” were discussed. The fact that Pilnyak dedicated “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon” to Voronsky suggests that Pilnyak received the main information about the reasons for the “unsuccessful operation” from him. And clearly from Trotsky’s “angle of view”. It was not without reason that already in 1927 Voronsky, as an active participant in the Trotskyist opposition, was expelled from the party. Later, Pilnyak 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 have closed.” (“Who killed Mikhail Frunze” // Izvestia.Ru)

3. Opponent of the “demon of revolution”

Let us not rush to conclusions about Trotsky’s involvement in the death of the commander. We are talking about the Trotskyists’ attempt to pin everything on Stalin - here everything is completely clear. Although Lev Davidovich had every reason to dislike Frunze - after all, it was he who replaced him as People’s Commissar of Military Affairs and Chairman of the RVS. However, strings can be pulled during the Civil War.

Relations between Trotsky and Frunze were then, to put it mildly, strained. In 1919, a serious conflict occurred between them.

At that time, Kolchak’s army was conducting a successful offensive, rapidly and aggressively moving towards the regions of Central Russia. And Trotsky at first generally fell into pessimism, declaring that it was simply impossible to resist this onslaught. (By the way, it is worth recalling that at one time vast areas of Siberia, the Urals and the Volga region fell away from the Bolsheviks during the uprising of the White Czechs, which was, to a large extent, provoked by Trotsky, who gave the order for their disarmament.) However, then he nevertheless gathered with spirit and gave the order: to retreat to the Volga and build fortification lines there.

The commander of the 4th Army, Frunze, did not obey this order, having received the full support of Lenin. As a result of a powerful counter-offensive, units of the Red Army threw the Kolchakites far to the east, liberating the Urals, as well as certain areas of the Middle and Southern Urals. Then Trotsky proposed to stop and transfer troops from the Eastern Front to the Southern Front. 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 his speech to trade union activists (June 19, 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 the victory over these enemies. And so, history says that both of these enemies, i.e. Kolchak and Denikin were finished off by our troops DESPITE Trotsky’s plans. Judge for yourself: It takes place in the summer of 1919. Our troops are advancing on Kolchak and operating near Ufa. Central Committee meeting. Trotsky proposes to delay the offensive along the Belaya River (near Ufa), leaving the Urals in the hands of Kolchak, withdraw some troops from the Eastern Front and transfer them to the Southern Front. Heated debates take place. The Central Committee does not agree with Trotsky, finding that the Urals with its factories, with its railway network, where he can easily recover, gather his fist and again find himself near the Volga, cannot be left in the hands of Kolchak - it is necessary first to drive Kolchak beyond the Ural ridge, into the Siberian steppes , and only after that start transferring forces to the south. The Central Committee rejects Trotsky’s plan... From this moment on, Trotsky withdraws from direct participation in the affairs of the Eastern Front.”

In the fight against Denikin’s troops, Trotsky also showed himself to the fullest – from the negative side. At first, he very “successfully” commanded to the point that the Whites captured Oryol and moved to Tula. One of the reasons for such failures was a quarrel with N.I. Makhno, whom the “demon of the revolution” declared outlawed, although the fighters of the legendary Old Man fought to the death. “It was necessary to save the situation,” notes S. Kuzmin. – Trotsky proposed delivering the main blow to the Denikins from Tsaritsyn to Novorossiysk, through the Don steppes, where the Red Army would encounter complete impassability and numerous White Cossack gangs on its way. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin did not like this plan. Trotsky was removed from leadership of the Red Army's operations in the south." ("Contrary to Trotsky")

One gets the impression that Trotsky did not at all want the victory of the Red Army. And it is quite possible that it was so. Of course, he didn’t want defeat either. Rather, his plans were to drag out the Civil War as long as possible.

This was also part of the plans of the “Western democracies” with which Trotsky was associated, who persistently proposed for almost the entire first half of 1918 to conclude a military-political alliance with England and France. So, in January 1919, the Entente proposed that the Whites and Reds hold a joint conference, make peace and maintain the status quo - each dominates within the territory controlled at the time of the truce. It is clear that this would only prolong the state of division in Russia - the West did not need it strong and united.

4. The Failed Bonaparte

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

On August 31, 1918, an attempt was made on the life of Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Lenin. He was in critical condition, and this inevitably raised the question: who would lead the country in the event of his death? Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) Ya.M. had a very strong position. Sverdlov, who at the same time headed the rapidly growing apparatus of the RCP (b). But Trotsky also had the strongest resource - the army. And so, on September 2, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted the following resolution: “The Soviet Republic is turning into a military camp. The Revolutionary Military Council is placed at the head of all fronts and military institutions of the Republic. All the forces and means of the Socialist Republic are placed at his disposal."

Trotsky was placed at the head of the new body. It is significant that neither the Council of People's Commissars nor the party are involved in making this decision. Everything is decided by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, or rather, its chairman, Sverdlov. “Attention is drawn to the fact that there was no decision of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on the creation of the Revolutionary Military Council,” notes S. Mironov. – It is not known about any plenum of the Central Committee these days. Sverdlov, who concentrated all the highest party positions in his hands, simply removed the party from deciding the issue of creating the Revolutionary Military Council. A “completely independent state power” was created. Military power of the Bonapartist type. No wonder contemporaries often called Trotsky the Red Bonaparte.” (“Civil War in Russia”).

When Lenin recovered from his illness and again took up government affairs, an unpleasant surprise awaited him. It turned out that the power of the Council of People's Commissars was greatly reduced, and the creation of the RVS played an important role in this. Ilyich, however, was not so easy to cut down, and he quickly found a way out of this situation. Lenin responded to one apparatus maneuver with another, forming a new body - the Union of Workers' and Peasants' Defense (since 1920 - the Union of Labor and Defense), of which he himself became the head. Now the RVS megastructure was forced to submit to another - SRKO.

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

Commander of the Moscow Military District N.I. Muralov, without any hesitation, suggested that “the demon of the revolution should raise troops against the leadership. However, Trotsky never decided to do this; he preferred to act by political methods - and lost.

In January 1925, his opponent Frunze became People's Commissar of Military Affairs and Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Union.

5. Thinker of the new army

The new People's Commissar of Military Affairs was not only an outstanding commander, but also a thinker who created a coherent system of ideas about what the army of the new state should be like. This system is rightly called the “Frunze Unified Military Doctrine.”

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 War of the Future” "(1924), "Lenin and the Red Army" (1925).

Frunze gave his definition of a “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, on the basis of the views prevailing in the state on the nature of the military tasks facing it and the method of resolving them, arising from the class essence of the state and determined by the level of development of productive forces of the country."

The new, Red Army differs from the old armies of bourgeois states in that it is built on ideological foundations. In this regard, he insisted on the special role of party and political organizations in the army. In addition, the new army must be people's and avoid any casteism. At the same time, it must be characterized by the highest professionalism.

Ideology is ideology, but you can’t rely only on it. “...Frunze did not accept the Trotskyist idea of “revolution on bayonets,” notes Yuri Bardakhchiev. – Back in the fall of 1921, he argued that it was unreasonable to hope for the support of the foreign proletariat in a future war. Frunze believed that “it is quite probable that an enemy will appear before us, who will be very difficult to succumb 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.” (“Frunze’s Unified Military Doctrine” // “The Essence of Time”).

In addition, it should be noted that if Trotsky could not stand national patriotism, then Frunze was not alien to it. “There, in the camp of our enemies, there simply cannot be a national revival of Russia, and it is precisely from that side that there can be no talk of fighting for the well-being of the Russian people.

Because it is not because of their beautiful eyes that all these French and English are helping Denikin and Kolchak - it is natural that they are pursuing their own interests. This fact should be quite clear that Russia is not there, that Russia is with us...

We are not weaklings like Kerensky. We are engaged in a mortal battle. We know that if they defeat us, then hundreds of thousands, millions of the best, most persistent and energetic in our country will be exterminated, we know that they will not talk to us, they will only hang us, and our entire homeland will be covered in blood. Our country will be enslaved by foreign capital."

Mikhail Vasilyevich was confident that the basis of military operations was the offensive, but the most important role also belonged to defense, which should be active. We should not forget about the rear. In a future war, the importance of military equipment will only increase, so this area needs to be given great attention. Tank building should be developed in every possible way, even “to the detriment and expense of other types of weapons.” As for the air fleet, “its importance will be decisive.”

Frunze’s “ideocratic” approach clearly differed from the approach of Trotsky, who emphasized his non-ideological approach to issues of army development. 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 issue were directly opposite to the views of Frunze. We were all literally amazed: what he argued contradicted Marxism, the principles of the proletarian construction of the Red Army. “What is he talking about? - I was perplexed. “Either he doesn’t understand anything about military affairs, or he deliberately confuses an extremely clear question.” Trotsky declared that Marxism was generally inapplicable to military affairs, that war was a craft, a set of practical skills, and therefore there could be no science of war. He threw mud at the entire combat experience of the Red Army in the Civil War, saying that there was nothing instructive there. It is characteristic that throughout the entire speech Trotsky never once referred to Lenin. He bypassed the well-known fact that Vladimir Ilyich was the creator of the doctrine of just and unjust wars, the creator of the Red Army, that he led the defense of the Soviet Republic, and developed the foundations of Soviet military science. But, noting in his theses the need for decisive offensive actions and educating soldiers in the spirit of high combat activity, Frunze relied specifically 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 Trotsky who “refuted” Frunze, but Lenin!”

Trotsky can hardly be blamed for indifference to issues 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, “restructured” very easily, based on tactical considerations. He could demand the militarization of the trade unions, and then, after a while, act as an ardent champion of internal party democracy. (By the way, when in the 1930s an internal opposition emerged in his Fourth International, the “democrat” Trotsky crushed it quickly and mercilessly.) It is quite possible that it was precisely this “non-ideological” nature of Trotsky in military affairs that supported his popularity among the army.

Frunze, on the other hand, 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 placed on a par with the murder of the civil war hero and commander of the 2nd Cavalry Corps G.I. Kotovsky. Mikhail Vasilyevich and Grigory Ivanovich were very close. The latter became the army commander's right hand. And after Frunze headed the military people's commissariat and the RVS, he planned to make Kotovsky his first deputy. And he fully deserved it, and not only in view of his past merits during the Civil War. In 1923, Kotovsky won the largest military maneuvers, and then spoke at the Moscow meeting of command personnel and proposed transforming the core of the cavalry into armored units.

In 1924, Grigory Ivanovich proposed to Frunze a daring plan for the reunification of Russia with his native Bessarabia. It was assumed that he, with one division, would cross the Dniester and defeat the Romanian troops with lightning speed, raising the local population (among whom he himself was very popular) to revolt. After this, Kotovsky will create his own government, which will propose reunification. Frunze, however, rejected this plan.

One cannot ignore the fact that Kotovsky was in a very conflictual 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, there were several clashes between my father and Yakir. So, in 1919, at a large station, it seems, Zhmerinka, a detachment of former Galicians rebelled. Yakir, who happened to be at the station at that time, got into the staff car and drove off. Then Kotovsky used the following tactics: his brigade began to dart at a fast pace through all the streets of the town, creating the impression of a huge number of cavalry. With a small force, he suppressed this uprising, after which he caught up with Yakir on a steam locomotive. My father was terribly hot-tempered, a person of explosive nature (according to my mother’s stories, when commanders came home, they first of all asked: “How is the back of the commander’s head – is it red or not?”; if it was red, then it was better not to approach). So, the father jumped into the carriage to Yakir, who was sitting at the desk, and shouted: “Coward! I’ll kill you!” And Yakir hid under the table... Of course, such things are not forgiven.” (“Who killed the Robin Hood of the revolution?” // Peoples.Ru).

Thus, it can be assumed that the murder of Kotovsky in 1925 was somehow connected with the activities of Trotsky’s 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: was Frunze killed, and who benefited from his death. It is unlikely that Stalin, who had a strong and reliable ally in Mikhail Vasilyevich, was interested in this. Perhaps new documents will be discovered that will shed new light on the circumstances of that ill-fated October operation.

Special for the Centenary

1. Alexander Chernyshev

Cavalry guard, intelligence officer, diplomat and partisan hero of the War of 1812, he took an active part in the investigation of the “case of the Decembrists”, for which in 1826 he received the title of count from Nicholas I, and in August 1827 he headed the Ministry of War. Having successfully carried out the Turkish and Hungarian campaigns and suppressed the uprising in Poland, the minister enjoyed the trust of the emperor for many years. In August 1852, His Serene Highness Prince Chernyshev, at the age of 66, left the post of minister, which he had held for 25 years ( 9132 days).

2. Dmitry Milyutin

In parallel with his military career, Milyutin (an artilleryman and participant in the war in the Caucasus) was engaged in science and was a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences. As chief of the General Staff of the Caucasian Army in 1859, he suppressed the Shamil uprising. From November 1861 to May 1881 ( 7134 days) - was Minister of War. Under him, military districts were created, spitzrutens were abolished, universal conscription was introduced and service life was shortened, the military education system was reformed, victory was won in the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, and Central Asia was conquered.

3. Peter Vannovsky

Before his appointment in May 1881 as head of the Ministry of War, Adjutant General Vannovsky managed to take part in the Hungarian campaign of 1849, the Crimean and Russian-Turkish wars. As head of the military department, he was involved in the construction of fortifications and replenishment of mobilization supplies. Under him, the famous “three-line” rifle, the Mosin rifle of the 1891 model, was adopted. He left the post of Minister of War “due to illness” on January 1, 1898, having worked for almost 17 years ( 6068 days).

4. Kliment Voroshilov

A member of the RSDLP since 1903, Klim Voroshilov took the post of People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs on November 6, 1925 - after the sudden death of Mikhail Frunze. He repeatedly demonstrated his personal devotion to Joseph Stalin (whom he had known since 1906). After the Soviet-Finnish war, on May 7, 1940, he was removed from the post of People's Commissar of Defense, which he held for almost 15 years ( 5296 days). During the Great Patriotic War, he unsuccessfully tried to prove himself as a military leader, after which he supervised the partisans and headed the Trophy Committee.

5. Rodion Malinovsky

In 1914, 16-year-old Malinovsky ran away from home, becoming a carrier of cartridges in a machine gun team, and a year later received the St. George Cross. In addition to the First World War, he participated in the Civil, Spanish and Great Patriotic Wars. He became Minister of Defense on October 26, 1957, replacing the disgraced Georgy Zhukov in this post. One of his most successful operations was supporting Leonid Brezhnev during the removal of Nikita Khrushchev in 1964. Served as minister 3443 days, until March 31, 1967.

6. Andrey Grechko

Appointed Minister of Defense of the USSR on April 12, 1967. Just two years later, the first armed conflict on the territory of the USSR since 1945 occurred - a clash with the Chinese army on Damansky Island. However, little is known about Grechko’s role in this conflict: the minister himself was in Hungary at the height of the fighting; according to direct participants in the events, the only instruction received from him was to “save ammunition.” Headed the Ministry of Defense 3302 days- until his death on April 26, 1976.

7. Dmitry Ustinov

Before his appointment as Minister of Defense, he had no military experience (except for participation in battles with the Basmachi in 1923), but in 1941-1953 he was People's Commissar of Armaments, then Minister of Defense Industry, First Deputy Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, Chairman of the Supreme Economic Council of the USSR. He headed the military department on April 29, 1976. He was one of the most influential politicians of the Brezhnev era. In 1979, he became one of the initiators of the deployment of troops to Afghanistan. Died on December 20, 1984, having worked as a minister 3157 days.

8. Leon Trotsky

A few days after the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty with the Germans, on March 14, 1918, Trotsky was moved from the post of People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs to the newly created post of People's Commissar for Military Affairs. Having shown incredible activity during the Civil War, after its end he fought no less actively for power in the leadership of the CPSU (b). Having lost this fight, at the end of January 1925 he was removed from the post he held 2510 days. In 1929 he was expelled from the USSR and in 1940 he was killed by NKVD agents in Mexico.

9. Vladimir Sukhomlinov

A participant in the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, Sukhomlinov since 1905 combined the posts of commander of the Kyiv district troops and governor general. On March 11, 1909, he took over as Minister of War. After the outbreak of the First World War, mistakes were revealed in the organization of army supplies. Sukhomlinov was accused of corruption and called the “patron of spies.” On June 13, 1915, he was removed from his post (in which he spent 2285 days) and was arrested. In September 1917 he was sentenced to hard labor, but in 1918 he was released under an amnesty and emigrated.

10. Alexey Kuropatkin

Served in Central Asia, participant in the Kokand Campaign. He took up the post of minister in January 1898. He increased the salaries of officers and reformed the General Staff. After the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, he left the post of minister (where he spent 2221 days) and commanded the Manchurian army. After the defeat at Mukden he was dismissed. Returned to the army during the First World War, commanded the Northern Front, then the Turkestan Military District. After the revolution of 1917, he lived on his estate near Pskov and taught at school.

*The top ten included 5 pre-revolutionary ministers and 5 Soviet ones. Not the most “long-lived” of modern Russian defense ministers, Sergei Ivanov ( 2150 days at his post), nor Anatoly Serdyukov, who was fired last week ( 2091 days) were not included in this top 10, taking 11th and 12th places, respectively. True, both “overstayed their welcome” on the post of minister of Joseph Stalin, who was the People’s Commissar of Defense 2053 days.

Prepared by Mikhail Lukin