The death of the chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council, Mikhail Frunze, gave rise to many rumors. Historians are still arguing about who benefited from the death of the legendary red commander civil war.
On November 1, 1925, Soviet newspapers published a government announcement of the death of the legendary revolutionary Mikhail Frunze.
“On the night of October 31, the chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR, Mikhail Vasilyevich Frunze, died of heart paralysis after an operation.”
For several days in a row, the newspapers published a biography, a description of Frunze's services to the revolution, condolences from the leaders of the party and state, reports on rallies of workers mourning the death of the red commander.
The country was in mourning, but it did not know much...
Frunze's death made an ambiguous impression on many. By that time, there were rumors that someone wanted to remove the revolutionary. In the last year of his life, Frunze got into car accidents several times, which aroused suspicion. One day, the legendary red commander was almost shot by his own orderly.
The unexpected death of Frunze in the hospital gave rise to new rumors. Now they said that in fact he did not die a natural death.
In the spring of 1926, a loud scandal was caused by the publication in the magazine " New world» "The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon" Soviet writer Boris Pilnyak. According to its plot, the head of state almost forcibly sent a certain army commander, a hero of the Civil War and his potential rival in the struggle for power, to the operation. The commander was dying on the operating table. Pilnyak did not name any names, however, many suggested that the plot was based on the fate of Frunze.
The circulation of the magazine was confiscated, and the story was declared a counter-revolutionary provocation, but all this only strengthened the rumors that the death of the red commander was not accidental.
According to one version, the people's commissar was removed on the orders of Stalin, a frightened rival. But was it true? And did Frunze really need the operation, which he agreed to in 1925?
"At Frunze during recent years life regularly repeated intestinal or gastrointestinal bleeding. And this was also a direct indication for surgical intervention, ”says the historian of medicine, writer candidate, in the program“ Riddles of the Century ” medical sciences Viktor Topolyansky.
Frunze was brought into the operating room of the Soldatenkovskaya (now Botkinskaya) hospital on October 29 in the afternoon. One of the best surgeons of that time, Rozanov, was supposed to operate on the people's commissar. His assistants were also well-known doctors - Ivan Grekov and Alexei Martynov.
The patient was given anesthesia. At that time, ether or chloroform was commonly used. At first, the anesthesiologist gave ether, but it had practically no effect on Frunze. Then the doctors decided to use a stronger remedy - chloroform.
“The therapeutic dose of chloroform anesthesia is four percent by volume, and the toxic dose is six. That is, this difference between the therapeutic and toxic dose is very small. Therefore, at the dawn of anesthesia, there were a lot of deaths precisely because of chloroform anesthesia, because of the small breadth of therapeutic action, ”explains Sergey Glyantsev, Doctor of Medical Sciences.
In addition, the combination of ether and chloroform can lead to severe poisoning of the body. The experienced surgeons who operated on Frunze could not but know this, but they decided to take this risk.
In medicine in the 20s of the last century, it was believed that patients fall asleep 11-12 minutes after the use of chloroform and 17-18 minutes after the use of ether. Frunze fell asleep only half an hour later. The operation continued for another 35 minutes.
“There was an overdose of ether four times, and chloroform one and a half times. These are absolutely monstrous doses, and after such an overdose, in fact, drug poisoning, the lethal outcome was essentially predetermined, ”explains Victor Topolyansky.
In March 1924, Frunze was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR and People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs, that is, Trotsky's deputy. A serious dispute arose between him and Trotsky about the role of the army in the post-war period.
“Frunze, for objective reasons, in his views, turned out to be on the side of Stalin as a statesman, as a person who saw precisely state development Soviet Russia”, explains the historian Yaroslav Listov.
In January 1925, Trotsky, who lost the struggle for power, resigned from the post of People's Commissar of the Navy. Frunze took his place.
But it was in 1925 that unpleasant incidents began to happen to Frunze. He got into car accidents three times. And during treatment in the Crimea, the orderly Frunze accidentally shot him on a hunt.
Frunze was not injured, but after this incident, he began to bleed heavily from the stomach. Soon, three medical councils spoke in favor of the operation of the chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council.
“Frunze's death was very sudden. Two versions immediately appeared - a large proportion of anesthesia and blood poisoning, ”says Listov.
According to many historians, Frunze's death is just a tragic coincidence. This is also the opinion of the historian of medicine, the writer, candidate of medical sciences Viktor Topolyansky.
“The death of Frunze turned out to be unusually timely for Stalin to continue his virtually mono-party games, that is, games to further seize individual power,” Topolyansky believes.
What could have saved Mikhail Frunze's life? How would the fate of the famous red commander develop? This will remain a mystery.
The "Authors" section is a platform for free journalism and is not moderated by the editors. Users independently upload their materials to the site. The opinion of the author of the material may not coincide with the position of the editors. The editors are not responsible for the accuracy of the facts presented by the author.
Distribution of materials is allowed only with reference to the source.
Mikhail Frunze was born in 1885 in the family of a petty bourgeois paramedic and the daughter of a Narodnaya Volya member. His place of birth is Pishpek (as Bishkek was called at that time). In 1904, Frunze became a student at the St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute, after which he joined the RSDLP. On January 9, 1905, he took part in a procession led by Georgy Gapon.
A few months after this event, Frunze wrote to his mother: “Dear mother! On me, perhaps, you should put an end to it ... The streams of blood shed on January 9 require retribution. The die is cast, I give my all to the revolution.”
Review of the sentence
Frunze did not live long, but his life could have been even shorter. The fact is that in connection with the attempted murder of a police officer, the revolutionary was arrested and sentenced to hanging. However, Frunze managed to avoid such an outcome: the case was reviewed, and the death penalty was replaced by hard labor.
The military prosecutor of the Moscow Military District Court wrote in 1910 to the head of the Vladimir prison where Frunze was kept: “Today I sent the verdict in the case of Mikhail Frunze and Pavel Gusev to the prosecutor of the Vladimir District Court, by whom the death penalty was commuted to hard labor: Gusev for 8 years, and Frunze for 6 years. Reporting this, I consider it necessary to add that, in view of certain information, it seems appropriate to make sure that Frunze does not escape in one way or another or exchange names during any transfer from one prison to another.
Mikhail Frunze. (wikipedia.com)
"Katorga, what grace!" - Frunze could have exclaimed in this situation, if, of course, by that time this poem by Pasternak had already been written. The prosecutor's fears were not groundless: a few years later, Frunze still managed to escape.
The riddle of death
It is difficult to say what exactly caused the death - or still the death - of Mikhail Frunze. There are several versions, each of which researchers find both refutation and confirmation. It is known that Frunze had serious problems with the stomach: he was diagnosed with an ulcer and sent for surgery. This was written about in party publications, and confirmation was also found in the personal correspondence of the Bolshevik. Frunze told his wife in a letter: “I am still in the hospital. On Saturday there will be a new council. I'm afraid that the operation will be refused."
The operation was not refused to the people's commissar, but it didn't get any better. After the operation, Frunze came to his senses, read a friendly note from Stalin, which he was sincerely glad to receive, and died some time later. Whether from blood poisoning, or from heart failure. However, there are also discrepancies about the episode with the note: there is a version that Stalin delivered the message, but Frunze was no longer destined to read it.
Source: wikipedia.com
Few believed in the version of accidental death. Some were convinced that Trotsky had a hand in Frunze's death - only a few months had passed since the first replaced the second in office People's Commissar for military and naval affairs of the USSR. Others hinted unambiguously at Stalin's involvement. This version found expression in Boris Pilnyak's Tale of the Unextinguished Moon. The circulation of the Novy Mir magazine, on the pages of which the work appeared, was confiscated. After more than ten years, Pilnyak was shot. Obviously, the "Tale of the Unextinguished Moon" played an important role in his case.
Frunze was buried on November 3, 1925 with full honors: his remains are buried in the necropolis near the Kremlin wall.
Frunze through the eyes of Brusilov's wife
In the diary of the wife of General Alexei Brusilov, one can find the following lines, written a month after the death of Frunze: “I would like to write down for memory a few details about the deceased Mikhail Vasilyevich. From a distance, from the outside, I know from rumors what an unfortunate person he was, and it seems to me that he is subject to a completely different assessment than his other "comrades" in crazy and criminal political nonsense. It is obvious to me that retribution, karma clearly manifested itself in his fate. A year ago, his beloved girl, it seems, the only daughter, through childish negligence, gouged out her eye with scissors. She was taken to Berlin for an operation and they barely saved her second eye, she almost went completely blind.
Mikhail Vasilyevich Frunze - revolutionary figure, Bolshevik, military leader of the Red Army, participant in the Civil War, theorist of military disciplines.
Mikhail was born on January 21 (O.S.) 1885 in the city of Pishpek (Bishkek) in the family of a paramedic Vasily Mikhailovich Frunze, a Moldavian by nationality. The boy's father, after graduating from the Moscow medical school, was sent for army service to Turkestan, where he remained. Mikhail's mother, Mavra Efimovna Bochkareva, a peasant by birth, was born in the Voronezh province. Her family moved to Turkmenistan in the middle of the 19th century.
Mikhail had an older brother Konstantin and three younger sisters - Lyudmila, Claudia and Lydia. All the children of Frunze studied at the Verny gymnasium (now the city of Almaty). The older children Konstantin, Mikhail and Claudia received gold medals after graduating from the middle level. Mikhail continued his studies at the St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute, where he entered in 1904. Already in the first semester, he became interested in revolutionary ideas and joined the Social Democratic Labor Party, where he joined the Bolsheviks.
In November 1904, Frunze was arrested for participating in a provocative action. During the Manifestation on January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg, he was wounded in the arm. Dropping out of school, Mikhail Frunze fled from the persecution of the authorities to Moscow, and then to Shuya, where he led the strike of textile workers in May of that year. He met Frunze in 1906 when he was hiding in Stockholm. Michael had to hide real name during the organization of the underground movement in Ivanovo-Voznesensk. The young party member was known under the pseudonyms Comrade Arseniy, Trifonych, Mikhailov, Vasilenko.
Under the leadership of Frunze, the first Soviet of Workers' Deputies was created, which was engaged in the distribution of anti-government leaflets. Frunze led city rallies and seized weapons. Mikhail was not afraid to use terrorist methods of struggle.
The young revolutionary led an armed uprising in Moscow on Presnya, seized the Shuya printing house with weapons, attacked police officer Nikita Perlov with the intent to kill. In 1910 he received a death sentence, which, at the request of members of the public, as well as the writer V.G. Korolenko was replaced by hard labor.
Four years later, Frunze was sent to permanent residence in the village of Manzurka. Irkutsk province, from where he fled to Chita in 1915. Under the name Vasilenko, he worked for some time in the local publication Transbaikal Review. Having changed his passport in the name of Mikhailov, he moved to Belarus, where he got a job as a statistician in the committee of the Zemsky Union on the Western Front.
The purpose of Frunze's stay in Russian army was the spread of revolutionary ideas among the military. In Minsk, Mikhail Vasilievich headed an underground cell. Over time, among the Bolsheviks, Frunze gained a reputation as a specialist in paramilitary actions.
Revolution
In early March 1917, Mikhail Frunze prepared the capture of the armed police department of Minsk by squads of ordinary workers. The archives of the detective department, weapons and ammunition of the station, several public institutions. After the success of the operation, Mikhail Frunze was appointed temporary head of the Minsk police. Under the leadership of Frunze, the publication of party newspapers began. In August, the military was transferred to Shuya, where Frunze took the post of chairman of the Council of People's Deputies, the District Zemstvo Council and the City Council.
Mikhail Frunze met the revolution in Moscow on the barricades near the Metropol Hotel. Two months later, the revolutionary received the post of head of the party cell of the Ivanovo-Voznesensk province. Frunze also dealt with the affairs of the military commissariat. The civil war allowed Mikhail Vasilyevich to fully demonstrate the military abilities that he acquired during his revolutionary activities.
From February 1919, Frunze took command of the 4th Army of the Red Army, which managed to stop the offensive against Moscow and launch a counteroffensive against the Urals. After such a significant victory for the Red Army, Frunze received the Order of the Red Banner.
Often the general could be seen on horseback at the head of the troops, which allowed him to form a positive reputation among the Red Army. In June 1919, Frunze received a shell shock near Ufa. In July, Mikhail Vasilievich headed the Eastern Front, but a month later he received the task of southbound, the zone of which included Turkestan and the territory of Akhtuba. Until September 1920, Frunze carried out successful operations along the front line.
More than once Frunze gave guarantees that the lives of those counter-revolutionaries who were ready to go over to the side of the Reds would be spared. Mikhail Vladimirovich contributed to a humane attitude towards the prisoners, which caused discontent among higher officials.
In the autumn of 1920, the Reds began a systematic offensive against the army, which was located in the Crimea and Northern Tavria. After the defeat of the Whites, Frunze's detachments attacked former comrades-in-arms - the brigade of the father, Yuri Tyutyunnik and. During the Crimean battles, Frunze was wounded. In 1921 he joined the Central Committee of the RCP(b). At the end of 1921, Frunze went on a political visit to Turkey. The communication of the Soviet general with the Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk made it possible to strengthen Turkish-Soviet ties.
After the revolution
In 1923, at the October plenum of the Central Committee, where the distribution of forces between the three leaders (Zinoviev and Kamenev) was determined, Frunze supported the latter, making a report against Trotsky's activities. Mikhail Vasilievich accused the People's Commissar for Military Affairs of the collapse of the Red Army and the lack of a clear system for training military personnel. On the initiative of Frunze, the Trotskyists Antonov-Ovseenko and Sklyansky were removed from high military ranks. The Frunze line was supported by the Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army.
In 1924, Mikhail Frunze went from deputy chief to chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR and People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs, became a candidate member of the Politburo of the Central Committee and the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b). Mikhail Frunze also headed the headquarters of the Red Army and military academy Red Army.
The main merit of Frunze during this period can be considered the implementation of a military reform, the purpose of which was to reduce the size of the Red Army, to reorganize commanders. Frunze introduced unity of command, a territorial system for dividing troops, participated in the creation of two independent structures within Soviet army- permanent troops and mobile police units.
At this time, Frunze developed a military theory, which he outlined in a number of publications - “The Unified Military Doctrine and the Red Army”, “Military-Political Education of the Red Army”, “Front and Rear in the War of the Future”, “Lenin and the Red Army”, “Our military construction and tasks of the Military Scientific Society.
Over the next decade in the Red Army, thanks to the efforts of Frunze, landing and tank forces, new artillery and automatic weapons, methods were developed for conducting rear support for the troops. Mikhail Vasilievich managed to stabilize the situation in the Red Army in a short time. Theoretical developments tactics and strategies for conducting combat under conditions of an imperialist war, laid down by Frunze, were fully implemented during the Second World War.
Personal life
ABOUT personal life nothing is known about the red commander before the revolution. Mikhail Frunze married only after 30 years the daughter of the Narodnaya Volya Sofya Alekseevna Popova. In 1920, a daughter, Tatiana, was born in the family, and three years later, a son, Timur. After the death of the parents of the children, the grandmother took care of them. When the grandmother died, the brother and sister ended up in the family of a friend of Mikhail Vasilyevich -.
After graduating from school, Timur entered flight school, served as a fighter pilot during the war. Died at 19 in the sky above Novgorod region. Posthumously awarded the title of Hero Soviet Union. Daughter Tatyana graduated from the Institute of Chemical Technology, worked in the rear during the war. She married Lieutenant General Anatoly Pavlov, from whom she gave birth to two children - son Timur and daughter Elena. The descendants of Mikhail Frunze live in Moscow. Granddaughter studies chemistry.
Death and murder rumors
In the autumn of 1925, Mikhail Frunze turned to doctors about the treatment of a stomach ulcer. The general was scheduled for a simple operation, after which Frunze died suddenly on October 31. The official cause of the general's death was blood poisoning, according to an unofficial version, Stalin contributed to Frunze's death.
A year later, Mikhail Vasilievich's wife committed suicide. Frunze's body is buried on Red Square, the grave of Sofya Alekseevna is located at the Novodevichy Cemetery in Moscow.
Memory
The unofficial version of Frunze's death was taken as the basis for Pilnyak's "The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon" and the memoirs of the emigrant Bazhanov "Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary". The biography of the general was of interest not only to writers, but also to Soviet and Russian filmmakers. The image of the brave commander of the Red Army was used in 24 films, in 11 of which Frunze was played by actor Roman Zakharyevich Khomyatov.
Streets named after the commander settlements, geographic features, ships, destroyers and cruisers. Monuments to Mikhail Frunze have been erected in more than 20 cities of the former Soviet Union, including Moscow, Bishkek, Almaty, St. Petersburg, Ivanovo, Tashkent, Kiev. Photos of the general of the Red Army are in all textbooks on modern history.
Awards
- 1919 - Order of the Red Banner
- 1920 - Honorary Revolutionary Weapon
Mikhail Frunze died on the operating table 85 years ago. The debate about whether the famous commander was stabbed to death by doctors or whether he died as a result of an accident has not subsided to this day. Frunze's mother was sure that her son was killed, her daughter thinks otherwise ...
“Mikhail Frunze was a revolutionary to the marrow of his bones, he believed in the inviolability of the Bolshevik ideals,- says Zinaida Borisova, head of the Samara House-Museum of M. V. Frunze. - After all, he was a romantic, creative nature. He even wrote poems about the revolution under the pseudonym Ivan Mogila: “... the cattle will be driven away by deceit from fooled women by a horse dealer - a godless merchant. And a lot of effort will be wasted in vain, the blood from the poor will be sucked up by a cunning businessman ... "
“Despite his military talent, Frunze shot at a man only once - at constable Nikita Perlov. He could not send more to a person ", - says Vladimir Vozilov, candidate historical sciences, Director of the Shuya Museum named after Frunze.
Once, due to the romantic nature of Frunze, several hundred thousand people died. During the hostilities in the Crimea, he had a beautiful idea: “What if we offer white officers to surrender in exchange for a pardon?” Frunze officially addressed Wrangel: “Who wants to leave Russia without hindrance.”
“About 200,000 officers then believed Frunze's promise,” says V. Vozilov. - But Lenin and Trotsky ordered them to be destroyed. Frunze refused to obey the order and was removed from command of the Southern Front.
“These officers were executed in a terrible way,” continues Z. Borisova. - They were built on the seashore, each was hung with a stone around his neck and shot in the back of the head. Frunze was very worried, fell into a depression and almost shot himself.”
In 1925, Mikhail Frunze went to a sanatorium to treat a stomach ulcer that had tormented him for almost 20 years. The commander was happy - he gradually got better.
“But then the inexplicable happened,” says historian Roy Medvedev. - The council of doctors recommended going for an operation, although the success of conservative treatment was obvious. Stalin added fuel to the fire, saying: “You, Mikhail, are a military man. Cut out, finally, your ulcer!
It turns out that Stalin gave Frunze such a task - to go under the knife. Like, solve this issue like a man! There is nothing to take the ballot all the time and go to the sanatorium. Played on his ego. Frunze hesitated. His wife later recalled that he did not want to lie down on the operating table. But he accepted the challenge. And a few minutes before the operation he said: "Don't want! I'm already fine! But Stalin insists ... " By the way, Stalin and Voroshilov visited the hospital before the operation, which indicates that the leader followed the process.
Frunze was given anesthesia. Chloroform was used. The warlord did not sleep at all. The doctor ordered to increase the dose ...
“The usual dose of such anesthesia is dangerous, and an increased one could be fatal,- says R. Medvedev. - Fortunately, Frunze fell asleep safely. The doctor made an incision. It became clear that the ulcer had healed - there was nothing to cut out. The patient was sewn up. But chloroform caused poisoning. 39 hours fought for Frunze's life... In 1925, medicine was on a completely different level. And Frunze's death was written off as an accident.
Naughty Minister
Frunze died on October 31, 1925, he was solemnly buried in Red Square. Stalin, in a solemn speech, sadly lamented: "It's too easy for some to leave us". Historians, to this day, are arguing about whether the famous military leader was stabbed to death by doctors on the operating table on the orders of Stalin or died as a result of an accident.
"I don't think father was killed, - admits Tatyana Frunze, the daughter of the famous military leader. - Rather, it was a tragic accident. In those years, the system had not yet reached the point of killing those who could interfere with Stalin. Things like that only started in the 1930s.”
“It is quite possible that Stalin had thoughts of getting rid of Frunze,- says R. Medvedev. - Frunze was an independent man and more famous than Stalin himself. And the leader needed an obedient minister.”
“Legends that Frunze was stabbed to death on the operating table on the orders of Stalin were launched by Trotsky,- V. Vozilov is sure. - Although Frunze's mother was convinced that her son had been killed. Yes, the Central Committee was then almost omnipotent: it had the right both to insist that Frunze go to the operation and to forbid him to fly on airplanes: aviation technology then it was very unreliable. In my opinion, Frunze's death was natural. By the age of 40, he was a deeply ill person - advanced tuberculosis of the stomach, peptic ulcer. He was severely beaten several times during arrests, during the Civil War he was shell-shocked by an exploding bomb. Even if there had been no operation, most likely, he would soon have died himself.
There were people who blamed not only Stalin for the death of Mikhail Frunze, but also Kliment Voroshilov - after all, after the death of a friend, he received his post.
"Voroshilov was a good friend of Frunze,- says R. Medvedev. - Subsequently, he took care of his children, Tanya and Timur, although he himself already had an adopted son. By the way, Stalin also had an adopted son. Then it was common: when a major communist leader died, his children were taken under the care of another Bolshevik.
“Kliment Voroshilov took great care of Tatyana and Timur,- says Z. Borisova. - On the eve of the Great Patriotic War Voroshilov came to Samara to our museum and before the portrait of Frunze handed Timur a dagger. And Timur swore that he would be worthy of his father's memory. And so it happened. He did military career, went to the front and died in 1942 in battle.
Which of the leaders of the revolution was objectionable to M.V. Frunze?
Ninety years ago, on October 31, 1925, Mikhail Vasilyevich Frunze, People's Commissar of the USSR Navy and Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council, 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. Underground revolutionary, functionary of the RSDLP - he was twice sentenced to death penalty, but it was nevertheless replaced by hard labor, on which Frunze spent six years. He had a chance to prove himself in a variety of positions. He headed the Shuisky Soviet of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, was a deputy of the Constituent Assembly from the Vladimir province, led the Ivano-Voznesensk provincial committee of the RCP (b) and the provincial executive committee.
But, of course, in the first place, Mikhail Vasilyevich became famous as an outstanding commander-nugget. In 1919, at the head of the 4th Army of the Red Army, he defeated Kolchak. In 1920 (together with rebel army N.I. Makhno) took Perekop and crushed Wrangel (then led 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 army reform of 1924-1925. He lived a colorful life, and his death raised many questions.
1. Unclear reasons
Frunze died after an operation caused by a stomach ulcer. According to the official version, the cause of death was blood poisoning. However, later another version was already put forward - Mikhail Vasilyevich died of cardiac arrest, as a result of anesthesia. The body tolerated it very badly, the operated patient could not fall asleep for half an hour. At first he was given ether, but it did not work, then they began to give chloroform. The influence of the latter is already quite dangerous in itself, and in combination with the ether everything was doubly dangerous. Moreover, the narcotic (as anesthesiologists were then called) A.D. Ochkin also overdosed. IN currently The “narcotic” version prevails, but not everyone shares 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 anesthesia death is just an assumption, there is simply no evidence for 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. Yes, even in the presence of inferiority of the aorta and large arterial vessels. As suggested, it was congenital, Frunze lived with this for a long time, but peritonitis aggravated the whole thing. (Transmission “After death. M.V. Frunze”. Fifth TV channel. 21. 11. 2009).
As you can see, so far there is no way even to 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 said the following. It turns out that the surgeon V.N. Rozanov, who operated on Frunze, suggested not to rush into the operation. As, however, and his attending physician P.V. Mandryk, who for some reason was not allowed to 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 presided over this consultation.
In any case, one thing is clear - Frunze had very, very serious health problems. By the way, the first symptoms he experienced 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 "sabotaged" this recommendation, so to speak. It seemed to him that this would greatly distract him from business. He went to Borjomi for treatment, and the conditions there were clearly not enough.
2. Trotsky trail
Almost immediately, talk began that the people's commissar had been killed. Moreover, at first the murder was attributed to the 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 made: the writer B.V. Pilnyak published The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon in Novy Mir magazine, in which he subtly hinted at Stalin's involvement in Frunze's death.
And, of course, he did not name either one or the other, the People's Commissar was withdrawn under the name of 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 death of M. V. Frunze served as the reason for writing it and as material. Personally, I hardly knew Frunze, I barely knew him, I saw him twice. I do not know the actual details of his death - and they are not very significant for me, because the purpose of my story was by no means a report on the death of the people's commissar. All this I find it necessary to inform the reader 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 dismissed all attempts to connect the plot of the story with real events, and on the other hand, he nevertheless pointed to Frunze. For what? Maybe so that the reader does not have any doubts about who and what they are talking about? The researcher N. Nad (Dobryukha) drew attention to the fact that Pilnyak dedicated his story to the writer A.K. Voronsky, one of the leading theoreticians of Marxism in the field of literature and a supporter of the Left Opposition: “The archives have 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 introduced to the “Commission for organizing the funeral of comrade. M.V. 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 Pilnyak dedicated The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon to Voronsky speaks for the fact that main information about the reasons for the "unsuccessful operation" Pilnyak received from him. And clearly from the "point of view" of Trotsky. Not without reason, already in 1927, Voronsky, as an active participant in the Trotskyist opposition, was expelled from the party. Later, Pilnyak himself would also suffer. So, Pilnyak was a member of the literary circle of Voronsky, who, in turn, was a member of the political circle of Trotsky. As a result: these circles closed. (“Who killed Mikhail Frunze” // Izvestia.Ru)
3. Opponent of the “demon of revolution”
Let's not rush to conclusions about Trotsky's involvement in the commander's death. We are talking about an attempt by the Trotskyists to push everything onto Stalin - everything is completely clear here. Although Lev Davidovich had every reason to dislike Frunze - after all, it was he who replaced him as People's Commissar of the Military Sea and Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council. However, the 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 broke out between them.
At that time, the Kolchak army was conducting a successful offensive, rapidly and aggressively moving towards the regions 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 here that at one time the vast expanses of Siberia, the Urals and the Volga region moved away from the Bolsheviks during the uprising of the White Czechs, which was, to a large extent, provoked by Trotsky, who ordered their disarmament.) However, then he nevertheless gathered with spirit and gave the order: to retreat to the Volga and build fortifications 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 counteroffensive, units of the Red Army pushed the Kolchak troops far to the east, freeing the Urals, as well as certain regions of the Middle and Southern Urals. Then Trotsky proposed to stop and transfer troops from 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 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 the plans of Trotsky. Judge for yourself: The case 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 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 southern front. There are heated debates. The Central Committee does not agree with Trotsky, finding that it is impossible to leave in the hands of Kolchak the Urals with its factories, with its railway network, where he can easily recover, gather his fist and find himself again at the Volga - you must first drive Kolchak beyond the Ural ridge, into 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 moves away from direct participation in the affairs of the Eastern Front.
In the struggle against the troops of Denikin, Trotsky also showed himself to the fullest - with negative side. At first, he very "successfully" commanded that the Whites captured Orel 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 fighters of the legendary Batka fought to the death. “It was necessary to save the situation,” notes S. Kuzmin. - Trotsky proposed to strike the main blow against Denikin from Tsaritsyn to Novorossiysk, through the Don steppes, where the Red Army would meet complete impassability and numerous White Cossack gangs on its way. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin did not like this plan. Trotsky was removed from command of the Red Army's operations in the south." ("Contrary to Trotsky")
One gets the impression that Trotsky did not want the victory of the Red Army at all. And it is quite possible that it was. Of course, he didn't want to lose 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 offered 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 the 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 split in Russia - the West did not need it strong and united.
4. Failed Bonaparte
During the civil war, Trotsky showed himself to be an inveterate Bonapartist, and at some point even came close to seizing power, relying on the army.
On August 31, 1918, an attempt was made on the life of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Lenin. He was in the most difficult condition, and this inevitably raised the question: who will become the head of the country in the event of his death? Very strong positions were held by the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) Ya.M. 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 adopts 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 indicative that neither the Council of People's Commissars nor the Party participate in the adoption of this decision. Everything is decided by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, or rather, its chairman, Sverdlov. “It is noteworthy 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 question 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 state affairs, an unpleasant surprise awaited him. It turned out that the power of the Presovnarkom was severely curtailed, and the creation of the Revolutionary Military Council played an important role in this. Ilyich, however, was not so easy to cut off, and he quickly found a way out of the situation. Lenin responded to one apparatus maneuver with others by forming a new body - the Union of Workers' and Peasants' Defense (since 1920 - the Union of Labor and Defense), at the head of which he himself stood. Now the RVS megastructure was forced to submit to another - SRKO.
After the death of Lenin, throughout 1924, supporters of Trotsky were removed from the top army leadership. The greatest loss was the removal from the post of Deputy RVS E.M. Sklyansky, who was just replaced by Frunze .
Commander of the Moscow Military District N.I. Muralov, with no hesitation, suggested “the demon of the revolution to raise troops against the leadership. However, Trotsky did not dare to do this, he preferred to act by political methods - and lost.
In January 1925, his opponent Frunze became People's Commissar of the Navy and Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council.
5. Thinker of the new army
The new People's Commissar of the Navy 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 "Frunze's unified military doctrine."
Its foundations are set forth 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 development 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 their resolution, 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 the bourgeois states in that it is built on ideological foundations. In this regard, he insisted on the special role of party-political organizations in the army. In addition, the new army should be people's, to avoid any caste. At the same time, she must be characterized by the highest professionalism.
Ideology is ideology, but you can't rely on it alone. “... Frunze did not accept the Trotskyist idea of a “revolution on bayonets,” notes Yuri Bardakhchiev. - Back in the autumn of 1921, he argued that it was unreasonable to rely on the support of the foreign proletariat in a future war. Frunze believed that "it is quite probable that an enemy will appear in front of us, who will very hard succumb to the arguments of the revolutionary ideology." Therefore, he wrote, in the calculations of future operations, the main attention should be paid not to hopes for the political decomposition 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 endure 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 precisely from that side that there can be no question of the struggle for the well-being of the Russian people.
Because it is not because of the beautiful eyes that all these French, the British help Denikin and Kolchak - it is natural that they pursue their own interests. This fact should be clear enough that Russia is not there, that we have Russia...
We are not a weakling like Kerensky. We are fighting to the death. We know that if they defeat us, then hundreds of thousands, millions of the best, staunchest and most 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 sure that the offensive was at the heart of military operations, 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 meaning military equipment will only increase, so this area needs to pay great attention. It is necessary to develop tank building in every possible way, even if "to the detriment and expense of other types of weapons." As for the air fleet, "its importance will be decisive."
Frunze's "ideocratic" approach was clearly different from Trotsky's approach, which emphasized its non-ideological nature in matters of army building. CM. Budyonny recalls the military conference 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 opposite to those of Frunze. We were all 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 about military affairs, or he deliberately confuses an extremely clear question.” Trotsky declared that Marxism, they say, is generally inapplicable to military affairs, that war is a craft, a set of practical skills, and therefore there can be no science of war. He poured mud on 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 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, developed the foundations of Soviet military science. But, in fact, noting in his theses the need for decisive offensive actions and the education of 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 "refuted" Trotsky, but Lenin!
It is unlikely that Trotsky can be reproached for 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, very easily "rebuilt", based on tactical considerations. He could demand the militarization of the trade unions, and then, after a while, act as an ardent champion of inner-party democracy. (By the way, when in the 1930s there was an internal opposition in his Fourth International, the "democrat" Trotsky crushed it quickly and ruthlessly.) It is quite possible that it was precisely this "non-ideological" Trotsky in military affairs that supported his popularity in the army environment.
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 put on a par with the murder of the hero of the Civil War and commander of the 2nd Cavalry Corps G.I. Kotovsky. Mikhail Vasilyevich and Grigory Ivanovich were very close. The latter became the commander's right hand. And after Frunze headed the military people's commissariat and the Revolutionary Military Council, he planned to make Kotovsky his first deputy. And he fully deserved it, and not only because of his past merits during the Civil War. In 1923, Kotovsky won the largest military maneuvers, and then spoke at the Moscow meeting of the command staff and proposed to transform 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, defeat the Romanian troops with lightning speed, raising the population there (among which he himself was very popular) to revolt. After that, Kotovsky will create his own government, which will offer 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. Here is what the son of Kotovsky, 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 applied the following tactics: his brigade began to dangle at a fast gait through all the streets of the town, creating the impression of a huge amount of cavalry. With a small force, he crushed this uprising, after which he caught up with Yakir on a steam locomotive. My father was a terribly quick-tempered, explosive person (according to my mother, when commanders came home, they first of all asked: “How is the back of 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! 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 the Trotsky group. Frunze took up the investigation himself, but death did not allow him to complete this case (as well as 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 was interested in this, who had a strong and reliable ally in the person of Mikhail Vasilyevich. Perhaps new documents will be discovered, which will shed New World on the circumstances of that ill-fated October operation.
Special for the Centenary
