- Date of: 04.12.2007
GRNIP: 307770000599460
Tax authority:
Reason for changes: State registration of an individual as an individual entrepreneur
Documentation:
- Application (with attachments)
- A copy of the main document of an individual registered as an individual entrepreneur
- Document confirming payment of state duty - Date of: 04.12.2007
GRNIP: 407770000599478
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for changes: - Date of: 02.05.2012
GRNIP: 412774612303095
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for changes: Termination by an individual of activities as an individual entrepreneur
Documentation:
- P26001 Application for termination of the activities of an individual entrepreneur
- Document confirming the submission of information to the Pension Fund of Russia
- Document confirming payment of state duty - Date of: 02.05.2012
GRNIP: 412774612303106
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for changes: Submission of information about registration with the tax authority - Date of: 18.05.2012
GRNIP: 412774613902192
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for changes: Submission of information on registration as an insurer in the territorial body of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation
480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays
Vorobyov Sergey Mikhailovich. The evolution of the institution of compensation for moral damage in Russian law (theoretical and legal research): dissertation... Doctor of Law: 12.00.01 / Vorobiev Sergey Mikhailovich; [Place of defense: Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation]. - Moscow , 2014. - 535 p.
Introduction
CHAPTER I The influence of fundamental world legal ideas on the formation of the institution of compensation for moral damage in Russian law
1. Social and legal conditionality of the formation of the law of compensation for moral damage in the early stages of the formation of society. 26
2. Theoretical and applied features of compensation for moral damage in the Romano-Germanic (continental) legal family... 56
3. Characteristic features of compensation for moral damage to the Anglo-Saxon family (precedent) 76
4. Features of compensation for moral damage in the Muslim legal family
CHAPTER II Social and legal prerequisites for the formation of the institution of compensation for moral damage at various stages of the formation of the Russian state
1. Prototypes of the institution of compensation for moral damage in the sources of law of Ancient Rus' 123
The formation and development of the idea of compensation for moral damage in the era of autocracy and absolutism in Russia 153
3. Political and legal regulation of compensation for moral damage in the Soviet period of our Fatherland 179
CHAPTER III Features of infliction and compensation for moral damage associated with the political development of the Soviet state
1. Deportation as an unusual way of causing moral harm to a person and a citizen (citizens of the USSR and non-citizens who were on its territory during the Second World War) 202
2. Characteristic features of compensation for moral damage during the Great Patriotic War and the post-war years 240
3. Organizational and legal forms of rehabilitation of victims of political repression 283
CHAPTER IV Structural analysis of the implementation of the norms of the institution of compensation for moral harm in the Russian Federation
1. Theoretical and applied aspects of determining the content of the legal relationship for compensation of moral and implementation of legal norms of the institution of compensation for moral harm
2. Formal and legal features of establishing subjects of compensation for moral damage in the field of legal application of the norms of inequitable compensation 332
Institute of compensation for moral damage as a way of protecting people and citizens from discrimination in the Russian Federation
1. Features of the functioning of the institution of compensation for moral damage in the system of international legal protection
^vvav human citizens from discrimination 359
2. Current trends in the development of Russian legislation
Russian Federation in the system of measures of legal protection of rights and freedoms
and legitimate interests of man and citizen 404
Conclusion 468
List of sources and scientific literature used
Theoretical and applied features of compensation for moral damage in the Romano-Germanic (continental) legal family
The following main provisions and conclusions of the dissertation research, which have elements of scientific novelty, are submitted for defense: Life of the institution of private property, changes in the system of industrial relations. L fc Analysis of the early stages of development of the institution of compensation for moral damage in various legal systems showed that:
1. The research conducted by the author revealed that in the early stages of the development of society, the initial forms of compensation for harm were cannibalism, blood feud, talion, a system of monetary compositions, fines, ransoms, as well as compensation for harm in kind. At the same time, the spread of the procedure for compensation for harm was influenced by customs, magic, culture, religion, and other socio-economic factors that contributed to the formation of the Jumano-German legal family, the existence of a pro-totshu institute of compensation for moral harm (revenge, duel, wergeld, the use of property penalties (compositions ) together with corporal punishment) was combined with the reception of the norms of Roman law, which led to the normative consolidation of this institution in codified sources of law, while the nature of the harm was determined by the class division of society; -legal regulation of compensation for moral damage in countries with the Anglo-Saxon legal family is evolving from a form enshrined in customs (revenge) to monetary compensation, which was class-based (a penalty, which was a means of satisfying the victim for his refusal of the right to revenge), the use of reconciliation as a way to make amends for such harm or as an alternative to monetary compensation in accordance with the legislative fixation of the amount of compensation; - proposed by Roman private law, the original methods of compensation for moral damage in countries with the Muslim legal system were blood feud, talion, systems of compositions and fines prescribed by national legislation, reconciliation with the victim, which involved the use of compensation both in monetary terms and in other material forms . The development of the institution of compensation for moral damage in the Muslim legal family directly depended on the cultural traditions and religious worldviews of Muslim society.
concerning the issues of streamlining compensation for harm, were influenced by Orthodox church law, Byzantine-CKorj BeTCKoro and Roman law, which contributed to the establishment in codified histories of law of a state mechanism for compensation for harm, including moral. The development of norms on compensation for moral damage in Russian law was associated with the development of ideas about the delimitation of different degrees of severity of an offense, the need to take into account the class character of society when determining the amount of compensation, and the formation of a centralized system of courts.
Private rewards for crime victims were a consequence of a criminal conviction. In the XVI-XVII centuries. various methods of private penalties were used, falling entirely on
2. The prototypes of the procedure for moral protection in Ancient Rus' were, according to the author of the dissertation, various types of punishment of a civil and criminal nature: private (blood) revenge, duel, capitolism, violence, sale, ransom, and, among other things, robbery. At the same time, compensation for harm was based on the principle of differentiation of responsibility of the perpetrator and depended on the social status of the parties concerned. Old Russian sources of law concerning the identity of the perpetrator (howl - deduction from the property of the perpetrator, extradition before redemption - temporary giving of an insolvent defendant with family members to work for the plaintiff, asking forgiveness by the offender from the offended, etc.), which is associated with the formation of ideas that The purpose of punishment is not only punitive measures, but also the desire to give satisfaction to the victim.
Further development of the institution of compensation for moral damage was carried out through not only the consolidation of individual agreements with a detailed determination of the amount of compensation in various cases and the establishment of measures of physical coercion as sanctions, which led to the formation of an array of legal norms guaranteeing the national protection of personal non-property rights of representatives of the upper classes of its creation procedural rules aimed, in particular, at protecting violated subjective rights by filing a civil or criminal claim. These trends led to the legislative consolidation of the concept of “dishonor” (causing harm by causing offense), and the doctrinal delimitation of the obligation to cause harm and crime led to the consolidation of rules relating to remuneration for harm caused to the victim by a crime, the use of which was determined by the court independently.
The dissertation research carried out by GYa, the doctrinal analysis of scientific views in various fields of legal science from the end of the 17th century to XX%, allowed us to conclude that by this time ideas about moral harm and the right of the country affected by the crime to its compensation, the irreversibility of the criminal consequences of such type of harm, which led to the development of draft legislative acts relating to issues of compensation for moral harm caused to the victim by a criminal.
3. The socio-political situation created in the Russian state as a result of the radical transformations that took place in all areas of the country’s life in the 20th century, for a long time, according to the dissertation author, did not contribute to the evolutionary development of the institution of compensation for moral damage in the newly created legal system, because it was recognized as alien to the legal consciousness of a socialist society.
The formation and development of the idea of compensation for moral damage in the era of autocracy and absolutism in Russia
The lesson was paid only for the material loss incurred by the owner of some thing through a crime. The same penalty was imposed for the murder of unfree persons (slaves, serfs). In favor of the prince, a sale was added to the lesson if the destroyer of someone else's property or the murderer of a slave was a free person1.
In addition to the strict establishment of a fine for the benefit of the injured person, Russian Pravda provided for the possibility of fighting as a way to protect the honor and dignity of a person - the “field” was appointed by the okolnichy and the allotment officer, who, as well as the judge (boyar) and the scribe, received a certain fee. he designated the chosen space by carrying a rope, for which he received a fee called “viscous” (regardless of the duty, it was 4 altyns). If the duel was due to a fire, the murder of a friend, or theft, the accuser, if he wins, could receive what he asked for; the okolnik was given half a ruble (50 kopecks) and the weapon of the Defeated Writer 50 money (25 kopecks), and the allottee - half a ruble. Everything that the vanquished had was to be sold, and the proceeds to be given to the courts; the vanquished man himself was subjected to corporal punishment as the crime progressed.
Russian Truth, being one of the first legal acts that regulated issues of ways to protect the intangible benefits of the injured party, for several centuries (in its lengthy version) remained a general law that determined the principles of domestic legal proceedings. Even in the 15th and 16th centuries. courts often ordered ancient vires and “sales,” as well as “flood and plunder” (the taking of all the property of the convicted person and “knocking him out of the ground”). Thus, in the Dvina Charter of 1398, one of the main types of punishment is a fine in favor of the victim or his relatives1.
The abbreviated version of the Russian Pravda (Kratkaya Pravda) provides for various methods of compensation for harm, including the use of blood feud, for example: “If the husband kills the husband, then take revenge on the brother’s brother, or the father, or the son; If someone won’t take revenge on him, then put 80 hryvnia on his head, or judge based on your husband.” At the same time, this version of the edition of Russkaya Pravda also contained a number of property punishments, in particular related to monetary compensation, flow and plunder of the criminal: “If he kills someone at the cage or at whose tatby, then he is killed in the dog’s place; If he can hold him until daylight, then lead him to the prince’s court; and if people saw her tied up and killed, then pay 12 hryvnia”; “If he becomes involved in robbery, then people do not pay the robber, then they will hand him over with his wife and children for plunder.”2
Thus, having analyzed the articles of Russian Pravda in the aspect of the development of the institution of compensation for harm, we can conclude that this law already considered compensation for harm as a special legal institution. Moreover, it was almost always combined with the payment of vira or sale, that is, it was not only an independent institution, but also a means of restoring justice on the part of the state for the victim.
At the same time, we are impressed by the position of A.S. Smykalin, who believes that the named system of punishments was of an elementary nature (flow and plunder, vira, sale, lesson, golovnichestvo), and hence the system of execution of these punishments was reduced mainly to obtaining a monetary or natural equivalent of the damage caused, which indicates its commercialism1 .
A significant legislative act, including various types of compensation for harm caused to the victim, is the Code of Law of the Grand Duke of “All Rus'” Ivan III (1497) - a collection of laws of the Russian state, codifying the norms of customary law, statutory charters, princely decrees (including Yaroslav Wise), etc. It has been preserved in two editions: the first - Eastern Russian, the second - Western Russian, known from the list of 1499, which is based on its first edition.
The creation of this set of laws was an important milestone in the development of statehood in Russia. The Code of Justice, which introduced uniform legal norms for the entire country, prohibited bribes (“promises”) for legal proceedings and petitions (“sadness”), established the terms of reference of officials and uniform court fees, which was necessary for the creation of a national judicial apparatus. According to the Code of Laws, only courts could operate on the territory of the state: the Grand Duke and his children as the highest court; boyars and okolnichys; governors. Criminal offenses (robbery, murder, repeated theft, sacrilege, arson) were punishable by death, which was also introduced for the conspirators.
Along with this Code of Law, the freedom of peasants to move from one landowner to another was limited (since 1497, a peasant could “refuse” the owner only by paying all debts and “elderly” - payment for living on the latter’s land, and only once a year: for a week before Yury's day (November 26) and during the week after it), which was the first step towards the establishment of serfdom in Russia
Characteristic features of compensation for moral damage during the Great Patriotic War and the post-war years
Among the preventive actions of the authorities aimed at eliminating the possible threat of anti-Soviet manifestations from “unreliable” groups of the population, from the mid-30s deportation began to be used, which differed from the deportation carried out in relation to the kulak peasantry both in scale and in the composition of the penalties. This deportation was a continuation of the cleansing of society from “socially alien” elements, which culminated in the mass reggae of 193 ShS38. .during the period of the “Great Terror”. The implementation of socio-economic transformations through emergency measures led, in particular, to the creation in the country of conditions of unquestioning obedience, as well as the viciousness of the activities of punitive bodies, which were a powerful support of the political regime, during unconstitutional actions of forced relocation of peoples, population groups belonging to various ethnic groups to the minority. y L k According to the circular of the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs of the NKVdrLshgrad region dated February 27, 1935 “On the eviction of the counter-revolutionary element from Leningrad and suburban areas,” 11 thousand people were evicted from the region on the grounds of political unreliability. In the spring of the same year, on the basis of a resolution of the Leningrad regional committee of the CPSU (b) dated March 4, as part of the “cleansing” of the border strips of the region and Karelia, 5059 families (23,217 people) of Ingrian Finns (Finns) were subject to eviction to Western Siberia, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan who lived in areas close to Finland).
The eviction of unreliable persons of Polish and German nationality from the then border Kyiv and Vinnitsa regions was carried out according to the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated April 28, 1936 “On the eviction from the Ukrainian SSR and the resettlement of 15 thousand Polish and German households in the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.” It was planned to create settlements for them similar to the existing agricultural labor settlements of the NKVD. It was officially believed that the resettled Poles and Germans were not limited in their civil rights, had the right of movement within the administrative area of settlement, without the right to leave the places of settlement, including their children entering secondary and higher educational institutions. completed by November 25, 193a. In total, 69,283 people were resettled. However, the poor situation and lack of work caused settlers to flee back to Ukraine and other areas using foreign passports sent by their relatives. In connection with this, the NKVD strengthened the security of the villages, organized regular checks at railway stations, and took appropriate measures for “operational security service” of the contingent1.
The introduction of special protective strips (border zones) on the borders of the USSR necessitated the removal of unreliable elements from the border regions of Armenia and Azerbaijan, in particular persons who had previously been repressed for counter-revolutionary crimes, smugglers, bandits and members of irl families. In accordance with the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of December 17, 1936 and the joint resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of July 17, 1937, the NKVD of the USSR was entrusted with the resettlement of 5,889 people (1,121 families) from the border zones of the Armenian and Azerbaijan SSR to Alma-Ata and South Kazakhstan region, including: Kurds - 3101 people. (553 families), Armenians and Turks (Gypsies) - 2788 (568 families). They were placed on collective farms, state farms and industrial farms with subsequent employment on their territory.
The registration of this contingent was carried out by village councils and the police on a general basis. In legal terms, evicted Kurds, Armenians and Turks were equated to Ukrainian migrants (also with restrictions on leaving the settlement areas). The absence of special commandant's offices led to inadequate registration and living conditions of arriving migrants, many of whom fled to other regions of Kazakhstan and even beyond its borders. This situation with settlers changed only in 1939, when the organization of work on their registration, labor and living arrangements was entrusted to the resettlement department of the NKVD of the Kazakh SSR1. % (territo] and 36,442 from the south (95,256 people) and Uzbek R_75,525 people), the rest settled in the Stalingrad region
After Japan's occupation of Korea and Manchuria (the territory of the northeastern part of China), a serious source of military tension arose on the far eastern border of the country, during the forced cleansing of which the main victims were the Koreans, who were the first Soviet ethnic group, subjected to total deportation in accordance with the Decree and - edited by the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Executive Committee of the USSR dated August 21, 1937 “On the eviction of the Korean population from the border areas of the Far Eastern Territory.” At the end of the Korean resettlement on October 5, 1937, according to the NKVD of the USSR, 36,442 families or 171,781 people were transported by 124 trains to the Kazakh hotel. The work of local authorities in organizing the reception and accommodation of Korean settlers, the lack of housing, and the lack of work put them in a very difficult situation. . So, in a letter from Koreans from the village. Khorzhol, Guryev region of Western Kazakhstan dated January 29, 1938, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR said that within three months after arriving at the place of resettlement, 75 families did not find any occupation, since this area is pure sand, on which it is impossible
Formal and legal features of establishing subjects of compensation for moral damage in the sphere of legal application of the norms of inequitable harm
It is possible that at the same time they could be subjected to violent influence through physical harm to health (in this case, their stay there should be considered as repressive measures associated with personal humiliation and infliction of moral harm). Secondly, archival documents of those years indicate that the following were not subjected to repression and persecution after captivity: persons who took part in combat operations as part of the Red Army or partisan detachments after release from captivity; disabled and seriously ill people. However, in general, we admit that there are facts of unfounded conviction of former Soviet soldiers. In this regard, we cannot fail to take into account the attitude of the authorities that existed during the war to expand the practice of convicting in absentia those who were coded behind the front line as traitors to the Motherland. The basis for this was the Decree of the State Defense Committee of July 16, 1941 and the order of the Supreme Command Headquarters “On cases of cowardice and surrender and measures to suppress such actions of August 16, 1941 No. 270, which obligated: “. “the families of Red Army soldiers who surrendered will be deprived of state benefits and assistance”; families of commanders and political workers to arrest “like the families of deserters who violated the oath and sold their homeland”, cowardice, confusion, panic, goodwill, and in general, the country’s leadership simultaneously oriented the command-political and rank-and-file personnel towards a sweeping assessment of the actions of everyone who found themselves in the middle even in a helpless state. Having rejected the principle of the presumption of innocence, it recognized in advance such commanders and fighters as cowards and traitors who needed to be “destroyed” and their families persecuted.
Since December 1941, according to the resolution of the State Defense Committee, soldiers and commanders who were captured or surrounded lost the legal status of military personnel and were henceforth called “former soldiers of the Red Army,” thereby being placed outside the ranks of the Armed Forces with all the ensuing legal consequences. It is unlikely that anyone will challenge the need for such a government policy, especially in wartime. But it is impossible to deny that people, who in the overwhelming majority did not commit any crimes, were initially treated as traitors and spies.
Statistical information, which was different on the German and Yuvet sides, shows: a) according to German data, 50,000 military personnel of the Red Army were captured, 673,000 prisoners died in captivity) according to Soviet data, 4,559,000 of them were in German captivity military personnel, 1,283,300 people died there. Returned from nagaz in October 1945. According to the first version, 1,368,849 people, according to the final version - Jw$36,000 people. In fact, our losses as a result of captivity (died, did not return, died during the return) amounted to 3,200,000 people; the German military command created 2,663 camps on the territory of Germany, Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Norway to contain those captured. The information provided is contained in the report (Losses of personnel of the Soviet Armed Forces in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, developed by a special commission under the leadership of Army General M.A. Gareev. In this case, we noted) that the fate of 1 PO 500 Soviet military personnel who went missing remained unknown1.
In the country, from the late 40s, measures began to be taken related to the political rehabilitation of repatriated Soviet citizens, including prisoners of war, which amounted to the creation of a number of documents, among them: an explanation of the Council of Ministers of the USSR “On the release of citizens of the USSR from responsibility not only for the fact of being behind border, but also for forced actions under fascist terror" (April 1949); Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR “On measures to strengthen efforts to return to their homeland Soviet displaced citizens located abroad” (November 1951); amnesty decrees of March 23, 1953 and November 1, 19571
On April 19, 1956, a commission was created headed by the Minister of Defense, Marshal of the Soviet Union G.K. Zhukov, who was learning to deal with the situation of former prisoners of war. Five months later, the commission presented a report, which, for the first time in the history of repatriation, spoke of legal lawlessness in relation to prisoners of war, both in the 1960s and after the end of the war; proposals were made to correct the “excesses” shown to them, all responsibility for which the USSR placed on the NKVD of the USSR under the leadership of L.Periii Z.OG Bakudyag.
June 29, 1956, signed by the Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee N.S. Khrushchev and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR NA. Bulganin issued a resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 898-490с “On eliminating the consequences of major violations of the law in relation to former prisoners of war and members of their families” (a copy of the document is stored in the archive of the President of the Russian Federation). In it, in particular, it was noted that, along with the exposure of a certain number of persons who actually committed crimes, as a result of the use of illegal, provocative investigative methods during verification in many cases, there was an illegal repression of the largest number of military personnel who honestly performed their military duty and did not stain themselves in any way captivity2. A typical example of this is the fate of the former Chief of Staff of the 64th Army, Colonel I.A. Laskin, who on January 31, 1943 in Stalingrad led the arrest of Field Marshal F. Paulus. Later he fought successfully, became a lieutenant general, chief of staff of the North Caucasus Front
In the defense of Stalingrad, beforeIn achieving an outstanding victory on the Volga during the Great Patriotic War, a major role belonged to the Volgamilitary flotilla. The commander of the first brigade of river ships of the flotilla was our fellow countryman, Rear Admiral S.M. Vorobiev.
Sergei Vorobyov was born on September 24 (October 6), 1904, into a peasant family in the village of Bateevka, Lyubegoshch volost, now Vesyegonsky district, Tver region. Here he spent his childhood and youth. He received his primary education at the parish school in the village. Lyubegoschi. Then he studied at the Vesyegonsk city school and after graduation he taught for some time in one of the rural schools in the county.
In October 1925, he entered the Leningrad Naval School. In January 1926, the school was named after Mikhail Vasilyevich Frunze, after which it became known as the “M. V. Frunze Naval School.” Sergei Vorobyov graduated from it in September 1928. They sent a young commander to the Pacific Ocean. There he served as assistant watch chief, then as watch chief of the patrol ship Krasny Vympel from September 1928 to January 1931.
From 1928 to 1931, the Red Pennant took part in many hydrographic expeditions to study and carry out marine surveys of the northern part of the Bering Sea. Navigation in ice, fog, and stormy conditions required high vigilance, endurance, and good seamanship. Despite the difficulties, the team completed the government task - to describe a large section of the coast from Karaginsky Island to the Anadyr Estuary - on time. 
In the summer of 1929, the Red Pennant was tasked with equipping landing points on the Bering and Attu islands for one of the firstborns of our aviation - the seaplane "Country of Soviets", flying on the route Moscow - New York through Siberia, the Sea of Okhotsk and the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, Sergei Vorobyov became a participant in hostilities during the conflict with Japan on the Chinese Eastern Railway. In 1958, the Red Pennant was permanently moored in the Golden Horn Bay and turned into a memorial ship-museum. In the spring of 2014, it underwent scheduled repairs and returned to its original location. It is one of five museum ships built before the revolution located in Russia.
From January to April 1931, Sergei Mikhailovich was a supply manager, then until November 1931, he was an artilleryman at the Yakov Sverdlov monitor.
"Novik"; Since July 13, 1926, Yakov Sverdlov has been a destroyer of the Russian Navy. Designed and built with funds from the “Special Committee for Strengthening the Military Fleet with Voluntary Donations.” The first pre-production ship. Serial destroyers - "Noviks" were built according to revised designs. At Russian shipyards, in 1911-1916, in 6 standard versions, a total of 53 ships were laid down. By the beginning of the First World War, it was the best ship in its class and served as a world model for the creation of destroyers of the war and post-war generation. The first Russian-built destroyer with steam turbine engines and high-pressure boilers heated only by liquid fuel.
From November 1931 to May 1934, Vorobyov served as assistant to the head of the operational department, then until November 1934 - head of the combat training department of the Red Banner Amur Flotilla.
On May 20, 1930, for excellent actions in defeating the “White Chinese” (as they were then called), the flotilla was awarded the Order of the Red Banner and became known as the Far Eastern Red Banner Military Flotilla.
In the 1930s During the large-scale campaign to develop the Far East, the flotilla base was significantly improved. In Khabarovsk in 1932, the shipbuilding plant “Osipovsky Zaton” opened (Shipyard No. 368, later the shipbuilding plant named after S. M. Kirov). Since 1934, the interests of Rechflot were served by the Sretensky shipbuilding plant, created in Kokuy on the basis of small civilian shipyards and plant branches. This plant built auxiliary vessels and boats for the Navy and border guards. But the largest shipbuilding enterprise on the Amur was shipyard No. 199 named after. Lenin Komsomol (now the Amur Shipyard) in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, which had been building ships since 1935. Repair bases operated in Khabarovsk and Komsomolsk.
After 6 years of service in the Far East from December 1934 to March 1938, Sergei Mikhailovich studied at the command department of the K.E. Naval Academy. Voroshilov.
Naval Academy named after. Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union N. G. Kuznetsov (Vyborgskaya embankment, 73/1) trains command and command-engineering personnel for the Navy, a scientific center for the development of problems of naval art, shipbuilding, weapons, construction and combat use of forces and means of the Navy.
Its history dates back to officer classes (created in 1827 at the Naval Cadet Corps); from 1862 - Academic course of marine sciences, from 1877 - Maritime Academy.
Since 1919, the academy began training command personnel for the Soviet Navy, and since 1922 it has been called the RKKF Naval Academy. In 1931 it was named after K. E. Voroshilov.
In 1945, the engineering and technical faculties of the academy were separated into the independent Naval Academy of Shipbuilding and Weapons, which in the same year was named after A. N. Krylov.
In 1960, both academies were merged into the Naval Academy. In 1976, the academy was named after Marshal of the Soviet Union A. A. Grechko, in 1990 - N. G. Kuznetsov.
After graduating from the academy, Sergei Mikhailovich was sent to the Main Naval Headquarters. The sailor was a junior assistant chief, and then the chief from May 1938 to May 1939 of the 1st department of the Combat Training Directorate of the Main Naval Staff, and participated in inspection trips to the Pacific Fleet and the Amur Military Flotilla.
After one of these significant trips in the summer of 1939, he was offered by the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs to head the maritime department of the Main Directorate of Border Troops.
The activities of this department were regulated by the Regulations approved on August 17, 1939. According to the Regulations, the Naval Department was entrusted with leadership of the naval units in all respects except operational ones. The department controlled the operational and technical use of ships, supervised tactical training, operation and repair of ships, and all types of maritime support. The tasks of the department were to prepare technical specifications for the creation of ships and weapons, draw up shipbuilding plans and place orders at enterprises, prepare recruitment and mobilization plans. Captain 1st rank Sergei Mikhailovich was appointed head of the department.
Since November 1939, the sailor was also the deputy chief of the border troops of the NKVD of the USSR for the maritime unit. It is difficult to overestimate what Vorobyov did to organize the actions of the border units of our country on the vast maritime sections of the State Border of the USSR. This concerned both the creation of the most important regulatory documents and practical activities. In two years, the number of border courts has almost doubled. The border guards received new patrol ships, patrol boats and armored boats. Vorobyov’s merit also includes the creation of the Naval Border School in Leningrad in 1940. With the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, 368 border ships were transferred to the fleet, which significantly increased our naval escort forces.
He held this position in the NKVD until July 1941, when he was returned to the Navy.
Rear admiral is the first admiral rank in the navies of many countries around the world.
While admirals or vice admirals commanded from one of the vanguard ships, rear admirals were usually located on the rear guard ship.
Corresponds to the rank of major general in the ground forces and aviation.
In the Navy of the USSR Armed Forces, the rank of rear admiral was established by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on May 7, 1940.
The sailor started the war on the Volga. In July-November 1941, Vorobyov was the commander of a training detachment of ships, from November to December he commanded the 3rd brigade of river ships and at the same time served as commander of the Volga military flotilla.
On October 27, 1941, by order of the People's Commissar of the Navy, the training detachment of ships, which by decision of the State Defense Committee was created in July on the Volga, was renamed the Volga Military Flotilla. The flotilla was commanded by Captain 1st Rank S.G. from October 28. Sapozhnikov.
By order of the People's Commissar of the Navy on November 6, it was planned to create 6 brigades of river ships (54 gunboats, 30 armored boats, 90 minesweepers and patrol boats, 60 small hunter boats, 6 divisions of torpedo boats, 6 detachments of special purpose vessels, 6 air squadrons, 6 separate battalions of the Marine Corps). On November 6, Rear Admiral S.M. was appointed to command this entire vast formation. Vorobyova; Captain 1st rank Sapozhnikov became chief of staff of the flotilla.
Our fellow countryman successfully carried out the order of the People's Commissar, solving the difficult problems of manning the flotilla with ships, their armament, and preparing crews, mainly made up of river fleet sailors, for combat operations.
It was necessary to organize a flotilla on the basis of the order of the People's Commissar of the Navy by April 1, 1942. The directive of the Chief of the Main Naval Staff of November 28 set the tasks for the flotilla: preparing detachments of river ships for action together with the troops in the 1942 campaign, training personnel for the operating fleets, and defense of the Volga basin. After the victory near Moscow, the State Defense Committee on January 21 issued a resolution suspending the mass mobilization of ships for the Volga military flotilla.
The Soviet command planned to launch a wide offensive, after which the Volga would remain in the rear. This, of course, created difficulties in recruiting the flotilla. But in the spring, when the situation on the fronts changed, attention was again paid to the Volga Flotilla.
This is what the commander of the 62nd Army, Marshal V.I., wrote about the Volga military flotilla. Chuikov: “I’ll say briefly about the role of the sailors of this flotilla, about their exploits: if they had not been there, perhaps the 62nd Army would have died without ammunition and food and would not have completed its task.”
CM. Vorobyov commanded the Volga Military Flotilla from November 6, 1941 to February 16, 1942. He had to staff the flotilla with ships, solve the difficult problem of their armament, and prepare crews, mainly made up of river fleet sailors, for combat operations. Vorobyov handed over command to Rear Admiral D.D. Rogachev, who recovered from his wounds. Most likely, when it became clear that the Volga could turn from a rear river, a transport artery and a training center into a battlefield, Vorobyov was chosen as the commander of the Pinsk flotilla, who had gone through the harsh school of war.
Pinsk Military Flotilla - created on July 17, 1940 from ships and units of the renamed Dnieper Military Flotilla. The main base is Pinsk, the rear base is Kyiv.
On May 28, 1942, an order from the flotilla commander determined the composition and tasks of the flotilla forces. The 1st brigade included a division of gunboats (3 units), a division of armored boats (12 units), a detachment of semi-gliders (10 units), and a detachment of minesweepers (6 units). The detachment of patrol boats consisted of 6 ships under construction. The 1st brigade was based on Gorky. The brigade was supposed to assist army units, provide crossings, fight enemy crossings and land tactical troops. The brigade commander was Rear Admiral S.M. Vorobiev.
Academic historian Alexander Samsonov wrote: “The enemy made enormous efforts trying to isolate the troops defending Stalingrad from the rear. However, the continuity of communications across the Volga and the connection between Stalingrad and the eastern bank were always ensured by the engineering troops, the civil river fleet and the ships of the Volga military flotilla.”
The enemy developed an offensive towards Stalingrad. On July 22, 1942, enemy aircraft began active operations on the Volga. On July 24, the Volga Flotilla was subordinated to the Stalingrad Front. On June 25, the commander of the flotilla declared it operational by order. On July 30, by order of Rogachev, the 1st brigade of river ships was relocated to Kamyshin. On July 31, the minesweepers from its composition were transferred to a separate minesweeping brigade to combat the mine hazard. And on August 5, the commander of the Stalingrad Front included the Volga Flotilla in the defense system of Stalingrad. The 1st brigade of river ships (2 gunboats, 2 floating batteries, 6 armored boats) in the Krasnoarmeysk - Svetly Yar area supported the troops of the 57th Army. Part of the brigade's forces was allocated to create a northern group of ships, which directly supported the troops of the 62nd Army defending the city. On August 24, the sailors of the flotilla began military operations against enemy troops rushing towards the Volga.
On October 27, 1942, in connection with the relocation of the main part of the flotilla for the winter, the Stalingrad operational group was formed consisting of 2 gunboats, 15 armored boats, 4 minesweepers under the command of Rear Admiral Vorobyov.
The group was tasked with providing artillery support for troops, transporting troops and cargo, evacuating the wounded, and destroying enemy crossings. On October 31, based on the decision of the People's Commissar of the Navy, by order of the commander of the Stalingrad Front, all ships of the flotilla, except for the Stalingrad Operational Group, were transferred to wintering in Astrakhan and Guryev from November 1. Vorobyov, in the conditions of the beginning of the ice drift, had to take on the main work of supporting the actions of the troops. From November 1 to November 20 alone, armored boats and minesweepers, in preparation for the counter-offensive, transported 22.5 thousand troops with weapons and ammunition, and took out more than 11 thousand wounded.
After the start of the counteroffensive on December 19–20, Vorobyov's ships and boats continued to support the troops. On December 1, by order of the flotilla commander, the headquarters of the 1st brigade of river ships was renamed the headquarters of the Stalingrad operational group. The tasks carried out by Vorobyov at the cost of enormous effort included artillery support for troops, the crossing of troops and cargo, the evacuation of the wounded and the destruction of enemy crossings.
So, from January to December 1942, Vorobiev commanded the 1st brigade of river ships of the Volga military flotilla; in November-December he was simultaneously the commander of the Stalingrad task force.
On his award sheet it was written:
“During the military operations to defend Stalingrad, interacting with units of the 57th and 64th armies, the ships of the brigade under his command inflicted great damage on the enemy. More than once, in certain areas, with the support of naval artillery, units of the Red Army repelled fierce enemy attacks. According to incomplete data, the ships of the brigade destroyed and scattered 11 infantry battalions, destroyed: 7 artillery batteries, 27 bunkers and dugouts, 27 tanks, 4 military equipment warehouses, 60 vehicles with troops and cargo, etc. 34 artillery mortar batteries, 42 different firing points were suppressed. 3 enemy aircraft shot down. The troops of the 62nd Army were transported under enemy fire: troops - 25,800 people, about 2,000 tons of cargo and ammunition. 6,800 wounded soldiers and commanders were evacuated to the left bank of the Volga. Vorobyov commanded the Stalingrad operational group of ships for a month, which was entrusted with the task of crossing all types of food for the 62nd Army across the river. Volga. Over the course of a month, under enemy fire, armored boats and minesweepers transported 31,476 people and more than 1,000 tons of various cargo and ammunition to the right bank. The ships supported the group of Colonel Gorokhov and the 138th Infantry Division with fire. Two gunboats destroyed 3 tanks, one heavy battery, 1 mortar, 16 different firing points, repulsed 10 enemy attacks on Gorokhov’s group and 138 infantry division.”
The fighting of the brigade of river ships helped the 64th and 62nd armies hold their positions.
At the beginning of 1943, Vorobyov was returned to the border troops and sent to the Far East. From January 1943 to November 1944, he was deputy chief of border troops for the maritime unit of the NKVD Border Troops Directorate of the Primorsky Territory.
After the defeat of the Germans on the Volga, Rear Admiral S.M. Vorobyov is appointed deputy chief of the border troops of the Primorsky District for the maritime sector. From 1944 to 1956 he heads the maritime department, then the maritime department of the country's Main Directorate of Border Troops. Then the sailor was transferred to Moscow.
Since June 1944, border ships and boats began to be returned from the Navy to the border troops, from which detachments and divisions of border vessels were formed. On January 15, 1947, the Main Directorate of Border Troops was reorganized; The maritime department was retained in its composition.
Vorobiev again served as head of the Marine Department of the Main Directorate of Border Troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs (November 1944 - January 1951), then until May 1953 he held the same position in the Main Directorate of Border Troops of the USSR Ministry of State Security, then, until June 1956, the same position in the Main Directorate Directorate of Border Troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs.
During this period of growing Cold War in the world, Vorobyov had to participate in more than one reorganization of the border service. In November 1946, the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs was renamed the ministry, and on January 15, 1947, a new staff of the Main Directorate of Border Troops was approved, in which the maritime department was enlarged and turned into a maritime department. In 1949, border troops were transferred to the jurisdiction of the USSR Ministry of State Security. But in 1953, after the death of I.V. Stalin, with the merger of the MGB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the border troops became subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The border guards were largely unaffected by the significant reduction in military forces that began in 1953. On the contrary, they took the opportunity to fill their ranks with the best officers being laid off from the navy to ensure border security.
Already on August 17, 1945, after the end of the war in the west, the formation of existing border ships began to be reorganized into separate divisions. It was necessary to deploy new divisions in the Baltic and Pacific Oceans in order to secure the borders of the territories annexed to the USSR. At this time, old ships remained in service. In 1952–1955, more than once, naval units were brought into the border detachments, then withdrawn from them, then brought into detachments, then again divided into divisions. Both detachments and divisions were operationally subordinate to the chiefs of coastal border detachments, which led to insufficiently competent management of maritime security and even violations of the law.
Under these circumstances, S.M. Vorobyov had to deal with the restoration of the maritime border guard, which during the war years suffered heavy losses in the North, Black and Baltic seas; and the ships and boats returned by the fleet were worn out during the war years. Several captured ships handed over to the border guards could not improve the situation.
At the beginning of 1946, a minimum plan was prepared for the supply of watercraft for border guards, which, if necessary, could be used by the Navy.
On April 29, the Council of Ministers of the USSR approved a plan for the allocation of ships and vessels for the border service in 1948–1955 and a shipbuilding program for 1946–1950, taking into account this plan. True, this plan was not fully implemented, but by 1954 the naval units had 144 patrol ships, 33 patrol ships and 146 small boats. The GUPV Maritime Directorate has ordered about 110 medium-displacement ships for the next five-year period. Border guards built technical observation posts and received parking lots in Balaklava, Vladivostok, Tallinn, and Leningrad. However, despite the increase in the number of ships, only in the Leningrad direction was it possible to achieve a density of 1 ship per 10 miles of area. In other directions of the western borders, this value reached 30–50 miles, and in the northern regions of the Pacific Ocean there was nothing to protect most of the coasts.
Of course, Sergei Mikhailovich Vorobyov, in his position, was responsible for the number of border courts, and for the training of specialists for them, and for the equipment of the theater.
Since November 1956, S.M. Vorobiev was in reserve. “Being retired,” said the widow of a fellow countryman, Olga Ivanovna, “Sergei Mikhailovich until his last days carried out active military-patriotic work among border guard sailors and student youth. He gave lectures in Star City, at enterprises, in schools in the capital, and often visited border guard sailors. He led a maritime circle in two maritime schools, and headed the commission of veterans of the Volga Military Flotilla.” In 1958, in the book “The Battle of the Volga. Memories. Stalingrad" his memoirs "Reliable Protection of Crossings" were published:
RELIABLE CROSSING PROTECTION
Rear Admiral S. M. VOROBYEV
The combat practice of the Battle of Stalingrad showed that in the conditions of the river theater of military operations, when interacting with ground forces, armored boats are one of the active means of combating coastal and air enemies.
Everyone knows what exceptional importance the crossings had for the right-bank troops. They supplied the heroic units defending the city with ammunition, food and evacuated the wounded.
The task of covering one of the main crossings from fascist vultures was assigned to groups of armored boats commanded by lieutenants comrades. Moroz and Pospelov. During this time, there were thirty-two air attacks and hundreds of bombs were dropped - and not a single bomb fell on the crossing guarded by boats; it worked uninterruptedly all the time. This happened thanks to skillful firing from boats at enemy aircraft and skillful maneuvering.
At one time, the boats of this group were entrusted with escorting convoys of ships passing along the Volga for protection from enemy aircraft. And there was no case that even one caravan was damaged when it was guarded by armored boats. The boats themselves remain essentially invulnerable, and their anti-aircraft weapons force the Nazi pilots to stay at such a high altitude that the likelihood of hitting the target is low.
Of course, maneuvering and good use of anti-aircraft weapons requires great skill, courage and endurance from the boat personnel.
Armored boats performed tasks not only to protect crossings from enemy aircraft. For example, during the most fierce urban battles, in front of the commander of a group of boats, Comrade. Frost was given the task of transferring a group of machine gunners to the enemy’s rear. The peculiarity of this operation was that it could not be carried out secretly. It was a bright, clear night, such as the Volga is famous for in autumn. The full moon illuminated the fairway, and both banks of the river were visible. The boats had to break through the shore occupied by the enemy, land machine gunners in close proximity to him and take the wounded from the same point on the return voyage.
The success of the operation could only be achieved by surprise, speed and decisiveness of action.
At high speed, suppressing enemy firing points with artillery fire and machine guns, the commander decisively brought the armored boat to the landing site. The success of the operation was ensured by the courageous actions of the boats' personnel when disembarking the machine gunners and loading the wounded.
The task was carried out under brutal artillery and mortar fire. However, the losses in personnel were negligible. Similar operations have been successfully performed more than once.
There were cases when armored boats were also used to fire guns from closed positions. For example, on September 12, armored boats supported our infantry in repelling an enemy counterattack. In several salvos, according to the artillery command, four tanks were knocked out by armored boat guns and a company of Nazi infantry was scattered; the enemy attack was repulsed. The next day, with the same success, two companies of the advancing enemy infantry were scattered.
During the period of defensive battles, armored boats - “river tanks”, as our soldiers called them, played a significant role.
* * *
During the days of the Battle of the Volga, Rear Admiral Sergei Mikhailovich Vorobyov commanded the 1st brigade of river ships of the Volga military flotilla.
The Motherland highly noted Sergei Mikhailovich’s military merits for his service with awards:
Order of Lenin (1950), three Orders of the Red Banner (1941, 1943, 1945),Order of Kutuzov II degree, Order of the Patriotic War I degree,Red Star (1944) and a large number of medals.
Rear Admiral Sergei Mikhailovich Vorobyov died on August 8, 1974 in Moscow.
He was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery. His ashes rest in the columbarium, section 135, place 4–1.
This was one of the residents of Vseyegon - the glorious sons of our Motherland.
We, the youth of the Vesyegonsky district, need to be proud, respect and follow the example of our fellow countrymen who served the Fatherland with faith and truth!
Prepared by Anastasia Zharova
