“Inner Line”: to the history of counterintelligence activities of officials of the Russian All-Union Union in the 1920s - 1930s

The history of the “Inner Line” (VL), a counterintelligence service that was secretly located in Russian abroad, united primarily the EMRO officials (“lineans”) according to the principle of horizontal connections, aroused interest in emigration from 1937. At first, this was influenced by public reports, statements and an interview with public figures, and then due to the influence of historical journalism with a touch of indispensable mystery, conspiracy, and detective sensationalism1. However, genuine facts and evidence were mixed with legends, fantasies, and dubious testimony, often accompanied by numerous mistakes, hoaxes and speculation, hasty conclusions and conclusions of various authors. A major role in the distortion of events was played by the lack of objective information2.
The most famous in the “disclosures” of the VL was the George Knight, the trooper of the Don Don B. B. Pryanishnikov (1902-2002) 3 - the participant of the White movement in the South of Russia and the former ROVS rank, a member of the People's Labor Union (NTS) in 1933-1954 .4 The struggle of Boris Vitalyevich with a word and pen against the “Inner Line”, created, in his opinion, “from white officers, but captured by Soviet provocateurs” 5, in fact lasted half a century. At the same time, as V. G. Bortnevsky, a recognized expert in the history of Russian military émigrés, believed, Pryanishnikov accused the generals F. F. Abramov, P. N. Shatilova, captains K. A. Foss, N. D. Zakrzhevsky and others The “lineans” in the work of Soviet intelligence did not look reliable, based on an impartial analysis of the actual material ”6. V. G. Bortnevsky enthusiastically told the author of this publication about his plans to study the OHL materials, but the tragic death of a talented scientist in 1996 did not allow them to materialize.
The rich collection of the Chief of the General Staff of the General Staff, Lieutenant-General A.I. Arkhangelsky, which is kept in the Bakhmetevsky Archive of the Columbia University (Columbia University Libraries, Rare book and Manuscript Library, Bakhmeteff Archive), deposited documents on VL7. The study of the group of sources identified by us is relevant in connection with the history of the military organization (for example, in the test, ed.) Of the Russian diaspora and the counterintelligence work of emigrants in Bulgaria and France. The report of the “Special Commission” of the III (Bulgarian) ROVS Department, which worked under the guidance of Colonel Guards Artillery G.I. Petrichenko, report from May 9, 1939, the former head of the Cavalry General P.N. Shatilova, deserves special attention. , the testimony of one of the most famous "Lineans", the captain of the Drozdovsky artillery division, KA Foss8. The materials of the collection of General A.P. Arkhangelsky allow one to form an impression about the formation and main stages of the VL activities, supplement and verify information from other sources9.
General-Lieutenant A.I. Denikin believed that the creation of the VL was preceded by that founded in 1920-1921. the secret mafia in the depths of the White Army of the South10 is hinting in a letter to Arkhangelsk at some events allegedly known only to the head of the EMRO. Denikin was mistaken, partly due to the fact that in 1946, which dated his letter, the history of the OHL had already acquired a mythologized character. Especially since reliable information about the creation in 1920 - 1921. any "secret mafia" in the "depths" of the Russian army, Lieutenant-General Baron P.N. Wrangel researchers are unknown.
Even the authenticity of the name of the Organization11 by its opponents today is in doubt, after studying open sources. Foss in testimony to members of the commission Petrichenko reported that the term “Inner Line” itself arose in a public controversy (was “glued to us”) with the leaders of the NTSNP V.M. Baydalakov, M.A. Georgievsky, R.P. Ronchevsky and gained popularity among parts of immigrants to France. The unusual name for counter-intelligence officers of the EMRO liked it, and they themselves began to use it. It was finally established in 1937 as a result of “exposing” speeches against the overhead lines of the NTSNP members in France in connection with the abduction of the head of the EMRO Lieutenant-General Ye.K. Miller12. There are reasons to take Foss's version into account: the famous document “The Ideology of the Organization” dated October 1, 1933.13 did not use the phrase “Inner Line”. There is another explanation: “internal line” in Department III of the EMRO, unlike the “external line” (open lectures, teaching, briefing), was conventionally called conspiracy, invisible work - intelligence and counterintelligence activities14.
The history of the Organization, later called the VL, dates back to 1926. Its concept, according to the conclusion of commission members Petrichenko, belonged to Infantry General A. P. Kutepov, "who received great trust from the Velikiy (ich) Prince Nikolay Nikolayevich and appointed by the latter to direct all work on Russia "15. Thus, taking into account the results of previous investigations by V. G Bortnevsky, 16 it is appropriate to consider the creation of the Organization in close connection with the work of the Intelligence and Information Section of the Immediate Office of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich (the Younger), headed by Kutepov. In “Information No. 1” (Sofia, 1927) it was stated: “At the head of the Order is Kutepov, which he ordered to no longer hide from those initiates who had attached themselves to the struggle for the Motherland17. The Organization’s supreme goal declared “an implacable, tense struggle for Russia and the Russian People, for overthrowing the hated authority of the Third International and for creating a rule of law ensuring the maximum development of the country's spiritual and material forces” 18. The founder and head of the Organization in Bulgaria (until 1939) at the ROVS III department was Captain K.A. Foss19. According to his testimony, the captain-drozdovets P. M Trofimov, who lived in Prague and died while performing an assignment in the USSR in 1929, played an equally important role as the creator of the Organization.20 Kutepov saw as the main lines of activity of the Organization in the USSR , reconnaissance and communication with the anti-Bolshevik underground in the homeland, training of reservists from among the number of volunteer emigrants for secret work. And only in fourth place were intelligence and counterintelligence, agitation and propaganda in emigration. However, after the death of Kutepov in 1930, as a result of the narrowing of the material base, the increased difficulties in crossing the border, the dramatic change in the realities of life in the USSR and the psychological separation of emigration from Soviet reality, as well as due to the increased agent activity of the OGPU-NKVD abroad, the latter is secondary the direction naturally became the main and main21.
In the 1930s "Linear" in the first place engaged in the solution of two Problems. First, they worked in friendly organizations in order to preserve their influence and dependence on EMRO, using their capabilities from agitation and political to practical, including operations to transfer agents in the USSR. These included the League of Obera, the Russian Christian National Movement (then the Russian Labor Christian Movement), the Russian Falcon Society and, especially, the NNPA-NTSNP (“national boys”) 22. Secondly, the “lineans” covered for Voss, the heads of departments and the Union, the state of affairs in organizations hostile to the EMR, were introduced into their structures with the aim of “suppressing their activity harmful to the national cause” 23. Such were considered "returnees", Eurasians, Mladorossy, separatists (for example, the "Cossacks" of the Cossack National Liberation Movement (KNOD), and partly the Russian Imperial Union. In addition, the "Lineans" were charged with the task of strengthening the EMRO teams in the field, creating military circles -political training, combating criticism and rumors, discrediting EMRO, etc. For example, in the mid-1930s, of the 35 EMRO groups that existed in the French province, 22 were “linemen”, whose functions were imputed to “ help senior army group in p A bot to strengthen, solder and protect the group. ”24 It was not intended to join the OHL independently — the older candidate was suggested to the intended candidate after observing his activities and everyday behavior. However, despite the common stereotypes of A.I. Kutepov’s dream of creating a closed“ Order "Turned out to be a romantic illusion. There were no initiations into" linear ", no oath or commitment, no separate vertical structure with a single center of control, no" degrees of membership "- nothing that would cause VL with mafia or masonic lodge. In the best case, the candidates got acquainted on receipt with the text of the written instruction.
The “ideology of the Organization” of 1933 (12 pages of typewriting), to which Pryanishnikov attached such exceptional importance, in the first approximation looked mysterious, but described an ideal scheme that had never been possible to create. The thesis “there is no way out of the Organization” 25 looked sternly only on paper. In practice, a safe “exit”, that is, a withdrawal from cases, was not a problem for the counterintelligence officer. Some former “lineans”, without any consequences, then even opposed the EMRO, while others simply went into everyday life26.
The organization arose under the III division of the EMRO, therefore Bulgaria, where the VL was headed by Foss, became the main operational site of the work of the “lineans”, despite its primary importance for the Russian abroad of France. In 1934, at the meeting of the main employees of Foss, he was appointed two deputies. Captain of artillery A. A. Brauner, one of the creators of the NTSNP, became his closest ally in Sofia. In theory, Foss received reports from the “Lineans”, and on their basis he prepared reports for the Chief of Division III of the General Staff, Lieutenant General F. F. Abramov, who was in the know of all the VL events. However, in practice, the “lineans” at places also informed the heads of “their own” EMRO groups; therefore, horizontal links, not hierarchy, played the main role.
In the early 1930s. Foss took advantage of the relocation of "his" emigrants from Bulgaria to France, and thus "linear" began to conduct their work in the first division of the general from the cavalry P. N. Shatilova27. Sophia's French "lineans" did not submit, but, as members of the Petrichenko commission recognized, there was a "certain tendency" to this. In general, Foss believed that from Sofia he could not manage the "linemen" in France, and at best set them in common tasks. The following figures give an idea of ​​the number of VL ranks: in France there were no more than 30 people29, and hardly more in Bulgaria. In Bulgaria, the “lineans” Voss managed to intensify the activities of a number of friendly youth organizations (the companies of the young shift of General Kutepov, the “Petrovtsy” - the National Organization of Russian Intelligence Officers, etc.). In this sense, work in Bulgaria advantageously differed from work in France, where the “linemen”, according to General EK Miller, repeatedly reported at the instance “sheer nonsense” and provoked friction with other people30. At the same time, the captain of the Markovsky artillery division and the “lineman” V. A. Larionov managed to successfully lead the White Idea youth circle in Paris 31.
The general leadership of counterintelligence officers in the first division of the EMRO was carried out by the captain of the Kornilovsk artillery division, N. D. Zakrzhevsky, who found himself a reputable patron in the person of the head of the division, General P. N. Shatilov. Miller, who did not tolerate a violation of the chain of command, believed that Shatilov decided to head the “lineans” voluntarily and voluntarily32. At the same time, Foss did not maintain contact with Shatilov, and his contacts with Zakrzhevsky consisted in the exchange of informational reports33. In turn, Shatilov considered Zakrzhevsky to be an observant officer, honest, but he was not ready for independent work, which probably explained his interference in the affairs of the “lineans”. The proposal to create a special charter for the VL, General Shatilov, rejected, and his role in the history of the VL was discontinued due to his departure from the post of Chief of the First Division of the EMRO in 1934. 34
So, the lack of a clear hierarchy, clear functions and structure led the VL to two results: if in Section III Foss worked safely in close connection with Abramov, then in France “linear” led by Zakrzhevsky claimed autonomous position, irritating General Miller35. In this sense, Foss was right when he said: “Everything was done under the flag of the EMRO and it was believed that the assembled frame is an instrument in the hands of one or another department head in which this apparatus exists.” 36 Of particular importance was the fact that involvement in overhead lines for relatively young EMRO officials served as a kind of psychological protest against the inertia of the old generals and staff officers who held commanding positions and, apart from the demands of honors, who were completely passive in social and political life.
From May-June 1935 until the end of December 1936, the Soviet agent Major General N. V. Skoblin was the person in charge of communication between the ranks of the OHL in France and Miller. At the same time, he was not a “lineman” before, entrusted to him with an assignment (perhaps not wanting to increase the risks of his failure) and repeatedly asked Miller to release him from his post37. Skoblin’s brief involvement with the “linemen” in France morally compromised them, but, in fact, no more than the officials of the Kornilov units. Nevertheless, for some contemporaries, the fact of Skoblin’s involvement with the “linemen” acquired an exaggerated significance. The loud “revelations” of overhead lines in France in the fall of 1937 were the result of the conflict of old and young immigrants that had been brewing for several years — not so much administrative-political as generational. At the same time, Miller’s abduction and Skoblin’s treason played a catalytic role. From the report of the Petrichenko commission it follows that the NSNP-NTSNP was created as a “political project” of the EMRO, and in the first half of the 1930s. Union was such. In 1935, in France, the EMR monthly deductions for the activities of NOSA were half of the local emigrant fees38. However, with the influx of new members to the “new generation”, their ambitions grew with the desire to get rid of the “wards” of the EMRO and then play an independent role in the life of the emigration. As a result, in Bulgaria, the EMRO officials began to leave the NTSNP in the summer of 1936, even before the scandalous "revelations" of Pryanishnikov. Later, the trend towards independence was also emphasized in the literature on the history of the NTS39. Of course, in the confrontation with the EMRO, the personal ambitions of the national youth, especially the leaders of the French department of the NTSNP, headed by V.D. Porem.
Public and mild accusations of Pryanishnikov and his associates of the “lineans” in “provocations” with vague hints of their dependence on Skoblin and involvement in Soviet agents, which were made at public meetings in the autumn of 1937, 40 were essentially a protest of “national boys” against obsessive aspirations “ controllers "from the OHL (captain ND Zakrzhevsky, lieutenant MI Seliverstov, etc.) to influence the activity of the NTSNP. The relationship between the two organizations was inevitably upset. December 18, 1937 the new head of the first division of the EMRO, Lieutenant-General V.K. Vitkovsky issued Circular No. 1597, which prohibited the ranks of Division I from being members of the NTSNP and the NTSNP assistance committees. The unwilling to leave the NTSNP was asked to leave the ranks of the EMRO in time to January 15, 193841
Thus, the sources identified by us suggest that under the generalized name “Inner Line” actually hid two modest counterintelligence services at the departments of the III and I division of the EMRO, which together consisted of several dozen people. In the fall of 1937, under the influence of the “growing pains” of the NTSNP and the conflict with the EMRO, the heavy impression of EK Miller’s abduction and N. V. Skoblin’s treason, emotions and ambitions created a far from reality image of an extensive semi-mafia organization, supposedly infiltrated "Soviet provocateurs." “I consider the [morning] Line to be an immoral and Jesuit organization,” wrote one of their staff officers from Paris on November 2, 1937. - Until now, almost no one knew about it. Now everyone knows. This is her first exposure. Int. [Morning] L. [ing] should be radically destroyed, and the EMRO again reorganized. For me the doubt about her connection with the Bolsheviks is incomprehensible, since the treachery of Sk. [Oblina] is open ”42. Blessed accusations impressed the senior officers of the EMRO who abolished the overhead lines in France43. In fact, the role, significance and operational capabilities of VL were extremely exaggerated and mythologized, especially in post-war journalism. Foss fantasy on the subject of VL annoyed and decades later. It is possible that this is why in 1964, in private correspondence, he compared Pryanishnikov with a “rash” 44.
In Bulgaria, the counterintelligence service under the Office of Department III existed in 1926–1941 (?), And its activities yielded certain results, including the activation of Russian youth organizations, as well as the exposure of a group of Soviet agents, primarily NF Abramov, 45 who had to leave Bulgaria In addition, the EMRO counterintelligence played an important role in the fate of some Soviet diplomats in Bulgaria, including FF Raskolnikov46. Perhaps that is why members of the Petrichenko commission offered overhead lines in Bulgaria "to maintain and, as far as possible, to develop further at all costs" only by rejecting the odious name47. This was done, and in the winter - in the spring of 1939, Captain K.A. Foss was replaced in the position of the Life Guard by Captain Ya.G. Yarenko48. In contrast, in France since the early 1930s. and until 1938"Lineans" acted inefficiently. They could not protect generals Kutepov and Miller, did not expose Skoblin, did not keep the NTSNP under the influence of EMRO, and their specific work in the EMRO provincial groups, reports, reports and other "awareness" still need objective research.
Nevertheless, the activities of the intelligence services, both single and small groups, were an integral part of the life of numerous military organizations of the Russian diaspora, numbering thousands of officials in Europe by 1939. The emigrant "activism", including the history of the "Inner Line", testified not only about their military-political potential, but also that the state of the civil war, the division between the Reds and the Whites persisted many years after the evacuation of the Crimea.
Literature
1 Inner line: the truth about the third trust. Public reports read in Paris by B. V. Pryanishnikov and I. A. Bryansky. Paris: Ed. KOVR of the NTSNP Department in France, 1937; Pe-Pepelovsky K. Regarding the articles about Generals Miller and Shatilov // Roll Call (New York). Ed.Department of the Society of Gallipoli, 1964. February-March. No. 146-147. Pp. 10-16; Scrolls N. [Stepanov N. F.] Inner Line (An ulcer on the body of Russian emigration): 1st ed.: San Paulo, 1964; 2nd ed .; San Pauelo: Ed. Journal "Vladimirsky Bulletin", 1966, etc. The list of materials and publications on the topic, see also: Pryanishnikov B. V. The Invisible Web. Cheka-OGPU-NKVD against white emigration / 2 ed. St. Petersburg: Rush Hour, 1993. C 460-464.
2 An example of disorienting essays on this topic is the journalism of the Moscow journalist A.S. Gasparyan (Gasparyan A.S. OGPU against the EMRO. The Secret War in Paris. 1924-1939. - Moscow: Veche, 2008). The fantasies and factual errors in the history of the VL and the EMRO, starting with the thesis that the VL that operated among the emigrants, “controlled their every step” (C 3), are encountered more than once (P. 4, 7, 30, 33, 38, 42 , 104, 132, 200, etc.).
3 Pryanishnikov B. V. The Invisible Web / 1 ed. [Silver Spring, MD], 1979; Pryanishnikov B.V. New Generations. First Edition. Sil-ver Spring. 1986. C 13-14, 22-31, 68-73.
4 In 1931-1936 the organization was called the National Union of a New Generation (NOSP), from February 1936 to November 1942. - The National Labor Union of the new generation (NTSNP), from November 1942 to July 1945. - National Labor Union (NTS), from July 1945 to July 1957. - National Labor Union (Russian solidarists).
5 Cit. by: Perepelovsky K. Regarding articles about Generals Miller and Shatilov // Roll Call (New York). 1964. February-March. 146-147. P. 11.
6 Bortnevsky V. G. B. B. Pryanishnikov and his book // Pryanishnikov B. V. The Invisible Web / 2 ed. Decree. cit. P. 459.
7 Columbia University Libraries, Rare book and Manuscript Library. Bakhmeteff Archive (BAR). Arkhangel'skii AP Collection. Box 5. Folder "Vnutrenniaia Liniia (1938-1950)".
1) [Secret report of the “Special Commission” of the Colonel G.I. Petrichenko III Division of the EMRO]. Top secret. Typescript. 24 l .;
2) Guard Colonel Petrichenko [G. AND.]. Drozdov Artdi-Vision p / colonel Mashinsky [N. V.], the Kornilov Impact Regiment, Colonel Kedrinsky [V. AND.]. Some thoughts on the future work of EMRO. Typescript, 8 p .;
3) Excerpts from the letters of Colonel S., composed of a member of the Committee for the Promotion of National Organizations in Paris. Typescript, 7 p .;
4) S.N.T. [Excerpts]. Typescript, 2 p .;
5-6) Copies: Order No. 15 of the EMRO, Belgrade, March 12, 1938. Typescript. Order No. 5 to the first division of the EMRO. Paris, March 1, 1938. Typescript, 4 p .;
7) Internal line. Captain Foss [Questionnaire]. Typescript;
8) Questions of members of the commission that conducted the investigation of the PFA [N. F. Abramova] (according to the 2nd information) [Questionnaire]. Typescript;
9) [Answers to questions from Captain K. A. Foss]. Typescript. 4 l .;
10) Head of the ERO Division III. Report. Typescript;
11) Cavalry General P. N. Shatilov - Chairman of EMRO, Paris, May 9, 1939. Typescript. 7 l .;
12) Final Protocol of the Commission in the Shipov case [N. F. Abramova]. Sofia, Feb 7 1939. Typescript. 3 l .;
13) Help, compiled in 1937 in Bulgaria. Typescript, 2 p .;
14) About personal impressions of life and work of Department III [EMRO]. Typescript.
8 Foss Claudius Alexandrovich (1897 - 1991) - a participant in the White movement in the south of Russia, captain of the Russian army (production in exile). In 1918, in the campaign Iasi - Don in the ranks of the 1st detached brigade of Russian volunteers of the General Staff Colonel M. G. Drozdovsky, then Junker of the 3rd separate light battery of the 3rd division of the Volunteer Army. Warrant Officer of Army Artillery (December 7, 1918), Second Lieutenant (1919). In the ranks of the All-Soviet Union of Civil Defense and the Russian Army (1919 - 1920) in the 3rd (since October 1919 - Drozdovskaya) artillery brigade. In November 1920, as part of the unit was evacuated from the Crimea. On December 18, 1920, by order No. 298 of Lieutenant-General P. N. Wrangel, he was promoted to lieutenant (with seniority since September 22, 1919), on December 24, 1920, by order No. 304 for military distinctions in staff captains (with seniority with 16 September 1920).As part of the Drozdov Artillery Division I Army Corps of the Russian Army in Gallipoli (1920 - 1921), then in exile in Bulgaria. Chin EMRO. Member of the conspiracy counterintelligence activities of the Union. On September 1, 1925 - in the rank of captain (after December 24, 1920) in the frames of the Drozdovsky Art Division (No. 235 in the list). In 1925 - 1941 in service in the Military Ministry of Bulgaria, Major for-pass. From 1926, the head of the intelligence and counterintelligence service under the Directorate of Department III of the EMRO (1926 - 1939) as appointed by the general of infantry, A. P. Kutepova. Clerk (secretary) of the Office of the Office III of the Division in Sofia. In 1929 - 1930 Head of the local department (representative office) of the Brotherhood of Russian Truth. October 3, 1933 elected a member of the board of the Department of the Society of Gallipoli in Bulgaria. Owned foreign languages:English, Bulgarian, German, French. Collaborated with representatives of the Bulgarian special services. In the winter of 1936 - 1937 For the first time, NF Abramov, an employee of the Office of the Third Division, was suspected of involvement in relations with Soviet agents. As a result of operational activities, on November 13, 1938, NF Abramov and his wife went to France (in fact, a mild expulsion) by the Bulgarian authorities. Mr. Yarenko. From the summer of 1941, with a group of EMRO officials in the occupied territories of the USSR, he worked along the line of the Abwehr in Nikolaev and other cities. In 1942 - 1943 Head of the “Russian Group” of the Marine Intelligence Team for the Black and Azov Seas (ANST “South of Ukraine”, FP No. 26830, Nikolaev).Then the officer of the Abwehr in Melitopol. In 1943 - 1944 conflicted with members of the NTS, under the leadership of Esaula E. I. Mamukov, who created their groups in Kirovograd, Nikolaev, Odessa, and other cities, but the causes and nature of this conflict need to be studied. For the differences in the service in the Wehrmacht awarded the Order of the Iron Cross Class II. In the winter of 1945, he tried to enlist in the KONR troops, but his candidacy was rejected by the head of the army headquarters, Major General F. I. Trukhin. After the capitulation of Germany, he was hiding in the American occupation zone in the Munich region, living under the surname “Aleksandrov”. He participated in counter-intelligence operations of the American special services. He was wanted by the state security organs of the USSR. In emigration to Germany. Since 1926 he survived more than ten attempts.under the leadership of Esaula EI Mamukov, who created their groups in Kirovograd, Nikolaev, Odessa and other cities, but the causes and nature of this conflict need to be studied. For the differences in the service in the Wehrmacht awarded the Order of the Iron Cross Class II. In the winter of 1945, he tried to enlist in the KONR troops, but his candidacy was rejected by the head of the army headquarters, Major General F. I. Trukhin. After the capitulation of Germany, he was hiding in the American occupation zone in the Munich region, living under the surname “Aleksandrov”. He participated in counter-intelligence operations of the American special services. He was wanted by the state security organs of the USSR. In emigration to Germany. Since 1926 he survived more than ten attempts.under the leadership of Esaula EI Mamukov, who created their groups in Kirovograd, Nikolaev, Odessa and other cities, but the causes and nature of this conflict need to be studied. For the differences in the service in the Wehrmacht awarded the Order of the Iron Cross Class II. In the winter of 1945, he tried to enlist in the KONR troops, but his candidacy was rejected by the head of the army headquarters, Major General F. I. Trukhin. After the capitulation of Germany, he was hiding in the American occupation zone in the Munich region, living under the surname “Aleksandrov”. He participated in counter-intelligence operations of the American special services. He was wanted by the state security organs of the USSR. In emigration to Germany. Since 1926 he survived more than ten attempts.but the causes and nature of this conflict require study. For the differences in the service in the Wehrmacht awarded the Order of the Iron Cross Class II. In the winter of 1945, he tried to enlist in the KONR troops, but his candidacy was rejected by the head of the army headquarters, Major General F. I. Trukhin. After the capitulation of Germany, he was hiding in the American occupation zone in the Munich region, living under the surname “Aleksandrov”. He participated in counter-intelligence operations of the American special services. He was wanted by the state security organs of the USSR. In emigration to Germany. Since 1926 he survived more than ten attempts.but the causes and nature of this conflict require study. For the differences in the service in the Wehrmacht awarded the Order of the Iron Cross Class II. In the winter of 1945, he tried to enlist in the KONR troops, but his candidacy was rejected by the head of the army headquarters, Major General F. I. Trukhin. After the capitulation of Germany, he was hiding in the American occupation zone in the Munich region, living under the surname “Aleksandrov”. He participated in counter-intelligence operations of the American special services. He was wanted by the state security organs of the USSR. In emigration to Germany. Since 1926 he survived more than ten attempts.After the capitulation of Germany, he was hiding in the American occupation zone in the Munich region, living under the surname “Aleksandrov”. He participated in counter-intelligence operations of the American special services. He was wanted by the state security organs of the USSR. In emigration to Germany. Since 1926 he survived more than ten attempts.After the capitulation of Germany, he was hiding in the American occupation zone in the Munich region, living under the surname “Aleksandrov”. He participated in counter-intelligence operations of the American special services. He was wanted by the state security organs of the USSR. In emigration to Germany. Since 1926 he survived more than ten attempts.
9 See for example: Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford Untvcmty (HIA), (Chasovoi Collection. Box 1 Folder "From the correspondence of the 1930s." Letter of October 1, 1937 to the General Staff of Lieutenant General F. F. Abramov - Of the General Staff to Major General B. E. Hartman. Typescript; Prianischnikov V. V. Collective Bx 3. Folder “General Abramov.” Materials on the case of N. F. Abramov: Order No. 8 of March 24, 1938. General Lieutenant V.K. Vitkovsky, I Division of the EMRO Typewriting (copy), 2 pp., Circular 5, dated February 20, 1939, Lieutenant-General V.K. Vitkovsky., Typewriting (copy); General Staff, Lieutenant-General A. P. Archangelski d - to the heads of the departments and divisions of the ROSF et al. Circularly, No. 55 of April 5, 1939. Typescript, 7 p .; Order No. 9 of the EMRO, April 12, 1939. Types of writing. 2 p .; Butkov V.N.Historical notes and memoirs of a member of the Russian All-Military Union. "The internal line" in Bulgaria: ROVS against the OGPU // Bulletin of the EMRO (SPb.) / Ed. EMRO. 2001. No. 1-2. Pp. 18-22; Butkov P.N. For Russia. Russian "white" in the fight against the Russian "red" Stalinist terror, Nazism and communism (1917 - 1994). SPb .; Ecopolis and Culture, 2001. pp. 28-32, 35, etc.
10 Letter of May 16, 1946, to Lieutenant-General A. I. Denikin to Lieutenant-General A. P. Arkhangelsky / Alexandrov, K. M. The Fates of Russian Officers in Exile during the Second World War. Correspondence of 1946 between Lieutenant-General A.I. Denikin and A.P. Arkhangelsky // Novy Chasovoy (St. Petersburg), 2006. No. 17-18. P. 206.
11 Next, the author uses the term “Organization” for the generic name of VL employees. At the same time, we note that as a centralized and structured organization with a single center of control, contrary to all speculation, the VL did not exist.
12 var. Arkhangel'skii A.R. Collection. Box 5. Folder "Vnutrenniaia Liniia (1938 - 1950)", [Answers to questions from Captain K. A. Foss]. L. 1. On the speeches of the members of the NTSNP in France against the VL see: Pryanishnikov B. V. The Invisible Web 2 ed. Decree. cit. Pp. 341-349.
13 Internal line. Ideology of the Organization. Top secret. October 1, 1933 Ex. No. 1. [As a manuscript. SPB., IPIKTs “Beloe Delo”, 2011. P. 25-34]. On the meaning of the document, see: Pryanishnikov B. V. The Invisible Web / 2-ed. Decree. cit.Pp. 225-231. At the same time, B. V. Pryanishnikov cited the 1936 correspondence, in which the term "VL" was used (see Ibid. C 308-309).
14 Butkov V.N. Decree. cit. From 18
15 BAR, Arkhangel'skii AP Collection. Box 5. Folder “Vnutrenniaia Liniia (1938–1950)”, Secret Report of the “Special Commission” ...). L. 2.
16 Bortnevsky V. G. The Mystery of the Death of General Wrangel: Unknown Materials on the History of the Russian Emigration of the 1920s. / B-ka magazine "New Watch", St. Petersburg .: Ed. SP6GU, 1996. p. 41, 43, 85.
17 cit. by BAR, Arkhangel'skii AP Collection. Box 5. Folder “Vnutrenniaia Liniia (1938–1950)”, Secret Report of the “Special Commission” ...). L. 3.
18 ibid.
19 bid. L. 6.
20 ibid. [Answers to questions from Captain K. A. Foss]. L. 1.
21 Ibid [The secret report of the "Special Commission" ...]. L. 3-4.
22 ibid. L. 4. The officers of the EMRO and the “linemen” played a major role in the creation and development in 1930 of the National Union of Russian Youth (later NSNP-NTSNP), one of whose predecessors was the circle of officers Alekseevts on Pernik in Bulgaria (Ibid L. 10).
23 lbid. L. 4.
24 lbid. L. 4-5, 7-8.
25 Internal line. Decree. cit. P. 31. In the original, the words “does not exist” are typed in italics.
26 BAR. Arkhangel'skii A.R. Collection. Box 5. Folder “Vnutrenniaia Liniia (1938–1950)” [Secret Report by the “Special Commission” ...]. L. 5-6.
27 Cavalry General P. N. Shatilov left the post of Chief of the First Division of the EMRO in 1934. Then she was occupied by Infantry General I. G. Erdelyi (1934-1935), General Staff Lt.-Gen. E. Miller (and O., concurrently, 1935 - 1937), Vice-Admiral M. A. Kedrov (I. O., 1937), Lieutenant-General V. K. Vitkovsky (Chief Inspector and Chief: 1937 - 1942 yy.).
28 BAR. Arkhangel'skii A.R. Collection. Box 5. Folder “Vnutrenniaia Liniia (1938–1950)” [Secret Report by the “Special Commission” ...]. L. 7.
29 HIA. Holy Trinity Seminary Manuscript Collection. ROVS Collec- tion. Reel 7. Box 11. Folder 9. Order No. 5 of March 1, 1938. I from the case of the EMRO - vrid. Head of Department, Lieutenant-General V.K. Vitkovsky. Typescript. L. 2.
30 BAR. Arkhangel'skii A.P. Collection. Box 5. Folder "Vnutrenniaia Liniia (1938- 1950)". S.N.T. [Excerpts. From a letter dated March 3, 1936, of the General Staff of General-Lieutenant EK Miller] L. 1.
31 KM Alexandrov. Army officer corps, Lieutenant General A. A. Vlasov 1944-1945 / 2 ed. - M .: Sowing. 2009. pp. 561-562.
32 HAC. Arkhangel'skii A.P. Collection. Box 5. Folder "Vnutrcnniaia Liniia (1938- 1950)". S.N.T. [Excerpts. From a letter dated March 3, 1936, of the General Staff of General-Lieutenant EK Miller] L. 1.
33 Ibid. [Answers to questions from Captain K. A. Foss]. L. 2.
34 Ibid. General from cavalry P.N. Shatilov - Chairman of EMRO Paris, May 9, 1939 L. 5.
35 Ibid. [(Secret Report of the “Special Commission” ...]. L. 8.
36 ibid. [Answers to questions from Captain K. A. Foss]. L. 1.
37 ibid. [The secret report of the "Special Commission" ...). L. 19-20; Pry-Nishnikov B. V. The Invisible Web / 2 ed. Decree. cit. P. 308.
38 BAR Arkhangel'skii A. R. Collection. Box 5. Folder "Vnutrenniaia laniia (1938- 1950)". [The secret report of the "Special Commission" ...]. L. 11. After N. V. Skoblin’s resignation in December 1936, the immediate leadership of the VL was assumed by EK Miller (see K. Perepelovsky. Decree. Op. S. 11).
39 See for example: Rahr A. A., Obolensky V. A. Early years (1924 - 1948). Essay on the history of the People's Labor Union. M .: Sowing. 2003. C 103-105, 126.
40 Pryanishnikov B. V. The Invisible Web / 2 ed. Decree. cit.C 341-349; - Pryanishnikov B. V. Novopokololents. Decree. cit. Pp. 68-73.
41 HIA. Holy Trinity Seminary Manuscript Collection. ROVS Collec- tion. Reel 7. Box 11. Folder 8. Circular No. 1597 of December 18, 1937, Lieutenant General V. K. Vitkovsky. Typescript. L. 1-2.
42 BAR Arkhangel'skii A. R. Collection. Box 5. Folder - "Vnutrenniaia Liniia (1938-1950)". Excerpts from the colonel's letters. L. 2.
43 HIA. Holy Trinity Seminary Manuscript Collection. ROVS Collec- tion. Red 7. Box 11. Folder 9. Order No. 5 of March 1, 1938. I from the case of the EMRO - vrid. Head of Department, Lieutenant-General V.K. Vitkovsky. L. 2, 4.
44 BAR ROVS NA Collection. Box 8. Folder "Correspondence - A-Kto Kuznetsov-1", Letter dated March 12, 1964 by Captain K. A.
Foss - to the ranks of the EMRO Colonel B.
M. Kuznetsov and Captain B. M. Kuznetsov. Typescript. L. 1.
45 ibid. Arkhangel'skii AP Collection. Box 5. Folder "Vnutrenniaia Liniia (1938-1950)". [Answers to questions from Captain K. A. Foss]. L. 4; Hia. Prianischnikov V.V. Collection. Box 3. Folder "General Abramov." Circular No. 171 dated February 20, 1939, was Lt. Gen. V.K. Vitkovsky. L. 5-6; Butkov V.N. Decree. cit. S. 19.
46 V. V. Butkov. Decree. cit.Pp. 21-22; Butkov P. N. Decree. cit. Pp. 28-29.
47 BAR. Arkhangel'skii A.R. Collection. Box 5. Folder "Vnutrenniaia Liniia (1938- 1950)". [The secret report of the "Special Commission" ...]. L. 22-23. Underline in the original.
48 V. Butkov. Decree. cit. P. 20.

Read more »

Conference of the monarchical organizations of Moscow, dedicated to the memory of the royal martyrs

On 21 July The Conference of the monarchical organizations of Moscow, dedicated to the memory of the royal martyrs, was held. The conference began with the prayer invocation of the Holy Spirit and prayer to the royal martyrs.

The first speaker was RID coordinator Pavel Vasiliev. He built his report on the questions of the Russian Orthodox Church concerning the belonging of the found remains to the family of the last Russian emperor and comparing the answers to these questions of the current commission with the data that were received by the investigating commissions earlier. From the speech it becomes obvious that the conclusions of the current commission that the remains are genuine and the murder was not of a ritual nature are completely untenable.

Next, the writer Dionys Kaptar spoke out with criticism and condemnation of the degree of lies that modern Russian media unfolded against both the personality of the last Russian emperor and the idea of ​​the monarchy in general. In their attacks, media liars surpassed even their Soviet colleagues in the degree of shamelessness, absurdity, illiteracy. For example, the Brusilovsky breakthrough by the current TV-buffoons is served as a defeat for Russia; while recognizing the growth of the military industry at 7 percent per year (this is in a wartime period, without a decrease in civilian production), a “transport collapse” was declared at that period .... The impression is that the concept of logic is unknown to the broadcasters. The trick of Russia's losses in the Great War was completely cut off from all reality. Or even pearls that the king personally impeded the development of aviation, spread rot Sikorsky. The speaker called on monarchists to expose liars and to spread exposures in all available media space.

After that, Archpriest of the Russian Orthodox Church Vsevolod Chaplin took the floor. O. Vsevolod noted that those in power are following the monarchist movement, showing concern. The negative and blackening of the image of Nicholas II and the monarchical idea in a controlled media environment comes to a frenzy. O. Vsevolod called for humility and wisdom in confronting these frantic attacks. He expressed his approval that the conference brought together representatives of a wide range of monarchist movements, called for the consolidation of all monarchist forces and the attraction of new supporters. And they, according to the speaker, are unexpectedly many in the most unexpected circles, which showed the conflict around the scandalous film “Matilda”. O. Vsevolod noted that the current government was ideologically devastated, exhausted and “ready to topple”. The siloviki will not risk their lives for a cynical, deceitful, thieving government. Society is waiting for life-affirming ideas. Our ideas of sacrificial service, holiness - they are in demand. And the monarchical idea has every chance to establish itself in society.

Then the leader of the “Black Hundred” movement Shtilmark A.R. He reasonably noted that the objection to the lack of guarantees in the integrity of the heirs of the monarch can be confidently objected that in the electoral system a scoundrel is guaranteed to be 100 percent guaranteed. After all, in order to win, he must inevitably exalt himself, giving out false promises, and also dishonestly at the same time denigrate competitors. Can an Orthodox conscientious person do this? Of course, he does so be ashamed. As a result, the scoundrel is guaranteed to win.

Alexander Robertovich supported Fr. Vsevolod in his desire to "be with the people", to share his social demands for power, to spread the lofty ideals of the monarchical idea.
Further, the emergency leader criticized the well-known exaggerations in the idea of ​​the emperor's redemptive role for the sins of the people, saying that no one except Christ could atone for the sins of another person as his own.

The coordinator of the PDS NPSR who spoke after him was Filin V.I. called for the consolidation of all patriotic forces.

Following him, Kirill Myamlin also spoke on behalf of the PDS NPSR. He also noted that the investigation into the circumstances of the killing of the royal family was not set and that what happened was not an accident, but a natural phenomenon in the universal confrontation between Good and evil, God and his opponent, and that the ritual murder that occurred is the result of the loss of spiritual immunity in the Orthodox Russian society.
Designating three areas of Orthodox activity:
- direct communication of the human spirit with the Creator;
- ceremonial;
- and serving the neighbor;
The speaker noticed a weakening in the imperial period of the history of the third component on the part of the highest stratum of society. And in the Soviet period, the first two components were rejected, public attention is directed only to social programs. In our time, however, only the 2nd component prevails - ritualism.
Our task is to restore in our life all three components of Orthodox life. Witte and Stolypin reforms, which had a negative impact on the state of Russian society, were also assessed.

Then the representative of the Moscow department of the RID Alexey Klimin took the floor. He noted the divine spiritual nature of monarchical power, as opposed to democratic power as the "power of the trough." He also called for the revival and support of the ideal of heroic Orthodox service to God, the king and fatherland, in which lies the monarchical idea.

A representative of the Central Cossack troops of Russia and Abroad, who spoke after him, Kholin AV
outlined his understanding of the king's redemptive role, noted the ritual nature of the murder and argued for this. Also noted the dominance in Russia of various sects of a satanic character.

Then the veteran of the Orthodox patriotic movement in Russia took another word from the Pamyat “Memory” society, the author of the book “The Word and the Work of Ivan the Terrible”, V.M. Erchak. Having conveyed greetings from fraternal Belarus, he expressed joy in the revival of the monarchist movement. The speaker remembered how our enemies destroyed the “Memory” society, breaking it up into 9 warring groups, how the created V.M. Klykov NRC, which today is divided into 6 parts, and called for the monarchists to unite. The ritual character of the killing of the royal family was also noted. In particular, attention was drawn to the silence of the fact that when the first investigator Sokolov sifted the ashes at the place of burning the bodies of those executed, he found only TWO bullets. This suggests that the rest of those executed were not shot, but slaughtered. That all the walls were smeared with blood so that it could not be the result of a simple shooting. Attention is also drawn to the fact that in the rituals of famous persons always there are 11 lambs. 12 prisoners went down to the basement. But before the execution of the 12th arrested (the cook), they were taken out of the room so that only 11 remained. At the end of the speech, once again the wish was expressed not to allow another split in the monarchist movement.

After a short break, the second part of the Conference was opened by the leader of the Great Russia party, A.N. Saveliev. He criticized the current regime as a successor of the anti-Russian policy of the Bolsheviks only still on a larger scale. He also brought arguments refuting the opinion of our enemies that a monarchical idea is an anachronism. He urged the participants to propagate the ideals of the monarchy , noting that the monarchy is not an anachronism, but a political and social prize, a reward to a society that, by its consciousness and maturity, will be worth it. The speaker also argued that Nicholas II’s claims of volitional and political weakness were false, and he also expressed distrust in the work of the current commission to study the remains, since representatives of the country's monarchist public are not allowed to participate in its work.
Further, the issues of creating the Monarchist Movement of Russia as a common political platform for the interaction of all Russian monarchist movements were discussed.
It was proposed to create within the movement an ideological body in the form of the Monarchist Council, which could include leaders of movements willing to work on this platform, as well as the Coordination Council as the executive body for the preparation of common events and interaction between the organizations of the association.

Then Elena Rokhlina, speaking on behalf of the PDS NPSR, invited everyone to a rally against anti-people reforms organized by them on July 29 in Sokolniki Park. To the surprise of many at the Conference, Igor Chubais, the brother of the famous “reformer”, made an interesting report. He agreed with the words of Fr. Vsevolod Chaplin on spiritual poverty of power. He characterized the antagonistic attitude of the Soviet Union to Tsarist Russia "as a murderer towards the one killed". He cited many interesting facts about the falsification of the Russian history of the time of Nicholas II. In particular, according to reports of the high command of the empire during the period of military operations, 598 thousand soldiers were killed. And these figures were recognized by the Soviet government before the Second World War, citing them in their publications. Let the war at the Provisional Government claimed another 100 thousand lives. Total 700 thousand, i.e. LESS than the opponent. But when the losses of the Soviet Union in the war with Hitler Germany amounted to many millions of people, showing the "effectiveness" of the Soviet system before "tsarism", then the toll figures of the tsarist army shamelessly monstrously falsely climbed up. And the process continues. The following are the reasons for the Bolshevik storming of the Winter Palace on October 25, 1917. The fact is that on October 26, the capitulation and the withdrawal from the war of Austria-Hungary were planned (Russia in this case remained among the winners). Berlin urgently contacted Lenin about this and ordered him to do something! No wonder they equipped him and sent him to Petrograd. That is why Lenin's words sounded then, that “ Mr. Evolution is in danger! The delay of death is like! ”

The poetess Natalya Shakhnazarova read out her poems and also called for the unification of all the patriotic forces of Russia, embracing the life-affirming best historical experience of our people. Other representatives of monarchical organizations and public figures also spoke. The conference was concluded by Bishop of the non-aligned with the MP part of the ROCOR, Vladyka Sergius. His speech was mainly devoted to explaining the understanding of the atoning role of the king.

The Conference ended, as it should be for Orthodox events, with the prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos "It is worthy to eat."

Link

Read more »

100.000 persones commemoren l'execució de l'últim tsar de Rússia

Cent mil persones van participar la matinada de dimarts 17 de juliol en una processó en memòria de l'últim Tsar rus, Nicolau II, i la seva família a Iekaterinburg, ciutat situada als Urals on ahir es van commemorar els cent anys de la seva mort. La processó, encapçalada pel patriarca de l'Església ortodoxa russa, Ciril I, i el governador regional, Evgueni Kuivaixev, va començar a la Catedral sobre la Sang, erigida a l'indret on es trobava la casa al soterrani de la qual va ser afusellada la família imperial russa el 17 de juliol del 1918 a mans dels revolucionaris bolxevics.

Enllaç a fotografies
Article en francès

Read more »

El tribunal d'Irkutsk refusa la demanda dels rojos contra el monument a Kolchak

El tribunal d'Irkutsk ha rebutjat, el 14 de juny, la demanda de 26 comunistes sobre el desmantellament del monument a l'almirall Alexander Kolchak (Koltxak), va informar l'agència de notícies IrCiti. A més, el tribunal es va negar a desmantellar la placa commemorativa a la construcció de l'estació de l'estació Irkutsk i les inscripcions al front de l'edifici del Museu Regional d'Història Local d'Irkutsk.

Read more »

White Guard Underground in Ukraine, 1918

With this publication I begin the electronic edition of the memoirs of General Boris Aleksandrovich Shteifon "Kharkiv Main Center of the Volunteer Army. 1918", timed to the 100th anniversary of the events described in the memoirs.

The manuscript of memoirs is kept in the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF. F. 5881. Op.2. D. 754). The memoirs were written by General Steinfonn in emigration to Yugoslavia in the 1930s (exact date unknown). I copied them in the archive by hand, typed in electronic form, provided them with illustrations and applications, wrote some comments. Memories will be published in fragments with captions-quotes. Appendices and comments - under the text.


Major General B. Steyfon. Kharkiv Main Center for the Volunteer Army. 1918
In the abundant historical and memoir literature devoted to the southern volunteer saga, there are almost no indications of the activities of the “Main Centers of the Volunteer Army”. Meanwhile, the work of the Centers extremely clearly reflected the psychological and formal content of the turbulent 1918 year. In the Volunteer Centers of that period, the whole diversity of political and social relationships created in the South of Russia, as in a fancy kaleidoscope of rapidly changing attitudes and events, gathered, as in focus. Volunteers and Bolsheviks, hetmans and Petliurists, German troops and gangs of robbers, the cynicism of anarchy and sacrificial service to the Motherland passed by.

The work of the Centers was strictly conspiratorial. This condition explains the fact that even those who specifically studied the history of the Russian turmoil have little knowledge of the activities of the Centers today. Moreover, even those who took a close part in the work of the Centers were usually familiar only with the area in which they directly acted. The conspiracy has its own laws, and experience has convinced how dangerous it is to violate these laws. And only the head of the Main Center was a fully informed person, a person in whose hands all the threads of complex control were concentrated. In the further presentation, for example, how many even the most responsible employees of the Center, almost the only meeting with me about the Center’s affairs, did not suspect that they were in direct contact with the head of the Kharkov Main Center. ... And only a limited circle of those closest to me and trusted people knew my true official position.




The idea of ​​the Centers was contrived and carried out the gene. Mv Alekseev - the founder of the Volunteer Army. The insignificant means with which the gene disposed. Alekseev in the first period of life of the Volunteer Army, encouraged him to create such an organization, which could ensure the arrival of all the necessary means to the army. Then it seemed necessary to widely popularize among the population of the South of Russia both the fact of existence and the idea of ​​the Volunteer Army. It seemed necessary because the South of Russia was planned to be the object of the nearest actions of the Volunteer Army. The experience of the revolution convinced General Alekseev of how important and necessary propaganda organs are. According to General Alekseev, the South of Russia was divided into a number of Main Centers - Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa, Crimea and Tiflis. Each Main Center was completely independent in its activities and carried out military administrative, political and financial tasks. He was directly subordinated first to General Alekseev, and after his death - to the high command.




Having created the organization of the Centers, General Alekseev connected the Volunteer Army with the vast rich South of Russia and greatly paralyzed the initial evil of the Volunteer Army - its lack of rear. Such a reform not only improved the moral and material conditions of the army, but also rooted the authority of the high command in the eyes of foreigners. The latter were forced to reckon with the fact that the volunteer movement is not limited only to the Kuban region, but is organically linked with the South Russian regions.




Creating the Main Centers, General Alekseev believed that in the future, as the Volunteer Army advanced to the north, the Main Centers would be transformed into the appropriate administrative bodies - governorships or general governorships. He considered such a transformation desirable because such organizations transferred the future civilian control to "local" people, that is, elements well acquainted with the needs, aspirations and moods of the region.




As is known, the political life of the South of Russia in 1918 developed bizarrely and motley. Communication Centers with the Volunteer Army is often broken. Therefore, the head of the Main Center was guided in his work by the directives of General Alekseyev, in fact, he had dictatorial powers, which he used in accordance with both the local situation and the peculiarities of his character, his temperament.




The selection of the chiefs of the Main Centers was made personally by General Alekseev from among the senior generals living in the area. They were appointed: in Kiev - Lieutenant-General Lomnovsky, in Odessa - Vice-Admiral Nenyukov, in the Crimea - Lieutenant-General Bode, in the Crimea - Lieutenant-General Shatilov * . The post of chief of the Kharkov Main Center, despite the presence in the area of ​​many generals, was appointed by me, then the young colonel of the General Staff. Meanwhile, the Kharkov region was one of the most important, for it was outlined by the closest object of action for both the Bolsheviks and volunteers. This area was the control center of the Donetsk basin and served as an arena for numerous political experiments of Ukrainians of all kinds.




In those days of horror, grief and suffering, Kharkiv was the only major center of southern Russia, in which there was no terror, shaking Kiev, Odessa, Sevastopol in 1918 ... In particular, there was no terror directed against the officers. It was not because the terror attempts on the part of the Bolsheviks and left-Ukrainians invariably and quickly manifested counter-terror, an eye for an eye!




Now, against the background of a historical perspective, it can be stated with complete impartiality that the leaders of the Kharkov Main Center managed to save thousands of human lives and prevent in Kharkov neither massive Sevastopol beatings, nor the tragedy of the legendary Odessa “Almaz”, nor the sad and bloody events of the Kiev Museum ...




Kharkiv, however, survived its share of suffering, but already in 1919, when the Center’s activities were curtailed and the head of the Center was in the Volunteer Army. However, even then there was no terror against the officers as such. In 1919, the Bolsheviks directed their cruelty mainly against the unorganized, and therefore defenseless Kharkiv intelligentsia.

* Not PN Shatilov, the former chief of staff of General Wrangel, and his relative, the former chief of the Caucasian Grenadier Division. (Approx. B. Steyfona)




Continued:

1 series | 2 series | 3 series | 4 series | 5 series | 6 series

Read more »

Acte pel centenari de l'inici de la campanya del gel

El 22 de febrer de 2018 a Ekaterinburg la Unió Imperial Russa-Ordre, va commemorar el centenari de l'inici de la campanya del gel. S'hi van llegir dues ponències, una dedicada a l'Exèrcit Blanc de Voluntaris i l'altra a Ivan Aleksandrovitx Ilyin, ideòleg del moviment blanc rus, amb
Dmitry Sysuev de la RIU-O. La campanya del gel continua essent un enigma de com un grapat de persones van poder fer una campanya militar en inferioritat numèrica i sense recursos. 

Read more »

In Moscow, prayers for the rest of General Vladimir Kappel

In Moscow, the remains of the white General Vladimir Oskarovich Kappel (Владимира Каппеля) are buried in the Donskoy Monastery of the Russian capital. In 2006, with the efforts of the White Warriors (Белые воины) movement the remains of General V.O. Kappel were found, transported to Russia and solemnly reburied in January 2007 in Moscow, in the Donskoy Monastery.

The tradition has also resumed - July 28, the day of sv. Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, the patron saint of general Vladimir Kappel, to hold commemorative events at his resting place. Faithful Muscovites regularly commemorate the “warrior Vladimir” in their prayers and at the Divine Liturgy.

Lieutenant-General V.O. Kappel was born in 1883 in an officer's family. Kappel by 1917 was in the rank of lieutenant colonel, and is rightfully considered one of the most iconic officers of the White movement in Eastern Russia. He established himself as a brave officer who retained the debt to the end of his oath. Vladimir Kappel personally led offensive units subordinate to him, always took care of the soldiers entrusted to him.

It is indicative that during the Siberian Ice Campaign in the winter of 1920, after the death of V.O. Kappel, who was already in the post of commander-in-chief of the white armies of the Eastern Front, simple Russian soldiers did not abandon his body, but made the hardest transition through Lake Baikal, in order to adequately bring the body of your favorite commander in Chita on earth. In 1922, during the exodus of the whites outside of Russia, the ashes of the general were taken away by comrades-in-arms to be reburied in China, in which thousands of Russian soldiers found their last refuge.

The remains of VO Kappel for a long time rested in the land of Harbin, at the northern wall of the St. Iveron Church, still known as "The Officer". In 1920-1930, in the fence of the Iveron Church in Harbin, a memorial service was held annually at the tomb of V.O. Kappel, which was attended by numerous comrades-in-arms of the general in the White struggle. In the 1940s, with the beginning of the Second World War, for obvious reasons, the tradition was broken. Later, at the direction of the civil authorities from Moscow, the monument itself was destroyed at the grave of Vladimir Oskarovich - a marble cross with a wreath of thorns. The tradition of commemoration of General Kappel on the day of the memory of Prince Vladimir arose in the distant 20s of the last century, when Kappelevans scattered all over the world in Vladimir's day gathered in the Chinese city of Harbin near the walls of the St. Iversky (Officer's) church, where Kappel had rest in peace. This pious tradition was revived in Russia in 2007, when the solemn ceremony of the reburial of the remains of General Kappel was held at the Donskoy Monastery.

Article in Business Gazeta

Read more »

On the attitude of the Russian Church Abroad to the Second World War

The meeting of the overseas Russian bishops under the chairmanship of the Patriarch of Serbian Varnava in Sremsky Karlovtsy, at which the “Provisional Regulations on the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.” Metropolitan Anastassy (Gribanovsky), Bishop Dimitry (Voznesensky)

The position of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) during the years of the Second World War has not yet become the subject of much research and is still distorted. Unfortunately, during the Soviet period, all the works devoted to this topic had not so much a scientific as an ideological character. A distinctive feature of these works was the accusations of the Church Abroad in support of Hitler's Germany. Especially in these writings metropolitan Anastasia (Gribanovsky), who headed the Russian Church Abroad during the Second World War [1] . Similar accusations were made by the Moscow Patriarchate. Thus, in June 1945, in the process of preparing a pan-Orthodox condemnation of the Church Abroad, the Moscow Patriarchate prepared a preliminary memorandum signed by the Patriarch of Alexandria, the Antioch, Moscow and Jerusalem. Among the accusations against the ROCOR contained the following clause: “treason against the common Christian cause of fighting fascism” [2] . There is reason to believe that Patriarch Alexy I himself did not want this condemnation, but acted under state pressure [3] . Scheduled conviction failed. Firstly, the idea was not supported by Constantinople, and secondly, the Pan-Orthodox Council was necessary for the condemnation, at which extremely uncomfortable questions for the Soviet leadership could be raised. But the opinion of the ROCOR, as an organization that supported Hitler, still exists even in the church environment. At the same time, the non-seriousness of the approach to the question is indicated, among other things, by frequent references to Archimandrite Ioann (Shakhovsky) and his article “The Hour is Near” [4] . The fact is that Archimandrite John was under the authority of the Russian Western European Exarchate of the Church of Constantinople and had no relation to ROCOR.



What is the position of the Russian Church Abroad in fact?

At first glance, it may seem that she really had grounds for supporting Germany. On the territory of the Reich, the ROCOR had a diocese, and its position was more favorable compared to dioceses in other countries, including Yugoslavia. In the early 1930s. The Foreign Synod did not exclude the possibility of moving to Germany [5] . Since March 1936, the government of Prussia issued a decree granting the status of a public law corporation to the Orthodox Berlin and German Diocese of ROCOR. This ruling was extended to other lands of the country [6] . Thus, the Diocese of the ROCOR became the only legal Orthodox structure in Germany. In 1938, the bishop also changed here. They became an ethnic German, bishop (later Metropolitan) Seraphim (Lyade). In the same year, with the German help in the center of Berlin, the Cathedral of the Resurrection was completed.

Not only a significant part of the Germans, but also a considerable part of the Russian emigration, saw in Hitler a leader who saved the country from the humiliating consequences of the First World War and was ready to oppose the world communist camp. Therefore, at a certain stage, the support of the Fuhrer could have been sincere. In the Berlin Diocese of the ROCOR, commemoration of the state leadership was introduced. On June 8, 1936, the Synod of Bishops prescribed the following formula for the Führer's commemoration. On the great litany in the temples of the ROCOR in Germany, it was necessary to proclaim: "On the Christ-loving Leader of the people of Germany, his government and army, let us pray to the Lord." On a special litany: “We also pray for the Christ-loving Leader of the German People, for power, victory, stay, peace, health, their salvation and the Lord God, most likely, hurry and help them in all and subdue under the nosyaz of every enemy and adversary” [7] .



Metropolitan Anastassy (Gribanovsky)

Another event linking the ROCOR with the German government is the well-known grateful address of Metropolitan Anastassy (Gribanovsky) (June 1938), read at the consecration of the cathedral in Berlin. In his message, the metropolitan not only thanked the Führer for his help in building the temple, but also blessed him to fight against the forces “wanting to destroy our people too”, that is, the communists. “This temple,” the document said, “strengthens our hope that the end of history has not yet come to our long-suffering homeland, and that the Commander of history will send the Leader to us, and this Leader will resurrect our Homeland, just as He sent You to the German people. " After that, a prayer was said for the leader and the state chancellor [8] .

These two facts (the commemoration of Hitler in the Berlin Diocese and the grateful address of Metropolitan Anastassy) still remain the subject of complaints against Metropolitan Anastassy. It does not take into account that the formula of commemoration and a thank-you message were compiled even before the “crystal night” (November 1938), after which the essence of the Hitler regime became obvious, and more than a year before the start of World War II. Since no one considered Hitler to be a criminal, it is not surprising that in those years no complaints against Metropolitan Anastassy came from any of the Local Churches. At the consecration of the Resurrection Cathedral were attended by representatives of the Serbian and Bulgarian Churches. And the Patriarch of Antioch, Alexander III, and the head of the Church of Greece, Archbishop Chrysostom, in their letters to Metropolitan Anastasia, expressed their joy at the help of the “great German government” [9] .



Archimandrite Anthony (Sinkevich)

Archimandrite (later Archbishop) Anthony (Sinkevich), later justifying Metropolitan Anastasia, wrote: if the Moscow church authorities considered the German authorities so criminal, then why didn’t she condemn her government for an alliance with Hitler in 1939? [10] The same idea was expressed in 1946 by Archbishop Leonty (Turkevich), the future head of the North American metropolis: “As for the letter to Vl [adyk] M [itropolit] Anastasia, thanking for the construction of the church in Berlin, then if he put it to blame, why not blame Joseph Vissarionovich for his intercourse with the Nazis in the same years? Must be the same judgment. And besides, it was all BEFORE THE WAR " [11] .

In parallel with this, in the second half of the 1930s. there is also a growing mistrust of the ROCOR leadership towards the Nazi regime. In 1936, at the St. Vladimir's celebration in Belgrade, Metropolitan Anastasius said that fascism cannot be the Russian ideal, because it suppresses human freedom, without which an Orthodox state is unthinkable [12] . Dissatisfaction with the ideology of National Socialism was also apparent in the speeches of delegates to the Second All-Diaspora Council in 1938. [13] In the Russian Church Abroad, the liberation of Russia from the communist regime at that time was associated with other ideas, and above all with the monarchist idea.

The Second All-Diaspora Council noted that Russia's misfortunes stemmed from the fact that it retreated from its Christian mission and rejected the king. The people exchanged their mission for the promise of a lentil soup of earthly paradise and as a result turned out to be in a terrible God-fighting slavery. The Council called the restoration of the Orthodox monarchy a condition for saving Russia. In the face of the coming shocks, the Council called on emigration to rally around the Orthodox Church and specifically around the head of the ROCOR, Metropolitan Anastassy [14] .



Second All-Diaspora Cathedral

A year later, the Russian Church Abroad corrected its position, which was due to the premonition of the imminent war between Germany and the Soviet Union. War seemed imminent. The relevant prophecies were published in the emigrant press. For example, words were attributed to Patriarch Tikhon that he would outlast Lenin, and the Soviet power would fall 15 years after his Most Holy death. They also pointed to the words of the Rev. Nectarius of Optina , that after the regicide (1918), the Russian people were allowed 22 years to repent. "Orthodox Russia" published the words of St. Seraphim of Sarov about the terrible bloodshed that will be sent to Russia for cleansing. They were popular in the late 1930s. and other prophecies [15] .

September 12, 1939, that is, at the very beginning of the Second World War, the ROCOR Bishops' Council was held in Yugoslavia. On the very first day of the Council, a message was unanimously received by Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich Romanov, in which he was in fact recognized as the leader of the Russian people. "The Cathedral diligently prays to the Divine World Governor, grant you wisdom to comprehend the signs of the times and clothe you with strength and courage in order to enter the great cause of liberation at the appropriate time by the enslaved godless power of the Native Earth, uniting the whole Russian people around itself," the message said [ 16] . The same Council declared on September 14 that now emigration should unite around Vladimir Kirillovich, and there is no need for the existence of a second center in the person of the Synod of Bishops. It can be said that the leadership of a future free Russia from the Bolsheviks has already been blessed by the Russian Church Abroad [17] .

Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union took place against this background. On the one hand, this background was an expectation of the liberation of Russia from the communist dictatorship, on the other hand - distrust of Hitler.



Archbishop Seraphim (Ivanov)

This duality was reflected in the editorial article of the journal "Orthodox Russia" (June 1941). The author of the article, Archimandrite Seraphim (Ivanov), did not welcome the attack, but spoke of it as the beginning of the restoration of Russia. Archimandrite cited the prophecy of the Monk Aristocracy (Amvrosiyev): “At the command of God, the Germans will enter Russia and save her, but they will not stay in Russia and go to their country” [18] . In this connection, the author of the article recalled Emperor Alexander I, who liberated Europe from Napoleon, but did not take over Germany and France. But is it possible to pin such hopes on Hitler? The author of those articles did not feed. On the contrary, he warned that there is no reason to hope for the nobility of Hitler, and instead of re-creating Russia, its dismemberment could occur. It will be based on the national republics artificially created by the Bolsheviks [19] .

In the future, representatives of the ROCOR looked at this war in their own way, there was no single attitude to it. There were no official orders about the attitude of the Church Abroad to this war.

To understand this situation, we must remember that none of the states (including Germany) could influence the Church Abroad as a whole - its dioceses were located in different countries, on different continents. The Nazi regime could not subjugate all the eparchies of the ROCOR. In addition, the Foreign Synod during the war years was actually cut off from most of its dioceses and did not have the opportunity to send circulars. It is clear that the anti-Hitler speeches of the German cleric would not have remained without punishment. However, a priest in the neighboring Great Britain or Switzerland could bravely oppose Hitlerism. And the pro-German speeches of the ROCOR cleric in America after her entry into the war could have ended for the hapless preacher and criminal prosecution.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the statements about Hitler of the ROCA hierarchs during the war years were different.

Some hierarchs, such as, for example, the archbishops Seraphim (Lukyanov) and Hermogenes (Maximov), considered Hitler the savior of Europe [20] . Archbishop Seraphim (Lukyanov), who ruled the Western European Diocese of ROCOR and found himself in occupied France, is entitled “To the Faithful Sons of Russia”, which referred to Hitler’s crusade against world atheism. “May the devilish gang of villains who have crucified Russia perish,” the archbishop wrote. - May the Masonic star, hammer and sickle disappear from the face of the earth. Yes, the Cross of Christ will shine on the native Earth and in the whole Universe <...> Long live the Great National Russia ”. To understand the degree of sincerity of this hierarch is not an easy task, because at the end of the war he began to sing the Soviet system with no less enthusiasm.



Metropolitan Seraphim (Lyade)

The Western European archbishop was echoed by the head of the German diocese, Archbishop Seraphim (Lyade). In his pastoral address on June 22, 1941, he declared that the war had begun not against the Russian people, but only against the Soviet government with its “devilish anti-religious and communist propaganda” [21] . Subsequently, Metropolitan Seraphim (Lyade) in the messages was supported by the German government.

Some other hierarchs did not sympathize with the Soviet Union. One of the most respected Russian bishops in the United States, Archbishop Vitaly (Maksimenko), addressed a message to American President F. Roosevelt with a request not to render assistance to the communist state. The message indicated that power in Russia was illegitimate, that it had been seized by a group of conspirators — the Comintern, whose goal is to overthrow the legitimate world governments. Assistance to the Soviet state is impossible due to the fact that it is working against the United States, funding local communists and encouraging class hatred. Finally, the power in the Soviet Union remains anti-Russian and continues terror against the Church [22] .

Archbishop Theodosius (Samoilovich) took a sharp anti-Soviet stance in ROCA in South America. He wrote that praying for the Soviet government was “serving the devil” [23] .

But there was the opposite attitude towards war. St. Seraphim (Sobolev) who ruled the Russian parishes in Bulgaria never served as a prayer for Germany’s victory, and the archpastor’s spiritual children, Archimandrite (later Bishop) Parthenius (Stamatov) and Archimandrite Methodius (Zherev), maintained contact with the anti-fascist underground in Bulgaria [24] .

The head of the North American Metropolitan ROCOR, Metropolitan Theophilus (Pashkovsky), and also some other North American hierarchs during the war years prayed for the victory of the Soviet Union [25] .



St. John (Maksimovich)

Some archpastors changed their position during the war. St. John (Maximovich) , Bishop of Shanghai, in the early years of the war, prayed for the victory of Germany and changed his position only at the beginning of 1943. From that time he began to pray for the victory of the Red Army [26] . There is information that the saint made money collections for her needs [27] . In 1945, the archpastor made a thanksgiving prayer service in connection with the victory of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition.

The position of the head of the ROCOR, Metropolitan Anastasia, deserves special consideration. He did not want to be under the influence of the Hitler administration, and in 1941 he even made an attempt to move from Yugoslavia to Switzerland [28] . The move did not take place, Metropolitan Anastasius remained in Belgrade.

Already in the first months after the German attack on the Soviet Union, it became clear that the Russian Church Abroad with the National Socialists was not on the way. Hitler, who sought to dismember Russia, tried to prevent a single Orthodox Church on its territory.

On August 16, the chief of the security police and SD, R. Heydrich, signed Operational Order No. 10, based on the Fuhrer's directives. The order directly stated that there can be no talk of supporting Orthodoxy and re-establishing the Patriarchal Russian Church. On the contrary, splitting and fragmentation of church groups was encouraged [29] . A. Resenberg, Reich Minister of Eastern Territories, spoke against Orthodoxy as a unifying Russian force. His secret instruction dated May 13, 1942 stated that in the occupied territories any religious community should be limited to the confines of one region, and the Russian Church should not be allowed access to the spiritual leadership in Belarus and Ukraine.

In accordance with the instructions of Hitler, on August 6, 1941, an order appeared signed by the commander-in-chief of the German armed forces, V. Keitel, prohibiting the engagement of clergy from abroad in activities in the "eastern territories". This prohibition, which concerned primarily the Russian Church Abroad, was repeated in other orders of the German departments [30] . Because of the distrust of the ROCOR, different jurisdictions operated in the occupied territories - the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Romanian Church, the Belarusian and Ukrainian Autonomous Churches, the openly schismatic “Ukrainian Autocephalous Church”, the parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Renovationists. The Germans did not allow representatives of the Russian Church Abroad into the occupied territories - its patriotic, monarchical and Great Russian ideas did not fit into German plans at all. When organizing church structures in the occupied territories, the Nazis stipulated a condition not to enter into contacts with the Church Abroad [31] . Attempts by the latter to send their clerics to the Russian regions captured by Germany ended in failure.

In September 1942, the clergy of the Smolensk and Oryol regions, who did not wish to submit to the newly formed Belarusian Church, appealed to Metropolitan Seraphim (Lyada) of Germany. The clergy declared that they wanted to obey the ROCOR and asked them to send a bishop to Orel. On November 19, the Synod of Bishops proposed that Metropolitan Seraphim take measures to send bishops to Smolensk and Orel and organize church life there [32] . However, this decision remained on paper - Metropolitan Seraphim (Lyada) could not send not only a bishop, but also a deacon to Smolensk and Orel. Moreover, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was actually forbidden even to feed some of the German territories. We are talking about the Diocese of Bialystok-Grodno, Germany included in East Prussia. Although this diocese was to be governed by the Berlin-German bishop, in fact the diocese was ruled by the Belarusian Church as a kind of “foreign Belarusian exarchate” [33] .

A similar situation was in Ukraine. In 1942, the initiative group of the Ukrainian Autonomous Church, consisting of the bishops Panteleimon (Rudyk), Veniamin (Novitsky) and Dimitry (Magan), appealed to Metropolitan Seraphim (Lyade) to accept the Ukrainian Church. Metropolitan Seraphim advised the hierarchs to turn to the Reich Commissar of Ukraine [34] . As a result, the ROCA was not allowed to enter Ukraine’s territory, and the request of the Ukrainian hierarchs remained without consequences.

S.V. Troitsky, referring to the letters of Metropolitan Seraphim (Lyada), spoke about the material assistance of the German Government of the Church Abroad [35] . However, studies carried out in the archives of the Nazi departments suggest that the provision of material support to the ROCOR during the war years was out of the question, and the German Diocese remained one of the poorest in the Church Abroad [36] .

Only very few priests who were attached to the Russian anti-Soviet formations got into the occupied territories from the clerics of the ROCOR.

In Europe, the activities of the ROCOR during the war years were also seriously limited. The sovereigns of the Russian Church Abroad did not allow the Hitlerite leadership to convene, despite the constant attempts of Metropolitan Anastassy to get them convened. The only case is the permission to hold the Vienna Conference in October 1943, which opposed the election of Patriarch Sergius in Moscow. But in this case, we can confidently say that this statement of the Vienna Conference was not the result of pressure from the Hitler state. First, Metropolitan Anastasius, before the Vienna Conference, spoke about electing Patriarch Sergius as an anti-canonical act and compared the assignment of Patriarch Sergius with the appointment of Patriarch Ignatius under False Dmitry I - both were ordered by dictators, although with subsequent subsequent approval by the Council of Bishops [37] . Secondly, the meeting participants criticized the position of Germany regarding the Church and the Orthodox population.

The last decision was logical. During the entire period of the Second World War, the ROCOR was oppressed by the German government. After the occupation of Yugoslavia by Hitler Germany, the Gestapo organized a search in the apartment of Metropolitan Anastassy on Krunskaya Street, 20. The work of the Synod of Bishops was also seized [38] . At one time, the temples in Leipzig and Dresden were threatened with closure. The closure did not take place solely because of the fear that such an action would worsen relations with the German allies - Romania and Bulgaria [39] .

I met obstacles and the educational activities of the Church Abroad. Until mid-1942 there was a ban on the import of literature published by the monastery of St. Job in Ladomirovo to the territory of the Reich, Bohemia and Moravia, Belgium, Holland and Serbia. In subsequent years of war, these areas were allowed to distribute literature only in churches or by subscription [40] . On the part of the clergy of the Russian Church Abroad, repeated attempts were made to render pastoral assistance to prisoners of war, as well as to workers who had been taken to work in Germany. However, the German leadership has obstructed here too. With great difficulty, Metropolitan Seraphim (Lyada) managed to get permission to appoint 15 traveling priests who visited the camps. But in practice, the activities of these shepherds depended on the local authorities, who, at their own discretion, decided on the admission of the clergy to the camps [41] .

The position of the ROCOR during the war years was complicated by the impossibility of communication between the Synod of Bishops and the dioceses. Metropolitan Anastasius believed that the obstacles to the normal activities of the Synod were part of German policy. Moreover, the situation did not change even during the agony of the Hitler regime [42] .

The attitude of Metropolitan Anastasia to the Nazi authorities was also manifested in the fact that he did not agree with the demand to issue an appeal to the Russian people to fight on the side of Germany. Metropolitan Anastassy justified his refusal by saying that the real goals of Germany towards Russia are unknown to him [43] . During the war years, the Synod did not have instructions to pray for the victory of Germany, on the contrary, such prayers were even forbidden [44] . Although the Easter message of Metropolitan Anastasia of 1942 contained the words about the “courageous German sword” [45] , this was far from what the hierarch Germany had expected. Neither the messages with the support of Hitler, nor the synodal definitions on the part of the ROCOR, the Nazis did not wait.

What can really be blamed on Metropolitan Anastasia is the blessing given to the Russian guard group, transformed in 1943 into the Russian guard corps, and the Russian Liberation Army A.A. Vlasov. However, let us leave this fact on the conscience of Metropolitan Anastasia himself - this decision was not discussed at the conciliar or synodal level and could not be discussed. Other archpastors and clerics of the Russian Church Abroad quite calmly expressed the opposite point of view on the Vlasov movement. For example, St. Seraphim (Sobolev) forbade Russian émigrés to join Russian anti-Soviet formations, insisting that it was a sin to fight against their homeland [46] .

It is noteworthy that the Serbian Church, more than the other Local Churches suffered from Nazi Germany, treated the behavior of Metropolitan Anastasia during the war years with understanding. Patriarch Serbian Gabriel later turned to the public with words in defense of Metropolitan Anastasia: "Metropolitan Anastassy with great wisdom and tact was held by the Germans, was always loyal to the Serbs, was searched several times and did not enjoy the confidence of the Germans" [47] .

The head of the North American Metropolitan Church of the ROCOR, Metropolitan Theophilus (Pashkovsky), also wrote that Metropolitan Anastasius was not associated with the regime of the national socialists. In 1946, he supported Metropolitan Anastasia, who at that time was able to move to Switzerland and was engaged in the revival of the Russian Church Abroad. Local communists tried to achieve the expulsion of Metropolitan Anastasia from the country. The letter of Metropolitan Theophilus to the President of Switzerland at that moment helped Metropolitan Anastasia. The head of the North American metropolis wrote: “Metropolitan Anastassy manages our Church outside of Russia in the best possible way and is a man of higher ecclesiastical principles and a good life, without interfering with politics. The current campaign of the communist press against him is extremely sad and undesirable and should be ignored. Therefore, I respectfully ask Your Excellency to allow him to remain in Switzerland for the benefit of the Russian Church and the people in Europe ” [48] . Thanks to this letter, the attacks on the Metropolitan gradually faded away [49] .

Thus, it can be said that the accusations of the Russian Church Abroad in supporting Nazi Germany are unfounded. The statements of individual hierarchs in support of Germany are their private opinion and remain on their conscience. Moreover, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia had opposite examples when the archpastors of the Church Abroad did not hide their negative attitude towards Nazism and the war on its side. The Hitler regime did not receive the blessing of the Russian Church Abroad for a war against the fatherland. The principles of the existence of the ROCOR, based on the idea of ​​a great, united, monarchical Russia, did not allow the Church Abroad to support Germany in this war.

Notes:

[1] See eg.: Gordienko N., Komarov P., Kurochkin P. Politicans of religion. The truth about the "Russian Church Abroad." M., 1975. S. 54; Sulackov A. They write letters provokers. Alma-Ata, 1973. S. Troitsky . About the iniquity of the Karlovac split Editions de L'Exarchat Russe en Europe Occidentale. Repr M. 1992 S. 94 - 96 and others.

[2] DECR archive. D. “Russian Church Abroad”. P. "1945". L. 34 - 34 about. Publ. in: Kostryukov A. Russian Church Abroad in 1939-1964 Administrative structure and relations with the Church in the Fatherland. M. 2015. p. 373 - 374.

[3] This assumption is supported by the fact that Patriarch Alexy I served the requiem for the ROCOR head to Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) in 1957, the fact that an overwhelming majority of ROCOR representatives were accepted to the Moscow Patriarchate, etc.

[4] New word (Berlin). No. 27 of 06/29/1941.

[5] DECR archive. The case "Metropolitan Sergius. Correspondence. Western Europe". Folder "1931 - 1933". L. 115 about.

[6] Nikitin A. The Nazi regime and the Russian Orthodox community in Germany (1933 - 1945). M. 1998. S. 116 - 119.

[7] See: Definitions of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia // Church Life. 1936. No. 7. S. 99.

[8] Sanctification of the Berlin Cathedral // Church Life. 1938. № 5 - 6. P. 93 - 96; Malice or folly? // Morning Dawn. 1938. № 10 - 11. P. 84-85; The German press on the consecration of the Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Berlin // Church Life. 1938. No. 7. S. 110.

[9] Diploma of the Patriarch of Antioch to the Chairman of the Synod of Bishops // Church Life. 1939. No. 7. S. 101; Diploma of the Archbishop of Hellas to the Chairman of the Synod of Bishops // Church Life. 1939. No. 7. S. 102.

[10] Anthony (Sinkevich), archim . Letter igum. Nikon 09/28/1945 // Archives of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. D. 225-n "Archimandrite Nikon".

[11] Leonty (Turkevich), Archbishop . A letter to the archbishop. Vitaly (Maksimenko) September 5, 1946 // Archive of Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville. F. “Talberg”. B. 13. F. 6.

[12] Jubilee collection commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America. Part 2, New York. 1945. p. 34.

[13] See: Acts of the Second All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with the participation of representatives of the clergy and laity, held on 1/14 - 11/24 August 1938 in Sremsky Karlovtsy in Yugoslavia. Belgrade, 1939. p. 460, 520.

[14] Ibid. S. 682 - 703.

[15] See ..: Prophecies about the Russian distemper // Heavenly Bread. 1941. No. 1. S. 48; Prediction of prep. Seraphim of Sarovsky about the Russian distemper // Orthodox Russia. 1941. No. 12. S. 2.

[16] GA RF. F. 6343. Op. 1. D. 22. L. 2 vol. - 3.

[17] GA RF. F. 6343. Op. 1. D. 22. L. 8.

[18] Sursky I. Father John of Kronstadt. Belgrade, 1938. p. 196.

[19] Seraphim, Archim . “Lord Jesus Christ, raise holy Orthodox Russia!” // Orthodox Russia. 1941. No. 12. S. 1.

[20] Kosik V. The Croatian Orthodox Church (from organization to liquidation) (1942–1945). A look from the 21st century. M., 2012. P. 42.

[21] Nikitin A. The Nazi regime and the Russian Orthodox community in Germany. S. 402, 403.

[22] Vitaly (Maksimenko), Archbishop . The motives of my life. New York. Jordanville Bd Pp. 162 - 163.

[23] Theodosius (Samoilovich), Archbishop . A letter to a certain hierarch of 09/03/1941 // Archives of Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville. F. “Talberg”. B. 1. F. 9.

[24] GA RF. F. 6991. Op. 1. D. 132. L. 216.

[25] Theodosius (Samoilovich), Archbishop . A letter to a certain hierarch of 09/03/1941 // Archives of Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville. F. “Talberg”. B. 1. F. 9.

[26] GA RF. F. 6991. Op. 7. D. 28. L. 23.

[27] Pozdnyaev D., priest . Acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate and church schism in Shanghai // Alpha and Omega.1997. № 2 (13). P. 166.

[28] Gregory (Grabbe), Bishop . The covenant of the holy patriarch. M. 1996. p. 323.

[29] M. Shkarovsky. The policy of the Third Reich towards the Russian Orthodox Church in the light of archival materials of 1935-1945. M. 2003. S. 183 - 185. Nikitin A . The Nazi regime and the Russian Orthodox community in Germany. Pp. 312-313.

[30] See .: Shkarovsky M . Nazi Germany and the Orthodox Church. M. 2002. S. 157 - 158, 190.

[31] Alekseev . The Orthodox Church in the German-occupied territory of Russia in 1941-1944. // Church life // Church life. 1957. № 1 - 3. S. 31.

[32] Minutes of the meeting of the Synod of Bishops 19.11.1942 // Archives of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR. The case of "Metropolitan Anastasius." K. 1.

[33] Alekseev . The Orthodox Church in the German-occupied territory of Russia in 1941-1944. // Church life // Church life. 1957. № 1 - 3. S. 31.

[34] The Russian Orthodox Church during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. Collection of documents. Sost: Vasilyeva O.Yu., Kudryavtsev I.I., Lykova L.A. M., 2009 p. 644 - 645.

[35] S. Troitsky About the Karlovatsky schism's iniquity. P. 98 - 99.

[36] Nikitin A. The Nazi regime and the Russian Orthodox community in Germany. P. 39.

[37] Anastasius, Met. Regarding the election of the Patriarchal Throne of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Sergius, to the Patriarchal Throne, the Church Life. 1943 № 9. S. 125 - 131.

[38] To the centenary of birth. The Most Blessed Metropolitan Anastasius // Church Life. 1973. No. 5 - 7.S. 45.

[39] M. Shkarovsky. Nazi Germany and the Orthodox Church. Pp. 249 - 252.

[40] Nikitin . The Nazi regime and the Russian Orthodox community in Germany. S. 338.

[41] Kornilov A. Transformation of Russia. Nizhny Novgorod. 2000. p. 87.

[42] Zaide G. The Bishops' Council of 1946 and its significance for the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. // Church life. 1986. № 9 - 10. P. 170.

[43] To the centenary of birth. The Most Blessed Metropolitan Anastasius // Church Life. 1973. № 5 - 7. P. 46.

[44] GA RF. F. 6991. Op. 1. D. 140. L. 11 - 12.

[45] Church life. 1942. № 4. S. 3.

[46] For more details, see: Kostryukov A. Fire of Fire. The life and legacy of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev). M. 2015. P. 120.

[47] Zaide G. The Bishops' Council of 1946 and its significance for the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad // Church Life. 1986. № 9 - 10. P. 162. See also: Polish M., arch . A letter to an unknown bishop on October 22, 1945 // Archives of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR. The case of "Metropolitan Anastasius." Box 1.

[48] Zaide G. The Bishops' Council of 1946 and its significance for the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Pp. 162.

[49] Vitaly (Maksimenko), Archbishop. Letter archim. Anthony (Sinkevich) February 2, 1946 // Archive of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem. D. 46 "Letters to Metropolitan Anastasia"

Link

Read more »