Bolshevik romantic. How and why did Soviet military leader Mikhail Frunze die? The mysterious death of the People's Commissar of Military Affairs Death of Frunze and his wife
Which of the leaders of the revolution displeased M.V. Frunze?
Ninety years ago, on October 31, 1925, the People's Commissar of the USSR and Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council, Mikhail Vasilyevich Frunze, died. He was an unusually gifted and strong-willed person; it was people like him who made up the “golden fund” of the Bolsheviks.
Frunze took part in the armed uprising in Moscow in December 1905 and October 1917. An underground revolutionary, a functionary of the RSDLP - he was twice sentenced to death, but it was nevertheless replaced with hard labor, in which Frunze spent six years. He had the opportunity to prove himself in a variety of positions. He headed the Shuya Council of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, was a deputy of the Constituent Assembly from the Vladimir province, and led the Ivano-Voznesensk provincial committee of the RCP (b) and the provincial executive committee.
But, of course, first of all, Mikhail Vasilyevich became famous as an outstanding commander-nugget. In 1919, at the head of the 4th Army of the Red Army, he defeated the Kolchakites. In 1920 (together with the Insurgent Army of N.I. Makhno) he took Perekop and crushed Wrangel (then led the “purge” of the Makhnovists themselves).
And in the same year he led the Bukhara operation, during which the emir was overthrown and the People's Soviet Republic was established. In addition, Frunze was a military theorist and creator of the army reform of 1924–1925. He lived a colorful life, but his death raised many questions.
1. Unclear reasons
Frunze died after surgery caused by a stomach ulcer. According to the official version, the cause of death was blood poisoning. However, later another version was put forward - Mikhail Vasilyevich died of cardiac arrest as a result of the effects of anesthesia. The body tolerated it very poorly; the person being operated on could not fall asleep for half an hour. At first they gave him ether, but it had no effect, then they started giving him chloroform. The influence of the latter is already quite dangerous in itself, and in combination with ether everything was doubly dangerous. Moreover, the anesthetizer (that’s what anesthesiologists were called then) A.D. Ochkin also exceeded the dose. At the moment, the “narcotic” version prevails, but not everyone shares it. Thus, according to the Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor V.L. Popov, the immediate cause of Frunze’s death was peritonitis, and death by anesthesia is just an assumption, there is simply no evidence of this. Indeed, the autopsy showed that the patient had widespread febrinous-purulent peritonitis. And the severity of peritonitis is quite sufficient to consider it the cause of death. Moreover, in the presence of inferiority of the aorta and large arterial vessels. It is believed that this was congenital, Frunze lived with this for a long time, but peritonitis aggravated the whole matter. (Program “After Death. M.V. Frunze.” Channel Five TV. 11/21/2009).
As we see, it is not yet possible to even accurately determine the cause of Frunze’s death. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about murder, at least for now. Although, of course, a lot of things look very suspicious. A year after Frunze’s death, People’s Commissar of Health N.A. Semashko reported the following. It turns out that surgeon V.N. Rozanov, who operated on Frunze, suggested not to rush into the operation. As, indeed, did his attending physician P.V. Mandryk, who for some reason was not allowed into the operation itself. In addition, according to Semashko, only a small part of the council that made the decision on the operation was competent. However, it should be noted that Semashko himself chaired this consultation.
In any case, one thing is obvious - Frunze had very, very serious health problems. By the way, his first symptoms appeared back in 1906. And in 1922, a council of doctors at the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party strongly recommended that he go abroad for treatment. However, Frunze, so to speak, “sabotaged” this recommendation. It seemed to him that this would greatly distract him from his work. He went for treatment to Borjomi, and the conditions there were clearly insufficient.
2. Trotskyist trace
Almost immediately, talk began that the People's Commissar had been killed. Moreover, at first the murder was attributed to supporters of L.D. Trotsky. But very soon they went on the offensive and began to blame everything on I.V. Stalin.
A powerful literary “bomb” was manufactured: writer B.V. Pilnyak published “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon” in the magazine “New World,” in which he subtly hinted at Stalin’s involvement in the death of Frunze.
Moreover, of course, he did not name either one or the other; the People's Commissar was brought out under the name of Army Commander Gavrilov - a completely healthy man, but almost forcibly put under the surgeon's knife. Pilnyak himself considered it necessary to warn the reader: “The plot of this story suggests that the reason for writing it and the material was the death of M. V. Frunze. Personally, I hardly knew Frunze, I barely knew him, I saw him twice. I don’t know the actual details of his death - and they are not very significant for me, because the purpose of my story was in no way to report on the death of the People’s Commissar for Military Affairs. I find it necessary to inform the reader of all this so that the reader does not look for genuine facts and living persons in it.”
It turns out the following. On the one hand, Pilnyak rejected all attempts to connect the plot of the story with real events, and on the other hand, he still pointed to Frunze. For what? Maybe so that the reader is left with no doubt about who and what we are talking about? Researcher N. Nad (Dobryukha) drew attention to the fact that Pilnyak dedicated his story to the writer A.K. Voronsky, one of the leading theorists of Marxism in the field of literature and a supporter of the “Left Opposition”: “There is evidence in the archives of how the idea of “The Tale” arose. It began, apparently, with the fact that Voronsky, as a member of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, was included in the “Commission for organizing the funeral of comrade. M.V. Frunze". Of course, at the Commission meeting, in addition to ritual issues, all the circumstances of the “failed operation” were discussed. The fact that Pilnyak dedicated “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon” to Voronsky suggests that Pilnyak received the main information about the reasons for the “unsuccessful operation” from him. And clearly from Trotsky’s “angle of view”. It was not without reason that already in 1927 Voronsky, as an active participant in the Trotskyist opposition, was expelled from the party. Later, Pilnyak himself will suffer. So, Pilnyak was part of Voronsky’s literary circle, which, in turn, was part of Trotsky’s political circle. As a result, these circles have closed.” (“Who killed Mikhail Frunze” // Izvestia.Ru)
3. Opponent of the “demon of revolution”
Let us not rush to conclusions about Trotsky’s involvement in the death of the commander. We are talking about the Trotskyists’ attempt to pin everything on Stalin - here everything is completely clear. Although Lev Davidovich had every reason to dislike Frunze - after all, it was he who replaced him as People’s Commissar of Military Affairs and Chairman of the RVS. However, strings can be pulled during the Civil War.
Relations between Trotsky and Frunze were then, to put it mildly, strained. In 1919, a serious conflict occurred between them.
At that time, Kolchak’s army was conducting a successful offensive, rapidly and aggressively moving towards the regions of Central Russia. And Trotsky at first generally fell into pessimism, declaring that it was simply impossible to resist this onslaught. (By the way, it is worth recalling that at one time vast areas of Siberia, the Urals and the Volga region fell away from the Bolsheviks during the uprising of the White Czechs, which was, to a large extent, provoked by Trotsky, who gave the order for their disarmament.) However, then he nevertheless gathered with spirit and gave the order: to retreat to the Volga and build fortification lines there.
The commander of the 4th Army, Frunze, did not obey this order, having received the full support of Lenin. As a result of a powerful counter-offensive, units of the Red Army threw the Kolchakites far to the east, liberating the Urals, as well as certain areas of the Middle and Southern Urals. Then Trotsky proposed to stop and transfer troops from the Eastern Front to the Southern Front. The Central Committee rejected this plan, and the offensive was continued, after which the Red Army liberated Izhevsk, Ufa, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Tyumen and other cities of the Urals and Western Siberia.
Stalin recalled all this in his speech to trade union activists (June 19, 1924): “You know that Kolchak and Denikin were considered the main enemies of the Soviet Republic. You know that our country breathed freely only after the victory over these enemies. And so, history says that both of these enemies, i.e. Kolchak and Denikin were finished off by our troops DESPITE Trotsky’s plans. Judge for yourself: It takes place in the summer of 1919. Our troops are advancing on Kolchak and operating near Ufa. Central Committee meeting. Trotsky proposes to delay the offensive along the Belaya River (near Ufa), leaving the Urals in the hands of Kolchak, withdraw some troops from the Eastern Front and transfer them to the Southern Front. Heated debates take place. The Central Committee does not agree with Trotsky, finding that the Urals with its factories, with its railway network, where he can easily recover, gather his fist and again find himself near the Volga, cannot be left in the hands of Kolchak - it is necessary first to drive Kolchak beyond the Ural ridge, into the Siberian steppes , and only after that start transferring forces to the south. The Central Committee rejects Trotsky’s plan... From this moment on, Trotsky withdraws from direct participation in the affairs of the Eastern Front.”
In the fight against Denikin’s troops, Trotsky also showed himself to the fullest – from the negative side. At first, he very “successfully” commanded to the point that the Whites captured Oryol and moved to Tula. One of the reasons for such failures was a quarrel with N.I. Makhno, whom the “demon of the revolution” declared outlawed, although the fighters of the legendary Old Man fought to the death. “It was necessary to save the situation,” notes S. Kuzmin. – Trotsky proposed delivering the main blow to the Denikins from Tsaritsyn to Novorossiysk, through the Don steppes, where the Red Army would encounter complete impassability and numerous White Cossack gangs on its way. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin did not like this plan. Trotsky was removed from leadership of the Red Army's operations in the south." ("Contrary to Trotsky")
One gets the impression that Trotsky did not at all want the victory of the Red Army. And it is quite possible that it was so. Of course, he didn’t want defeat either. Rather, his plans were to drag out the Civil War as long as possible.
This was also part of the plans of the “Western democracies” with which Trotsky was associated, who persistently proposed for almost the entire first half of 1918 to conclude a military-political alliance with England and France. So, in January 1919, the Entente proposed that the Whites and Reds hold a joint conference, make peace and maintain the status quo - each dominates within the territory controlled at the time of the truce. It is clear that this would only prolong the state of division in Russia - the West did not need it strong and united.
4. The Failed Bonaparte
During the civil war, Trotsky showed himself to be an inveterate Bonapartist, and at one point was even close to seizing power, relying on the army.
On August 31, 1918, an attempt was made on the life of Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Lenin. He was in critical condition, and this inevitably raised the question: who would lead the country in the event of his death? Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) Ya.M. had a very strong position. Sverdlov, who at the same time headed the rapidly growing apparatus of the RCP (b). But Trotsky also had the strongest resource - the army. And so, on September 2, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted the following resolution: “The Soviet Republic is turning into a military camp. The Revolutionary Military Council is placed at the head of all fronts and military institutions of the Republic. All the forces and means of the Socialist Republic are placed at his disposal."
Trotsky was placed at the head of the new body. It is significant that neither the Council of People's Commissars nor the party are involved in making this decision. Everything is decided by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, or rather, its chairman, Sverdlov. “Attention is drawn to the fact that there was no decision of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on the creation of the Revolutionary Military Council,” notes S. Mironov. – It is not known about any plenum of the Central Committee these days. Sverdlov, who concentrated all the highest party positions in his hands, simply removed the party from deciding the issue of creating the Revolutionary Military Council. A “completely independent state power” was created. Military power of the Bonapartist type. No wonder contemporaries often called Trotsky the Red Bonaparte.” (“Civil War in Russia”).
When Lenin recovered from his illness and again took up government affairs, an unpleasant surprise awaited him. It turned out that the power of the Council of People's Commissars was greatly reduced, and the creation of the RVS played an important role in this. Ilyich, however, was not so easy to cut down, and he quickly found a way out of this situation. Lenin responded to one apparatus maneuver with another, forming a new body - the Union of Workers' and Peasants' Defense (since 1920 - the Union of Labor and Defense), of which he himself became the head. Now the RVS megastructure was forced to submit to another - SRKO.
After Lenin's death, throughout 1924 Trotsky's supporters were removed from the top army leadership. The greatest loss was the removal from the post of Deputy RVS E.M. Sklyansky, who was precisely replaced by Frunze .
Commander of the Moscow Military District N.I. Muralov, without any hesitation, suggested that “the demon of the revolution should raise troops against the leadership. However, Trotsky never decided to do this; he preferred to act by political methods - and lost.
In January 1925, his opponent Frunze became People's Commissar of Military Affairs and Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Union.
5. Thinker of the new army
The new People's Commissar of Military Affairs was not only an outstanding commander, but also a thinker who created a coherent system of ideas about what the army of the new state should be like. This system is rightly called the “Frunze Unified Military Doctrine.”
Its foundations are set out in a series of works: “Reorganization of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army” (1921), “Unified Military Doctrine and the Red Army” (1921), “Military-Political Education of the Red Army” (1922), “Front and Rear in the War of the Future” "(1924), "Lenin and the Red Army" (1925).
Frunze gave his definition of a “unified military doctrine”. In his opinion, it is “a doctrine that establishes the nature of the construction of the country’s armed forces, the methods of combat training of troops, on the basis of the views prevailing in the state on the nature of the military tasks facing it and the method of resolving them, arising from the class essence of the state and determined by the level of development of productive forces of the country."
The new, Red Army differs from the old armies of bourgeois states in that it is built on ideological foundations. In this regard, he insisted on the special role of party and political organizations in the army. In addition, the new army must be people's and avoid any casteism. At the same time, it must be characterized by the highest professionalism.
Ideology is ideology, but you can’t rely only on it. “...Frunze did not accept the Trotskyist idea of “revolution on bayonets,” notes Yuri Bardakhchiev. – Back in the fall of 1921, he argued that it was unreasonable to hope for the support of the foreign proletariat in a future war. Frunze believed that “it is quite probable that an enemy will appear before us, who will be very difficult to succumb to the arguments of revolutionary ideology.” Therefore, he wrote, in the calculations of future operations, the main attention should be paid not to hopes for the political disintegration of the enemy, but to the possibility of “actively physically crushing him.” (“Frunze’s Unified Military Doctrine” // “The Essence of Time”).
In addition, it should be noted that if Trotsky could not stand national patriotism, then Frunze was not alien to it. “There, in the camp of our enemies, there simply cannot be a national revival of Russia, and it is precisely from that side that there can be no talk of fighting for the well-being of the Russian people.
Because it is not because of their beautiful eyes that all these French and English are helping Denikin and Kolchak - it is natural that they are pursuing their own interests. This fact should be quite clear that Russia is not there, that Russia is with us...
We are not weaklings like Kerensky. We are engaged in a mortal battle. We know that if they defeat us, then hundreds of thousands, millions of the best, most persistent and energetic in our country will be exterminated, we know that they will not talk to us, they will only hang us, and our entire homeland will be covered in blood. Our country will be enslaved by foreign capital."
Mikhail Vasilyevich was confident that the basis of military operations was the offensive, but the most important role also belonged to defense, which should be active. We should not forget about the rear. In a future war, the importance of military equipment will only increase, so this area needs to be given great attention. Tank building should be developed in every possible way, even “to the detriment and expense of other types of weapons.” As for the air fleet, “its importance will be decisive.”
Frunze’s “ideocratic” approach clearly differed from the approach of Trotsky, who emphasized his non-ideological approach to issues of army development. CM. Budyonny recalls the military meeting at the XI Congress of the RCP (b) (March–April 1922) and the shocking speech of the “demon of the revolution”: “His views on the military issue were directly opposite to the views of Frunze. We were all literally amazed: what he argued contradicted Marxism, the principles of the proletarian construction of the Red Army. “What is he talking about? - I was perplexed. “Either he doesn’t understand anything about military affairs, or he deliberately confuses an extremely clear question.” Trotsky declared that Marxism was generally inapplicable to military affairs, that war was a craft, a set of practical skills, and therefore there could be no science of war. He threw mud at the entire combat experience of the Red Army in the Civil War, saying that there was nothing instructive there. It is characteristic that throughout the entire speech Trotsky never once referred to Lenin. He bypassed the well-known fact that Vladimir Ilyich was the creator of the doctrine of just and unjust wars, the creator of the Red Army, that he led the defense of the Soviet Republic, and developed the foundations of Soviet military science. But, noting in his theses the need for decisive offensive actions and educating soldiers in the spirit of high combat activity, Frunze relied specifically on the works of V.I. Lenin, in particular, was guided by his speech at the VIII Congress of Soviets. It turned out that it was not Trotsky who “refuted” Frunze, but Lenin!”
Trotsky can hardly be blamed for indifference to issues of ideology, especially in such an important area as the military. Most likely, he simply wanted to enlist the support of broad army circles, positioning himself as a supporter of their independence from party political bodies. Trotsky, in general, “restructured” very easily, based on tactical considerations. He could demand the militarization of the trade unions, and then, after a while, act as an ardent champion of internal party democracy. (By the way, when in the 1930s an internal opposition emerged in his Fourth International, the “democrat” Trotsky crushed it quickly and mercilessly.) It is quite possible that it was precisely this “non-ideological” nature of Trotsky in military affairs that supported his popularity among the army.
Frunze, on the other hand, honestly and openly defended the ideocratic line, he did not need populist gestures, his popularity was firmly won by brilliant victories.
6. Kotovsky factor
The mysterious death of Frunze can be placed on a par with the murder of the civil war hero and commander of the 2nd Cavalry Corps G.I. Kotovsky. Mikhail Vasilyevich and Grigory Ivanovich were very close. The latter became the army commander's right hand. And after Frunze headed the military people's commissariat and the RVS, he planned to make Kotovsky his first deputy. And he fully deserved it, and not only in view of his past merits during the Civil War. In 1923, Kotovsky won the largest military maneuvers, and then spoke at the Moscow meeting of command personnel and proposed transforming the core of the cavalry into armored units.
In 1924, Grigory Ivanovich proposed to Frunze a daring plan for the reunification of Russia with his native Bessarabia. It was assumed that he, with one division, would cross the Dniester and defeat the Romanian troops with lightning speed, raising the local population (among whom he himself was very popular) to revolt. After this, Kotovsky will create his own government, which will propose reunification. Frunze, however, rejected this plan.
One cannot ignore the fact that Kotovsky was in a very conflictual relationship with I.E. Yakir, who was a relative of Trotsky and enjoyed his support in moving up the career ladder. This is what Kotovsky’s son, Grigory Grigorievich, says: “During the Civil War, there were several clashes between my father and Yakir. So, in 1919, at a large station, it seems, Zhmerinka, a detachment of former Galicians rebelled. Yakir, who happened to be at the station at that time, got into the staff car and drove off. Then Kotovsky used the following tactics: his brigade began to dart at a fast pace through all the streets of the town, creating the impression of a huge number of cavalry. With a small force, he suppressed this uprising, after which he caught up with Yakir on a steam locomotive. My father was terribly hot-tempered, a person of explosive nature (according to my mother’s stories, when commanders came home, they first of all asked: “How is the back of the commander’s head – is it red or not?”; if it was red, then it was better not to approach). So, the father jumped into the carriage to Yakir, who was sitting at the desk, and shouted: “Coward! I’ll kill you!” And Yakir hid under the table... Of course, such things are not forgiven.” (“Who killed the Robin Hood of the revolution?” // Peoples.Ru).
Thus, it can be assumed that the murder of Kotovsky in 1925 was somehow connected with the activities of Trotsky’s group. Frunze took up the investigation himself, but death did not allow him to complete this case (like many other cases) to the end.
Today it is impossible to answer the question: was Frunze killed, and who benefited from his death. It is unlikely that Stalin, who had a strong and reliable ally in Mikhail Vasilyevich, was interested in this. Perhaps new documents will be discovered that will shed new light on the circumstances of that ill-fated October operation.
Special for the Centenary
85 years ago, on October 31, 1925, the 40-year-old Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR, People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs, Mikhail Frunze, died in the Botkin Hospital after a stomach operation. The causes of his death are still debated among historians, politicians, and medical experts.
Version of the writer Pilnyak
Officially, newspapers of that time reported that Mikhail Frunze suffered from a stomach ulcer. The doctors decided to perform an operation. It was conducted on October 29, 1925 by Dr. V.N. Rozanov. He was assisted by doctors I. I. Grekov and A. V. Martynov, anesthesia was performed by A. D. Ochkin. Overall, the operation was successful. However, 39 hours later, Frunze died “with symptoms of heart paralysis.” 10 minutes after his death on the night of October 31, I.V. Stalin, A.I. Rykov, A.S. Bubnov, I.S. Unshlikht, A.S. Enukidze and A.I. Mikoyan arrived at the hospital. An examination of the body was carried out. The prosector wrote down: the underdevelopment of the aorta and arteries discovered during the autopsy, as well as the preserved thymus gland, are the basis for the assumption that the body is unstable in relation to anesthesia and its poor resistance to infection. The main question - why heart failure occurred, leading to death - remained unanswered. Confusion about this was leaked to the press. The article “Comrade Frunze is recovering,” published by Rabochaya Gazeta on the very day of his death, was published. At work meetings they asked: why was the operation performed; why did Frunze agree to it if you can live with an ulcer anyway; what is the cause of death; Why was misinformation published in a popular newspaper? In this regard, doctor Grekov gave an interview, published with variations in different publications. According to him, the operation was necessary because the patient was in danger of sudden death; Frunze himself asked to operate on him as soon as possible; the operation was classified as relatively easy and was performed according to all the rules of surgical art, but the anesthesia was difficult; the sad outcome was also explained by unforeseen circumstances discovered during the autopsy.
The ending of the interview was sharply politicized: no one was allowed to see the patient after the operation, but when Frunze was informed that Stalin had sent him a note, he asked to read the note and smiled joyfully. Here is her text: “My friend! Today at 5 pm I was with Comrade Rozanov (me and Mikoyan). They wanted to come to you, but they didn’t let you in, it’s an ulcer. We were forced to submit to force. Don't be bored, my darling. Hello. We will come again, we will come again... Koba.”
Grekov’s interview further fueled distrust of the official version. All the gossip on this topic was collected by the writer Pilnyak, who created “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon,” in which everyone recognized Frunze in the image of Army Commander Gavrilov, who died during the operation. Part of the circulation of Novy Mir, where the story was published, was confiscated, thereby seeming to confirm the version of the murder. This version was once again repeated by director Yevgeny Tsymbal in his film “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon,” in which he created a romantic and martyr’s image of a “real revolutionary” who took aim at unshakable dogmas.
Romantic of “folk bloodletting”
But let's figure out what kind of romantic the country's youngest People's Commissar of Military Affairs really was.
Since February 1919, M.V. Frunze successively led several armies operating on the Eastern Front against the Supreme Ruler of Russia, Admiral A.V. Kolchak. In March he became commander of the Southern Group of this front. The units subordinate to him were so carried away by the looting and robbery of the local population that they completely disintegrated, and Frunze more than once sent telegrams to the Revolutionary Military Council asking them to send him other soldiers. Desperate to get an answer, he began to recruit reinforcements for himself using the “natural method”: he took trains with bread from Samara and invited the people left without food to join the Red Army.
More than 150 thousand people took part in the peasant uprising that rose against Frunze in the Samara region. The uprising was drowned in blood. Frunze's reports to the Revolutionary Military Council are replete with figures of people executed under his leadership. For example, during the first ten days of May 1919, he destroyed about one and a half thousand peasants (whom Frunze in his report calls “bandits and kulaks”).
In September 1920, Frunze was appointed commander of the Southern Front, operating against the army of General P.N. Wrangel. He led the capture of Perekop and the occupation of Crimea. In November 1920, Frunze turned to the officers and soldiers of General Wrangel's army with a promise of complete forgiveness if they remained in Russia. After the occupation of Crimea, all these servicemen were ordered to register (refusal to register was punishable by execution). Then the soldiers and officers of the White Army who believed Frunze were arrested and shot directly according to these registration lists. In total, during the Red Terror in Crimea, 50-75 thousand people were shot or drowned in the Black Sea.
So it is unlikely that in the popular consciousness any romantic associations were associated with the name Frunze. Although, of course, many then might not have known about the military “arts” of Mikhail Vasilyevich. He carefully hid the darkest sides of his biography.
His handwritten commentary on the order to award Bela Kun and Zemlyachka for atrocities in Sevastopol is known. Frunze warned that the presentation of orders should be done secretly, so that the public would not know what exactly these “heroes of the civil war” were being awarded for.
In a word, Frunze fit into the system quite well. Therefore, many historians believe that Frunze’s death occurred purely due to a medical error - an overdose of anesthesia. The reasons are as follows: Frunze was Stalin’s protege, a politician completely loyal to the leader. Moreover, it was only 1925 - 12 years before the execution on the 37th. The leader has not yet dared to carry out “purges”. But there are facts that are difficult to ignore.
A series of "random" disasters
The fact is that 1925 was marked by a whole series of “accidental” disasters. First, a series of tragic incidents involving senior officials in Transcaucasia.
On March 19, in Moscow, the chairman of the Union Council of the TSFSR and one of the chairmen of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR N.N. Narimanov suddenly died “of a broken heart.”
On March 22, the First Secretary of the Regional Committee of the RCP (b) A.F. Myasnikov, the Chairman of the ZakChK S.G. Mogilevsky and the representative of the People's Commissariat of Posts and Telegraphs G.A. Atarbekov, who was flying with them, were killed in a plane crash.
On August 27, near New York, under unclear circumstances, E. M. Sklyansky, Trotsky’s permanent deputy during the civil war, removed from military activities in the spring of 1924 and appointed chairman of the board of the Mossukno trust, and chairman of the board of the Amtorg joint-stock company I. Ya. Khurgin.
On August 28, at the Parovo station near Moscow, a longtime acquaintance of Frunze, a member of the Revolutionary Military Council of the 6th Army during the Perekop operation, a member of the bureau of the Ivanovo-Voznesensk provincial party committee, and chairman of Aviatrest V. N. Pavlov, was killed under a train.
Around the same time, the head of the Moscow Regional Police, F.Ya. Tsirul, who was close to People’s Commissar Frunze, died in a car accident. And Mikhail Vasilyevich himself, at the beginning of September, fell out of a car at full speed, the door of which for some reason turned out to be faulty, and miraculously survived. So the “eliminations”, apparently, have already begun. Another question is whether Stalin or anyone else from the political elite had a reason to eliminate Frunze? Who did he cross? Let's look at the facts.
Participant in the “cave meeting”
In the summer of 1923, in a grotto not far from Kislovodsk, a canned meeting of the party elite took place under the leadership of Zinoviev and Kamenev, which was later called the “cave meeting”. It was attended by vacationers in the Caucasus and party leaders of that time invited from nearby regions. At first this was hidden from Stalin. Although the issue was discussed specifically about limiting his powers of power in connection with Lenin’s serious illness.
None of the participants in this meeting (except Voroshilov, who, most likely, was there as the leader’s eyes and ears) died a natural death. Frunze was present there as a military component of the “putsch”. Could Stalin forget this?
Another fact. In 1924, on Frunze's initiative, a complete reorganization of the Red Army was carried out. He achieved the abolition of the institution of political commissars in the army - they were replaced by assistant commanders for political affairs without the right to interfere in command decisions.
In 1925, Frunze made a number of moves and appointments in the command staff, as a result of which military districts, corps and divisions were headed by military personnel selected on the basis of military qualifications, but not on the principle of communist loyalty. Stalin's former secretary B.G. Bazhanov recalled: “I asked Mehlis what Stalin thought about these appointments?” - “What does Stalin think? - Mehlis asked. - Nothing good. Look at the list: all these Tukhachevskys, Korks, Uborevichis, Avksentievskys - what kind of communists they are. All this is good for the 18th Brumaire, and not for the Red Army."
In addition, Frunze was loyal to the party opposition, which Stalin did not tolerate at all. “Of course, there should and will be shades. After all, we have 700,000 party members leading a colossal country, and we cannot demand that these 700,000 people think the same way on every issue,” wrote the People’s Commissar for Military Affairs.
Against this background, an article about Frunze, “The New Russian Leader,” appeared in the English monthly Aeroplan. “In this man,” the article said, “all the constituent elements of the Russian Napoleon were united.” The article became known to the party leadership. According to Bazhanov, Stalin saw the future Bonaparte in Frunze and expressed sharp dissatisfaction with this. Then he suddenly showed touching concern for Frunze, saying: “We do not at all monitor the precious health of our best workers,” after which the Politburo almost by force forced Frunze to agree to the operation.
Bazhanov (and not only him) believed that Stalin killed Frunze in order to appoint his own man, Voroshilov, in his place (Bazhanov V.G. Memoirs of Stalin’s former secretary. M., 1990. P. 141). They claim that during the operation exactly the kind of anesthesia that Frunze could not endure due to the characteristics of his body was used.
Of course, this version has not been proven. And yet it is quite plausible.
Mikhail Vasilyevich Frunze - revolutionary figure, Bolshevik, military leader of the Red Army, participant in the Civil War, theorist of military disciplines.
Mikhail was born on January 21 (old style) 1885 in the city of Pishpek (Bishkek) in the family of paramedic Vasily Mikhailovich Frunze, a Moldovan by nationality. The boy’s father, after graduating from a Moscow medical school, was sent for army service to Turkestan, where he remained. Mikhail's mother, Mavra Efimovna Bochkareva, a peasant by birth, was born in the Voronezh province. Her family moved to Turkmenistan in the mid-19th century.
Mikhail had an older brother, Konstantin, and three younger sisters - Lyudmila, Claudia and Lydia. All Frunze children studied at the Verny gymnasium (now the city of Almaty). The eldest children, Konstantin, Mikhail and Claudia, received gold medals after graduating from the secondary level. Mikhail continued his studies at the St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute, where he entered in 1904. Already in the first semester, he became interested in revolutionary ideas and joined the Social Democratic Labor Party, where he joined the Bolsheviks.
In November 1904, Frunze was arrested for participating in a provocative action. During the Manifestation on January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg, he was wounded in the arm. Having dropped out of school, Mikhail Frunze fled from persecution by the authorities to Moscow, and then to Shuya, where he led a strike of textile workers in May of the same year. I met Frunze in 1906, when he was hiding in Stockholm. Mikhail had to hide his real name during the organization of the underground movement in Ivanovo-Voznesensk. The young party member was known under the pseudonyms Comrade Arseny, Trifonich, Mikhailov, Vasilenko.
Under the leadership of Frunze, the first Council of Workers' Deputies was created, which distributed leaflets with anti-government content. Frunze led city rallies and seized weapons. Mikhail was not afraid to use terrorist methods of struggle.
The young revolutionary stood at the head of an armed uprising in Moscow on Presnya, seized the Shuya printing house with the use of weapons, and attacked police officer Nikita Perlov with the aim of murder. In 1910, he received a death sentence, which, at the request of members of the public, as well as the writer V.G. Korolenko was replaced by hard labor.
Four years later, Frunze was sent for permanent residence to the village of Manzurka, Irkutsk province, from where he fled to Chita in 1915. Under the name Vasilenko, he worked for some time in the local publication “Transbaikal Review”. Having changed his passport to Mikhailov, he moved to Belarus, where he got a job as a statistician in the Zemsky Union Committee on the Western Front.
The purpose of Frunze's stay in the Russian army was to spread revolutionary ideas among the military. In Minsk, Mikhail Vasilyevich headed an underground cell. Over time, Frunze gained a reputation among the Bolsheviks as a specialist in paramilitary actions.
Revolution
At the beginning of March 1917, Mikhail Frunze prepared the seizure of the armed police department of Minsk by squads of ordinary workers. The archives of the detective department, the police station's weapons and ammunition, and several government institutions fell into the hands of the revolutionaries. After the success of the operation, Mikhail Frunze was appointed temporary chief of the Minsk police. Under Frunze's leadership, the publication of party newspapers began. In August, the military man was transferred to Shuya, where Frunze took the post of chairman of the Council of People's Deputies, the District Zemstvo Government and the City Council.
Mikhail Frunze met the revolution in Moscow at the barricades near the Metropol Hotel. Two months later, the revolutionary received the post of head of the party cell of the Ivanovo-Voznesensk province. Frunze was also involved in the affairs of the military commissariat. The Civil War allowed Mikhail Vasilyevich to fully demonstrate the military abilities that he acquired during his revolutionary activities.
From February 1919, Frunze took command of the 4th Army of the Red Army, which managed to stop the attack on Moscow and launch a counter-offensive on the Urals. After such a significant victory of the Red Army, Frunze received the Order of the Red Banner.
Often the general could be seen on horseback at the head of the army, which allowed him to form a positive reputation among the Red Army soldiers. In June 1919, Frunze received a shell shock near Ufa. In July, Mikhail Vasilyevich headed the Eastern Front, but a month later received a task in the southern direction, the zone of which included Turkestan and the territory of Akhtuba. Until September 1920, Frunze carried out successful operations along the front line.
Frunze repeatedly gave guarantees of preserving the lives of those counter-revolutionaries who were ready to go over to the side of the Reds. Mikhail Vladimirovich promoted a humane attitude towards prisoners, which caused discontent among higher ranks.
In the fall of 1920, the Reds began a systematic offensive against the army, which was located in the Crimea and Northern Tavria. After the defeat of the Whites, Frunze's troops attacked their former comrades - the brigades of Father, Yuri Tyutyunnik and. During the Crimean battles, Frunze was wounded. In 1921 he joined the Central Committee of the RCP(b). At the end of 1921, Frunze went on a political visit to Turkey. The communication of the Soviet general with the Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk made it possible to strengthen Turkish-Soviet ties.
After the revolution
In 1923, at the October plenum of the Central Committee, where the distribution of forces between the three leaders (Zinoviev and Kamenev) was determined, Frunze supported the latter, making a report against Trotsky’s activities. Mikhail Vasilyevich blamed the People's Commissar for Military Affairs for the collapse of the Red Army and the lack of a clear system for training military personnel. On Frunze’s initiative, the Trotskyists Antonov-Ovseyenko and Sklyansky were removed from high military ranks. Frunze's line was supported by the Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army.
In 1924, Mikhail Frunze went from deputy chief to chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR and People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs, and became a candidate member of the Politburo of the Central Committee and the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b). Mikhail Frunze also headed the headquarters of the Red Army and the Military Academy of the Red Army.
Frunze's main merit during this period can be considered the implementation of military reform, the purpose of which was to reduce the size of the Red Army and reorganize the command staff. Frunze introduced unity of command, a territorial system of division of troops, and participated in the creation of two independent structures within the Soviet Army - a standing army and mobile police units.
At this time, Frunze developed a military theory, which he outlined in a number of publications - “Unified Military Doctrine and the Red Army”, “Military-Political Education of the Red Army”, “Front and Rear in the War of the Future”, “Lenin and the Red Army”, “Our military construction and tasks of the Military Scientific Society.”
Over the next decade, thanks to Frunze’s efforts, airborne and tank troops, new artillery and automatic weapons appeared in the Red Army, and methods of providing logistical support to troops were developed. Mikhail Vasilyevich managed to stabilize the situation in the Red Army in a short time. The theoretical developments of tactics and strategy for combat in an imperialist war, laid down by Frunze, were fully realized during the Second World War.
Personal life
Nothing is known about the personal life of the Red military leader before the revolution. Mikhail Frunze married only after 30 years the daughter of a Narodnaya Volya member, Sofya Alekseevna Popova. In 1920, a daughter, Tatyana, was born into the family, and three years later, a son, Timur. After the death of their parents, the children were taken in by their grandmother. When my grandmother passed away, my brother and sister ended up in the family of a friend of Mikhail Vasilyevich -.
After graduating from school, Timur entered the Flight School and served as a fighter pilot during the war. Died at the age of 19 in the sky over the Novgorod region. Posthumously awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. Daughter Tatyana graduated from the Institute of Chemical Technology and worked in the rear during the war. She married Lieutenant General Anatoly Pavlov, with whom she gave birth to two children - son Timur and daughter Elena. The descendants of Mikhail Frunze live in Moscow. My granddaughter is studying chemistry.
Death and rumors of murder
In the fall of 1925, Mikhail Frunze turned to doctors for treatment of a stomach ulcer. The general was scheduled for a simple operation, after which Frunze died suddenly on October 31. The official cause of the general’s death was blood poisoning; according to the unofficial version, Stalin contributed to Frunze’s death.
A year later, Mikhail Vasilyevich’s wife committed suicide. Frunze's body was buried on Red Square, Sofia Alekseevna's grave is located at the Novodevichy cemetery in Moscow.
Memory
The unofficial version of Frunze’s death was taken as the basis for Pilnyak’s work “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon” and the memoirs of the emigrant Bazhanov “Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary.” The general’s biography was of interest not only to writers, but also to Soviet and Russian filmmakers. The image of the brave military leader of the Red Army was used in 24 films, in 11 of which Frunze was played by actor Roman Zakharyevich Khomyatov.
Streets, settlements, geographical objects, motor ships, destroyers and cruisers are named after the commander. Monuments to Mikhail Frunze were installed in more than 20 cities of the former Soviet Union, including Moscow, Bishkek, Almaty, St. Petersburg, Ivanovo, Tashkent, Kiev. Photos of the Red Army general are in all modern history textbooks.
Awards
- 1919 – Order of the Red Banner
- 1920 – Honorary revolutionary weapon
Frunze Mikhail Vasilyevich (party pseudonym - Arseny, Trifonych; born January 21 (February 2), 1885 - death October 31, 1925) - party, state and military figure, military theorist. Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR and People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs. From 1904 to 1915, he was repeatedly arrested and exiled, twice sentenced to death, which was later replaced by lifelong exile for revolutionary activities.
During the Civil War he was commander of the army and a number of fronts. Since 1920 - commanded the troops of Ukraine and Crimea. Since 1924, he was Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR, People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs; at the same time he was the chief of staff of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army and the Military Academy. Candidate member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks).
Origin. early years
Mikhail Frunze, from the bourgeoisie, was born in the city of Pishpek (Kyrgyzstan) into the family of a military paramedic (father - Moldavian, mother - Russian). At the age of 12, the boy lost his father. His mother, left with five children, put all her efforts into their education. Mikhail graduated from high school with a gold medal. Entered the St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute. Since 1904 - member of the RSDLP.
Military and political activities
1916 - sent by the Bolsheviks to the Western Front, where he worked under the name Mikhailov in the institutions of the Zemstvo Union and headed the Bolshevik underground in Minsk. After the February Revolution, he was elected head of the people's militia of Minsk. 1917, August - appointed chief of staff of the revolutionary troops of the Minsk region and led the fight against the army on the Western Front.
In October, with a 2,000-strong detachment of Shuya workers and soldiers, he took part in the October armed coup in Moscow. 1918, August - appointed military commissar of the Yaroslavl military district. He did a lot of work in forming Red Army units and training them. He was the organizer of the suppression of a number of revolts.
1919, February - commander of the 4th Army, 1919, in May - June - commands the Turkestan Army, and since March 1919, at the same time commander of the Southern Army Group of the Eastern Front. During the counter-offensive of the Eastern Front, he carried out a number of successful offensive operations against the main forces, for which he received the Order of the Red Banner. 1919, July - commander of the troops of the Eastern Front that liberated the Northern and Middle Urals. 1919, August 15 - commands the Turkestan Front, whose troops completed the defeat of the southern group of Kolchak’s army, took the Southern Urals and opened the way to Turkestan.
1920, September 21 - appointed commander of the newly created Southern Front and leads the operation to defeat troops in Northern Tavria and Crimea, for which he is awarded the Honorary Revolutionary Weapon.
From December 1920 to March 1924, Mikhail Frunze was the authorized representative of the RVSR in Ukraine, commander of the troops of Ukraine and Crimea, at the same time a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine and deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR (since February 1922). For the defeat of the army of Wrangel and Petlyura and the elimination of banditry in Ukraine, he was awarded the second Order of the Red Banner.
1924, March - Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR and People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs, and from April 1924 - simultaneously Chief of Staff of the Red Army and Head of the Military Academy of the Red Army (later named after M.V. Frunze). 1925, January - Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR and People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs.
Personal life
Mikhail Frunze's wife's name was Sofya Alekseevna Popova (12/12/1890 - 09/04/1926, daughter of a Narodnaya Volya member). The marriage produced two children - daughter Tatyana and son Timur. After the death of their father in 1925 and mother in 1926, the children lived with their grandmother Mavra Efimovna Frunze (1861 - 1933). In 1931, after the grandmother’s serious illness, the children were adopted by a friend of their father, Voroshilov, who received permission to adopt a special by resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks.
The mystery of Frunze's death
Frunze loved driving fast: at times he himself got behind the wheel or told the driver to drive. In 1925, he had two accidents, and rumors began to spread that it was no coincidence. The last of them happened in September: Mikhail Vasilyevich flew out of the car and hit a lamppost hard.
After the accident, the People's Commissar for Military Affairs once again suffered from a gastric ulcer - he fell ill while he was in the Vladimir Central Prison. Mikhail Frunze could not stand the subsequent operation. According to the official version, the cause of death is a combination of difficult to diagnose diseases that led to cardiac paralysis.
Few believed that this death was accidental. Some were sure that Frunze had a hand in the death - only a few months had passed since the former replaced the latter as People's Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs of the Soviet Union. Others explicitly hinted at Stalin's involvement.
A year later, the writer Boris Pilnyak puts forward a version that J.V. Stalin got rid of a potential competitor in this manner. By the way, shortly before Frunze’s death, an article was published in the English “Airplane” where he was called the “Russian Napoleon”.
The party leadership found out about the article. According to the testimony of B.G. Bazhanov (Former secretary of Stalin), the leader of the people saw in Frunze the future Bonaparte and expressed sharp dissatisfaction about this. Then he suddenly showed touching concern for Mikhail Vasilyevich, saying: “We absolutely do not monitor the precious health of our best workers,” after which the Politburo a little or forcefully forced the commander to agree to the operation.
Bazhanov (and he was not alone) believed that Stalin killed Mikhail Frunze in order to put his own man, Voroshilov, in his place. They claim that during the operation, exactly the kind of anesthesia that Frunze could not endure due to the characteristics of his body was used.
Meanwhile, Frunze’s wife could not bear the death of her husband: in despair, the woman committed suicide. He took their children, Tanya and Timur, into his care.
Heritage
He carried out military reforms (reducing the size of the Red Army and building it on the basis of a mixed personnel-territorial principle). Author of military theoretical works.
In Soviet times, the name Frunze was borne by the capital of Kyrgyzstan (the former city of Pishpek, where Mikhail was born), one of the mountain peaks of the Pamirs, naval ships, and a military academy. Many streets and settlements in cities and villages of the former Soviet Union were named after him.
In the late autumn of 1925, Moscow was agitated by a rumor that Trotsky’s people had killed Frunze. However, very soon they started saying that this was the work of Stalin! Moreover, “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon” appeared, which gave this version almost an official sound, because, as the son of the author of “The Tale” Boris Andronikashvili-Pilnyak recalls, it was confiscated and destroyed! What really happened 85 years ago? What do the archives show? The investigation was conducted by Nikolai Nad (Dobryukha).
The well-known personal conflict between Stalin and Trotsky was a reflection of the political clash in the party of the two main trends of which they were leaders. The fire of this conflict, which had been smoldering within the party core even under Lenin, after his death in January 1924, flared up by the fall so that it threatened to “burn” the party itself.
On the side of Stalin (Dzhugashvili) were: Zinoviev (Radomyslsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld), Kaganovich, etc. On the side of Trotsky (Bronstein) are Preobrazhensky, Sklyansky, Rakovsky and others. The situation was aggravated by the fact that military power was in the hands of Trotsky. He was then the Chairman of the RVS, i.e. the main person in the Red Army for military and naval affairs. On January 26, 1925, Stalin managed to replace him with his comrade-in-arms in the Civil War, Mikhail Frunze. This weakened the position of Trotsky’s group in the party and state. And she began to prepare a political battle with Stalin.
This is what it all looked like in Trotsky’s notes: “... a delegation of the Central Committee came to me... to coordinate with me changes in the personnel of the military department. In essence, it was already a pure comedy. Renewal of personnel... has long been carried out in full swing over my back, and it was only a matter of observing the decorum. The first blow inside the military department fell on Sklyansky. "..." To undermine Sklyansky, in the long term and against me, Stalin installed Unshlikht in the military department... Sklyansky was removed. Frunze was appointed in his place... Frunze discovered during the war his undoubted abilities as a commander..."
Trotsky describes the further course of events as follows: “In January 1925, I was relieved of my duties as People's Commissar for Military Affairs. Most of all they were afraid... of my connection with the army. I gave up my post without a fight... in order to wrest from my opponents the weapon of insinuations about my military plans."
Based on these explanations, Frunze’s unexpected death as a result
The “unsuccessful operation” turned out to be to Trotsky’s advantage in that it gave rise to a lot of talk. At first there was a rumor that Trotsky’s people did this in retaliation for the fact that the “troika” Stalin-Zinoviev-Kamenev replaced Trotsky with their Frunze. However, having gained their bearings, Trotsky’s supporters blamed Stalin’s “troika” for this. And to make it look more convincing and memorable, they organized the creation by the then famous writer Boris Pilnyak of “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon,” which left a heavy aftertaste in our souls.
Frunze with his wife, 1920s (photo: Izvestia archive)
The “Tale” indicated the deliberateness of eliminating yet another Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Union, disliked by Stalin’s “troika,” who had not worked for even 10 months. The “Tale” described in detail how a completely healthy commander of the Civil War tried to convince everyone that he was healthy, and how he was finally forced to undergo surgery by man No. 1. And although Pilnyak addressed Voronsky “sorrowfully and friendly” on January 28, 1926, in publicly stated: “The purpose (photo: Izvestia archive) of the story was in no way a report on the death of the People’s Commissar of Military Affairs,” readers came to the conclusion that it was not by chance that Trotsky saw his own in Pilnyak, calling him a “realist”... The “Tale” clearly pointed to Stalin and his role in this “case”: “The not hunched man remained in the office... Without hunching, he sat over the papers, with a red thick pencil in his hands... People from that “troika” entered the office - one and the other. , which accomplished..."
Best of the day
Trotsky was the first to speak about the existence of this “troika” that decided all affairs: “The opponents whispered among themselves and groped for ways and methods of struggle. At this time, the idea of a “troika” (Stalin-Zinoviev-Kamenev) had already arisen, which was supposed to be opposed to me... "
There is evidence in the archives of how the idea for “The Tale” came about. It began, apparently, with the fact that Voronsky, as a member of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, was included in the “Commission for organizing the funeral of Comrade M.V. Frunze.” Of course, at the Commission meeting, in addition to ritual issues, all the circumstances of the “unsuccessful operation” were discussed. The fact that Pilnyak dedicated “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon” to Voronsky suggests that Pilnyak received the main information about the reasons for the “unsuccessful operation” from him. And clearly from Trotsky’s “angle of view”. It is not for nothing that already in 1927 Voronsky, as an active participant
Trotskyist opposition, was expelled from the party. Later, Pilnyak himself will suffer.
So, Pilnyak was part of Voronsky’s literary circle, which, in turn, was part of Trotsky’s political circle. As a result, these circles closed.
Cut or stabbed?
Despite the mutual accusations of politicians, public opinion still laid the blame for the death of Frunze most of all on the doctors. What happened in the operating room was quite reliable and was widely discussed in the newspapers. One of these openly expressed opinions (it, like many other materials cited here, is stored in the RGVA) was sent on November 10, 1925 to Moscow from Ukraine: “... doctors are to blame - and only doctors, but not a weak heart. According newspaper information... Comrade Frunze's operation was performed for a round duodenal ulcer, which, by the way, had healed, as can be seen from the autopsy report. The patient had difficulty falling asleep... did not tolerate anesthesia well and remained under the last 1 hour 5 minutes, receiving during this time, 60 grams of chloroform and 140 grams of ether (this is seven times more than the norm. - NAD) From the same sources we know that, having opened the abdominal cavity and not finding in it the work that consultants and surgeons expected out of zeal or for other reasons, they undertook an excursion to the area where the abdominal organs were located: the stomach, liver, gall bladder, duodenum and area of the cecum were examined. The result was “weakness of cardiac activity" and after 1.5 days, after a terrible struggle between life and death - the patient died from “heart paralysis.” Questions arise naturally: why was the operation not performed under local anesthesia - as is known, general anesthesia is less harmful..? On what grounds do surgeons justify the examination of all abdominal organs, which caused a certain injury and required time and unnecessary anesthesia at a time when the patient, with a weak heart, was already terribly overloaded with it? "And, finally, why did the consultants not take into account that in the heart of Comrade Frunze there is a pathological process - namely, parenchymal degeneration of the heart muscle, which was recorded by the autopsy? “These are the main points that, with all the ingenious subtlety and multi-layered diagnosis, post factum make the issue the property of a criminal chronicle...”
But there were representatives of another group, which no less passionately defended “the necessity of surgical intervention,” referring to the fact “that the patient had a duodenal ulcer with a pronounced scar seal around the intestine. Such seals often lead to disruption of the evacuation of food from the stomach , and in the future - to obstruction, which can only be treated surgically."
As it turned out, Frunze’s internal organs were thoroughly worn out, which doctors warned him about back in the summer of 1922. But Frunze delayed until the last minute, until the bleeding began, which frightened even him. As a result, “the operation became his last resort to somehow improve his condition.”
I managed to find a telegram confirming this fact: "V. (instruct) Urgently. Tiflis People's Commissariat of Military Affairs of Georgia Comrade Eliava Copy to OKA Commander Comrade Egorov. According to the resolution of the council of doctors at the Central Committee of the RCP, Comrade Frunze back in May had to go abroad for treatment despite To this end, under all sorts of pretexts, he has been postponing his departure until now, continuing to work yesterday, after receiving all the documents, he completely abandoned the trip abroad and on June twenty-ninth he is leaving to visit you in Borjomi. The health situation is more serious than he apparently thinks, if the course of treatment in Borjomi is unsuccessful, he will have to resort to for surgery, it is extremely necessary to create conditions in Borjomi that are somewhat replacing Carlsbad, do not refuse the appropriate orders, three dashes, four rooms are needed, possibly isolated “June 23, 1922...”
By the way, the telegram was given when Frunze was not yet a member of the Pre-Revolutionary Military Council and a candidate member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b). In other words, three years before the tragic death of Mikhail Frunze. Naturally, with such a critical state of the body, colleagues from Frunze’s entourage turned to Stalin to convince their illustrious commander to take their health seriously. And, apparently, already at that time Stalin made some suggestions. When Frunze was appointed People's Commissar of Military Affairs, that is, one of the main leaders of the country, the entire Stalinist part of the leadership became concerned about his well-being. Not only Stalin and Mikoyan, but also Zinoviev, almost as an order (you belong not only to yourself, but also to the party, and above all to the party!) began to insist that Frunze take care of his health. And Frunze “gave up”: he himself began to seriously fear the pain and bleeding that tormented him more and more often. Moreover, the story of advanced appendicitis, which almost killed Stalin, was fresh. Dr. Rozanov recalled: “It was difficult to vouch for the outcome. Lenin called me in the hospital morning and evening. And not only inquired about Stalin’s health, but also demanded the most thorough report.” And Stalin survived.
Therefore, regarding the treatment of the People's Commissar of Military Affairs, Stalin and Zinoviev also had a detailed conversation with the same surgeon Rozanov, who, by the way, successfully removed the bullet from the seriously wounded Lenin. It turns out that the practice of taking care of one’s comrades has been around for a long time.
Last days
In the summer of 1925, Frunze's health again deteriorated sharply. And then the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR decided: "Allow Comrade Frunze's leave from September 7th of this year." Frunze leaves for Crimea. But Crimea does not save. Famous doctors Rozanov and Kasatkin are sent to Frunze and prescribed bed rest
But alas... On September 29, I have to urgently go to the Kremlin hospital for examination. On October 8, the council concluded: an operation is needed to establish whether the ulcer is the only cause of the suspicious bleeding? However, doubts about the advisability of surgical intervention remain. Frunze himself writes about this to his wife in Yalta like this: “I’m still in the hospital. There will be a new one on Saturday.
consultation I'm afraid that the operation will be denied..."
Fellow members of the Politburo, of course, continue to monitor the situation, but mainly by encouraging the doctors to be more diligent in order to resolve the issue once and for all. However, because of this, doctors could overdo it. Finally, a “new consultation” took place. And again, the majority decided that it was impossible to do without surgery. The same Rozanov was appointed as the surgeon...
Frunze is announced to be moving to the Soldatenkovsky (now Botkin) hospital, which was then considered the best (Lenin himself underwent surgery there). Nevertheless, Frunze is agitated by the doctors’ hesitation and writes a very personal letter to his wife, which turns out to be the last in his life...
By the way, when Rozanov operated on Stalin, he was also “overdosed” on chloroform: at first they tried to cut under local anesthesia, but the pain forced him to switch to general anesthesia. As for the question - why did the surgeons, without finding an open ulcer, examine all (!) organs of the abdominal cavity? - then this, as follows from the letter, was the desire of Frunze himself: since they have cut it up, everything should be examined.
Frunze was buried near the Kremlin wall. Stalin made a short speech. Trotsky was not seen at the funeral. Frunze's widow, according to rumors, was convinced until her last day that he was “stabbed to death by doctors.” She survived her husband by only a year.
P.S. These and other unknown materials about Stalin's time will soon see the light of day in the book "Stalin and Christ", which will be an unexpected continuation of the book "How Stalin was Killed".
The commander to his wife Sophia: “Our family is tragic... everyone is sick”
"Moscow, 26.10.
Hello dear!
Well, my ordeal has finally come to an end! Tomorrow (actually the move took place on October 28, 1925 - NAD) in the morning I will move to the Soldatenkovskaya hospital, and the day after tomorrow (Thursday) there will be an operation. When you receive this letter, you will probably already have a telegram in your hands announcing its results. I now feel absolutely healthy and it’s even somehow funny not only to go, but even to think about surgery. Nevertheless, both councils decided to do it. Personally, I am satisfied with this decision. Let them once and for all take a good look at what is there and try to outline a real treatment. Personally, more and more often the thought flashes through my mind that there is nothing serious, because, otherwise, it is somehow difficult to explain the fact of my rapid improvement after rest and treatment. Well, now I need to do... After the operation, I still think about coming to you for two weeks. I received your letters. I read them, especially the second one - a big one, right with flour. Is it really all the illnesses that have come upon you? There are so many of them that it’s hard to believe in the possibility of recovery. Especially if, before you even start breathing, you are already busy organizing all sorts of other things. You need to try to take treatment seriously. To do this, you must first pull yourself together. Otherwise, everything is somehow going from bad to worse. It turns out that your worries about your children are worse for you, and ultimately for them. I once heard the following phrase about us: “The Frunze family is kind of tragic... Everyone is sick, and all the misfortunes are falling on everyone!..”. Indeed, we imagine some kind of continuous, continuous infirmary. We must try to change all this decisively. I took up this matter. You need to do it too.
I consider the doctors’ advice regarding Yalta to be correct. Try spending the winter there. I’ll somehow manage the money, provided, of course, that you don’t pay for all the doctors’ visits from your own funds. There won't be enough income for this. On Friday I am sending Schmidt with instructions to arrange everything for living in Yalta. The last time I took money from the Central Committee. I think we will survive the winter. If only you could stand firmly on your feet. Then everything will be fine. And after all, all this depends solely on you. All doctors assure you that you can certainly get better if you take your treatment seriously.
I had Tasya. She offered to go to Crimea. I refused. This was shortly after my return to Moscow. The other day Schmidt repeated this proposal on her behalf. I said that he should talk about this with you in Crimea.
Today I received an invitation from the Turkish ambassador to come with you to their embassy for the celebration of the anniversary of their revolution. I wrote a response from you and myself.
Yes, you ask for winter things, and don’t write what exactly you need. I don’t know how Comrade Schmidt will resolve this issue. He, poor fellow, doesn’t have a home either, thank God. Everyone is barely able to cope. I’m already telling him: “Why is this burden placed on you and me to have sick wives? Otherwise, I say, we’ll have to make new ones. Start with you, you’re older...” And he fingered himself and grinned: “He says he’s walking...” Well, you’re not even walking. It's just a shame! No good, signora cara. Therefore, if you please, get better, otherwise, as soon as I get up, I will definitely have a “lady of my heart”...
Why is T.G. furious? Here you are, woman... It seems that you are “disappointed” once again. Apparently, you are only afraid, remembering my numerous past ridicules, of bursting out with praises (just not of a flattering nature
) at her address. I'll think about Tasya, though. She, it seems, wants to go to Yalta herself. However, as you know. If you get on your own feet, of course, there will be no need for this.
Well, all the best. I kiss you warmly, get well soon. I am in a good mood and completely calm. If only it was safe for you. I hug and kiss you again.
