Vorobyov sergey mikhaylovich security assistance. Vorobyov Sergey Mikhailovich
480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Thesis - 480 rubles, shipping 10 minutes 24 hours a day, seven days a week and holidays
Vorobyov Sergei Mikhailovich The evolution of the institution of compensation for moral damage in Russian law (theoretical and legal research): dissertation ... Doctor of Law: 12.00.01 / Vorobyov Sergey Mikhailovich; [Place of defense: Russian Academy National economy and public service under the President Russian Federation].- Moscow, 2014. - 535 p.
Introduction
CHAPTER I The influence of fundamental world legal ideas on the formation of the institution of compensation for moral damage in Russian law
1. Socio-legal conditionality of the formation of inagatuta compensation for moral damage in the early stages of the formation of society. 26
2. Theoretical and applied features of compensation for moral damage in the Romano-Germanic (continental) legal family... 56
3. Specific traits compensation for moral damages to the Anglo-Saxon family (precedent) 76
4. Features of compensation for moral harm in the Muslim legal family
CHAPTER II Social and legal prerequisites for the formation of the institution of compensation for moral damage at various stages of the formation of the Russian state
1. Prototypes of the institution of compensation for moral damage in the sources of law Ancient Russia 123
Formation and development of the idea of compensation for moral harm in the era of autocracy and absolutism in Russia 153
3. Political and legal regulation of compensation for moral damage in Soviet period our Fatherland 179
CHAPTER III Peculiarities of infliction and compensation of moral harm connected with the political development of the Soviet state
1. Deportation as an unusual way of causing moral harm to a person and a citizen (citizens of the USSR and non-citizens who were on its territory during the Second World War) 202
2. Characteristic features of compensation for moral harm during the Great Patriotic War and post-war years 240
3. Organizational and legal forms of rehabilitation of victims of political repressions 283
CHAPTER IV Structural analysis of the implementation of the norms of the institution of compensation for moral damage in the Russian Federation
1. Theoretical and applied aspects of determining the content of the legal relationship for the compensation of the real in the implementation of the legal norms of the institution of compensation for moral damage
2. Formal and legal features of establishing the subjects of compensation for moral damage in the field of legal application of the norms of inegat | "compensatory harm" 332
The Institute of Compensation for Moral Damage as a Way of Protection from Discrimination of a Person and a Citizen in the Russian Federation
1. Features of the functioning of the institution of compensation for moral damage in the system of international legal protection
^vvav chelovegegi citizen from discrimination 359
2. Modern tendencies Russian legislation development
Russian Federation in the system of measures of legal protection of the rights, freedoms
and legitimate interests of a person and a citizen 404
Conclusion 468
List of used sources and scientific literature
Theoretical and Applied Features of Compensation for Moral Damage in the Romano-Germanic (Continental) Legal Family
The following main provisions and conclusions of the dissertation research, which have elements of scientific novelty, are put forward for defense: Life of the institute of private property, changes in the system of industrial relations. L fc An analysis of the early stages of the development of the institution of compensation for moral damage in various legal systems showed that:
1. The study conducted by the author revealed that in the early stages of the development of society, the initial forms of compensation for harm were cannibalism, blood feud, talion, a system of monetary compositions, fines, ransoms, as well as compensation for harm in kind. At the same time, customs, magic, culture, religion, and other socio-economic fac- ) together with corporal punishment) was combined with the reception of the norms of Roman law, which led to the normative consolidation of this institution in codified sources of law, while the nature of the harm was determined by the class division of society; - legal regulation of compensation for moral damage in countries with the Anglo-Saxon legal family evolves from the form fixed in customs (revenge) to monetary compensation, which was of a class character (penalty, which was a means of satisfying the victim for his waiver of the right to revenge), the use of reconciliation as a way to make amends for such harm or as an alternative to monetary compensation in accordance with the legislative fixation of the amount of his compensation; - proposed by Roman private law, the original methods of compensation for moral harm in countries with a Muslim legal system were blood feud, talion, systems of compositions and a fine provided for by national legislation, reconciliation with the victim, which involved the use of compensation both in monetary terms and in other material forms . The development of the institution of compensation for moral harm in the Muslim legal family directly depended on the cultural traditions and religious worldviews of the Muslim society.
concerning the issues of streamlining compensation for harm, were influenced by church Orthodox law, Byzantine-CKorj BeTCKoro and Roman law, which contributed to the establishment in the codified histories of law of the state mechanism of compensation for harm, including moral. The development of norms on compensation for moral damage in Russian law was associated with the development of ideas about the distinction between different degrees of severity of a misconduct, the need to take into account the class nature of society when determining the amount of compensation, and the formation of a centralized system of courts.
Private remuneration for the victims of a crime was a consequence of a guilty verdict in a criminal case. In the XVI-XVII centuries. various methods of private collections were used, which fell entirely on
2. According to the author of the dissertation, various kinds of civil and criminal punishments were the prototypes of the procedure in the place of morality in Ancient Russia: private (blood) vengeance, duel, golovnichestvo, vira, sale, ransom, plunder. At the same time, compensation for harm was based on the principle of differentiation of the responsibility of the perpetrator and depended on the social status of the parties concerned. Old Russian sources of law concerning the identity of the perpetrator (howl - deduction from the property of the perpetrator, issuance of the head to atonement - temporary surrender of the insolvent defendant with family members to work for the plaintiff, asking for forgiveness by the offender from the offended, etc.), which is associated with the formation of ideas that the purpose of punishment is not only punitive measures, but also the desire to give satisfaction to the victim.
The further development of the institution of compensation for moral damage was carried out not only through the consolidation of individual co-avs with a detailed determination of the amount of compensation in various cases and the establishment of measures of physical influence as sanctions, which led to the formation of an array of legal norms guaranteeing the protection of the personal non-property rights of representatives of the upper classes of the first and second generation procedural rules aimed, in particular, at the protection of violated subjective rights by means of a civil or criminal action. These trends led to the legislative consolidation of the concept of "disgrace" (causing harm by causing offense), and the doctrinal distinction between the obligation to cause harm and the crime led to the consolidation of the norms regarding remuneration for harm caused to the victim by a crime, the use of which was determined by the court independently.
A dissertation research conducted by GYA doctrinal anash scientific views in various fields legal science from the end of the 17th century to ours XX% / led to the conclusion that by that time ideas had been formed about moral harm and the right of the victim of the crime to compensation, the irreversibility of the criminal consequences of this type of harm, which led to the development of draft legislative acts relating to compensation issues moral damage caused to the victim by the criminal.
3. The socio-political situation created in Russian state due to the cardinal transformations that took place in all areas of the country's life in the 20th century, for a long time, according to the dissertation, did not contribute to the evolutionary development of the institution of compensation for moral damage in the newly created legal system, because it was recognized as alien to the legal consciousness of a socialist society.
Formation and development of the idea of compensation for moral harm in the era of autocracy and absolutism in Russia
The lesson was paid only for the material loss suffered by the owner of some thing through a crime. The same punishment was imposed for the murder of non-free persons (slaves, serfs). In favor of the prince, a sale was added to the lesson if the wrecker of someone else's thing or the killer of a slave was a free man.
In addition to the rigid establishment of a fine for the victim, Russkaya Pravda provided for the possibility of new fights as a way to protect the honor and dignity of a person - the “field” was appointed by the okolnichik and the okolnichik, who, like the judge (boyar) and the scribe, received a certain fee. denoted the chosen space, carrying t) with a rope, for which he received a fee called “viscous” (regardless of the duty, it was 4 altyns). If the duel was due to a fire, the murder of a friend, or by stealing theft, the accuser, in case of his victory, could receive what he asked for; 50 kopecks (50 kopecks) were given to the roundabout and 50 kopecks (25 kopecks) were given to the lieutenant's weapon, and 50 kopecks to the handyman. Everything about the loser had to be sold, and the proceeds were to be given to the court, while the vanquished himself was subjected to corporal punishment to the extent of punishment2.
Russian Pravda, being one of the first legal acts that settled the issues of how to protect the intangible benefits of the injured party, for several centuries (in its lengthy version) remained a general law that also determined the principles of domestic legal proceedings. Even in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the courts often ordered ancient vira and “sales”, as well as “flood and plunder” (taking away all the property of the convict and “knocking him out of the ground”). Thus, in the Dvina charter of 1398, one of the main types of punishment is a fine in favor of the victim or his relatives1.
The abridged edition of Russian Pravda (Kratkaya Pravda) provides for various ways of compensation for harm, including the use of blood feud, for example: “If the husband kills the husband, then take revenge on the brother of the brother, or the father, or the son; If there is no one who will take revenge on him, then put 80 hryvnia behind his head, or judge according to your husband, depending on. At the same time, this version of the wording of Russkaya Pravda also contained a number of property punishments, in particular, those related to monetary compensation, the flow and looting of the criminal: if he keeps him until the light, then lead him to the prince's court; and if people see her tied up, and they kill them, then pay 12 hryvnias”; “If he became a robber, then people do not pay a robber, then they will give him all with his wife and children for plunder”2.
Thus, after analyzing the articles of Russkaya Pravda in terms of the development of the institution of compensation for harm, we can conclude that this law already considered compensation for harm as a special legal institution. At the same time, it was almost always combined with the payment of vira or sale, that is, it was not only an independent institution, but also a means of restoring justice from the state for the victim.
At the same time, we are impressed by the position of A.S. Smykalina, who believes that the named system of punishments was of an elementary nature (flow and plunder, vira, sale, lesson, golovnichestvo), and hence the system of execution of these punishments was reduced mainly to obtaining a monetary or in-kind equivalent of the damage caused, which indicates its commercialism1 .
A significant legislative act, which includes various types of compensation for harm to the victim, is the Sudebnik of the Grand Duke of "All Russia" Ivan III (1497) - a collection of laws of the Russian state that codified the norms of customary law, charters, princely decrees (including Yaroslav Wise), etc. It has been preserved in two editions: in the first - Eastern Russian, in the second - Western Russian, known from the list of 1499, which is based on its first edition.
The creation of this code of laws was an important milestone in the development of statehood in Russia. The Code of Laws, which introduced uniform legal norms for the whole country, prohibited bribes (“promises”) for legal proceedings and petitions (“mourning”), established the terms of reference of officials and uniform court fees, which was necessary for the creation of a nationwide judicial apparatus. According to the Sudebnik, only courts could operate on the territory of the state: the Grand Duke and his children as the highest judicial authority; boyars and roundabouts; governors. Criminal offenses (robbery, murder, repeated theft, sacrilege, arson) were punished death penalty, which was also introduced for the conspirators.
Together with this Sudebnik, the freedom of peasant transitions from one landowner to another was limited (since 1497, a peasant could “abandon” the owner only by paying all debts and the “old” - payment for living on the land of the latter, and only once a year: for a week before St. George's Day (November 26) and within a week after it), which was the first step towards the establishment of serfdom in Russia
Characteristic features of compensation for moral damage during the Great Patriotic War and the post-war years
Among the preventive actions of the authorities aimed at eliminating the possible threat of anti-Soviet manifestations on the part of "unreliable" groups of the population, from the mid-30s, deportation began to be used, which differed from the deportation carried out in relation to the kulaked peasantry both in scale and in the composition of the punishment. This deportation was a continuation of the cleansing of society from "socially alien" elements, which culminated in the mass registrations of 193 ShS38. .vzhіeriod "great terror". The implementation of social omic transformations through emergency measures led, in particular, to the creation in the country of conditions for unquestioning obedience, and also for the activity of punitive bodies, which were a powerful support of the political regime, in carrying out anti-constitutional actions of forcible resettlement of peoples, groups of the population belonging to various ethnic groups. minorities. y L k According to the circular of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs of the NKVDrLshngrad Oblast dated February 27, 1935 "On the eviction of the counter-revolutionary element from Leningrad and suburban areas", 11 thousand people were evicted from the region for reasons of political unreliability. In the spring of the same year, on the basis of the decision of the Juro Leningtyar Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks dated March 4, as part of the “cleansing” of the border strips of the region and Karelia, 5059 families (23,217 people) of Ingrian Finns (Finns who lived in areas close to Finland).
The eviction of unreliable persons of Polish and German nationality from the then border regions of Kiev and Vinnitsa was carried out according to the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of April 28, 1936 "On the eviction from the Ukrainian SSR and the resettlement of 15 thousand Polish and German households in the Kazakh ASSR." For them, it was supposed to create settlements similar to the existing agricultural labor settlements of the NKVD. It was officially believed that the resettled Poles and Germans were not limited in their civil rights, they had the right to move within the administrative area of settlement, without the right to leave the places of settlements, including their children going to enroll in secondary and higher educational institutions. completed by November 25, 193a k In total, 69,283 people were resettled. However, the plight and lack of work caused the settlers to flee back to Ukraine and other localities on foreign passports sent by their relatives. In this regard, the NKVD strengthened the security of the villages, organized regular checks on railway stations, n and ii appropriate measures for the “operational security service” of the contingent1.
The introduction of special protective zones (border zones) on the borders of the ІSSR necessitated the removal of an unreliable element from the border regions of Armenia and Azerbaijan, in particular persons who had been repressed earlier for counter-revolutionary crimes, smugglers, bandits and members of irl families. In accordance with the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of December 17, 1936 and the joint resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of July 17, 1937, the NKVD of the USSR Who is entrusted with the resettlement of 5889 people (1121 families) from the border zones of the Armenian and Azerbaijan SSR to Alma-Ata and South Kazakhstan region, including: Kurds - 3101 people. (553 families), Armenians and Turks (gypsies) - 2788 (568 families). They were placed in collective farms, state farms and industrial farms with subsequent employment on their territory.
Accounting for this contingent was carried out by the village councils and the police on a common basis. In legal terms, the evicted Kurds, Armenians, and Turks were equated with Ukrainian settlers (also with restrictions on leaving the settlement areas). The absence of special commandant's offices led to improper registration and living conditions of the arrived migrants, many of whom fled to other regions of Kazakhstan and even beyond its borders. This situation with the settlers changed only in 1939, when the organization of work on their accounting, labor and household arrangements was entrusted to the resettlement department of the NKVD of the Kazakh SSR1. % (territo] and 36,442 with yu em (95,256 people) and Uzbek R_75,525 people), the rest settled in the Stalingrad region
After Japan occupied Korea and Manchuria (the territory of the northeastern part of China), a serious focus of military tension arose on the far eastern border of the country, during the forced cleansing of which the main victims were the Korean Oni illya, the first Soviet ethnic group, subjected to total deportation in accordance with the Decree and - We accept the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Executive Committee of the USSR of August 21, 1937 "On the eviction of the Korean population from the border regions of the Far Eastern Territory." Upon completion of the resettlement of the Korean on October 5, 1937, according to the NKVD of the USSR, 36,442 families or 171,781 people were taken out by 124 echelons to the Kazakh hotel, the work of local authorities to organize the reception and placement of Korean migrants, lack of housing, lack of work put them in a very difficult situation. . So, in a letter from Koreans from the village. Khorzhol, Guryev region of Western Kazakhstan, dated January 29, 1938, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR stated that for three months after arrival at the place of resettlement, 75 families did not find any employment, since this area is solid sands, on which it is impossible
Formal legal features of establishing the subjects of compensation for moral damage in the field of legal application of the norms of inegat | "compensatory harm"
It is possible that at the same time they could be subjected to violent influence by causing physical harm to health (in this case, their stay there should be considered as repressive measures related to the humiliation of the person and the infliction of moral harm). Secondly, archival documents of those years testify that the following were not subjected to repressions and extortions after captivity: persons who took part in combat operations as part of the Red Army or partisan detachments after being released from captivity; the disabled and the seriously ill. However, on the whole, we admit to the facts of unjustified condemnation of former Soviet soldiers. Three of this, we cannot but take into account the installation of the authorities that existed during the war to expand the practice of convicting in absentia those who were coded behind the front line as traitors to the Motherland. The reason for this was the decree of the State Defense Committee of July 16, 1941 and the order of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command “On cases of cowardice and surrender and measures to suppress such actions on August 16, 1941 No. 270, which obliged: “. to destroy the former prisoners by all means”; “to deprive the families of Red Army soldiers who have surrendered of state benefits and assistance”; to arrest the families of commanders and political workers “as families of deserters who violated the oath and sold their homeland” cowardice, confusion, panic, good will, and in the pler, the country’s leadership simultaneously oriented the command-political and rank-and-file staff to a sweeping assessment of the actions of everyone who was in the plaid \ moreover even in a helpless state. Rejecting the principle of the presumption of innocence, it recognized in advance such commanders and fighters as cowards and traitors who needed to be “destroyed” and their families to be persecuted.
From December 1941, according to the GKO decree, soldiers and commanders who were captured or surrounded lost their legal status of servicemen and were henceforth referred to as "former servicemen of the Red Army", thereby being placed outside the ranks of the Armed Forces with all the ensuing legal consequences. To challenge the need for such a policy of power, especially in war time, hardly anyone will. But to deny that people, who in the overwhelming majority did not commit any crimes, were initially treated as traitors and spies, zht.
Statistical information, which was different for the German and Juvetan sides, shows: a) according to German data, 50,000 soldiers of the Red Army fell into yen, 673,000 prisoners died in captivity); military personnel, 1,283,300 people died there. Returned from NagaZ in October 1945, according to the first version, 1,368,849 people, by the end - Jw $ 36,000 people. In fact, our losses as a result of captivity (died, did not return, died on return) amounted to 3,200,000 people; The information given is contained in the memorandum (Losses of personnel of the Soviet Armed Forces in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, developed by a special commission under the leadership of General of the Army M. A. Gareev. that the fate of 1 PO 500 Soviet servicemen who went missing remained unknown1.
Since the end of the 1940s, measures began to be taken in the country related to the political rehabilitation of repatriated Soviet citizens, including prisoners of war, which amounted to the creation of a number of documents, among them: border, but also for forced actions under fascist terror” (April 1949); Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On Measures to Strengthen Work on the Return to the Motherland of Soviet Displaced Citizens Being Abroad" (November 1951); amnesty decrees of 23 March 1953 and 1 November 19571
On April 19, 1956, a commission was set up headed by Secretary of Defense Marshal Soviet Union G.K. Zhukov, who wanted to deal with the situation of former prisoners of war. After 5 months, the commission submitted a report, where for the first time in the history of repatriation, it was said about lawlessness in relation to prisoners of war, both in shі, and after the end of the war; proposals were made to correct the “excesses” shown to them, for which the entire responsibility was placed on the NKVD of the USSR under the leadership of L.Periiii Z.OG BakuYaG.
June 29, 1956, signed by the Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU N.S. Khrushchev and chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR NA. Bulganin issued a resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 898-490s “On the elimination of the consequences of minor violations of the law in relation to former prisoners of war and members of their families” (a copy of the document is stored in the archive of the President of the Russian Federation). In particular, it noted that, in addition to exposing a certain number of persons who had actually committed crimes, as a result of the use of unlawful, provocative methods of investigation in many cases, many military personnel who honestly performed military duty and did not stain themselves in any way were illegally repressed. captivity 2. A typical example of this is the fate of the former Chief of Staff of the 64th Army, Colonel I.A. Laskin, who on January 31, 1943 in Stalingrad led the arrest of Field Marshal F. Paulus. In the future, he successfully fought, became a lieutenant general, chief of staff of the North Caucasian Front
Vorobyov Sergei Mikhailovich Commander of the Volga Flotilla. Most of the naval commanders-border guards, who, after the start of World War II, were included in the Navy, remained in the fleet. One of the exceptions was S.M. Vorobyov, who not only returned to the Border Guards, but also advanced to the leadership of the Marine Border Guard.
Sergey Vorobyov was born on September 24 (October 6), 1904 in the village of Bateevka, now the Vesyegonsky district of the Tver region. In October 1925 he entered naval school named after M.V. Frunze and graduated from it in September 1928. They sent a young commander to the Pacific Ocean. He served as an assistant to the chief of the watch, then as the chief of the watch on the patrol ship "Red Vympel" (September 1928 - January 1931). In 1929, Vorobyov became a participant in hostilities during the conflict on the CER. From January to April 1931, the sailor was the supply manager, then until November 1931 - the artilleryman of the Yakov Sverdlov monitor. From November 1931 to May 1934, Vorobyov served as assistant to the head of the operations department, then until November 1934 - head of the Combat Training Department of the Red Banner Amur Flotilla. From December 1934 to March 1938 Vorobyov studied at the command department Naval Academy named after K.E. Voroshilov. After graduating from the academy, he was sent to the Main Naval Headquarters. The sailor was a junior assistant to the chief, and then the chief (from May 1938 to May 1939) of the 1st branch of the Combat Training Department of the Main Naval Staff. In May-November 1938, he was the head of the tactical training inspectorate of the Combat Training Directorate of the Navy.
In February 1939, the Main Directorate of the Border Troops was created, which included the Naval Department. The activities of this department were regulated by the Regulations approved on August 17, 1939. According to the Regulations, the Naval Department was entrusted with the leadership of the naval units in all respects, except for operational ones. The department supervised the operational and technical use of ships, supervised tactical training, operation and repair of ships, and all types of maritime support. The tasks of the department were the preparation of technical specifications for the creation of ships and weapons, the preparation of shipbuilding plans and the placement of orders at enterprises, the preparation of manning and mobilization plans. Captain 1st Rank S.M. was appointed head of the department. Vorobyov.
Since November 1939, the sailor was also the Deputy Head of the Border Troops of the NKVD of the USSR for the Naval Unit. He held this position until July 1941, when he was returned to the Navy. June 4, 1940 Vorobyov was awarded the rank of Rear Admiral.
During his leadership, the reorganization of the Marine Border Guards took place. The Maritime Department actively worked on the preparation of documents regulating the activities of formations and units that guarded the maritime sections of the border. On February 3, 1940, the Instruction for the Protection of the State Border along the Amur River appeared. On August 28, they approved the Instruction on the interaction of the Naval and aviation units of the border troops in the protection of Naval state borders USSR, October 18 - Instructions for the protection of the Maritime Border in the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea. On June 17, 1941, the order of the head of the border troops "On the organization of communications between ships and sea posts" was signed.
The Naval Department developed and approved the shipbuilding program for the Third Five-Year Plan (1938–1942) by the USSR Defense Committee. By 1940, the number of border courts had increased by 93 percent compared to 1938. The border guards received new patrol ships, patrol boats of the MO-IV type and armored boats of the BK-1 type. These ships and boats were united into detachments of border ships, which in the event of war were to be transferred to the operational subordination of the Navy. Since the fleet could not provide training for sailors of all levels with an increase in the number of border ships, the border guards organized the Anapa training center in 1940 to train specialists. On June 23, 1940, an order was issued to establish the Naval Border School in Leningrad; Rear Admiral A.B. became the first head of the school. Sadnikov. On September 1, training began for cadets who were to become border guard commanders. However, with the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the school was transferred to the Navy. The Navy also received 368 border ships, including 11 patrol ships, 310 Patrol Boats and 47 auxiliary vessels. This significantly increased the naval escort forces, since if the fleet had 59 Small Hunters in the Barents, Baltic, Black and Caspian Seas, then the border guards added 130 of these MO boats and the same number of other types of boats. It can be assumed that Vorobyov also played a role in the development of the border guard.
Vorobyov himself was also transferred to the fleet. The sailor started the war on the Volga. In July-November 1941, Vorobyov was the commander of a training detachment of ships, from November to December he commanded the 3rd brigade of river ships and at the same time served as commander of the Volga military flotilla.
On October 27, 1941, by order of the People's Commissar of the Navy, the training detachment of ships, which was created on the Volga in July by the decision of the State Defense Committee, was renamed the Volga military flotilla. He commanded the flotilla from October 28 Captain 1st Rank S.G. Sapozhnikov. By order of the People's Commissar of the Navy dated November 6, it was planned to create 6 brigades of river ships (54 gunboats, 30 armored boats, 90 minesweepers and patrol boats, 60 Boats - Small hunters, 6 divisions of torpedo boats, 6 detachments of Ships special purpose, 6 squadrons, 6 separate battalions of the Marine Corps). On November 6, Rear Admiral S.M. was appointed to command all this vast association. Vorobiev; Captain 1st Rank Sapozhnikov became the chief of staff of the flotilla. Before April 1, 1942, it was necessary to organize a flotilla Based on the order of the People's Commissar of the Navy. The directive of the Chief of the Main Naval Staff of November 28 set the following tasks for the flotilla: preparing detachments of river ships for action together with the troops in the 1942 campaign, training personnel for operating fleets, and defending the Volga basin. After the victory near Moscow, the State Defense Committee on January 21 issued a decree suspending the mass mobilization of Courts for the Volga military flotilla. Soviet command planned to launch a broad offensive, after which the Volga was to remain in the rear. This, of course, created difficulties with the acquisition of the flotilla. But in the spring, when the situation on the fronts changed, the Volga flotilla was again paid attention.
CM. Vorobyov commanded the Volga military flotilla from November 6, 1941 to February 16, 1942. He had to equip the flotilla with ships, solve the difficult problem of their weapons, and prepare crews for combat operations, mainly made up of Sailors of the River Fleet. Vorobyov handed over command to Rear Admiral D.D. Rogachev, who recovered from his wounds. Most likely, when it turned out that the Volga From the rear river, transport artery and training center can turn into a battlefield, Vorobyov was preferred to the commander of the Pinsk flotilla, who had gone through the harsh school of war.
On May 28, 1942, the order of the flotilla commander determined the composition and tasks of the flotilla forces. The 1st brigade included a division of gunboats (3 units), a division of armored boats (12 units), a detachment of semi-gliders (10 units), a detachment of minesweepers (6 units). The detachment of Patrol Boats consisted of 6 ships under construction. The 1st brigade was based on Gorky. The brigade was supposed to assist units of the army, provide crossings, fight enemy crossings and land tactical landings. The brigade commander was Rear Admiral S.M. Vorobyov.
The enemy developed an offensive towards Stalingrad. On July 22, 1942, enemy aviation began active operations on the Volga. On July 24, the Volga Flotilla was subordinated to the Stalingrad Front. On June 25, the commander of the flotilla declared it active by order. On July 30, by order of Rogachev, the 1st brigade of river ships was relocated to Kamyshin. On July 31, minesweepers were transferred from its composition to a separate minesweeping brigade to combat the mine danger. And on August 5, the commander of the Stalingrad Front included the Volga Flotilla in the defense system of Stalingrad. The 1st brigade of river ships (2 gunboats, 2 floating batteries, 6 armored boats) in the Krasnoarmeysk-Svetly Yar area supported the troops of the 57th Army. Part of the brigade's forces were allocated to create a northern group of ships, which directly supported the troops of the 62nd Army defending the city. On August 24, the sailors of the flotilla began military operations against enemy troops rushing to the Volga.
On October 27, 1942, in connection with the relocation of the main part of the flotilla, the Stalingrad task force was formed for wintering, consisting of 2 gunboats, 15 armored boats, 4 minesweeper boats under the command of Rear Admiral Vorobyov. The group was tasked with providing artillery support to the troops, crossing troops and cargo, evacuating the wounded and destroying enemy crossings. October 31 Based on the decision of the People's Commissar of the Navy, by order of the commander of the Stalingrad Front, all ships of the flotilla, except for the Stalingrad Operational Group, were transferred from November 1 to wintering in Astrakhan and Guryev. Vorobyov, in the conditions of the beginning ice drift, had to take on the main work of ensuring the actions of the troops. From November 1 to November 20 alone, armored boats and minesweepers transported 22,500 troops with weapons and ammunition in preparation for the counteroffensive, and took out more than 11,000 wounded.
After the start of the counteroffensive on December 19-20, Vorobyov's ships and boats continued to support the troops. On December 1, by order of the commander of the flotilla, the Headquarters of the 1st Brigade of River Ships was renamed the Directorate of the Stalingrad Operational Group.
So, from January to December 1942, Vorobyov commanded the 1st brigade of river ships of the Volga military flotilla; in November-December, he was simultaneously the commander of the Stalingrad task force. In the award sheet, it was written on him: “During the fighting for the defense of Stalingrad, interacting with units of the 57th and 64th armies, the ships of the brigade under his command inflicted heavy damage on the enemy. More than once, in separate sectors, with the support of naval artillery, units of the Red Army repulsed the fierce attacks of the enemy. According to incomplete data, the ships of the brigade destroyed and scattered 11 infantry battalions, destroyed: 7 artillery batteries, 27 bunkers and dugouts, 27 tanks, 4 ammunition depots, 60 vehicles with troops and cargo, etc. Suppressed 34 artillery mortar batteries, 42 different firing points. 3 enemy planes shot down. The troops of the 62nd Army were transported under enemy fire: troops - 25,800 people, about 2000 tons of cargo and ammunition. 6800 wounded soldiers and commanders were evacuated to the left bank of the Volga. Vorobyov Month commanded the Stalingrad operational group of ships, which was entrusted with the task of crossing all types of food of the 62nd Army across the river. Volga. Under enemy fire for a month, armored boats and minesweepers transported to the right bank 31,476 people, more than 1,000 tons of various cargo and ammunition. The ships supported the group of Colonel Gorokhov and 138th Rifle Division with fire. Two gunboats destroyed 3 tanks, one heavy battery, 1 mortar, 16 different firing points, repulsed 10 enemy attacks on the Gorokhov group and 138 rifle divisions. fighting brigades of river ships helped the 64th and 62nd armies to hold their lines.
At the beginning of 1943, Vorobyov was returned to the border troops and sent to Far East. From January 1943 to November 1944, he was deputy chief of the border troops for the Marine Department of the Border Troops Directorate of the NKVD of Primorsky Krai. Then the sailor was transferred to Moscow.
From June 1944, border ships and boats began to be returned from the Navy to the border troops, and detachments and divisions of border ships were formed from them. January 15, 1947 The Main Directorate of the Border Troops was reorganized; The marine department was retained in its composition.
Vorobyov again served as the head of the Naval Department of the Main Directorate of Border Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR (November 1944 - January 1951), then until May 1953 he held the same position in the Main Directorate of Border Troops of the Ministry of State Security of the USSR, then, Until June 1956 - the same position in the Main Department of the Border Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR.
During this period of growth cold war in the world, Vorobyov had to participate in more than one reorganization of the border service. In November 1946, the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs was renamed into a ministry, and on January 15, 1947, the New Staff of the Main Directorate of Border Troops was approved, in which the Naval Department was enlarged and turned into a naval department. In 1949, the border troops were transferred to the jurisdiction of the USSR Ministry of State Security. But in 1953, after the death of I.V. Stalin, when the MGB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs were united, the border troops came under the control of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The border guards were hardly affected by the significant reduction in the armed forces that began in 1953. On the contrary, they took the opportunity to fill their ranks with the best officers being cut from the fleet in order to secure the borders.
Already on August 17, 1945, after the end of the war in the West, the formation of cash border ships into separate divisions began. New divisions had to be deployed in the Baltic and Pacific Oceans in order to secure the borders of the territories annexed to the USSR. At this time, old ships remained in service. In 1952-1955, more than once, naval formations were introduced into the composition of border detachments, then withdrawn from them, then reduced to detachments, then again crushed into divisions. Both detachments and divisions were operationally subordinate to the chiefs of the Coastal Border Guard detachments, which led to insufficiently competent leadership of the Marine Guard and even violations of the law.
Under these circumstances, S.M. Vorobyov had to deal with the restoration of the Maritime Border Guard, which during the war years suffered big losses In the North, Black and Baltic Seas; and the ships and boats returned by the fleet were worn out during the war years. Several captured ships handed over to the border guards could not correct the situation.
At the beginning of 1946, a minimum plan was prepared for the supply of watercraft for the border guards, which, if necessary, could be used by the Navy.
On April 29, the Council of Ministers of the USSR approved a plan for the allocation of ships and vessels for the border service in 1948-1955 and a shipbuilding program for 1946-1950, taking into account this plan. True, this plan was not fully implemented, but by 1954 the naval units had 144 sentry ship, 33 Sentry and 146 Small boats. The GUPV Maritime Administration ordered about 110 ships of medium displacement for the next five years. Border guards built technical observation posts, received parking in Balaklava, Vladivostok, Tallinn, Leningrad. However, despite the increase in the number of ships, only in the Leningrad direction was it possible to achieve a density of 1 ship per 10 miles of area. In other directions of the western borders, this value reached 30-50 miles, and in the northern regions Pacific Ocean most There was nothing to protect the shores.
Of course, Sergei Mikhailovich Vorobyov, in his position, was responsible for the number of border courts, and for the training of specialists for them, and for the equipment of the theater.
From November 1956 S.M. Vorobyov was in reserve. In 1958, in the book “The Battle for the Volga. Memories. Stalingrad” published his memoirs “Reliable protection of crossings” (pp. 257–258). For the service of a sailor-border guard awarded the order Lenin (1950), 3 Orders of the Red Banner (1941, 1943, 1945), Order of Kutuzov II degree, Patriotic War I degree, Red Star (1944), medals. Rear Admiral S.M. Vorobyov on August 8, 1974 in Moscow. They buried him at the Novodevichy cemetery. His ashes rest in the columbarium, in section 135, place 4–1.
- Date: 04.12.2007
GRNIP: 307770000599460
Tax authority:
Reason for the change: State registration natural person as an individual entrepreneur
Documentation:
- Application (with attachments)
- A copy of the main document of an individual registered as an individual entrepreneur
- Document confirming the payment of the state fee - Date: 04.12.2007
GRNIP: 407770000599478
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change: - Date: 02.05.2012
GRNIP: 412774612303095
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change: Termination by an individual of activity as an individual entrepreneur
Documentation:
- R26001 Application for termination of IP activities
- A document confirming the submission of information to the FIU
- Document confirming the payment of the state fee - Date: 02.05.2012
GRNIP: 412774612303106
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change: Submission of information on accounting with the tax authority - Date: 18.05.2012
GRNIP: 412774613902192
Tax authority: Interdistrict Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service No. 46 for Moscow, No. 7746
Reason for the change: Submission of information on registration as an insured in the territorial body of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation
