Eric B Posted January 13, 2008 Posted January 13, 2008 Greetings all. Pretty new to research, am excitedly going though a citation for a group, and am looking for opinions from any of the Russian speakers/readers here. In the section marked "III: Conclusion of the Army Military Council" what does the red handwriting say? Specifically in the "deserves" line (the other is a signature, probably "Grishaev"?) Thanks to any who can decipher it!
Ferdinand Posted January 13, 2008 Posted January 13, 2008 (edited) Signed on 16 May 1945 by Lieutenant-Genral [sic] Gordeyev. Deserves OPW 1st Class. Signed on 20 May 1945 by Major-General Grishayev. Edited January 13, 2008 by Ferdinand
Eric B Posted January 13, 2008 Author Posted January 13, 2008 Woohoo! Thank you so much, Ferdinand. You have answered my mystery - he was only recommended for the Red Star in this citation and my translator couldn't tell what the handwriting said, so no confirmation on exactly when it was upgraded to the OPW 1cl. Thank you again! You've made my day!
Eric B Posted January 16, 2008 Author Posted January 16, 2008 More TranslationFirst, translation in the real world is expensive, so it?s with great gratitude that I get any response at all to this. IMO the greatest strength of this particular board is the willingness of a few knowledgeable folks to do, for free, what they could be charging for.My translation is done by a friend of the family, a long term US resident who doesn?t speak Russian regularly anymore. He does it for free ? says it?s good to practice and as a favor. So the quality isn?t perfect; he?s the first to admit he knows nothing about the military, and that the use of language from the 40s to today seems to have changed (he?s young). That said, for me his work is invaluable. He brings to life the research I buy.So what?s this post about? Well, this group is turning more and more interesting the more that?s revealed. (This is the man who was recommended for a Red Star and at a relatively high level the award was bumped up to an OPW 1cl.) And while I can get the broad story of the man?s career there seem to be details that are just too cool to not know for sure. So here it is: the posting detail of his service record. The English part is what my friend has translated for me (where there are blanks he doesn?t know); the picture is the document itself. 22. Service in the Soviet ArmyPosition and Date Given Unit11-192611-1926 Senior Sergeant 1st Zaporozh Cavalry Division Dismissed for long term vacation07-1941 Assistant 59th Western Infantry Guard12-1941 Guard Commissioner 113th SB12-1941 Secret Politburo 661st Artillery Guard02-1943 Colonel 206th Infantry Division02-1943 Assistant Commander of departments at Kursk07-1943 Listener Military Political Academy of Lenin, Moscow Military Circle07-1943 In reserve of the Soviet political head of the central political department of the Red Army09-194309-1943 Corps Inspector 107th Infantry Corps, 4th Ukrainian Division10-1945 10-1945 Secret Operations 501st Artillery Brigade01-1946 Party Commissar 318th Guard, city of MukachevoAny insight (or correction) into the tantalizing references to ?Secret Politburo,? ?Listener? or ?Secret Operations?? What is the first 1926 reference? He was a Sergeant in 1926, dismissed on a ?long term vacation? (??) then came back when the war broke out as an officer? In Feb 1943 was he really listed as a Colonel (all other references show him as a Major ? was he busted a rank)? Was he somehow incognito during the war as a military man then ?revealed? as a Commissar in 1946? (Doesn?t make sense to me, as Commissars were integral to the structure at least until early 1943.)Both his citations are for ?political" work with the 107th Rifle Corps; ?rallying? and ?organizing? troops while under fire, and maintaining ?order and discipline.? Knowing a bit about Soviet ?motivational? methods it strikes me that he may not have been the I?m OK, You?re OK kind of ?motivator.?Anyway, I imagine you can see how fascinating this appears - assuming the translation so far is reasonably accurate. Is my guy way off in his translations?Thanks!
Ferdinand Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 Okay, here are some corrections / additions:Nov 1926 - Assistant Platoon Commander - 1st Zaporozhe Cavalry Division, 1st Gurbono Kazakh? CorpsDismissed for long term leave - 23 Nov 1928Jul 1941 - Assistant - 59th Western Rifle RegimentDec 1941 - Regimental Commissar - 113th Rifle BattalionDec 1941 - ? Party Bureau - 661st Artillery RegimentFeb 1943 - Regiment - 206th Rifle DivisionFeb 1943 - Deputy Commanders Course ?Jul 1943 - Server? ['Sluzhatel', I don't know the English word for this] - Lenin Military Political School, Moscow Military DistrictJul 1943 to Sep 1943 - In reserve of the Political Department? ['Sostava', I don't know the English word for this] of the Main Political Department of the Red ArmySep 1943 to Oct 1945 - Inspector of ? Corps - 107th Rifle Corps, 4th Ukrainian FrontOct 1945 - Secretary - 501st Artillery BrigadeJan 1946 - Party ? - 318th Guards Rifle Division, city of MukachevoSigned by the Verchne-Dneprovsk Region Military Commissar, Major Kalaitanov.'Polk' is regiment, 'polkovnik' is Colonel (a Colonel is normally a regimental commander, that's why 'polk' is in the name).Hope this helps a bit. Maybe Rick will be able to fill in some blanks.Auke
IVB Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 Hello!And some additions more:Nov 1926 - Assistant Platoon Commander - 1st Zaporozhe Cavalry Division, 1st Gurbono Cossak CorpsDec 1941 - Senior Secretary of Party Bureau - 661st Artillery Regiment of 206th Rifle DivisionJul 1943 - Listener (Slushatel') - Lenin Military Political School, Moscow Military DistrictJul 1943 to Sep 1943 - In reserve of the Political Staff (Sostav) of the Main Political Department of the Red Army
Guest Rick Research Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 "Sluzhatel'" is used where we would say "Student" at higher courses, as opposed to "Kursant" where we would say "Cadet" for someone not yet commissioned. Occasionally "Kursant" can be found in place of Sluzhatel', but not vice-versa."Long term discharges" were quite common in pre-Purge days for budgetary fluctuations. The Soviets used "in the reserves" to mean everything from under arrest, to demobilized, to retired, to temporarily without a post-- depending most significantly on the period it was used.Having been surplus to requirements in 1928 very likely saved his life in 1938. THAT is when "dismissed to the reserves" was a euphemism for arrested. His 1943 "reserve" status meant he was without a post temporarily in the general replacement pool of officers waiting for an assignment.There is a discrepancy between his January 1946 assignment and the entry beneath it which states that per 19.11.45 he was discharged to the Reserves (i.e. retired) as a Major "per Paragraph 43 (seniority)." Usually we have NO clue what the discharge criteria line numbers meant, but sometimes we get lucky and it is written out "for ill-health" or whatever. In this case, he had apparently been In Grade too long and had hit the Up Or Out-- and was OUT.
Sergei Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 First, without knowing proper terminology:Sep 1943 to Oct 1945 - Inspector of 'political department of Corps?' (the original is 'polit-otdel korpusa') - 107th Rifle Corps, 4th Ukrainian FrontSecond, I believe these two entries should be read together (quite commonly they used to show start and end dates for a job/post):Oct 1945 - Secretary - 501st Artillery BrigadeJan 1946 - Party ? - 318th Guards Rifle Division, city of MukachevoThen it becomes Secretary of the Party Commission of 318th Guards Rifle Division, 501st Artillery Brigade, City of MukachevoParty Commission is different from Party Committee, by the way.Makes sense?Sergei
Eric B Posted January 17, 2008 Author Posted January 17, 2008 You all are top drawer! With that I'm equipped to put it all together, not withstanding any other translation errors. But the rest, award card, personal data and citations, seem very straight forward translation wise. I'll post the results when I get it done. It's an interesting history.Thanks again!
Guest Rick Research Posted January 17, 2008 Posted January 17, 2008 Another interesting point is that he appears to have had his personnel file "stamp" photo attached at the END of his career-- the rubber stamp over it is the same as the final certification, 1946 and--he is not wearing uniform, but what appears to be a summer tennis-type shirt!Usually the stamp sized photo was from after the first posting--graduating from an officer's school--with what could be decades of entries underneath. Forever young!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now