Глава VI. На московской кафедре. 1934–1941 годы

His Beatitude First Hierarch of the Russian Church A visible recognition of the authority and special position of Metropolitan Sergius was the decision made at an enlarged meeting of the Patriarchal Synod on April 27, 1934, to transfer him from the Nizhny Novgorod see to the Moscow see, widowed after the death of Patriarch Tikhon, and to confer the title “Blessed” and the right to wear two panagias. On May 2, 1934, Sergius, for the first time in his new capacity, led a service at the Epiphany Cathedral in Dorogomilov 145. According to Russian tradition, the new ruling ruler of Moscow was greeted with bread and salt by the numerous parish clergy, thousands and thousands of believers. More than a hundred bishops, priests and deacons co-served with the archpastor at the solemn service on the day of Metropolitan Sergius’s elevation to the Moscow See. Congratulatory telegrams came not only from dioceses located in the USSR, but also from ruling bishops and parishioners in distant Japan, America, and Lithuania. In the address presented to Sergius, read by Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) of Leningrad, it was noted: “The all-merciful Providence of God was pleased to entrust the fate of the Russian Orthodox Church to your wise fatherly care. For the ninth year now, unfeignedly submitting to this Divine Will, you have been responsible for the management of the Russian Orthodox Church. And you bear this obedience as a true Christian, showing everyone an example of Christian love and humility. And this wise leadership of the church ship, your boundless love for the Mother Church, your brotherly loving attitude towards your fellow bishops and brothers and your fatherly attitude towards all the children of the Church made you, in the general church consciousness, the First Bishop of the country” 146. Thus, Metropolitan Sergius was recognized as the ruling first hierarch of the Russian Church. His residence became a small house in Baumansky (formerly Devkin) Lane. Then it was the eastern outskirts of the ancient urban area - the village of Elokhova. There are still small one-story houses with cozy courtyards, front gardens and bushes. Since the 18th century, this area was part of the parish of the Church of the Epiphany in Elokhov - a majestic church that was never closed and since 1938 has become the cathedral of Moscow. Its rector since 1924 was Archpriest Nikolai Kolchitsky, a devoted and active employee of Metropolitan Sergius. With his participation, premises for the metropolitan house were found near the Elokhovsky Church. In the 1920s–1930s, the area of ​​Baumansky Lane was known as a distant, undeveloped urban outskirts, inhabited by factory and railway workers, seasonal workers, and employees of local municipal institutions. The usable area of ​​the first floor of the house was about 70 square meters. In a cramped room, divided into two isolated apartments, not only was the home of Bishop Sergius located, but also the governing bodies of the church and the Moscow diocese were located. The cell attendant, the housekeeper of the patriarchate, lived with Metropolitan Sergius. Metropolitan Sergius was served by nuns, one of them, Mother Alexandra, who lived nearby, on Denisovsky Lane, was his family doctor. In those same years, the young hieromonk Pimen (Izvekov), the future His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', who served as regent at the Epiphany Cathedral in Dorogomilov, often stayed in the house for the night. Soon, on May 18, 1935, under pressure from “externals,” Sergius was forced, on the direct orders of the NKVD, to dissolve the Provisional Patriarchal Synod and administered the dioceses with the help of the suffragan bishop of Dmitrov Sergius (Voskresensky), and the patriarchal office henceforth consisted of a secretary and a typist. As documents discovered in recent years show, the dissolution of the Synod did not mean the automatic termination of the operation of this body or, in any case, the collegial discussion of general church issues. For these purposes, the hierarchs came to Moscow under all sorts of plausible pretexts and gathered with Sergius of Stragorodsky. Moreover, the absence of a legal church center and the objective need for it again, as in the mid-1920s, made relevant the idea of ​​electing a patriarch through an individual survey of Orthodox hierarchs. True, this time everyone realized that the only candidate under discussion could only be Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorod. And, just like ten years ago, the initiators paid with their freedom, being accused of illegal “counter-revolutionary activities.” In 1936, the publication of the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate” was discontinued. Along with the mass closure of Orthodox churches in 1936–1939, trials of clergymen who were accused of “sabotage and espionage activities and connections with the intelligence services of foreign states” became commonplace. In 1935–1937, 84 bishops were brought to justice for “counter-revolutionary activities.” In the most critical circumstances, Sergius tried to defend before the authorities the interests of ordinary believers who turned to him from many, many settlements of the Soviet Union. In 1935, he received information from Arzamas about the fate of the city's Orthodox churches. The City Council closed the churches, despite requests from believers to transfer them to them for use. Previously confiscated churches were either turned into piles of ruins, or used for other purposes, or simply stood locked. The authorities supported the Renovationist community in every possible way, forcibly “introducing” it into the Arzamas Winter Cathedral - the last operating religious building used by the “Sergius” community. It was no secret to anyone that the renovationists were in collusion with the authorities. As soon as they expelled the “Sergievites” in person, they immediately announced their desire to hand over the building to the authorities, who intended to use it “at the request of city residents” for the construction of the House of Soviets. Sergius, in an appeal to the Standing Commission on Religious Issues under the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, asks to understand the situation and satisfy the requests of the Orthodox believers of Arzamas for the return of the Resurrection Cathedral to them. At the same time, he points out that the renovationist priest Rubinsky, to whom the cathedral was transferred, was at one time defrocked, and earlier two churches were transferred to his community one after another, both of which were then rendered completely unusable due to lack of funds. At its meeting, the commission acknowledged the fact of the illegal closure of the Resurrection Cathedral and “pointed out” to the chairman of the Arzamas regional executive committee “the lack of a political approach and the formal violations of the rules established by law when closing churches.” However, taking into account that “the cathedral has actually been liquidated” (that is, the Orthodox community has been deregistered and its building confiscated), the commission approved the resolution of the presidium of the Gorky Regional Executive Committee on the closure of the Resurrection Cathedral. Another religious building was transferred to the “Sergievites” for the religious needs of the community. Justice was restored only during the patriarchate of Sergius of Stragorod, when the cathedral was returned to the believers. At the end of July 1936, the term of exile of Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky) was ending, and the church community was eagerly awaiting his return. However, everyone was disappointed: in September 1936, the NKVD provided information about the death of Metropolitan Peter. In this regard, on December 27, 1936, the Patriarchate adopted a special “Act on the transfer of the rights and duties of the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne of the Orthodox Russian Church to the deputy patriarchal locum tenens, His Beatitude Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Sergius (Stragorodsky),” who by that time had actually headed the Russian Church for 11 years 147. Sergius served tirelessly in churches in Moscow and the surrounding Moscow region. It is unlikely that today we will be able to even to a small extent imagine and feel his difficult emotional experiences. Those were terrible years in the life of Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorod and the entire Orthodox Church. Only a few understood the emergency of the situation and supported him as best they could. ...It was a festive Sunday. Father Sergius (Lebedev), sitting at his desk, intently sorted out the mail he had brought for Metropolitan Sergius. Suddenly a bell rang downstairs. He opened the door: two people stood on the threshold - a guard and... Archbishop Philip (Gumilevsky), about whom nothing had been known for two years since his arrest. “Vladyka, you...” the Metropolitan’s secretary said joyfully and in amazement. They threw themselves into each other's arms, for they were united by many years of friendship. The guard stepped aside embarrassedly. - Where is the lord? – Philip finally asked. – I left this morning at an invitation to serve somewhere in the suburbs. - What a pity... I have very little time. – Philip looked at the guard. “Thank you to the kind-hearted people... who allowed us to visit you on the way to your new place of residence.” - But what, what should we do? – he continued nervously. - It turns out that I can’t wait for His Eminence... Give me a piece of paper, at least I’ll leave a message about myself, otherwise I’ll never be able to see each other again... About three hours later Sergius Stragorodsky returned. Having read the letter submitted by the secretary, he kissed it and hid it on his chest with the words: “With such a letter, it’s not scary to appear at the Last Judgment!” Then he walked around the room. Sergius Lebedev silently watched everything that was happening: he had never seen the Metropolitan so excited and moved. He again unfolded the letter and read it, but this time out loud: “Vladyka Retinue, when I think about your labors for the preservation of the Russian Church, I think of you as a holy martyr, and when I remember your nightly prayers for the same Russian Church and all of us, I think of you as a holy righteous man.” “Seryozha,” the Metropolitan turned to his secretary, “after my death there will be all sorts of rumors... many will condemn me.” It will be difficult for them all to understand, without knowing all the difficulties that befell me, what I was forced to do in this terrible time in order to preserve the liturgy, the sacraments... to make them accessible to Orthodox parishioners, to protect not only the clergy, but also the worshipers from persecution... Take the letter that I have filed in my personal file. A few months later it became known that Archbishop Philip Gumilyovsky was shot by an investigator during interrogation... He was buried as a simple monk in a closed coffin, and his sister was told that the coffin could not be opened, since the bishop died of an infectious disease. 1937 became the apogee of the Stalinist regime of repression. By this time, eight thousand Orthodox churches were closed, 70 dioceses and vicariates were liquidated, and about sixty bishops were shot. In the same year, fate dealt another blow to Sergius Stragorodsky: his sister Alexandra Arkhangelskaya died. She was arrested as “the sister of Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorod.” She was accused of “being a member of a counter-revolutionary church-fascist organization, carrying out recruitment work and involving 3 people in the organization, keeping a font for printing counter-revolutionary leaflets, having a connection with Metropolitan Sergius, and receiving counter-revolutionary guidelines for the organization from him.” Despite the complete absurdity of the charges, the sentence against Alexandra Nikolaevna was carried out on November 4, 1937. At the same time, in Moscow, the cell attendant of Bishop Sergius, Hieromonk Afanasy, was arrested and shot. ...At the beginning of October 1938, after numerous appeals, Sergius managed to achieve admission to the OGPU. In the building on Lubyanka he was met by E. A. Tuchkov. At that moment, he was already in a new position - deputy special representative of the OGPU for Moscow. “I asked to be received,” Sergius began, “to find out the reasons for the arrests of the clergy, bishops and priests in Moscow, Siberia and the Urals. Tuchkov, in a new uniform and with orders, sat at the table, in front of him were papers, papers. Glancing briefly at the guest and again turning to the papers, he said: – Members of anti-Soviet organizations and members of terrorist groups were arrested. “But the letters coming to me from relatives, flocks and clergy speak of their innocence. So many requests... are they all enemies? I can't believe it. And then, they are protected by the constitution as citizens... An additional investigation must be ordered to reassure the believers. – Ivan Nikolaevich, you are an educated person, you read newspapers, you know the situation in the country. The party and the state cannot make peace with their enemies. And there is no need to ask for them, and no additional investigations are needed. Their guilt has already been proven. Some of them received the highest punishment. The other was sent to a settlement. - Why such a speedy trial? They are people, and life was given to them by God. Do you have the right to decide... “Listen,” interrupted Tuchkov, “we have known each other for many years.” If I said: no, then the conversation is over. Better think about yourself. Sergius looked at his interlocutor in surprise and, after a pause, said: - Evgeny Alexandrovich, by your grace I was already a counter-revolutionary, and an anti-Soviet, and an agent of England, and a Japanese spy... What else can you invent about me? - Don't get excited. – Tuchkov stood up and walked around the office: it was clear that he was trying to contain his irritation. He returned to the table and continued: “We don’t invent anything, we only act on verified data.” If you want to know, there is enough information on you that incriminates you of anti-Soviet activities. I don’t know who up there,” he pointed at the ceiling with his thumb outstretched, “is interested in you.” But rest assured, you won’t last long in freedom. “I don’t believe you, and I have nothing to fear.” I have lived a lot, done a lot for the church and believers. The Church, no matter how much you would like, cannot be killed; it is alive and will live, even if you defame my name. I hope the time will come when the faithful will sort it out and not cover my gray hairs with shame. But behind you, Tuchkov, there is blood, tears, grief... No one will remember you with a kind word. You will be cursed in your descendants. And over time, your own people will turn away from you. Tuchkov turned white, clenched his teeth, his eyes filled with anger, and no longer spoke, but croaked in a strangled and eerie manner: “I didn’t always love you, and my gut didn’t deceive me, you’re contra... and you should have ended back then, in the twenty-second.” And all our party liberals... Oooh, I hate them, and you, and your religion and the church together. To the nail of everyone. But now you, failed patriarch, will not leave me! - At these words, Tuchkov took several sheets of paper from the table and threw them in front of the Metropolitan. - Read what your brothers write about your affairs! Sergius pushed the sheets of paper aside and stood up, showing his desire to leave. - Oh, you don’t want to. No, sit down and listen, I myself will read out some fragments from the testimony of your friend Feofan Tulikov. Tuchkov unfolded the papers and, running his finger along the lines, looked for the place he needed. – Here’s a quote: “At the end of 1934, on the initiative and under the leadership of Sergius Stragorodsky, a fascist church center was created, which included representatives of the major clergy. His task was to develop counter-revolutionary activities and unite counter-revolutionary church forces to fight Soviet power, with the goal of overthrowing it and restoring capitalism in the USSR. We carried out direct work on training rebel and terrorist personnel, sowed indignation and anger among the population, committed sabotage and terrorist acts, arson ... " Sergius stood up, indignation filling him. – I don’t believe you, not a single word... You are a slanderer! I am ready... I demand a meeting with Metropolitan Feofan! “You’ll have time, you’ll have time,” said Tuchkov, grinning. “And if it’s not possible here, then there,” he pointed his finger upward, “meet.” - And after a pause, enjoying and triumphant, like a predator over a defeated victim, he casually dropped: “And your accomplice, Tulikov, was sentenced about two weeks ago, and yesterday, it seems, he was shot.” By the end of 1939, besides Metropolitan Sergius, only three other ruling bishops remained at large: Metropolitan Alexy (Simansky) of Leningrad, Archbishop Nikolay (Yarushevich) of Lutsk and Volyn, and Archbishop Sergius (Voskresensky) of Dmitrov. Several more bishops were “in retirement” or in the positions of rector of churches. The German attack on Poland led to serious changes in the domestic and foreign policies of the USSR. In 1939–1940, the Baltic states, Bessarabia, and the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus became part of the Soviet Union. The clergy, churches and monasteries of these territories came under the jurisdiction of the patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergius. The authorities recognized that the influence of the clergy here was much stronger than in other republics, and therefore it was prescribed to pursue a more prudent church policy. In the article by Em. Yaroslavsky “On the tasks of anti-religious propaganda” said this: “It is clear that in the union republics that recently joined the USSR, the question of religion is of particular importance. The power of religion, which was instilled in every possible way by bourgeois regimes, is still strong there. There, for decades, they deceived the population with tales about “religious persecution” in the USSR, that they were forbidden to pray here, etc. That is why we need to be very tactful when explaining the harm of religion to the working people of the new Soviet republics. Of course, the revolution in the consciousness of the working people that took place in our country in twenty-two years will also take place there, but it will go much faster, because these peoples receive Soviet power in a ready-made form, and we fought for Soviet power on the fronts of the civil war. They receive in ready-made form the entire Soviet organization, all the institutions created by the Soviet government and all the experience accumulated during this time. With the help of the entire Soviet Union, they will travel the path we have traversed much more quickly." 148 The surviving records of the religious situation in the country are reflected in the table below: The external well-being and stability of statistical data are deceptive, since in 1940 the calculation was carried out taking into account the Orthodox societies operating in the territory that became part of the USSR. Whereas during the same period, only in the RSFSR, the number of operating Orthodox communities was administratively reduced from 3,617 units to 950. It would not be an exaggeration to say that of this number, only about a third of the societies were actually functioning: for example, in 25 regions there was not a single operating church, in 20 - from one to five. The remaining churches, taken away from religious communities by the authorities, often without even the appearance of observing existing laws, were kept “locked up” and were inaccessible to believers. The situation in Orthodox Ukraine was no less bleak. All Orthodox churches in Vinnytsia, Kirovograd, Donetsk, Nikolaev, Sumy, and Khmelnytsky regions were closed. One church operated in the Voroshilovgrad, Poltava, and Kharkov regions. The new territories, in which there were more than three thousand Orthodox churches and 60 monasteries and there were 14 ruling bishops, caused certain problems for the Moscow Patriarchate. The fact is that the local Orthodox dioceses in the post-revolutionary period declared their ecclesiastical independence. Now, in new political circumstances, changes inevitably had to be made to their church life. The Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow and Kolomna, sought to streamline church life here and take control of it. From a few of his letters that have reached us, we can imagine his point of view on church problems in these territories. For example, in a letter to Bishop Alexander (Tolstopyatov) he wrote: “Our new areas still make us worry. The new patch does not immediately adhere to old clothing. They all have their own way there. It is especially difficult to understand that their former autocephaly in church language is called “schism” with all the following conclusions: that everything recognized for them is recognized only for the sake of “economy”, and, strictly speaking, according to the canons they have no right to count on anything. They imagine something similar to your move from Cherepovets to Slobodskaya: you took your suitcase, bought a ticket and be with God. We'll still have to put up with them a lot, explaining the multiplication tables... Bessarabia is waiting for the device. Bishop Alexy Sergeev was sent there. Archbishop Nikolai Yarushevich went to Western Ukraine and Belarus (temporarily) as exarch. Now we are babysitting Latvia and Estonia. Our Archbishop Sergius has been sent to Latvia and Estonia: Latvia has brought repentance, but we don’t know about Estonia yet” 149. In 1940, Metropolitan Sergius invited Metropolitan Alexander (Paulus) of Estonia and Metropolitan Augustine (Peterson) of Latvia to return to the Moscow Patriarchate. After negotiations, the clergy and parishes came under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. At the Tallinn See, Archbishop Alexander (Paulus) remained the ruling bishop, who took an oath of allegiance to the Moscow Patriarchate. At the beginning of 1941, instead of the deceased Metropolitan of Vilna and Lithuania Eleutherius (Epiphany), Archbishop Sergius (Voskresensky) was sent to Lithuania with his elevation to the rank of metropolitan and appointment as Exarch of Latvia and Estonia. At the beginning of 1941, Archbishop Nikolai (Yarushevich) was moved to the territory of Western Ukraine and elevated to the rank of Metropolitan of Volyn and Lutsk. He became the new exarch of Ukraine, and the city of Lutsk became the seat of the exarchate. On the territory that newly became part of the Soviet Union there was a significant number of Catholic and Uniate churches and monasteries. There were up to eight million Catholics and Greek Catholics. The new religious situation, after almost ten years of absence of any official or unofficial ties, also brought to the fore the question of the relationship between the USSR and the Vatican. The Vatican also made attempts to do this, although in August 1940 the Soviet authorities announced the severance of diplomatic relations between the Baltic countries and the Vatican. It is known that in October 1940, the USSR Plenipotentiary Envoy to Yugoslavia V.A. Plotnikov reported to the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs that, on the instructions of Pius XII, a Croatian Catholic priest approached him with an official proposal to receive Vatican representatives in Moscow for negotiations. However, Moscow’s position was tough, and Molotov responded that “the Soviet government does not see the possibility of concluding an agreement with the Pope, since this agreement could cause discontent both among the Orthodox clergy and religiously minded parishioners who do not sympathize with the Catholic Church” 150. True, at the same time, the Soviet authorities denied any reports from foreign media about “persecution and persecution” of Catholic believers. Here is a characteristic statement from Yaroslavsky: “To this day, these obscurantists continue to assure the population that the Soviet government is closing all churches, prohibiting prayer, persecuting people for their faith, etc. The enemy agents of the Vatican are also doing this... In the foreign press, especially the Catholic press, we encounter the wildest inventions related to anti-religious activities in Western Ukraine and Western Belarus... We must show all the bad faith, all the vileness of the inventions of reactionaries and obscurantists" 151. However, very soon the already existing experience of “settlement” of relations with religious organizations began to be brought to the “new Soviet territories” on an increasingly wider scale: religious parties and church-public associations were liquidated; philosophical and theological faculties in state educational institutions, monasteries, churches, church printing houses and religious literature stores were closed; the property of religious societies was nationalized; part of the clergy was deported. As a justification for these and other similar measures, the thesis was used that among the clergy and church activists there were especially many who were fighting the Soviet regime and advocating the return of the old order 152. On the eve of the Great Patriotic War, it seemed that the ruling Communist Party was close to achieving its declared goal in the field of religious relations. The number of Orthodox churches decreased day by day. In 1941, there were a total of 3,021 churches and 64 monasteries, which were served by 28 bishops and 6,376 clergy 153 . “Churchless” and “godless” villages, towns, cities, districts and even entire regions numbered in the tens and hundreds. According to official sociological studies and surveys conducted at that time, the number of believers was decreasing day by day 154. State-party media and anti-religious literature testified to the “support of the working masses” for the course of church policy of the state as the most fully ensuring freedom of conscience. Literally on the eve of the war, in March 1941, at a meeting with workers of anti-religious museums, Yaroslavsky, the country’s main anti-religious activist, speaking about the “effectiveness” of anti-religious work, noted that citizens are increasingly less likely to petition for the opening of previously administratively closed religious buildings and for the organization of religious communities. “There are fewer and fewer hunters,” he concluded, “to submit such petitions every day. And where such petitions are received, their initiators are kulaks, ministers of worship and former church activists, individual farmers” 155. But, of course, religious life in the country in its real form was completely different from what the “anti-religious dreamers” imagined. In particular, this was manifested in the same March days of 1941, when celebrations were held in Moscow on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of Metropolitan Sergius’ service in the rank of bishop. Thousands of Orthodox believers gathered in the cathedral: Muscovites, representatives of almost all dioceses located in the USSR, guests from abroad. Never have the old walls of the Elokhovsky Cathedral heard such a mighty celebration of the blessed hero of the day, which was sung unanimously by all those praying. When, at the end of the service, Metropolitan Sergius came out onto the porch of the cathedral, the people who filled the square bared their heads and began to throw flowers at their deeply revered and beloved “grandfather-lord” 156 . The ruling party and the Soviet state on the anti-religious front. Second half of the 1930s In April 1934, at a joint meeting of the Secretariat of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, a decision was made to form a Standing Commission for the consideration of religious issues under the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR. A month later, the commission was organized and began work. The union commission included representatives of the Supreme Court of the USSR, the NKVD, the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions, the Supreme Council and the Prosecutor's Office of the USSR, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the Institute of Philosophy of the Communist Academy, and the Central Union of Militant Atheists. The commission was headed by P. G. Smidovich. The priority tasks were to develop a union-wide law on religious organizations and to achieve uniformity in the implementation of religious policy by authorities in the center and locally. The range of daily matters considered by the commission included the development and preliminary consideration of draft resolutions on issues related to the activities of religious organizations, their submission to the USSR Central Executive Committee and its presidium, general accounting of religious organizations, and collection of information about the religious situation in the country. The relationship between the union commission and the Central Executive Committees of the union republics and their commissions on religious issues was not easy. In an effort to develop a common point of view on church policy and coordinate joint efforts, the Central Commission in the second half of 1934 heard reports from representatives of Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Armenia, and Georgia at its meetings. An agreement was reached on joint work on a union bill on religious organizations, regular exchange of information on the religious situation and adopted legal acts. The procedure and conditions for considering materials on the closure of religious buildings and collective complaints of believers were developed. The right of final decision on all these issues was assigned to the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, and the Central Commission was instructed to submit materials for the meeting of the Presidium. Based on the agreements reached, the Central Commission tried to influence the governments of the union republics, refusing to submit unprepared materials for approval by the Presidium of the USSR Central Executive Committee. The chairman of the commission (since 1935), P. A. Krasikov, rightly pointed out to the republican authorities the illegality of a number of decisions they made. But very soon the human rights actions of the commission were torpedoed by the republics. Referring to the absence of a union-wide law, they achieved recognition of their right to finally resolve the issue of closing religious buildings. The commission retained the right to appropriately formalize the decisions made, that is, to carry them through the Presidium of the USSR Central Executive Committee. The emergence of such a situation is explained not only by the desire of the republics to expand their independence, but also to a large extent by the indifference with which the presidium treated its commission. It was almost completely deprived of conditions for normal functioning: there were not enough premises; the staff consisted of only three people; due to lack of funds, members of the commission could not go on business trips to the republics for years; the commission's regulations were never approved; The Secretariat of the USSR Central Executive Committee refused organizational and logistical support. In June 1936, a draft of a new all-Union constitution was published and submitted for public discussion. Article 124 of the draft constitution dealt with the problems of ensuring freedom of conscience in the USSR. Along with the discussion of the fundamental problems of the draft new Constitution of the USSR, issues of the activities of religious organizations, their rights and obligations, relationships with the state, and the further possible development of legislation on cults also came into the center of public attention. The Constitutional Commission received numerous amendments to the draft article on freedom of conscience from citizens, government institutions and public organizations. For the most part, they contained demands to ban all religious rituals, all teaching of religion to children, the activities of “sectarian movements”, not to provide clergy with full civil rights, and to tighten the current legislation on religious cults. To a large extent, they were generated by the social atmosphere in the country that developed under the influence of party anti-religious propaganda and the voluntaristic activities of Soviet and administrative bodies. Naturally, there was no space on the pages of the official press to present the position of believers on these issues. But you can find out about it by referring to the archival materials of the Commission on Religious Issues under the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR. One of the letters received by the commission indicated the following proposals from believers regarding Article 124 of the USSR Constitution: "1. Article 124 must be strictly observed and local authorities must be placed within certain limits. 2. Do not impose excessive taxes on both churches and the clergy, but make interest payments on income. 3. Prohibit all “bullying” of the church, clergy and believers. 4. Allow the clergy to freely, without special permission from local authorities, meetings of believers and the church council, go from house to house with prayers and services. 5. Do not allow pressure on workers and employees for religious beliefs. 6. Do not close churches through administrative pressure unless there is the consent of the religious community” 157. The position of the commission and its chairman P. A. Krasikov was expressed in a special note “The State of Religious Organizations in the USSR,” submitted to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. The assessment of the religious situation was very frank and direct: “Based on the available materials in the Commission, it is necessary to note a large number of gross violations of Soviet legislation on religious cults on the ground. Moreover, the number of violations has been growing in recent years. This growth is explained by the fact that local workers underestimate cult issues and do not understand the full political depth.” Krasikov’s conclusion was that it was urgently necessary to take the most serious measures to correct the catastrophic situation that had developed in the religious issue, to eliminate methods of administrative pressure on believers and religious organizations in the actions of local authorities, to update the legislation on cults, to develop and adopt an all-Union law on freedom of conscience and to ensure its uniform application throughout the entire territory of the USSR. Defending its point of view, the commission tried to influence the current unfavorable situation on the religious issue and looked for allies for this. In May 1936, on the recommendation of the commission, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee sent a special circular to local authorities demanding “to stop administrative measures to combat the religious remnants of the working masses” and warning that “from now on, for violating the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of April 8, 1929, “On Religious Associations,” those responsible, regardless of the persons, will be held strictly accountable.” 158 In October 1936, Krasikov turned to the USSR Prosecutor A. Ya. Vyshinsky, asking him to investigate numerous cases of violation of the current legislation on cults by the authorities. These included: illegal liquidation of religious societies and closure of prayer buildings; confiscation of religious buildings for grain filling; refusal to register religious societies and clergy; the closure of churches under the pretext of believers’ failure to comply with local authorities’ orders to repair buildings; unjustified fines of the clergy and church activists. But Krasikov’s appeal remained without due attention. The prosecutor's office rejected the assertion that violations of the law on cults were widespread and agreed only with the existence of isolated facts, in respect of which they promised to investigate. In other words, one could not expect serious help from the body that was supposed to monitor and enforce the law. In November 1936, on the initiative of P. A. Krasikov, the issue of forming a union law on cults was considered at a special meeting with the participation of representatives of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the Central Council of the Union of Militant Atheists, the USSR Central Executive Committee, some people's commissariats and departments. The adopted resolution noted: “The state of work of local Councils in terms of the correct implementation of legislation on religious cults in most republics, territories and regions is unsatisfactory. There are numerous cases of naked administration when closing prayer buildings without carrying out appropriate mass work” 159. The meeting participants recognized that the development and adoption of a union law on cults was becoming a priority task. According to Krasikov's commission, by 1936 there were 42,392 religious buildings in the USSR. Of these, 30,862 buildings were registered, but only 20,908 of this number were operational, and another 9,954, although registered, were seized from believers administratively and were not operational. A fierce battle broke out between the authorities and believers around these churches. An idea of ​​this can be gleaned from Krasikov’s note to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks: “Cult commissions are not organized under all Central Executive Committees of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, regional and regional executive committees... Where there are commissions, their work is limited to discussing cases of closing prayer buildings. There is no uniform law on religious associations. Each union republic is guided by its own legislation... The commission has many facts in all republics, territories and regions when the seizure of a church is carried out by the Regional Executive Committee or the village council, not even by resolution of the village council, simply by order of the chairman. If a church is closed by a decision of the regional executive committee or the regional executive committee, this decision is not announced to believers, they are not given the required period to appeal to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, sometimes, despite the appeal, the church is liquidated before the decision of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee... Most churches are closed without carrying out sufficient mass anti-religious work among the population... without taking into account the degree of religiosity of the population. When churches are closed, no attention is paid to whether there is another functioning church nearby where believers could perform religious rites” 160 . The fact of the widespread spread of administrative pressure on religious societies was recognized by the party leaders themselves at various kinds of “closed meetings.” In December 1936, at a meeting of the leadership of the Union of Militant Atheists, Em. Yaroslavsky noted: “We undoubtedly have very big excesses in the sense of being carried away by administrative activities. When we got acquainted with the latest data regarding the liquidation of church premises, we came to the unanimous opinion that administrative excesses were committed here” 161. In fact, alone, the commission tried to defend the rights of believers before the highest authorities. Its members understood that it was necessary, first of all, to restrain the administrative closure of religious buildings. In accordance with Soviet legislation on cults, the commission retained the right of final approval of decisions of local authorities on the closure of churches, therefore, when considering received cases of closure of prayer buildings, the commission under various pretexts - the last church in the area is closed, the prospects of the vacated building are not clear, proper explanatory work has not been carried out among believers, there are illegal actions of the authorities, the formal procedure for considering the issue of closure is violated, etc. – did not agree with the proposals of local authorities to close the prayer buildings, delayed making her decision, the sent materials were returned to the place, more and more new documents were requested, employees were sent to check the appeals of believers, and some of the materials were sent for verification to law enforcement agencies, party and Soviet authorities 162. The efforts of the commission to contain the widespread campaign to close churches are illustrated by a table compiled on the basis of archival data: But, of course, the commission could not contain the wave of lawlessness. Her very attempts to call for the law in the party-Soviet environment were perceived as a “violation of the party line.” “Denunciations” against members of the commission to the highest party bodies on charges of deliberately holding back the “offensive on the anti-religious front” became commonplace. For example, in the homeland of Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorod, the Arzamas City Executive Committee, which closed all the churches and did not respond to the commission’s requests for a long time, finally sent the following Jesuitical answer: “Any retreat in the issue of liquidation of churches will cause a new revival of the monastic and priestly element, which, of course, will introduce a big brake and direct disruption of work in the region” 163. In November 1936, the VIII All-Union Congress of Soviets opened, at which amendments to the draft constitution were to be considered and the Constitution of the USSR was adopted. J.V. Stalin made a report on the draft Constitution of the USSR, saying: “Next is an amendment to Article 124 of the Constitution, requiring its change in the direction of prohibiting the practice of religious rites. I think this amendment should be rejected as being inconsistent with the spirit of our Constitution. Finally, one more amendment, more or less significant. I'm talking about the amendment to Article 135 of the draft Constitution. She proposes to deprive clergy, former White Guards, all former people and persons not engaged in generally useful work, of the voting rights, or, in any case, to limit the voting rights of persons in this category, giving them only passive suffrage, that is, the right to vote, but not to be elected. I think this amendment should be rejected. There was a time when these elements waged an open struggle against the people and openly opposed Soviet laws... Over the past period, we have achieved that the exploiting classes have been destroyed, and Soviet power has turned into an invincible force. Isn't it time to reconsider this law? I think it's time" 164. It is clear that the leader’s opinion was not disputed and both amendments were rejected. Article 124 of the Constitution was adopted in the following wording: “In order to ensure freedom of conscience for citizens, the church in the USSR is separated from the state and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda are recognized for all citizens.” On December 5, 1936, the Constitution of the USSR, which later became known as “Stalinist,” was adopted in its final form. With its adoption, the human rights activities of P. A. Krasikov’s commission are intensified. Time and again she turns to the most pressing issue - the illegal closure of religious buildings by authorities. A proposal is being sent to all Central Executive Committees of the union republics to return illegally seized buildings to the believing population. And there were quite a few of them everywhere: in Kyrgyzstan - 76 (with 243 operating houses of worship), in Uzbekistan - 882 (663), in Georgia - 83 (281), in Azerbaijan - 137 (69), in Armenia - 45 (40), in Belarus - 238 (239). But only in isolated cases did the republican authorities react positively to the commission’s proposal. Characterizing the emerging situation on the ground, Krasikov wrote to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks that “administrative methods, intimidation, and repression are in use. Some workers consider all believers to be counter-revolutionaries, and therefore do not want to take into account their requests, although they are completely legal. Some responsible district officials believe that sectarian religious associations should be criminally prosecuted under Soviet law.” In mid-1937, in the mood of the party and Soviet activists, the opinion about the need to completely “liquidate” the legislation on cults and, in particular, the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR “On Religious Associations” of 1929, became widespread. It may be mentioned that G. M. Malenkov directly addressed Stalin with such a proposal. It was justified by the fact that the legislative act of April 8, 1929 created “an organizational basis for forming the most active part of churchmen and sectarians into a widely ramified legal organization of 600 thousand people throughout the USSR, hostile to the Soviet government.” Therefore, the priority tasks were put forward to “put an end to the way they have developed, with the governing bodies of the clergy, with the church hierarchy.” These ideas and sentiments were reflected both on the pages of anti-religious literature and in public speeches by party functionaries 165. The commission opposed such a “liquidationist” position. Her numerous letters, reports, and notes sent to the highest authorities indicated the inadmissibility of labeling all believers who are members of religious societies and support existing houses of worship as “ardent enemies of Soviet power”; on the inadmissibility of using administrative and forceful measures in matters of regulating the activities of religious societies, which will make their “legal” existence impossible and will contribute to “going underground,” which will ultimately only bring harm and destabilize the situation in society. Agreeing that there are facts of “anti-Soviet activity” in the church environment, P. A. Krasikov drew attention to the fact that the aggravation of the religious situation is caused primarily by the spread locally of such phenomena as “leftism, excesses, incorrect application of the law, sabotage acceleration of the “liquidation of religion”.” In the letters sent by Krasikov to the party and Soviet bodies of the union republics, the point of view was defended, according to which the main direction of state policy in the “church question” should not be the destruction of legislation, but, on the contrary, its strengthening, improvement, strict and uniform compliance throughout the country. This was the focus of the draft union laws on religious issues submitted by the commission to the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, the texts of which were preserved in the archives of the commission. The first of them is “On the practice of religious worship and prayer buildings.” Its eighteen articles determined the procedure for the formation and conditions of functioning of groups of believers receiving the use of a religious building. The second bill - “On Religious Associations” (24 articles) - concerned the activities of religious societies, that is, associations that are not strictly connected with the receipt of a building and have greater opportunities for their activities. This law was supposed to be linked to another - “On Public Associations”, which was supposed to regulate the activities of all types of “societies”. For this purpose, it was proposed to introduce articles into it that would specifically relate to the activities of religious organizations. The archives of the commission preserved a draft law relating to the activities of just such societies. Both bills carried the burden of prohibition, maintaining discriminatory measures against the activities of “groups” and “communities”, which were not granted the rights of a legal entity, were prohibited from having any property and engaging in “non-cult activities”, and were not allowed to perform public worship, “going from house to house” and “ringing bells”. The norm was maintained according to which a prayer building could be closed at the request of the majority of the population of a particular area. However, it would be unfair to blame all these shortcomings on the developers of the bills, since, while partially maintaining restrictions and prohibitions, they, led by P. A. Krasikov, sought to defend, even limited, but legal conditions for the existence of religious communities before the administrative moloch, who sought to do away with religion and religious organizations altogether. In August 1937, the final texts of the bills were sent to the decision-making bodies, to the Central Executive Committees of the union republics, but no responses were forthcoming. In the spring of 1938, Krasikov again turned to the Central Executive Committee and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and then to the Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) A. A. Andreev with a request to consider the issue of reforming the legislation on cults. However, this time there was silence. Moreover, the commission did not find a place in the then newly formed supreme body of power - the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and in April 1938 it was abolished. Thus, the body that, to one degree or another, maintained contact between the state and religious organizations and defended the rights of believers and their associations was eliminated. With its liquidation, the very possibility of contacts between the government and religious organizations disappeared. This outcome was a natural consequence of the policy of party and Soviet bodies aimed at building a “religious-free society.” The efforts of a small part of party and public figures who sought to correct the wrong course of the state's church policy were not enough. At the all-Union level, there remained only one departmental structure that dealt with the problems of religion and the church - the NKVD of the USSR. In its depths, in the Secret Political Directorate, there operated a special department “to combat church and sectarian counter-revolution.” To this day, we do not have sufficient information about its work, but it can be argued that the department, like the People’s Commissariat as a whole, in its activities was based on the official political assessment of religious organizations as opponents of socialism and the Soviet system, and the clergy as an overt or hidden counter-revolutionary force. For example, in a textbook for anti-religious self-education circles it was stated: “The class enemy, defeated within the country, has not yet been completely finished off. One of his refuges continues to be a religious organization that spreads reactionary ideas hostile to socialism. Monks and nuns, knocked out of their nests, thousands of priests of different religions... have not yet come to terms with the idea that their cause is completely lost... All such elements support religion and use religious prejudices in order to carry out their enemy work” 166. In the ideological work of party and public organizations, one of the priorities was still declared to be the task of building a “non-religious society” and the fight against the clergy - “obscurantists in robes, yarmulkes and turbans.” Back in May 1932, the Union of Militant Atheists (UWB) adopted its five-year plan - “godless”. By 1937, the Soviet Union, according to the plans of the atheists, was to turn into a country of mass atheism. This was a logical step, from their point of view, since in the same year the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted the second five-year plan, as a result of which a “classless socialist society” should be built in the Soviet Union 167. The Central Council of the League of Militant Atheists was active in the implementation of both its own plans and state objectives, as it understood them. Its chairman, Emelyan Yaroslavsky, the main anti-religionist of those years, called for active, offensive actions on the “anti-religious front”, spoke out against any complacency in the ranks of the Union of Militant Atheists. About the lawlessness committed locally against religious associations. Yaroslavsky knew from the numerous mail received by the central party and Soviet bodies, including to him personally. One of the correspondents of the newspaper “Bezbozhnik”, who visited Ukraine in the spring of 1938, wrote about the actions of cult inspectors at the regional executive committees: “They take a too simplistic approach to the fight against religion. People are trying to quickly close down the last churches, by hook or by crook organizing the necessary signatures of believers for this. The inspectors decided that, since the mass applications for the opening of churches, submitted in the first time after the adoption of the Constitution, had now ceased, the believers had obviously come to terms with the fact, and they could “finish off” the remaining individual houses of worship. I looked through the closure cases, the number of signatures required for the formality was collected. But, apart from these signatures and the decision of the RIK, there is nothing here. Not a single ordinary collective farmer, as can be seen from the rare minutes of meetings, spoke out on this issue. At best, we only come across statements from teachers or leaders of the village council and collective farm, and in these speeches people who did not want to sign are often called “enemies.” I came across statements from individuals that the signatures for the closure of the church were taken from them fraudulently, that Komsomol members signed with both their right and left hands in order to increase the number of handwritings, that is, the visible number of signatures” 168. Yaroslavsky knew about this, but, unlike Krasikov and his supporters, did nothing to protect believers and their organizations. Moreover, the theme of the “fight against the clergy” was woven into the acute internal party struggle with various kinds of “trends”. Deputy Chairman of the Union of Militant Atheists F. Oleshchuk wrote in 1937: “Reactionary churchmen are acting in the same direction with Trotskyist-Bukharin spies and saboteurs, bourgeois nationalists and other agents of fascism.” In February 1938, the Fourth Enlarged Plenum of the Central Council of the Council of the Security Council, in a message to I.V. Stalin, stated that “the reactionary role of religion and the vile counter-revolutionary activities of religious organizations aligned with fascist counter-revolutionary elements are revealed more and more clearly before the working people,” because, in his opinion, “in the person of religious organizations we have direct enemies of socialism, direct enemies of the people, and the further the successes develop communism, the more intensified the struggle of these obscurantists, reactionaries against Soviet power, against the people becomes” 169. Everywhere, all anti-religious work of party, Komsomol and other public organizations was given the character of political opposition to “counter-revolutionary forces” represented by the clergy and believers. Emelyan Yaroslavsky, meeting in April 1939 with activists of the Moscow SVB, explained: “The enemies of socialism act through religious organizations. And in those areas where there are no religious organizations, where there is neither a church, nor a mosque, nor a synagogue, there is often a “wandering priest”, “pop movement” moving from place to place, or former inhabitants of monasteries have settled, debunked leaders of religious sects, former church elders and similar former people are operating” 170 . Religious policy of Nazi Germany on the eve of World War II It should be noted that from the moment he came to power, Adolf Hitler paid attention to the formation of the policy of the state and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) both in relation to the various religious organizations operating in Germany, as well as religions and churches located in territories controlled or occupied by the Reich 171 . The NSDAP program also included a special clause (24th), which proclaimed freedom of religion: “Freedom of religion, with the exception of religions dangerous to the German race; the party does not associate itself with any exclusive creed, but fights against Jewish materialism.” The Fuhrer played a decisive role in shaping the party's point of view on religion. Despite the fact that Hitler was born into a Catholic family, he very early rejected both religion in general and Christianity in particular and publicly demonstrated his negative attitude towards them. In accordance with the guidelines of the Fuhrer and the party, a course was taken on the territory of the Reich towards the systematic destruction of “inferior” people and religions. The Nazi Party also had secret plans to "build" a new religion and a national state church in Germany. They applied both to the territory of the Reich itself and to the newly conquered territories. They acquired a more or less formalized appearance in 1939. They are based on racial theory, through the prism of which problems of religious freedoms were also considered. In relation to the internal policy of the party, the task was set to fight the “church”. Obviously, this term meant all religious organizations operating at that time, and not just any one specific religious organization, although the Catholic and Protestant churches were specifically named. All religions and churches in the Reich and in the territories subordinate to it were to be replaced by a “state religion”, free from the “shortcomings” of Christianity. It should be as it was known in Ancient Greece - a combination of musical and sports events and public holidays, and it should be expressed in the form of ceremonial performances, competitions and state acts. According to the party’s ideologists, this religion should be based on the “German-Nordic movement,” which must be supported secretly, gradually introducing its inherent rituals into the private lives of citizens. The main methods of combating other religious organizations were the introduction of “trusted persons” into religious organizations - spies and agents, the division and struggle of groups in religious organizations. In addition, science, art, and education should be involved as much as possible. The final implementation of the Nazi plan for “building religion and church” was expected after 25 years. Then the “new” religion is declared state, that is, mandatory for all citizens. There will be no clergy, speeches will be given only by “national public speakers” who are government officials. Icons, crosses and other religious objects will be removed from churches, many Christian sacraments and rituals will be rejected, religious educational institutions will be closed; The Bible and other Christian liturgical and religious literature will be prohibited, swastikas are depicted everywhere in prayer rooms, the Fuhrer’s book “Mein Kampf” is placed on the altar instead of the Bible, and to the left of it is a sword. The intention to spread the “new religion” first became known from documents discovered in occupied Soviet territory. Thus, in the directive of the Main Directorate of Imperial Security of October 31, 1941, it was recognized that it was necessary to give the population some form of religion, to prohibit all clergy from introducing a shade of religion into their preaching, and at the same time to take care to create as quickly as possible a new class of preachers who, after appropriate training, would be able to “interpret to the people a religion free from Jewish influence.” After this, churches “infected with Jewish dogmas” could be closed. By “infected churches,” Nazi theorists meant primarily Christian churches, as well as the Jewish religion 172 . To implement the NSDAP policy regarding religions and churches, the Ministry of Church Affairs was created in 1936. With the formation of the Main Directorate of Imperial Security (RSHA) in 1939, it became the leading force in the implementation of religious policy. The IV Directorate of the RSHA (Gestapo) had a special department (“church abstract”), which supervised the activities of the Catholic and Protestant churches, religious sects, Jewish organizations and Freemasons. Other Gestapo departments in charge of affairs in the occupied territory and counterintelligence also came into direct contact with clergy and used them in their work. Let us add that structures such as the SD - the SS security service, the SS intelligence agency, and also the Zipo - the security police - also had connections to religious and church organizations. The efforts of all these departments inside and outside Germany were concentrated in two directions: the destruction (internal and external) of established traditional stable church structures, the “atomization” of denominations and churches; total control over all manifestations of religious life. In accordance with this, practical tasks were set: secret surveillance of religious organizations of all directions, studying the sentiments of the clergy and believers, introducing agents into church administrative and managerial structures, recruiting agents from among clergy and clergy, promoting “the right people” to various hierarchical positions, as well as in church and public funds, committees, etc. As can be judged based on available sources, in almost all European countries and in all major confessional organizations organizations there was a wide-ranging intelligence network of German special agencies. The Ministry of Church Affairs in relation to Orthodox parishes operating in the territory of the Reich and belonging to various church jurisdictions - the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (center in the city of Sremski Karlovci), the Temporary Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Europe (Paris), the Moscow Patriarchate (Moscow) - set itself the task of uniting them (“unification”), the authorities considered the Russian Church to be the “core” of the new church association foreign church. This was largely explained by the political views characteristic of the leaders and activists of the church - active anti-Sovietism, anti-communism, clericalism. That is why in March 1936 the Prussian government granted the Berlin and German Diocese of the Church Abroad the status of a public law corporation and its charter was adopted. Thus, this church acquired the same legal status as the Catholic and Lutheran churches in 1933. Through a unified Orthodox Church, of which only one would be granted state recognition, the authorities hoped to be able to influence the Russian emigration, ensuring its political loyalty in the conditions of the war with the USSR. Since that time, the policy of “unification” has become even more aggressive towards Orthodox parishes in other jurisdictions. Minister A. Kerl, in a memorandum to Minister-President of Prussia G. Goering in February 1936, wrote: “For German conditions, regulation would mean that Metropolitan Eulogius could no longer exert direct influence on the Eulogian communities in Germany and that the Russian emigration in Germany would gather within the framework of one Orthodox Church if it were provided with the necessary organization and state recognition” 173. Through these kinds of steps, the authorities hoped to be able to influence the Russian emigration in political, economic, church and cultural relations, ultimately ensuring the political loyalty of the Russian emigration as a whole. This policy encountered a sharply negative attitude from supporters of Metropolitan Eulogius. In one of the letters of Metropolitan Evlogii (Georgievsky) to the headman of the Orthodox parish in Dresden we read: “We are completely loyal to the government, we are grateful to it for the shelter it has provided to us, Russian emigrants, but we cannot break or change our church convictions. And we hope that no violent pressure will be exerted over our church conscience and the conscience of our parishioners. Our parishioners have their own views, and we cannot speak to them against our conscience and their conscience. I have always spoken about this freedom of conscience and now I speak openly. We do not want to do any violence and have the right to expect that this violence will not happen to us either” 174. Subsequently, the situation of Eulogian parishes on the territory of the Berlin and German diocese was regulated by an Agreement between Archbishop Seraphim (Lyade) and Bishop Sergius (Korolyov) of Belsky in November 1939. In 1938–1939, in connection with the expansion of the territory of the Reich, the jurisdiction of the German diocese, with the support of the Ministry of Church Affairs, extended to Orthodox parishes in Austria, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Luxembourg, Lorraine, Slovakia, and Hungary. Bishop Seraphim (Lyade) of Potsdam was placed at the head of the diocese with the title “Bishop of Berlin and Germany.” The candidacy turned out to be very suitable and suited everyone - he was German by nationality, had German citizenship, enjoyed the respect of the Russian church emigration in the Third Reich, and had a calm character. However, the ministry’s plan to create some kind of influential supranational Orthodox Church could not be realized, since the leading principles of the church policy of the Nazi leadership remained the decentralization of the Orthodox world and the support of independent and independent national Orthodox churches in the occupied territories. Thus, after the fall of Poland, the united Polish Orthodox Church was fragmented into church organizations along national lines (Russian, Polish, Ukrainian). Attention was also paid to other Orthodox churches - Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian. They also sought to be included in the orbit of influence of the Reich. Even before the start of their “march to the East,” the intelligence services of Nazi Germany were looking for opportunities to influence both religious organizations in the USSR and foreign Russian Orthodox parishes. Until 1941, efforts were directed mainly at the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, a religious organization that arose in the early 1920s from Orthodox parishes located in Western Europe and led by hierarchs who left Soviet Russia during the Civil War or immediately after its end. According to their political views, the then head of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky) and other hierarchs were among those representatives of the Russian emigration who were not abandoned by the hope of the collapse of communism, the fall of the hated Soviet power and the Council of Deputies. This, naturally, was taken into account by Hitler, and therefore no special obstacles were created to the activities of this church in Germany. It is no coincidence that on June 12, 1938, Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky), in a letter of gratitude to Hitler for the assistance provided by the German authorities in the repair of Orthodox churches in Germany, wrote: “The best people of all nations, who want peace and justice, see in you a leader in the world struggle for peace and truth. We know from reliable sources that the believing Russian people, groaning under this slavery, awaiting their liberation, constantly raise prayers to God so that He will preserve you and give you His all-powerful help” 175. On September 1, 1939, World War II began with the attack of Nazi Germany on Poland. From now on, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, as well as the generally anti-Soviet part of the Russian emigration, linked the achievement of their political goals and the fulfillment of hopes of returning to Russia with the course of the war, with the transfer of hostilities to the territory of the USSR. On the same day, Bishop Seraphim (Lyade) in a message to his flock expressed the church’s attitude towards the outbreak of World War II. Contrary to the real historical circumstances that preceded the war, the head of the diocese placed responsibility for the war and the inevitably accompanying suffering of many thousands of people not on Germany, but on “the bloody forces that twenty years ago attempted to sanction the supremacy and power of the lumpen, and condemn the vanquished to powerlessness, want and death, and thereby trampled in the most unceremonious manner Divine and human justice.” The bishop called on the flock to “prove in practice their gratitude to the German government and the German people for shelter, sympathy and for all the good that they found in this country,” which should have resulted in the provision of all possible assistance to the “victims of bloodshed” and the selfless fulfillment of military duty by “Orthodox Christians fighting in the ranks of the German army” 176. On September 3, representatives of the Russian emigration in Yugoslavia, having gathered to discuss the current situation in Europe, wrote in an appeal to Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich: “The brutal war that has begun may raise the question of the fate of the Russian people, the fate of our suffering Motherland. The course of unfolding events will keep us in the highest tension, and Russian emigration abroad has no right not to take advantage of the opportunity that may present itself to promote the Russian national cause that is dear to us. We can and must count on ourselves and on those popular forces “out there” who have preserved in their souls a feeling of love for everything native and Russian” 177. At the same time, Metropolitan Anastasius (Gribanovsky) in a letter to the King of Serbia expressed loyal feelings towards the royal dynasty of Serbia and asked to consider Russian emigrants at the complete disposal of the supreme royal power and the royal government 178. The head of the church once again expressed this position in November 1939 in an Message on the occasion of the next anniversary of the October Revolution 179. Beginning of the Great Patriotic War On June 22, 1941, at four o'clock in the morning, without a declaration of war, German troops invaded the territory of the Soviet Union. An hour and a half later, USSR Foreign Minister V. M. Molotov summoned German Ambassador V. F. Schulenburg. The ambassador said that, on behalf of his government, he was obliged to present a note with the following content: “In view of the no longer intolerable threat created for the German eastern border as a result of the massive concentration and training of all the armed forces of the Red Army, the German government considers itself forced to immediately take military measures.” When Molotov asked what this note meant, Schulenburg replied that, in his opinion, this was the beginning of the war. On behalf of the Soviet government, Molotov stated that “until the last minute, the German government did not make any claims against the Soviet Union. Germany attacked the USSR, despite the peace-loving position of the Soviet Union, and thus fascist Germany is the attacking party.” They were expecting war, preparing for war. Back in 1931, Stalin, in one of his speeches, defined the dilemma that faced the Soviet country with inevitable cruelty: “We are 50–100 years behind the advanced countries. We must cover this distance in ten years. Either we do this, or we will be crushed" 180. By 1941, exactly ten years later, the USSR became one of three or four countries in the world capable of producing any type of industrial product. But the leap in the development of heavy industry, which is the basis for the entire industrial complex, including for military needs, was bought at a high price: the total administrative collectivization of the village, the low standard of living of the entire population, the restriction of the rights and freedoms of citizens, and the omnipotence of the punitive information system. However, the war still began unexpectedly, crossing out and dividing Soviet history into what happened “before the war” and what happened to the country during the war. On the afternoon of June 22, 1941, on behalf of the Soviet government, V. M. Molotov spoke on the radio about the attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union. He expressed confidence that “the entire population of our country, all workers, peasants and intellectuals, men and women, will treat their duties, their work with due consciousness,” and called on “citizens and women of the Soviet Union to rally their ranks even more closely around our glorious Bolshevik Party, around our Soviet government, around our great leader, Comrade Stalin” 181. On the same day, after receiving news of the internment of Soviet citizens in the building of the USSR Embassy in Berlin and the Gestapo seizure of the premises of other diplomatic and trade missions of the Soviet Union in this country, adequate retaliatory actions were taken in Moscow in accordance with international law. The Soviet government ordered the blocking of the German Embassy building on Stanislavsky Street (now Leontyevsky Lane, 10). All personnel of German diplomatic, commercial and other institutions in Moscow, including Ambassador Schulenburg, were in isolation for two days on the territory of their embassy until all German citizens were sent by train to Kostroma, and then to the Soviet-Turkish border, in the area of ​​​​the city of Leninakan, to be exchanged for Soviet citizens brought there from Berlin. At the same time, an NKVD task force under the command of the head of the counterintelligence department, state security captain V.S. Ryasny, occupied the building of the residence of the German Ambassador in Chisty (formerly Obukhovsky) Lane, carried out a thorough search there and took out all the discovered documentation. The house was sealed, put on the books of the BUROBIN (Bureau for Servicing Foreign Missions in Moscow) of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs and was empty during the war. Ten days later, on July 3, the head of the Soviet government and Communist Party, I.V. Stalin, addressed the country on the radio. This was one of those few of his speeches that was addressed not to “communists, Komsomol members and non-party people,” but to the heart of every Soviet person. That’s why it began with the words: “Comrades! Citizens! Brothers and sisters! Soldiers of our army and navy! I am addressing you, my friends!.. A serious danger looms over our Motherland” 182. The war that began was declared not to be a war of two armies, but a national liberation war, the Great Patriotic War, during which the fate of the Soviet state and Soviet peoples and, at the same time, the fate of the peoples of Europe enslaved by fascism were decided. Already on the very first day of the war, Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow addressed his multi-million flock with a patriotic message, calling on everyone to serve “in word and deed” to the Church and the Motherland. Within a short time, the leaders of almost all religious centers and organizations supported the liberation struggle of the peoples of the USSR against the aggressor. The feeling of patriotism turned out to be stronger than previous grievances. Addressing believers with patriotic messages, they called on them to fulfill their religious and civic duty with dignity, and to provide all possible material assistance to the needs of the front and rear 183. Long before 1941, defining the goals of his Eastern policy, Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf about the fate of the USSR: “This huge state in the East is ripe for destruction.” In the Ost general plan, the achievement of this goal was determined by “the defeat of the state centered in Moscow and the defeat of the Russians as a people”, the establishment of a “new order” in the vast eastern territory. The original Russian national centers of Moscow and Leningrad were planned to be razed to the ground. Hitler’s strategy of destroying the USSR during the “lightning war” was largely built in the hope that the hardships of life of the Soviet people, the existing dissatisfaction of the population with the political regime, including its national and religious policies, would be sufficient to become a kind of “allies” of the Third Reich in the fight against Bolshevism and Russia. Hence the significant attention that was paid in the propaganda efforts of the National Socialists to national-religious issues, addressing the themes of religious freedoms, “terror and persecution” of communists in relation to religions and churches. On the day of the treacherous invasion of the Nazis on Soviet soil, Archbishop Seraphim (Lyade) of Berlin and Germany expressed his personal, episcopate and laity position on the new political situation in a message to his flock. It cannot and cannot be interpreted otherwise than as a call for unity with the fascists in a “crusade” against the peoples of the Soviet Union, groveling before the “Christ-loving leader of the German people” and Judas’ joy in betraying the interests of the Fatherland. The day, which became a prelude to four years of incredible torment, sacrifice and suffering of the multi-million population of the Soviet Union, including millions of Orthodox believers, is declared “The Day of the Fulfillment of Divine Justice and Destiny, Easter Morning and the Triumph of Divine Truth.” Metropolitan Seraphim actually called his flock to fratricide when he wrote: “Be participants in a new struggle, since this is your struggle, a continuation of the struggle that you had already begun in 1917, but ended tragically, mainly due to the betrayal of those former allies of yours who have now directed their weapons against the German people. Each of you can find your place in the new anti-Bolshevik front. Everyone can contribute their strength to help overthrow the Soviet regime and liberate the Motherland from the Red dictatorship. Let everyone find their place in the new field of struggle and service to the Motherland. Use every opportunity to turn your anti-Bolshevik beliefs and sentiments, and your love for the Motherland into active, heroic and sacrificial actions." 184 The attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union was regarded by the hierarchy and clergy of the Church Abroad, as well as by politically active laity, as the first step towards the “liberation” of Russia. The official body of the Synod of Bishops set out the position of the church quite clearly: “Across the globe, the Russian Church Abroad is closely following the progress of the war in the East, prayerfully supporting the selfless fighters against the atheists and is always ready to help this fight to the best of its ability.” 185 This church remained with this understanding of its “patriotic mission” in the subsequent war years. Its head, Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky), seeks to obtain permission from the German authorities to arrive in Berlin in order, as he wrote, to be able to “support the Fuhrer’s crusade against communism,” to contribute to “the restoration of oppressed church life in the liberated areas” and to enter into “direct contact with leading persons and institutions on which the restoration of life in liberated Russia depends” 186. A little later, in connection with the closure of the Dorogomilovsky Cathedral, the Epiphany Cathedral in Yelokhov received the status of a cathedral. Patriarch Sergius and his spiritual heritage. M., 1947. P. 41. Only in the mid-1990s did it become known that Metropolitan Peter was executed on October 10, 1937 by order of the “troika” of the NKVD in the Chelyabinsk region. – See: Damascene (Orlovsky), hieromonk. Martyrs, confessors and devotees of piety of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 20th century. Tver, 1996. P. 369. Yaroslavsky Em. On the tasks of anti-religious propaganda // Bezbozhnik. 1940. August 18. Patriarch Sergius and his spiritual heritage. M., 1947. P. 227. See: Foreign policy documents. 1940 – June 1941. M., 1995. T. XXIII. Book 1. pp. 659, 660, 688. Quote by: Tokareva E. S. The Vatican in Soviet politics and propaganda during the Second World War / John XXIII and the modern world: Christian witness, coexistence and cooperation. M., 2002. P. 99. See: On the way to freedom of conscience. M., 1989. pp. 378–386. See: GA RF. F. R-6991. Op. 1. D. 153. L. 2. See: Barmenkov A.I. Freedom of conscience in the USSR. M., 1979. P. 162. RGASPI. F. 89. Op. 4. D. 91. L. 12–14. See: The truth about religion in Russia. M., 1942. pp. 61–70. Russian Orthodox Church and the communist state. 1917–1941: Documents and photographic materials. M., 1996. P. 305. See: Odintsov M.I. A path seven decades long: from confrontation to cooperation: State-church relations in the history of Soviet society //On the way to freedom of conscience. M., 1989. P. 53. Quote by: Odintsov M.I. State and Church in Russia. XX century M., 1994. P. 166. RGASPI. F. 89. Op. 4. D. 57. L. 2. See: Odintsov M.I. State and Church in Russia. XX century M., 1994. S. 94, 95. GA RF. F. 5263. Op. 1. D. 11. L. 133. See, for example: On anti-religious propaganda: Collection of articles. M., 1937. Yaroslavsky E. M. Anti-religious textbook for self-education circles. M., 1940. It should be clarified that the plans of the “godless” are not the plans of the state, and therefore they cannot be identified and thus reduce the religious policy of the Soviet state in the tragic 1930s to a legislative ban on religion and the complete closure of all churches and houses of worship in the USSR. Odintsov M.I. State and Church in Russia. XX century M., 1994. S. 97, 98. Anti-religious. 1938. No. 2. P. 1, 17. RGASPI. F. 89. Op. 4. D. 80. L. 6. See: Odintsov M.I. Religious politics in the Third Reich and in the occupied Soviet territory / Power and religion during the war years: The state and religious organizations in the USSR during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945. M., 2005. pp. 21–60. Encyclopedia of the Third Reich. M., 1996. P. 404. Domestic archives. 1995. No. 2. P. 47, 48. Quote by: Shkarovsky M.V. The policy of the Third Reich in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church in the light of archival materials of 1935–1945: Collection of documents. M., 2003. P. 51. Quote by: Troitsky S.V. About the untruth of the Karlovac schism. Paris, 1960. P. 95. See: Nikitin A.K. The Nazi regime and the Russian Orthodox community in Germany. 1933–1945. M., 1998. pp. 392–395. Odintsov M.I. Religious organizations in the USSR on the eve and in the first years of the Great Patriotic War: 1938–1943. // Domestic archives. 1995. No. 2. P. 45. AVPRI. F. 166. Op. 508/3. D. 146. L. 38. Odintsov M.I. Religious organizations in the USSR on the eve and in the first years of the Great Patriotic War. 1938–1943 //Domestic archives. 1995. No. 2. P. 46, 47. Quote from: Military Moscow. 1941–1945: Memoirs and archival documents. M., 1995. P. 31. See about this: Odintsov M.I. Religious organizations in the USSR on the eve and during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945. M., 1995; Power and religion during the war: The state and religious organizations in the USSR during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945. M., 2005. Quote by: Nikitin A.K. The Nazi regime and the Russian Orthodox community in Germany. 1933–1945. M., 1998. pp. 401–404. Quote by: Gordienko N. S., Komarov P. M., Kurochkin P. K. Politicians from religion: The truth about the Russian Church. M., 1973. P. 54. See also: Troitsky S.V. About the untruth of the Karlovac schism. Paris, 1960.