Military Review

Khrushchev: The murderer of Stalin and the USSR

Khrushchev: The murderer of Stalin and the USSR

The leader of the peoples of the USSR was killed not by Lavrenti Beria, but by the future leader of the party Nomenclature.

The question “Has Stalin been killed?” Is closed to anyone who has investigated this topic. But there is no consensus about who is responsible for this. For example, N. Dobryuha claims that Beria organized the murder of Stalin. Having devoted a lot of time to researching the era of Stalin and Beria, I wrote a number of books about her, including “Why Stalin was killed?”, I can assure the reader that the statements about Beria’s involvement in Stalin’s murder are no more than fiction.

Who initiated the change

There are enough mysteries in Stalin's death, but one thing is clear: the murder of Stalin was in the interests of only Khrushchev. After the death of Stalin and the removal of Beria, Khrushchev — with the support of the decaying part of the Soviet elite — quickly crushed everything and everyone and was romping around the entire planet, starting with corn fields and ending with the meeting room of the UN General Assembly.

By the way, later Khrushchev actually acknowledged his involvement in the death of Stalin. 19 July 1963 at a rally in honor of the Hungarian party and government delegation, Khrushchev, speaking of Stalin, said: "In stories There were a lot of cruel tyrants of humanity, but they all died the same way from the ax as they themselves supported the ax with the ax ”... This is recorded in the archives of the Russian State Archive of Sound Documents ...

But no, since the days of the Chechen “red professor” Avtorkhanov, who defected to the Germans, and then served the Americans, Stalin’s murder is “hanged” on Beria, turning a powerful figure of Soviet history into a bloody monster with his hands in the blood ...

Trotsky blamed Stalin for the death of Kirov. Avtorkhanov, N. Dobryukha and the host of others are blamed for the death of Stalin Beria, but there is simply no reason for the unfortunate prosecutors in both cases.

In one N. Dobryuha gets into the “apple” when he writes that the changes were prepared long before Stalin's death and that Beria’s role in preparing these changes was great. Everything is correct, but the changes were prepared on the initiative of Stalin himself. He was well aware that in the Soviet leading stratum against the background of the postwar growth of the power of the USSR, degradation began, above all - ideological. And the measures were thought cool - without executions, but with a knee being kicked in the backside.

If on Monday, 2 March 1953, with an alive and healthy Stalin passed an extended meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU, a number of "comrades" would have lost their leadership seats, first of all - the Minister Ignatiev, who was rapidly losing the trust of Stalin. Khrushchev would have fallen badly too - Stalin had many complaints about him.

And - not only to him ...

Political super organ

The length of the article does not allow one to dwell on all key points, and many of the most important circumstances have to be indicated by a dotted line. Take, for example, a speech at the XIX Congress of Poskrebyshev - Stalin's aide. Without comprehending it, we will not understand anything in those days. I will give only a small part of it - a particularly formidable and significant one:

“There are ... cases in which some noble officials, abusing their power, commit reprisals for criticism, directly or indirectly subject their subjects to repression and persecution. (Hereinafter, the bold italics are mine. - Approx. SK) But we all know how our party and its Central Committee severely punish such nobles, without being considered either with ranks or titles, or with past merits ... "

Could this have been said Poskrybyshev - an underlined imperceptible and non-independent person - in the hall where the party color of the country was collected? Of course not! This was spoken by Poskrebyshev Stalin. And this speech alone revived the fuss of Moscow rag-tag! And she could only bet on one member of the Stalinist “team” - on Khrushchev ...

Had its own significance and, for example, the story of a letter to Stalin from the Moscow region zootechnic. Kholodov, - in detail about him says in my book about the death of Stalin in the chapter "Winter 1952 / 53 of the Year ... What Khrushchev was afraid of." Khrushchev, who collapsed farming in the Moscow region, had something to fear - Stalin instructed the Central Committee commission to study the problem.

For some reason, it is not meaningful, and this is the fact ... After the XIX Congress, the governing Bureau was formed: Stalin, Malenkov, Beria, Bulganin and Khrushchev. Stalin held several meetings precisely in this narrow composition - December 16 1952, January 13 and February 7 1953.
But the last two meetings in his life in the Kremlin, Stalin held 16 and February 17 1953 only with Troika: Beria, Malenkov, Bulganin. Both times they were at Stalin's 15 minutes. All this looks like an extremely confidential preparation for some important actions. And this mysterious “Troika” should be discussed in more detail ...

26 January 1953 was adopted by the Bureau of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU: “214. - The question of the supervision of special works. To entrust the top three in the composition of tt. Beria (chairman), Malenkov, and Bulganin supervised the work of special bodies in special cases. ”

Formally, Troika oversaw defense projects, but the difference in official terminology is subtle! Work on the "atom", missiles, air defense is usually referred to as special works. “Troika” was entrusted with the guidance of “special bodies for special cases”.

The work of which such special bodies and for which such special cases were to be led by three members of the Bureau of the Presidium of the Central Committee? "Troika" was a "Five", truncated to Khrushchev. But the main system feature of Troika was that which, legally, without arousing any suspicion, three people could confer: Beria, Malenkov and Bulganin. And what they conferred, only Stalin knew.

In the light of what has been said, “Troika” looks like a kind of political super-organ capable of instantly becoming the leading triumvirate with the highest supremacy of Stalin. In fact, the “Troika” replaced the leading “Five” and threw out Khrushchev from the trusted leadership.
Stalin appointed Beria as chairman of the Troika. And one fact of Beria’s appointment as chairman of the Stalinist Troika refutes all anti-Beria insinuations - including the fact that Stalin allegedly started a “hunt” for the “Big Mingrell” Beria.

Ignoramuses would not be quoted

On the “Troika” with the “root” of Beria, the “coachman”, Stalin could have carried Russia into a very attractive future, where ignoramuses like Khrushchev would not be quoted! Could this not disturb Khrushchev - to panic?

At the same time, the “memories” of the former first secretary of the Georgian Communist Party's Central Committee, Mgeladze, that Beria allegedly mocked Stalin after the funeral, are not worth a penny. It is enough to read the “letters from the bunker” written by Beria after his arrest in order to understand that he treated Stalin with respect ...

The Molotov "memories" that Beria de on the Mausoleum's podium during Stalin's funeral declared that he had removed Stalin and who "saved everyone" ...

No more credible stories about the "people of Beria" in the protection of Stalin. "The man of Beria" in the protection of Stalin 50-s can be considered General Sergei Kuzmichyov (1908 – 1989). But just at the end of 1952 of the year, Prokhrushchevsky, the head of the State Security Ministry, Ignatiev (he was also the head of the Security Department of the State Security Service!), Was removed from the State Security Department at the Ministry of Internal Affairs with a decrease, and in January, Kuzmichyov was generally arrested in 1953. It is indicative that Beria, returning to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, immediately released Kuzmichev and appointed him head of the State Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR.

And what are the assurances of N. Dobryukha about the fact that “Beria, having united into one ministry of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of State Security ... took control of the entire political and economic life”?

What is political control over there! The policy was then determined by a group of leaders ...

And economic control? You can declare this way only without knowing about Beria’s note on 17 in March 1953 of the USSR Council of Ministers, where it was proposed: “... to transfer from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to other ministries the main production and economic departments, construction departments, industrial enterprises with all their industrial and construction departments, office space, subsidiary farms, research and development institutions, with material resources ... "

Huge capacities were transferred to ten branch ministries, including gold and amber mining! It looks like the actions of the power-hungry and self-lover, who wants to drive the whole country into a gulag?

Moreover, Beria refused and the GULAG! March 28 1953, at the suggestion of Beria, adopted a decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On the transfer of labor camps and colonies from the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs to the USSR Ministry of Justice."

And what about the testimony of Anatoly Lukyanov that Stalin de "found a successor in the person of Ponomarenko"?

PC. Ponomarenko (1902 – 1984) was the figure of the second row. Allegedly, he was designated as successor by Stalin, he worked in Moscow since 1948, but only three times appeared during this period in Stalin's Kremlin office. All three times - at the end of 1952, at the regular meetings. This already proves that Stalin did not single out Ponomarenko in any special way. Compared with the same Beria Ponomarenko was a gray duck in front of a sharp-eyed falcon!

And in order to finish with N. Dobryukha’s “discoveries,” I’ll say that the story he wrote to Uncle Nino Beria, an emigrant of Gegechkori, was motivated by the result of Khrushchev’s Prosecutor General Rudenko, who distorted details, causes, circumstances, and at some point, as I understand it, and simply composed the "interrogation protocols" of Beria ...

Conspiracy victim

Yes, Stalin fell victim to a conspiracy. And since Stalin interfered with many things, both in the USSR and outside of it, it is logical to assume not just a narrow-minded Khrushchev-Ignatiev plot, but a combined multi-layered plot against Stalin. But external circles hostile to Russia used Khrushchev "in the dark" - that was Stalin’s hidden hater, but he was hardly a hidden enemy of socialism. Although no one has done so much to destroy socialism in the USSR, like Nikita Khrushchev.

Beria fell after four incomplete months, and Malenkov with Molotov and Kaganovich - four and a half years after Stalin's death. So who from Stalin’s inner circle won from Stalin’s death? Won immediately and permanently?

The answer is unequivocal: Nikita Khrushchev. In addition, he won the cramped Stalin once again selfish part of the party and state leadership. This "Partoplasma", after some fright caused by the US nuclear blackmail, was exhilarated from the consciousness that the Russian "nuclear shield" was now covering it ... Now she was ready to flourish uncontrollably, but Stalin interfered with this. Able to work vigorously, Beria needed this scum no more than Stalin.

So, Stalin was killed.

And it was not Beria who was killed, although the book by Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov “The Mystery of Stalin's Death” has the subtitle: “Beria's Conspiracy”.

Avtorkhanov provocatively distorts - Beria had nothing to do with the conspiracy against Stalin, of course. In addition to quite obvious considerations, this is proved by logical analysis, which I have to undertake not for the first time, but - what to do!

Suppose that the murder of Stalin was organized by Beria, using his old connections in the IGB, MGB. But this is unlikely! There were no reliable people in the Directorate for the Preservation of the “Ignatievsky” MGB, seven years after his departure from the “organs”. A conspiracy against the head of state has a chance of success when it is the full head of the special service. Oh, he can put it all in the best possible way: gradually select the necessary future performers with the appropriate personal, biographical and official data, and then check them and arrange them in all the necessary points, replacing them with the personnel devoted to Stalin and his work.

Khrushchev's friend, the minister of state security and the head of the MGB security department, Ignatiev, in this sense, had unlimited possibilities in comparison with Beria. And even Leonid Mlechin admits that then Beria did not have power in the MGB and could not influence the selection of Stalinist guards.

But, as said, let's say ... Suppose that the personnel subordinate to Ignatiev fulfilled the “order” of Beria. Stalin is dead, and Beria gets into his hands the united Ministry of the Interior. Now the Ignatieff cadres who eliminated Stalin by the “order” of Beria are already Beria's cadres.

Beria, according to his haters, is supposedly aimed at seizing power, and he has at his disposal footage of security guards who have changed Stalin, messed up in the leader’s murder. So why not “transfer” them now to the “security” of, say, Khrushchev or Malenkov?

After all, Beria - for the same N. Dobryukha - a criminal, he killed Stalin with impunity! And impunity encourages and inflames ... Having taken one successful step, Beria had to quickly take another step — iron must be forged while it is hot! At the same time, Beria had to behave very carefully, that is, not to annoy her colleagues, and especially not to take any initiatives that disturb and annoy them.

Beria behaves exactly the opposite of how a conspirator should behave. He splashes out ideas and proposals, assertively and constructively intervenes in the economy, in foreign policy, in domestic national policy, but he intervenes openly, making proposals to the Central Committee! And each time his proposals are so justified that they have to be accepted!

Good "conspirator"! He needs to take care of the organization of new “deadly diseases”, and he will eliminate the GULAG and passport restrictions for hundreds of thousands of people, bothers about projects of republican orders for cultural workers of the Union republics, etc.

And to top it off, he is seeking a decision by the Central Committee to refuse to decorate buildings on holidays and columns of demonstrators with portraits of leadership ... As soon as Beria was arrested, this decision was canceled.


The behavior of the "simpleton" of Khrushchev turns out to be different. If you look at his line, then here it is completely fit into the conspiracy scheme.
The first step - Stalin removed. It could be removed only physically - politically, he was unmoved. Khrushchev is "on horseback", but he is not prancing yet and is behaving quietly.

The second step is politically discredited and Beria is physically removed. At the same time, almost the entire party-state elite of the USSR managed to mess with complicity.

By the way, what kind of dogs weren’t hung up on Beria at the July 1953 of the Central Committee Plenum held after Beria’s arrest, but the murder of Stalin Khrushchev did not dare to hang him up. It would seem - what a convenient reason for Khrushchev to blame Beria! But no, instead, complete silence. And it is clear why - the topic was too slippery, and raising it was dangerous for the real criminal - Khrushchev.

The third destructive step of Khrushchev was the Twentieth Congress, with its political discredit of Stalin and, in fact, Stalin's business, that is, the business of building in Russia a socialist society of new, comprehensively educated, developed, and therefore free, people.

The fourth step is the political elimination of the “Stalinist core” of the top leadership: Molotov, Malenkov and Kaganovich in 1957.

The fifth and final step, taken directly by Khrushchev, is the neutralization of the inconsistent remnants of the “core”: Bulganin, Voroshilov, Pervukhin, Saburov and the final “taming” of Mikoyan ...

Today you can see that the “chain”, supplemented by a number of new “links” that led us to the 1991 Belovezhsk agreements of the year, was built perfectly and efficiently.

Could Khrushchev, the man of all this visionary algorithm, be able to think up — not a clever man, but just a cunning one and at the same time malicious, vindictive, self-confident, not far and not able to see the future? The man who became the personification of the muddy concept of "voluntarism".

No, this clever sequence of interconnected steps could not come to Nikita Sergeyevich's head on his own ... Besides, Khrushchev was not a conscious enemy of socialism. The grave digger of the case of Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev did the affairs of millions of citizens of the USSR without the knowledge of the “dear Nikita Sergeyevich” himself.

In the dark ...

But he just wanted to stay on top of power, to revenge Stalin, and then outshine Stalin ...

If Beria was saved in the leadership of the post-Stalinist Soviet Union, Khrushchev could not have done this, and more specifically, under Beria, the selfish part of the Nomenclature and the emerging “fifth column” could not have placed those system mines in the USSR building - starting with the advent of virgin lands, which gradually had to blow up socialism from the inside.

About traitors and patriots

I wrote a lot about Beria and, as it seems to me, I understand his nature well now. Beria was committed to building a mighty socialist Russia, simply because only in such a “super-corporation” as the Soviet Union could Beria’s abilities as an effective manager be fully developed. And Beria, like any active person, was interested in doing great things!

This is not Khrushchev with his resolution: "Acquisition ..."

Even the fate of the sons of Khrushchev and Beria make it clear who was who ... Sergei Khrushchev graduated as a traitor to the Soviet Motherland on shtatovskih bread. After his release, Sergei Beria returned to rocket work, was respected and died in the land of the Motherland ...

To this day, the slander against Beria, who allegedly assured Stalin that "there will be no war," is still alive. But Stalin is in this - that's the thing! - Khrushchev assured! And Beria was putting the entire first half of 1941 of the year on the table of Stalin’s intelligence reports of the border guards, which unequivocally warned about the war. How many people know about this?

With grief in half, they began to talk about Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria as an outstanding curator of nuclear and missile problems ... But how many people know about Beria - the outstanding reformer of Georgia? And what about Beria, the reformer of the NKVD and the border troops with their well-developed border intelligence? And about Beria in the war ?!

Could such a master of big affairs be intriguing? The wider the USSR unfolded, the greater the potential of Beria. And Stalin saw it more clearly.

But could not intrigue deftly disguised Khrushchev forgiveness? After all, the more the USSR developed, the more clearly the worthlessness and incompetence of Khrushchev, who had already exhausted his already not very great potential, became.

Many wished for the death of Stalin, and many prepared it. But everything began in the end to Khrushchev and Khrushchev Ignatiev.

Like this…
51 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ekebastus
    ekebastus 29 May 2013 08: 05
    Hehe ... "Trotsky blamed Kirov for Stalin's death ..." ??????
    1. sincman
      sincman 29 May 2013 21: 16
      Who really cares who killed Stalin read the book Stuart Cogan "Kremlin wolf". This book based on autobiographical interview of L. Kaganovich to his nephew “Stuart Cogan.” The facts presented in it are very logical and reasoned. Khrushchev is presented in it only as a faithful comrade-in-arms of Kaganovich and a diligent executor of his orders, but by no means a killer of Stalin, although he had his own views on this subject. Книга - a masterpiece causing a pattern break in any de-stabilizer! All Russians must read!
    2. luka095
      luka095 30 May 2013 01: 20
      The article says exactly the opposite ...
    3. kvodrato
      kvodrato 30 May 2013 08: 54
      The enslavement of the Slavs after the death of Stalin
    4. CALL.
      CALL. 1 June 2019 01: 03
      Quote: ekebastus
      Hehe ... "Trotsky blamed Kirov for Stalin's death ..." ??????

      Read carefully: "Trotsky blamed Stalin for Kirov's death. "
  2. Prometheus
    Prometheus 29 May 2013 08: 19
    A typo with whom it does not happen.
  3. Prometheus
    Prometheus 29 May 2013 08: 23
    The author caught the essence very well. The assassination of Stalin was beneficial to Khrushchev; in the end, Khrushchev himself won, from whom the prosperity of that "accursed caste", which the Father of the Nations did not love, began. And after Khrushch, a period began, which our students of history refer to as the "golden age of the nomenklatura."
    1. Orik
      Orik 29 May 2013 14: 50
      Khrushchev is only a consequence. By the death of Stalin, a large group formed in the ranks of the Soviet elite, which did not want to serve the country and people, but to consume. Further more, the death of the country became the crown of the process of degradation.
    2. Rus Communist
      Rus Communist 9 August 2014 01: 40
      This is the first day in the collapse of the UNION !!! BUT THE GREAT LEADER WILL BACK !!!!!! HE IS ALWAYS WITH US !!!!!!! Cowards and traitors will not be able to lie endlessly !!!!!! THE WORLD ALREADY NOW SEES YOUR GREATNESS !!!!!!! COMMUNISM WILL BE ON THE WHOLE PLANET
  4. Sibiryak
    Sibiryak 29 May 2013 08: 25
    Eh Nikita, Nikita ... the words you said -
    “There have been many cruel tyrants in the history of mankind, but they all died just as much from an ax as they themselves supported their power with an ax”
    painfully similar to the statements of modern liberals. Behind them at the moment is the west, but who bothered you to say that ?!
  5. erased
    erased 29 May 2013 08: 26
    I am familiar with the books of E. Prudinkova and with other works, so I did not find anything particularly new in the article. And then and now one question arises - if the party-power really opposed state power, then why did Stalin and Beria miss the blow? Why weren’t you on guard?
    Perhaps everything was more complicated than it seems now, many additional factors worked. But still, the mistake of Stalin and Beria is surprising. How could they not flee Khrushchev and his accomplices away from power? ..
    Indeed, in 1953 we did not lose the leader and his first deputy, we lost the country that could become a superpower!
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 29 May 2013 09: 17
      Well, you know, all the same, the human factor has not been canceled, and Stalin and Beria were all the same people, again at certain stages (although this is debatable), but I missed the blow, I think it is because of the busyness of more global affairs. That is, you don’t notice the anthill when building the 9 storey building (I exaggerate of course) Stalin did not see an opponent in Khrushchev and did not think about the possibility of a conspiracy, although it was strange then why the GB was silent because there were no simpletons in the same place. In one I agree, everything is much deeper than it seems and how many more documents are stored that can put everything in its place. So it turns out that while they were busy with global affairs, they missed the worms that ate from the inside and directed the development of the USSR in a completely different direction, which ultimately led to the hunchback and EBN, and then everyone knows everything.
      1. luka095
        luka095 30 May 2013 01: 25
        As for the GB - and who was in the leadership of the GB then - Ignatiev.
    2. Orik
      Orik 29 May 2013 14: 57
      You yourself answered your question, there were too many problems that needed to be urgently addressed. While they decided to postpone the restructuring of power, and then they did not have time in a trite way. We must not forget the age of Stalin, even a brilliant person by this time loses part of his working capacity.
  6. Soldier
    Soldier 29 May 2013 08: 31
    Article +. Essentially. Yes, in the 80-90s they made a monster from Beria. According to the words of “democrats,” he almost ate babies for breakfast, and he raped schoolgirls (he always marveled at those afftars, did you keep a candle?)
  7. Boris55
    Boris55 29 May 2013 08: 48
    Even during the war, Stalin instructed Beria to figure out the reasons for the failure of the first years of its conduct, and Stalin's desire to transfer power from the party nomenclature to the Soviets did not leave them a choice. Instead of the Bolshevik Stalin, the Trotskyist Khrushchev came, and they can only destroy. Khrushchev's first decree was about no jurisdiction of the party elite. "The cat smells whose meat it has eaten."
    1. washi
      washi 29 May 2013 13: 24
      There are books by Mukhin and Bushkov. The last was Markitorosyan Arsen. It is written chaotically, many repetitions, but objectively.
      Everywhere the same thing: All power to the Soviets, not party members, the leadership of the Armed Forces and party members for the betrayal and loss of life 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX punish.
      For this, the Great Emperor died.
      What was then attributed to Khrushchev and Brezhnev is just inertia.
  8. Egoza
    Egoza 29 May 2013 09: 10
    The worst thing is that after Khrushchev’s speeches and actions, the people lost faith in the party and in the ideas of socialism-communism. Gradually, but surely, the people began to distance themselves from all this elite, and as a result completely lost all opportunity to influence events in the country, which in turn led to the complete collapse of the USSR.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 29 May 2013 09: 19
      I definitely agree! + And this, among many factors, you have noticed very accurately!
    2. knn54
      knn54 29 May 2013 12: 06
      Elena: The worst thing is that after Khrushchev’s speeches and actions, the people lost faith in the party and in the ideas of socialism-communism.
      Yes. But what a blow to the international communist movement was. At least the Communists lost their authority and the majority in the parliaments of France and Italy. The Communist Parties split, the opportunists / Trotskyists seized leadership ..
      Khrushchev quarreled with Mao (and not only). Recognized Tito.
      Yes, "DURAK with initiative" is terrible, and even in such a position.
      PS At the end of November 1964, in the English Parliament at the celebration of the 90th anniversary of W. Churchill, a toast was offered to him as the most ardent enemy of Russia. Churchill’s response was: “Unfortunately, now there is a man who harmed the country of the Soviets 1000 times more than I did. This is Nikita Khrushchev, so pat him! ”
      D.F. Ustinov, already in his last year of life, when the Politburo spoke about Khrushchev, said this: “Not a single enemy brought as much trouble as Khrushchev brought us with his policy towards the past of our party and state, as well as towards Stalin ...
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov 29 May 2013 12: 48
        How did relations with China tighten? After all, also Khrushchev and his gang - a watering can ...
      2. Gari
        Gari 29 May 2013 15: 43
        Even the fate of the sons of Khrushchev and Beria make it possible to understand who was who ... Sergey Khrushchev ended up as a traitor to the Soviet motherland on state breads.
        After his release, Sergei Beria returned to rocket work, was respected and died on the land of his homeland ...
        And during life:
        In the early days of the war, he was sent to a reconnaissance school as a volunteer, on the recommendation of the Komsomol district committee, and began serving in the army with the rank of lieutenant technician. On the instructions of the General Staff, he carried out a number of important tasks (in 1941 - Iran, Kurdistan; in 1942 - the North Caucasian group of forces). In October 1942, by the order of the people's commissar of defense, S. Beria was sent to study at the Leningrad Military Communications Academy named after S. M. Budenny. During his studies, he repeatedly spoke on the personal instructions of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and the General Staff for special secret missions (in 1943-1945 - the Tehran and Yalta conferences of the heads of state of the anti-Hitler coalition; 4th and 1st Ukrainian fronts) He was awarded the medal "For the Defense of the Caucasus" and the Order of the Red Star. In 1947 he graduated with honors from the Academy. Under the guidance of Dr. N., Professor P. N. Kuksenko, he is developing a graduation project on a missile-controlled air-sea system
        In 1950, to create an anti-aircraft missile defense system in Moscow, KB-1 was formed on its basis, S. Beria became one of its two main designers (the second - P. N. Kuksenko) and participated in the development of the S-25 “Golden Eagle” system. For the successful completion of the government’s mission to create new weapons (the Comet missile system), he was awarded the Order of Lenin and awarded the Stalin Prize. Working in SB-1 and KB-1, Sergo Beria defended his thesis in 1948, and in 1952 his doctoral dissertation.
        It turned out a lot, it's not enough for this person
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 29 May 2013 17: 30
          There is an opinion that the eldest son of N. Khrushchev - Leonid, was not missing, but was shot by order of Stalin for the murder of a colleague during the Second World War. And Nikita did not forgive Stalin.
    3. luka095
      luka095 30 May 2013 01: 28
      People lost faith not only in the USSR. The blow to the country's prestige was the strongest.
  9. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 29 May 2013 10: 20
    Eh, if Joseph Vissarionovich had lived, and if he had completed all his plans, then we would now have lived in a completely different country.
    1. waisson
      waisson 29 May 2013 10: 47
      NOTED EXACTLY good good good
  10. Begemot
    Begemot 29 May 2013 10: 22
    It seems that we will never find out the truth, but we are witnessing the consequences. I already wrote that the heirs made the monster from Stalin, mainly, to launder their own crimes, because the most cruel and massive repressions were carried out by Khrushchev himself and his associates.
  11. My address
    My address 29 May 2013 10: 56
    For minor typos, everything is correct. Sorry, but I repeat - the hypothesis explaining the known facts becomes theory. There are no facts about the stupid, depraved, vengeful cannibal and the traitor Beria. Facts about a vengeful, cunning, average intellect (cunning is close to the mind, but not the mind), dishonest, in other words tricky, Khrushchev has a lot. He did business. Country relatives told that at the beginning of 50's they began to live humanly, but since the end of 50's defeat and almost poverty, only with 65-66 the relief came. Mother sent our cast-offs to two villages, and we lived with difficulty.
  12. Black
    Black 29 May 2013 10: 59
    We will never know the truth about the March events. Everyone will have reasons for the guilt or innocence of one or the other. One thing is indisputable, after Stalin's death, the state went downhill slowly but surely. Apparently, if Beria had won that fight, there are really few such managers, a lot would have gone differently. The question is for how long. Too much depended in the USSR on who was at the helm. The state "tailored" to the personality is unstable.
    To Lavrenty Pavlovich, great respect, and as the youth respect says. And for the NKVD troops in the war, and for the creation of the Border Troops, and for the atomic project.
  13. chaban13
    chaban13 29 May 2013 11: 01
    -10 qualifying.
    The article is good, justified, but nevertheless, everyone talks about how good Beria was the manager, organizer, etc., etc. ..... Nobody talks about his personal qualities (compared to Stalin, heaven and earth ), and for a candidate for the rulers of a superpower, this is important. No one talks about the personal relationship between Beria and Stalin (Stalin didn’t really respect Beria), no one talks about how many Beria’s proteges were simply about *** important sections of the front in 42 years. In short, everything is very and VERY ambiguous, Beria, like other figures, had a grudge against Stalin. Not even a tooth, but a whole false jaw.
    1. washi
      washi 29 May 2013 13: 33
      Name at least one henchman Beria, simply about *** whether important sections of the front in 42 year.
      I bet you won’t find it. Fronts and commanders engaged in the defense addict.
      It was just that the NKVD troops were put on the defensive in the most important areas. After 37 and 22.06.41 there was no confidence in the military leadership.
      1. chaban13
        chaban13 31 May 2013 12: 13
        Of course, you can't remember all of them. Read "The Leader's Privy Counselor", everything is perfectly described there. And how Beria put his handles into the People's Commissariat of Defense, and how an investigator was appointed to the post of People's Commissar of the Fleet on his recommendation.
    2. folds
      folds 29 May 2013 20: 27
      How can you, without respecting a person, entrust him with the management of a nuclear project? But the security of the country?
      1. chaban13
        chaban13 31 May 2013 12: 06
        How? Very simple. In the 42nd, when the most difficult battles were going on in the south, rumors began to circulate around the capital that a "triumvirate" had formed in the highest echelons of power - Beria, Kaganovich, Mehlis. And that supposedly the Supreme is forced to reckon with their opinion. Stalin, of course, found out about these rumors and took action. Beria, as a good organizer, was distracted from politicians and sent to the Transcaucasus to organize defense, and then he also hung a nuclear project, which takes a lot of time, on him. It must be said that the nuclear project then did not have the same importance that it acquired after the war (the country was busy producing products that could be used even then, and the power and methods of using nuclear weapons were not yet known and sufficiently worked out)
  14. Mhpv
    Mhpv 29 May 2013 11: 37
    First they killed Stalin, then they killed Beria, at least Mukhin sets out that way (he did not find evidence of Beria’s arrest). Khrushchev himself, as well as those who stood behind him, had plenty of reasons, but what that political elite sought for himself, and Stalin and Beria did not allow them to do this, in modern times they have achieved it completely and they don’t need either the country or the people .
  15. Dima190579
    Dima190579 29 May 2013 12: 16
    It seems to me in my humble opinion that if contradictions arise in the country's managerial elite, then forces from outside always use this. One must be very careful in building the vertical of power.
    1. Bear52
      Bear52 29 May 2013 23: 10
      enjoy power from outside.
      That's how it is ... it's just that it is almost impossible to "dig up" information about these forces. Unless according to the criterion "who benefits" sad
  16. Nayhas
    Nayhas 29 May 2013 12: 19
    -10 qualifying.
    If the "genius" of Stalin was surrounded by only scoundrels, sycophants, Trotskyists, etc., then who was he himself?
    1. My address
      My address 29 May 2013 13: 08
      Not so simple.
      The personality forms the collective around itself and the collective is formed, "pulled up", according to the personality. When the personality disappears, the team often says with relief, "Ffu, it's carried over!" and descends to the level of ordinary people. Probably you met with such.
      Napoleon is a common example. Everyone admits that a genius in wars, finance, jurisprudence, diplomacy, RECRUITING, managing anything in those days. Napoleon was gone and all his associates were "blown away". Even Talleyrand, who was almost brilliantly intriguing against Napoleon. And not even Napoleon's comrade-in-arms, his enemy Wellington, how did he stand out after the brilliant Waterloo for him? Nothing, although he reached great heights in England.
      Of course, it’s bad that, without respecting Khrushchev, there are a lot of facts and rumors that Stalin left behind. Here is your truth.
      Not a minus to you, but not a plus.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 29 May 2013 14: 05
        For example, I do not consider Napoleon a genius, well, he had talents, I do not argue, but he was poorly versed in the selection of personnel, this is one of the reasons for the death of his empire. I doubt that Stalin was ignorant, that Khrushchev was a scoundrel, and, for example, Mikoyan was an opportunist, that Kalinin was still capable of fond of youngsters, and the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) Yezhov is gay ...
    2. washi
      washi 29 May 2013 13: 36
      If the "genius" of Stalin was surrounded by only scoundrels, sycophants, Trotskyists, etc., then who was he himself?
      Have you tried to fight alone against the crowd?
      At least in melee?
      And brainwash?
      What about the characters?
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 29 May 2013 13: 56
        "Cadres are everything!" is his expression. The selection of personnel is certainly not an easy task, but it is not super difficult. For example, everyone knew about Yezhov's unconventional orientation, but he did not lose his post and life because of this. It was Stalin who made him the People's Commissar of the NKVD, not an outside uncle.
        1. luka095
          luka095 30 May 2013 01: 39
          Recruitment is often the main problem in project implementation. So this is far from a "not super difficult" task.
          As for Yezhov - are you seriously sure that "Yezhov's orientation was known to everyone"? The thirties in the USSR are not modern "advanced" years, when they shout about their orientation or try to do it at every corner.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 30 May 2013 07: 10
            He was officially treated for pederasty in the hospital, as indicated in his case. So it was no secret to anyone.
            1. luka095
              luka095 30 May 2013 18: 32
              It was not a secret for whom? For "everyone", how do you write? And what is his business? Medical card, or file opened after arrest? If the card, then who had access to it? And if after the arrest, it is "after the arrest."
              And minus, why, curious?
  17. Nitup
    Nitup 29 May 2013 12: 58
    The article is good. For a long time I was sure that Khrushchev was the killer of Stalin and the destroyer of the USSR.
  18. dmb
    dmb 29 May 2013 15: 02
    Well, just lovely. not an article. The Kremlin settles scores with Dobryukha. That is, in fact, its whole essence. Each of them gives its own interpretation of the same generally known facts, without saying anything new. Both of these citizens are least concerned with establishing historical truth. They are most concerned with selling their books; healthy competition. As a rule, they refer to the same Prudnikova and Mukhin in the basis of their writings. However, the latter have mostly assumptions that are not confirmed by specifics. And this is not their fault at all. The conspirators did not write plans even in those days. when the political investigation was in its infancy, and even more so under Stalin. So Stalin was killed, or he himself died (grandfather was still 75, youth was more than stormy, exile, war and gigantic work capacity did not add to his health either, we will probably never know for certain. As for the assessment of the activities of him and his followers, then it also changes. Well, I'm not talking about young people. They have been hammering for almost thirty years that after 17 there were no good tsars in Russia, and if there was, then Stalin, but let's talk about the attitude of people who are "happy "Perestroika was overwhelmed at a conscious age. After all, many of them sincerely believed Lenin, and Stalin was considered a tyrant. And then babakh, and they changed everything. Did they not go to school, did not know the consequences of the civil war, or who led the country during the war?" Everyone knew, but they did not doubt the correctness of Lenin's policy to create the Soviet state, and the negative role of Stalin at a certain stage of its construction. Now, when the official dogma is prescribed not to love socialism andhand, "they say the opposite. By the way, in the 90s, they cursed both of them.
  19. Sour
    Sour 29 May 2013 19: 57
    Still, I would be careful not to talk about versions as facts. The fact that Stalin was killed is not proven by anyone. At 74 years old, you can die yourself without outside help (especially to a person who slept little and smoked a lot, and often worked for wear and tear). So the version is the version. And facts are facts. Do not confuse them.
    As for Beria, they made him a scapegoat for all the repressions. Meanwhile, he was not involved in the most massive repressions of 1937-1938, since he came to the NKVD at the very end of 1938. Also, he was not involved in the most famous processes of the post-war period ("the doctors' case", "the Leningrad case", "the aircraft industry case"), since at that time he was in charge of the atomic project. Beria did a lot for the Victory as the head of the Soviet special services and the partisan movement.
    It is also difficult to overestimate the contribution of the NKVD troops to the Victory (commander General - Leontyev A.M. Leontyev, an outstanding person). They also bore the brunt of the fight against the Bandera and "forest brothers". Under Khrushchev, Leontyev was generally demoted by several steps (as a "man of Beria"), although Alexander Mikhailovich was not involved in any repressions, and fought only against fascists and bandits.
  20. deman73
    deman73 29 May 2013 20: 53
    our history is so cross-checked by politicians that the devil’s leg will be broken even though in one I agree to all 100 nikitsa, the maize dwarf chopped a lot of wood and they too hung too many sins of others
  21. 0255
    0255 29 May 2013 23: 07
    ten years ago everyone painted Stalin and Beria as terrible villains, and now they, it turns out, are not at all to blame for the repressions and were just so good. To know the truth about them, we had to live at that time, now we are unlikely to know the truth about them.
    Another ten years will pass - it turns out that Yeltsin and Gorbachev are also not to blame for the collapse of the USSR.
    It is unlikely that we will find out the truth ...
  22. jamalena
    jamalena 29 May 2013 23: 46
    Quote: erased
    Indeed, in 1953 we did not lose the leader and his first deputy, we lost the country that could become a superpower!

    You are a big plus!
  23. alert_timka
    alert_timka 29 May 2013 23: 56
    And what are the last names? Original Russian: Stalin (Dzhugashvili), Beria, Kaganovich, Voroshilov, Mikoyan, etc.))) Guess what people all these personalities were from once? Russians all the time naively consider themselves masters of their country, land, etc.
  24. ty60
    ty60 30 May 2013 00: 30
    Gorbachev spoiled from the heart. Rather, Raisa Maksimovna. EBN completed the process
  25. lexe
    lexe 30 May 2013 01: 36
    The USSR had only one chance to win the global race - the world revolution. Stalin rejected this postulate laid down in the creation of the USSR. The irony of fate is that there can only be the Russian Empire on our land. How to build a country on the slogan of the world revolution and not do her? And the rest is trifles / details of who whom. Stalin had to be removed in 1941.-as the main person in charge of our rout. The critical situation did not allow to do it then otherwise there would be chaos. And the main thing in the administration was no sane people-Stalin tied everything on Be. So Khrushchev did. It’s ridiculous to blame the leader as an eccentric man, because the owner himself picked these people. And what could Stalin offer? The Russian Empire? I doubt it ... prove it!)
    1. Stalinets
      Stalinets 30 May 2013 03: 31
      Delirium. Interestingly expanded. Judging by your name, you are the same "eccentric man" as Khrushchev. This is a pathology. To conduct dialogue with you is humiliating. Alas. negative
      1. lexe
        lexe 30 May 2013 10: 47
        You know better from the USA crying
  26. Stalinets
    Stalinets 30 May 2013 03: 47
    It is no secret that Khrushchev and other conspirators killed Stalin. The article is good. But there are nuances. It was impossible to tame Mikoyan. He was a man of the "Committee of 300". The author of the book of the same name writes about this. Whether the Leader knew about it or not is a mystery. Mikoyan and stayed in power longer than anyone else. It means a lot. The world government was behind him. Fifth Column. Khrushch, stained his hands to the eyebrows with the blood of Russian people. Plus, I’ll wait, plus my wife is Jewish, the leverage over him was sufficient. Moreover, a Trotskyist. The Tavistock Institute for Human Relations knows very well how to get such people to work for the world government. Such cadres are everything. Beria was an intellectual. Devoted to the cause of statehood. Without him, it would have been very difficult for Stalin. But those who were not finished off in due time killed both the Leader and the country and Beria. And there are many others who we will not know about. But it's impossible to kill the spirit. yes
  27. lexe
    lexe 30 May 2013 11: 40
    If Stalin at the end of his reign wanted to sharply change course towards the Russian Empire, realizing that there was nothing to unite the proletarians of all countries, and first you need to unite his proletarians \ peasants \ intelligentsia and feed after the collapse of the war, having traveled a difficult path since 1917. when so many agents of influence like Trotsky were wiping away from us, going through a mass of gulags and purges (where the mass of innocent people really died with the guilty!), having won the war! then I (and not only me) would seriously think about the personality of Stalin in our history with a + sign. Otherwise, the Russian people would burn out in the furnace of the world revolution, and Stalin would go along the edge of a knife and leave us the theoretical chances, but they wouldn’t understand ( or not until the end) all the general secretaries after him.
    The problem is, will the Stalinists like this conclusion? And you don’t have a choice 80% of Russians believe in God and each of them read what the Soviet authorities did with the priests during their formation of Lenin-Trotsky. Or again, against the majority, the Bolsheviks? reconciliation our country needs like air.
    Still, Stalin’s personality is interesting. He did go under the tsar’s secret service.) And there the people were perspicacious and smart.)))
  28. Goldkonstantin
    Goldkonstantin 30 May 2013 21: 56
    Khrushchev - petty bald envious! Nikchyumysh, who even learned to read and write with grief in half. Khrushchev and others like him - that is who stood behind the assassination of Stalin! So I agree with the author of the article.
  29. Ivan Mechanic
    Ivan Mechanic 31 May 2013 16: 38
    Yeah, very good indicator of fathers. But Khrushchev had another son who allegedly "went missing" and, according to some historians, was a primitive rowdy and drunk who really could not control himself when he got drunk. Well, the younger one - dumped in the USA :-(
  30. Bobrovsky
    Bobrovsky 17 June 2013 17: 48
    A few years ago, in one of the newspapers there was a note that the search engines dug up a plane from the ground. The dead pilot, as it turned out, was the son of Khrushchev.