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 ...
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.