The black myth of the "bloody" Beria

32
The black myth of the "bloody" Beria 5 March, 1953, a real titan, one of the greatest figures of not only Russian, but also global stories - Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. A whole epoch went away with him, full of struggle and accomplishments, the USSR plunged into mourning. In the leadership of the Union began the carve-up of posts. As early as March 2, after Stalin's stroke, the covert negotiations of Beria, Malenkov, Khrushchev, Bulganin began. And on March 6 they gathered to decide on the new supreme power. In fact, it was a top conspiracy; congresses, plenary sessions, sessions of the Supreme Soviet were not convened.

And the decisions of the last XIX Congress and the plenum, which Stalin held, they immediately turned. The Bureau of the Presidium of the Central Committee was abolished; the Presidium was reduced from 36 to 14 people. From it they threw out new Stalinist promoted by whom Stalin “diluted” the old cadres. But the old cadres were returned, which at the end of the leader’s life fell into disgrace - Molotov, Kaganovich, Mikoyan, Voroshilov.

Malenkov began to consider Stalin's "heir," he received the posts of chairman of the Council of Ministers, first secretary of the Central Committee. Beria was considered the “second man” in the state, controlling the united MIA-MGB, receiving the post of the first deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers. Molotov, Bulganin, Kaganovich received the posts of deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers. Voroshilov received the honorary post of Chairman of the Presidium. But the redistribution of power did not stop there, the comrades of Malenkov decided that he had received too much a “piece of cake”. They put pressure on him and 14 of March was faced with a choice to keep the post of head of the Council of Ministers or the party. Malenkov could not resist this pressure and chose the Council of Ministers. The first secretary of the Central Committee was N. Khrushchev.

But in reality, the “shadow leader” was Beria. Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria had a real authority, high business qualities, behind him were real victories and achievements, plus the entire repressive apparatus of the USSR. In addition, he acted in tandem with Malenkov.

After the death (murder?) Of Beria, a “black” myth was created about him as a Stalinist “executioner”, an absolute monster. This myth was happily supported in the West and among the cosmopolitans of the USSR. They created this myth, like the myth about Stalin, in order to completely discredit the Stalin era. Subsequent leaders, especially Khrushchev, looked too “pygmy” compared to these two titans. Instead of his actions to prove their high qualities of a leader, Khrushchev went by “belittling” the former leaders.

In reality, many of the crimes that fell on the dead Beria, and he had no defenders, they committed themselves. So, the same Malenkov, in the period of “Yezhovshchina” (N.I. Ezhov headed the NKVD during the 1936-1938 period), supervised the NKVD in the Politburo during the most famous “purges”, he personally carried out repressions in Belarus. And Khrushchev led the "purges" in the Moscow party organization, in Ukraine. And even when large-scale "cleansing" began to turn off, Khrushchev did not stop. In 1939, Stalin sent him a telegram: "Calm down, you fool." Beria, on the contrary, when he headed the NKVD (since December 1938 of the year), began active work on carrying out “work on the mistakes”, then thousands of people were rehabilitated, restored to their rights, and especially zealous executioners were “cleared out”.

Of course, it is not necessary to idealize him either, it was not a knight in "white gloves". It was a typical figure of that brutal era, past the school of underground struggle, revolution, civil war. Strong-willed, with an iron will, cruel, with a quirky mind. But this was, unlike Khrushchev, a very clever man who knew how to think strategically and deeply, without sadistic inclinations. Not a supporter of excess bloodshed. So, back in Georgia two interesting episodes can be noted. In 1924, he was the deputy chairman of the local Cheka, wanted to prevent a nationalist uprising - he leaked information that everything was known about the conspiracy. It was believed that after learning of this, the nationalists would abandon their plans. True, they did not heed the warning. And during the period of the “great purge”, when he headed the Communist Party of Georgia, he did not allow big terror. In Georgia, 5, thousands of people, were repressed in total; for Georgia, where the positions of nationalists, Trotskyists, former Mensheviks, etc. were traditionally strong, it was not much.

Therefore, Stalin appointed Beria to the place of Yezhov. A new campaign of repression was now aimed at the perpetrators of unmotivated arrests, those who fanned the flames of terror. A large-scale audit of all cases was carried out, mass rehabilitation took place. Thus, in the 1939 year, thousands of priests and their parishioners were released on Stalin’s orders, who were convicted on “church” matters. In the NKVD, a “church” department was created that dealt with the review of cases and other issues of the church. He not only supervised, but in fact “took care of” the church from attacks, various inclinations. As before 1943, the patriarchal apparatus actually operated in an illegal situation.

It was Beria who straightened out the most difficult situation in the field of Soviet intelligence (which was actually defeated in 1937-1938 years), the defense industry. Tupolev, Myasishchev, Petlyakov, Korolev, Tomashevich and many other designers, engineers, directors of factories were thrown behind bars. Namely, these people will then make up the pride of the history of the USSR, and of the entire Russian history. They could simply perish or fail to fulfill their great deeds after the conclusion. Beria not only rehabilitated them, but also took under personal care, helped to restore the defeated enterprises, design bureaus, institutes. Helped with frames, equipment.

Beria personally led the restoration of Soviet intelligence. PA took over as assistants in this important matter. Sudoplatov, who had already planned to expel from the party and arrest. According to his statements, Beria groups released all the surviving specialists who sat in the camps and prisons. He ensured that in the Politburo he was assigned to oversee strategic intelligence. That is, Beria was able to centralize the management of the special services of various departments - the NKVD INO, the GRU of the Red Army and others. It was a very important task, it happened that they competed with each other, acted separately. According to Sudoplatov, Beria radically revised the strategy of the Soviet intelligence agencies. If from the beginning of the 1920-ies, the main tasks were the organization of sabotage operations through foreign communist parties, the struggle against organizations of emigrants, now this activity has ceased to be a priority. Beria shifted the priorities of Soviet intelligence to debug resident work for political, economic, technological, military intelligence, recruiting or introducing agents of influence. Began energetic work on the restoration of intelligence networks. In a very short time (to build without breaking), before the war, we were able to accomplish this titanic task. The mechanisms of the Soviet special services reached the level of the best world intelligence services, British or German.

In the 1942 year, Beria, as a member of the State Defense Committee (GKO), was able to organize a defense of the Caucasus, without specially prepared in advance, by small forces. It is also his victory and merit. Beria’s merit is that at the beginning of the war the German security services failed to organize serious actions of the “fifth column” in the Soviet rear. Although the hopes were very high, the Germans launched vigorous activity, but did not achieve success in this matter. Although they are not to be blamed for the absence of high qualifications. Before the war, the USSR succeeded in neutralizing most of the enemy agents.

After 1942, Beria was transferred, as an outstanding manager of his era, to another crucial front of work. There was a reorganization: the NKGB, led by Merkulov, was separated from the NKVD, and strategic intelligence was separated from the NKGB; it remained under the control of Beria. Beria was appointed to oversee the development of new weapons. Under his auspices, a number of institutions responsible for the defense power of the country, including the Moscow Mechanical Institute for Ammunition (then the Moscow Engineering and Physics Institute) were created. He headed the Special Committee, that is, the development of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. It was the right decision - heading foreign intelligence and special projects, Beria could send the most valuable data on German and American developments to Soviet scientists. Soviet science was able to reduce the time to develop nuclear weapons and other projects. But to say that the USSR "stole" the secret of a nuclear bomb from the United States is wrong. The Americans acted by the same methods, receiving most of the scientific and technical heritage of the Third Reich. Therefore, Beria must say “thank you” for the fact that in the most difficult period, when the USSR threatened the Third World War with the use of nuclear weapons, we received our nuclear weapons. This fact has cooled the hawks from London and Washington. Relative equilibrium has been established. By the way, the son of Beria made a brilliant scientific career, worked for the good of the motherland.

It is clear that stories about the "seduction and abduction of women" have nothing to do with reality. Lavrenty Pavlovich was a convinced and loving family man. Even simple logic, these gossip contradict. Under Stalin, such adventures were mortally dangerous. The same Abakumov would gladly report such a case. And Beria was never a fool.

Beria was a man who supported Stalin’s endeavors and understood the importance of cardinal reforms. Thus, the party, according to Stalin, was to become a kind of "order of the Sword," a purely ideological structure that lost real power. The party was supposed to unite the most energetic, with high ideals of people. All power had to be transferred to local Soviets, that is, in fact, real local self-government would be restored. Other reforms were also developed, raising the standard of living for collective farmers, etc. You can read about this and another in the beautiful books of Yuri Mukhin. Beria, being the chief of intelligence, knew the real situation in the country better than many others. On the distortions in the economy, the difficult situation of the peasantry, etc.

Reforms Beria, plans

Therefore, when Stalin died, Beria tried to continue his work and begin reforming the system. A massive amnesty was held, which the fighters against "totalitarianism" recorded in the negative, they say, it was such a cunning plan. Former prisoners were supposed to increase the criminogenic background in the country, and Beria became the dictator, "Stalin's second edition." 900 thousand were released, according to other data 1 million 200 thousand people. The amnesty did not have any relation to “recidivist gangsters”: people with short periods of time — from 5 years and less — were released; mothers with children up to 10 years; people convicted of administrative and economic offenses received the freedom of “domestic wars”, “pointers” "- sat for violation of labor discipline, petty theft, registry, family members of the so-called. "Political" criminals. That is, let go of those who did not pose a threat to the state and people. From criminals released only petty hooligans, thieves.

And the Gulag himself Beria removed from the subordination of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and transferred to the Ministry of Justice. And the construction, production glavki GULAG gave industry ministries. The rights of the Special Meeting at the Ministry of Internal Affairs were cut, a number of cases were terminated - “Mingrelian”, “the case of doctors”, “the case of Shakhurin”, “the case of Marshal Yakovlev”. Beria began a new "purge" of repressive bodies, there was an investigation into the false accusations, illegal methods of work.

Beria proposed to carry out radical reforms in the field of national economy. A powerful military industrial complex, mechanical engineering, other heavy industries had already been created, the war ended in victory, there was no threat of a big war, so Lavrenty Pavlovich planned to urgently increase the development of the light and food industries. To increase investment in agriculture, reduce taxes on peasants, expand the collective farms' self-government, up to the creation of their own enterprises, cooperatives, and the establishment of economic relations with each other. Given the enormous successful experience in the field of national economy that Beria received in Georgia, we can say that after these reforms, the well-being of the people would increase dramatically, especially in the countryside.

As Stalin had planned, Beria wanted to weaken the role of the party, to remove a kind of “dual power” in the country — the presence of state bodies and the party apparatus. The party had to lose managerial, state functions.

In foreign policy, Beria was going to improve relations with the West. In Eastern European countries, it was proposed to stop building socialism according to the “Soviet model”; a more flexible model was necessary, taking into account local peculiarities. The binding of these countries to the USSR was to go through other channels — economic, diplomatic. This would make it possible to abandon “fraternal assistance” to young socialist countries, burdensome for the USSR and its peoples.

On the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus, Beria planned to create a powerful resort zone of international class, with the involvement of Western investors, on a concession basis. Thus creating a kind of “window” for attracting foreign capital to the USSR. That is, Beria actually anticipated the current plans of the Russian Federation to create such a zone in the Krasnodar Territory, Sochi, etc.

A number of Beria’s activities seem controversial, but their overall positive direction cannot be denied. Beria could become a kind of Soviet "Deng Xiaoping", while preserving the Soviet ideology, he allowed more freedom in the economy, in local government. Yes, and as a manager, a man who knows how to carry out strategic planning, Beria was an order of magnitude higher than Khrushchev, and indeed other Soviet leaders.

Hindered all these plans, both Stalin and Beria, Khrushchev and the people behind him.

Sources of:
Vert N. History of the Soviet state. M., 1994.
Kremlin S. Beria. The best manager of the XX century. M., 2011.
Mukhin Yu. I. Why was Stalin killed? M., 2004.
Mukhin Y. Killers of Stalin. M., 2007.
Mukhin Yu. I. USSR Beria. M., 2008.
Shambarov V. Anti-Soviet. M., 2011.
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. SVD
    SVD
    +1
    31 August 2011 09: 49
    It’s a pity that Western Ukrainians didn’t scrub the corn in the late 30s ...
  2. Evgan
    -1
    31 August 2011 10: 10
    "As planned by Stalin, Beria wanted to weaken the role of the party, remove a kind of" dual power "in the country - the presence of state bodies and the party apparatus. The party had to lose managerial and state functions."

    Well, Stalin, rather, he wanted not to weaken the role of the party, but to complete the merging of the party and state apparatus, finally finalizing his dictatorship.

    Also in the article there are many laudatory comments about Stalin and his inner circle, but at the same time it talks about "distortions in the economy", about the "defeat of intelligence", about repressions against the church. Where was I.V. looking at this time ???

    The statement that Stalin wanted to take measures to improve the life of collective farmers is ridiculous. Why did he drive them into collective farms, if not then, to get a cheap agricultural slave. the force that worked for pennies-workdays?

    Now about Beria.

    It is not clear why Beria, having freed many "household workers" after Stalin's death, did not pardon (at least partially) those convicted under Article 58.

    It is not clear where such a fervor comes from regarding the eviction of peoples, the consequences of which the USSR reaped later in the 50s and 60s, and Russia so far.

    And the rest - it is very possible that everything was approximately as described.
    1. +2
      31 August 2011 10: 46
      1. The church was defeated during the civil years, the role of Stalin is not in it.
      2. "It's ridiculous to say that Stalin wanted to take measures to improve the lives of collective farmers."
      Read at least this material for the "enlightenment" of the mind:
      Stalin. Annual price reduction
      http://www.newsland.ru/news/detail/id/469272/
      Quote: "JV Stalin formulated the Basic Economic Law of Socialism -" Ensuring maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing material and cultural needs of the whole society is the GOAL of socialist production; continuous growth and improvement of socialist production based on higher technology is the MEANS of achieving the goal. (I. V. Stalin. Economic problems of socialism in the USSR. P. 76, 78, M. 1952)

      This law became the basis for the activities of all communist parties building socialism and even the governments of some capitalist countries seeking to mitigate the effects of economic crises. This will be discussed further.

      Stalin's annual price cut and wage increase is nothing more than an increase in investment by workers and employees, pensioners and students of the entire vast country in its economy. "
      3. "skewed economy" was caused by the need to prepare for war, or one way or another, there was no choice.
      4. the evictions of peoples were justified, they were "punished", and the same Chechens were still mildly punished. could have been tougher.
      1. Evgan
        -2
        31 August 2011 11: 51
        Quote: Skill
        1. The church was defeated during the civil years, the role of Stalin is not in it.


        Maybe there is no role of Stalin in the Civil War? Maybe the role of Stalin in the fact that far after the war they planted a certain number of priests - no?

        Quote: Skill
        Quote: "JV Stalin formulated the Basic Economic Law of Socialism -" Ensuring maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing material and cultural needs of the whole society is the GOAL of socialist production; continuous growth and improvement of socialist production based on higher technology is the MEANS of achieving the goal. (I. V. Stalin. Economic problems of socialism in the USSR. P. 76, 78, M. 1952)


        In recent history, we also have many who formulated the "Basic Economic Laws", which did not lead to anything good. I see no reason to believe that these words of I.V. reflect his position. Declarations and real actions do not always coincide.

        Quote: Skill
        Stalin's annual price cuts and salary increases


        Yeah, and at the same time actually violent loans for "investment in the economy." So much for lower prices and higher wages.

        Quote: Skill
        the "distortion of the economy" was caused by the need to prepare for war, or either way or death, there was no choice.


        Partly yes, but why collectivization? Largely because of it, agriculture could not get out of the decline in which it was after the Civil, and because of which for a long time we produced less grain than in 1913.
        1. t1
          t1
          +4
          31 August 2011 13: 48
          Quote: EvgAn

          Maybe there is no role of Stalin in the Civil War? Maybe the role of Stalin in the fact that far after the war they planted a certain number of priests - no?

          Jerking. An attempt to mix in a bunch of diverse events, people who were involved in various things, and from this muddy compote to draw conclusions that are convenient for themselves. Stalin was not a god of God and did not control all aspects of life in the USSR, either directly or indirectly. To think so is the infantilism of people who has never encountered real management of any large collectives and processes. In Stalin, there is great responsibility for strategic directions and organization, this is a fact. But the fact and the fact that besides him many people influenced these decisions, and many things would have been caused by a different kind of inheritance.

          Quote: EvgAn
          In recent history, we also have many who formulated the "Basic Economic Laws", which did not lead to anything good. I see no reason to believe that these words of I.V. reflect his position. Declarations and real actions do not always coincide.

          Demagogy. With the same mood, you can unsubstantially suspect you of pedophilia, even if you submit a certificate from ZhES.

          Quote: EvgAn
          Partly yes, but why collectivization? Largely because of it, agriculture could not get out of the decline in which it was after the Civil, and because of which for a long time we produced less grain than in 1913.

          . The concentration of production, including agricultural, is a global trend. Collective farms are a local attempt, more or less violently, but in any case, forcedly create more productive and more manageable community-corporations that can efficiently provide urban industry with food. No free beekeepers could cope with this task. Or such an organization would have taken much more time, which was not there. And this problem in the USSR was solved, albeit at the cost of many lives. Agriculture, even with the loss of the most important part of farmland (Ukraine in 1941-1943), provided both the country and the front.

          Juggling + demagogy +. Bad diagnosis for you.
          1. Evgan
            0
            31 August 2011 17: 30
            I confess to juggling right away. But why? Because my opponent categorically stated: Stalin had nothing to do with the persecution of the church. Dear t1, this juggling has been deliberately added for irony.

            Demagogy. I also agree. And why? Because the above "economic law" for me is demagogy, when it follows from history that not everything was so good. If you like, this demagogy is an expression of distrust in the loud words of all our leaders - from Stalin to Medvedev.

            As for agriculture. I am not an economist or a historian by education, but something tells me that it was possible to do without violent collectivization and the famine of 1931-1932. Yes, I can’t justify the point of view.

            Let the doctors make the diagnoses, right?
      2. Dovmont
        +1
        1 September 2011 18: 55
        You are mistaken - the church was destroyed not during the Civil War, but after the Bolsheviks more or less consolidated their power in the late 20s. Although it is not correct to say "defeated", tk. it is a verb to speak of a completed action. In fact, the anti-religious struggle was an integral part of the communist ideology and it was waged from the October 1917 coup until the collapse of the Union. And Stalin took an active part in this struggle. Remember the so-called "renovationists", the ban on the patriarchate until the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.
    2. andpavsto
      +2
      31 August 2011 10: 47
      Understand first what and whom they deported! Ask the old people who lived at that time in the Crimea and the Caucasus (certainly not the deportees). They will tell how the Crimean Tatars taught their children how to find a wounded soldier and gouge out his eyes, and the Chechens, and not only they gave elite horses to Hitler, actually waged a guerrilla war in the rear of the Soviet troops.
      1. Evgan
        -1
        31 August 2011 11: 52
        But if you ask the deportees, the picture will be completely different. And I have no reason to believe 100% either.

        Yes, some Russians were also traitors - and now what? Resettle Russia?

        I also said that the issue with all these nationalities is somewhat more complicated than sending or shooting. Otherwise, what for are they to us? Indeed, it is easier to shoot, and to populate the lands with the "title" nation. What are you, andpastvo, smart and quick to rise. I would have seen how you would blurt out such things if you had one of your mothers, fathers, grandfathers, and grandmothers, a Tatar, especially if he fought along the fronts of the Great Patriotic War along with everyone, shoulder to shoulder.
        1. andpavsto
          +4
          31 August 2011 13: 11
          My grandfather was repressed in 1936, as were his close male relatives. The family was sent to Donbass. They tried to shoot twice, - Kalinin pardoned. After the successful construction of Kom.-on-Amur and other logging sites, in 1952 (under Stalin) he was completely amnestied. In the zone he was given a passport (!!! at that time not everyone had them). Of all the relatives, only he remained alive. But he respected Stalin!
          And about "blurt out" - my father told me this. He saw it. By the way, from the Krymchaks their national "Wafen SS" was formed. Learn history.
          1. Evgan
            0
            31 August 2011 17: 18
            andpasvto, and after all close relatives of your grandfather on the male side were convicted under this regime and everyone except the grandfather was shot, do you think that was - right? For the good of the matter? How then can one respect Stalin? Afraid - yes, but respect for what? For what happened with him?
            At the very least, I know history, and I know that there were such people among the Chechens, among the Tatars. But I also know that the ROA is our Slavic brothers. Why weren't they resettled? And then, if you dig deeper, maybe the same Chechens had reasons for such behavior? I do not justify them at all, I just cannot understand how the issues of the lives of tens of thousands of people can be solved in this way - "You sow!"
        2. Owl
          +1
          31 August 2011 13: 22
          Not a single reconnaissance group, which was seen by the Crimean Tatars, lived for more than a day, a military unit, in which there were about 25% of Chechens and more than 50% of Caucasians and Central Asians at the front, were considered UNABLE. There was something to evict, it is a pity that they did not evict to New Earth.
          1. 0
            31 August 2011 14: 34
            For what the Chechens and the Ingush were evicted, there is an article on the site and about the operation itself:

            http://topwar.ru/3294-za-chto-i-stalin-nakazal-chechencev-i-ingushej.html
            http://topwar.ru/3299-operaciya-chechevica.html
          2. Evgan
            -2
            31 August 2011 17: 22
            Yes, and the Caucasians are the heroes of the Soviet Union? Or, in your opinion, they were awarded on the basis of a national order?

            And since when is the low combat efficiency of the mono-ethnic units justifying their relocation? Yes, even with the deprivation of property? Then, I repeat, now all mother Russia must be resettled ...
            1. 0
              31 August 2011 19: 58
              Chechens and Ingushs (and their families) who honestly fulfilled their duty to a common homeland were not subjected to repression, including those who had awards. They were deprived of their right to live in the Caucasus, but they could live in any other point of the Union.
              1. Evgan
                -3
                1 September 2011 09: 23
                Yes? And imagine a situation. An evil Chechen, an adversary of the Soviet regime, a kind of collective image of the anti-Russian Caucasian, did not go to serve in the Red Army with the outbreak of war, hid in the mountains. Deserter? Yes. Deserves punishment? Yes. And he is taken and evicted to the Kazakh steppes. Right? Seems Yes. But together with him his family is evicted - his wife, children, his old father and his mother. Is that right? Son for father - responsible?
                Skil, you say that those Caucasians who honestly fulfilled their duty to their common homeland were "simply" deprived of the right to live in the Caucasus. Excellent! In 24 hours, take off from the habitable place and drive. Where? Well, not to Moscow, most likely - to the Urals, to the taiga. And the choice - Dzhezkazgan or the Zima station near Irkutsk - well, yes, the choice, I even have nothing to argue (for those who do not understand irony, this is also a hyperbole, called by some "twitching"; inserted deliberately)
                I do not believe that the deportation of peoples was justified. And, again, she poured a lot of energy into the current hatred of many Chechens and Crimean Tatars. Because of this, Russia's position in the same Crimea is now weaker than it could be.
                I do not condone Chechen, just, in my opinion, the deportation was a) not humane and b) short-sighted step.
  3. 0
    31 August 2011 11: 02
    Quote: EvgAn
    Well, Stalin, rather, he wanted not to weaken the role of the party, but to complete the merging of the party and state apparatus, finally finalizing his dictatorship.


    Why not? Very reasonable plan.

    Quote: EvgAn
    Also in the article there are many laudatory comments about Stalin and his inner circle, but at the same time it talks about "distortions in the economy", about the "defeat of intelligence", about repressions against the church. Where was I.V. looking at this time ???


    You know, oddly enough, Stalin is also a man. And to see absolutely everything would be unreal. For this was the Council of Ministers with a bunch of ministers. And laying it all on one person is stupid. whatever he was a genius.


    Quote: EvgAn
    It is not clear why Beria, having freed many "household workers" after Stalin's death, did not pardon (at least partially) those convicted under Article 58.


    Why? My grandfather was released under that amnesty. It was there that 58 complex went, study in Canada and the United States in 1935-38 (then they were not shot, they were very lucky), captivity in 1942 near Kharkov, then there was an escape and work as a translator for the Americans (my grandfather knew 5 languages) until 1946 ... In the beginning, 46 were returned, and with such a bouquet, they again did not shoot. they gave "only" (my grandfather told me so) 25 years + 10 defeats in rights. And already at 53 they released.
    1. Evgan
      0
      31 August 2011 11: 58
      Quote: Banshee
      Why not? Very reasonable plan.


      But I don’t say that according to Stalin’s understanding it’s unreasonable. Everything is even very logical. It’s just that the phrase in the article looked like that, they say, Stalin almost embarked on near-democratic transformations, and then these party members cut everything down. I mean, whatever you call a person, a party functionary or a Soviet worker, his essence will not change from this.

      Quote: Banshee
      You know, oddly enough, Stalin is also a man. And to see absolutely everything would be unreal. For this was the Council of Ministers with a bunch of ministers. And laying it all on one person is stupid. whatever he was a genius.


      Yes, I agree, it’s stupid to blame Stalin for all the mistakes of that period. But, in my opinion, a person who concentrates more power in his hands carries, accordingly, more personal responsibility. And the power of Stalin was, although not absolute, but very great.

      Quote: Banshee
      And already in 53 released.


      But it is interesting, was it released (or rather initiated the release) with "still Beria" or already "after him"? All the same, he did not stay in power for long after I.V.'s death ...
      1. 0
        31 August 2011 14: 48
        I do not know such details unfortunately.
  4. Owl
    0
    31 August 2011 12: 57
    The traitors to Russia are "destanizing" and using the name "Beria" to scare people. With all its negative facts. L.P. Beria is a talented organizer who led the NKVD and NKVD intelligence during the Great Patriotic War, oversaw the creation of nuclear weapons, oversaw the creation of the country's air defense system in the postwar years.
  5. Owl
    +2
    31 August 2011 12: 59
    The traitors to Russia are "destanizing" and using the name "Beria" to scare people. With all his negative facts, L.P. Beria is a talented organizer who led the NKVD and NKVD intelligence during World War II, oversaw the creation of nuclear weapons, and oversaw the creation of the country's air defense system in the postwar years.
    1. Evgan
      -3
      31 August 2011 13: 14
      Filin, it is interesting you think ... "Traitors to Russia", in your opinion, using the label "Beria is an enemy of the people", are de-Stalinization. But at the same time, you also hang your label on this group of people, socialization, which in relation to a fairly wide mass of people (and there are not a few of those who carry out / support de-Stalinization) cannot be fair.
      Here I am. I believe that Stalin and others like him committed a lot of crimes (and they certainly have merits, I don’t argue) and I am sure that these merits do not give the right to justify crimes, that is, I can definitely say that Stalin is for me - rather evil. So what? Am I a traitor to Russia? Or, in your opinion, is it time to revive the famous clause 58 of article "Treason to the Motherland through intention"?

      But in essence, that is, in the second paragraph of your post, I don’t have nothing to object to - I would have subscribed. What was, was.
      1. t1
        t1
        +1
        31 August 2011 16: 52
        Quote: EvgAn
        Or, in your opinion, is it time to revive the famous clause 58 of article "Treason to the Motherland through intention"?

        This should be the only article on this subject, if at all prosecuted for treason.
        Everything else is neglected consequences.
      2. Owl
        0
        1 September 2011 15: 15
        They, albeit with sin, but created, the current "power" only destroys
  6. 0
    31 August 2011 14: 54
    EvgAn, well, there is no way through positive or negative people. Take all of our leaders ... review history.
    Lenin: + land to the peasants, power to the councils of the workers and peasants' deputies. - the alienation of the native Russian territories, the creation of concentration camps. And so line by line.

    And so you can make a sign for everyone as an example. Understand, they were PEOPLE, with positive and negative sides. Well, can not be in power a man who does not make mistakes. And Peter 1, and Catherine the Great, and Stalin, and Alexander 3 ... Everyone made mistakes. For only the one who does nothing is not mistaken.
    1. Evgan
      0
      31 August 2011 17: 10
      Banshee, I agree 100%. But I have the right to evaluate one or another of our leaders. And for me it is not clear why collectivization was carried out in the form in which it was carried out, for me it is not clear why it was necessary to drive tens of thousands into camps (hardly millions or hundreds of thousands, as some say) including innocent people (or people whose guilt was negligible compared to 10 or 25 years of camps). In my opinion, these are crimes against their people. And, despite the presence of certain merits to the state, I do not understand how to magnify such a person. And the article indirectly says that de Stalin was good, and all the excesses were allowed by his associates, whom he then put into custody with the help of crystal Lorenz Palych. I do not agree with this.
      Yes, everyone made mistakes, but no one did such repression against his people.
      At the same time, I’ll make a reservation right away, I do not consider the USSR of the times of Stalin to be such a total evil as Nazi Germany and I do not put these two regimes on the same board. And then the Falcon-Stalinophiles will now fly :))
      1. LESHA pancake
        +2
        31 August 2011 18: 08
        on the Internet, I dug up hundreds of photographs where civilized Aryans from Germany and the Baltic states shot thousands of women, children, old people, but for some reason I didn’t find a single photograph where NKVD officers shot women, children and old people.
        1. Frost
          +1
          31 August 2011 20: 19
          The Nazis extermination of inferior people was part of their ideology, and photographs as a report on the work done
        2. Evgan
          0
          1 September 2011 09: 37
          LYOKHA damn it, were you looking well? Enter in Yandex "executions of the NKVD", "executions of political prisoners" - and you will get what you are looking for. I will add that in the photographs of those years, due to the low quality and detail, it is not always possible to consider whose corpses are adult men, children, women ...
          But there are photographs. This time.
          Two - didn’t it occur to you that you just took less pictures?
          Three - didn’t it occur to you that some of the photographs were destroyed? After all, the Germans had all kinds of different times for destruction, not for decades.
          Four - and it didn’t occur to you that for obvious reasons (more resonance, greater consequences for the world community) there will be more photos of Nazi crimes posted on the Internet?
          Five - of course, the Nazis committed more such crimes; but this does not justify the Stalinist regime.

          Well, and, of course, you need to be careful about the Internet - someone posted a photo and signed: "shot by the Germans in 1941" or "shot by the NKVD in 1939", but in reality there are some conventional Englishmen killed by conventional Italians in Ethiopia in 1942.
  7. +1
    1 September 2011 12: 02
    Quote: EvgAn
    And for me it is not clear why it was necessary to collectivize in the form in which it was carried out,


    As an option - such a plan was developed and recognized as appropriate. Agree, now it is difficult for us to assess the degree of correctness, we did not live then, and we cannot get into the skulls of those who invented and implemented. It remains only to accept or not to accept. BUT: people did not do this for their own benefit. It does not dispute. This was done (well, tried to be done) for the people. And not to replenish a bank account in Switzerland.

    Quote: EvgAn
    And, despite the presence of certain merits to the state, I do not understand how to magnify such a person.


    And everything is relative. Put mentally next to the figures of Khrushchev, Chernenko, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, a to-do list (general) of each, and everything will become clear to you like a white day.

    Quote: EvgAn
    Yes, everyone made mistakes, but no one did such repression against his people.


    Come on you !!! Just about this they prefer to be silent in a rag! It was only in Russia that there was a sufficient number of SALZHEnitsyns who were ready to throw mud at everyone they could reach.
    Sorry, the whole world is trying to show its best sides, and only at the beginning of perestroika we began to flaunt the worst. And the whole world neighs with this, everyone is pleased to see which Russians are “removed” and how they are doing badly.
    1. Evgan
      0
      1 September 2011 13: 39
      Quote: Banshee
      As an option - such a plan was developed and recognized as appropriate.


      That is, no one calculated the consequences? Of course, it is difficult for us to assess the degree of correctness, but, in my opinion, the result of collectivization (I mean, first of all, the famine of 1932, dispossession and exile to the camps of strong peasants and the fact that we did not block the grain harvest in 1913 for a long time years) speaks for itself. That is, the leaders were useless, although they did not really care about their own pockets, but about the good of the state (again, not about the good of the people). And numerous victims give these leaders a halo of crime.

      Quote: Banshee
      Khrushchev, Chernenko, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin


      Yes, of those cited except that Putin can be called a more or less sane person, and that, probably, until 2006. But it seems (or we don’t know about it), so many of them deliberately didn’t imprison anyone except, probably, Yeltsin, as a result of reforms of which a significant part of the population began to steal.

      Quote: Banshee
      Just about this they prefer to be silent in a rag!


      Yes, they prefer. And - they’re doing it right. But if we do not want to flaunt the worst, then the first thing we must refuse is to put the worst as the best. Otherwise, a reaction is inevitable.
  8. Dovmont
    +2
    1 September 2011 19: 16
    If Beria had come to power, there would have been a rollback from the building of communism back to private property, and most likely the construction of a system of state capitalism had begun. The industrial base of state capitalism has already been created. Beria could very well become Soviet Deng Xiaoping.
  9. Priest
    0
    15 September 2011 20: 32
    A person is afraid (meaning respected) - everyone would like to be a person - but not everyone can.