Khrushchev and the elimination of Beria

16
Khrushchev and the elimination of Beria

Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev became a kind of "ram", with the help of which the plans of Stalin and Beria were crushed. And on the basis of his memoirs, many "black" myths defaming the Stalin era were formed. Although a number of anti-Stalinist historians, such as N. Werth, recognize that Khrushchev’s memories must be “treated with caution.” Although to put it bluntly, they are false. Lied Khrushchev boldly, do not hesitate.

Suffice to say about the so-called. “Stalinist orgies”, where the leader allegedly drunk guests into death, etc. For some reason, only Khrushchev remembered these “orgies”, other politicians, military leaders who had been at Stalin’s lunches and dinners, do not remember them. Or remember history about the "missing" at the beginning of the war, Stalin, who allegedly ran in panic to the country. Although there are already published documents, including the journal of Stalin’s visitors, saying that the head of the USSR was in the workplace and worked hard.

Khrushchev himself was a “repentant” Trotskyist, who at the beginning of the 1920s was almost ousted from the party for “occupying”, that is, for his personal enrichment. He repented of these sins before Kaganovich, who became his first patron. At the beginning of 1930, he was secretary of party organization in the Industrial Academy. It also included students Nadezhda Alliluyeva (Stalin's wife), Dora Khazan - Andreeva's wife, Maria Kaganovich, Polina Zhemchuzhina - Molotov's wife. Alliluyeva told about a young, energetic secretary, contributed to the promotion of Khrushchev on the party ladder.

During this period, the supporters of Trotsky and Zinoviev were dismissed from their posts; therefore, in 1935, Stalin put Khrushchev at the head of the Moscow party organization, then he joined the Central Committee and the Politburo. Khrushchev was "noted" as an active participant in repressions in the Moscow party organization and in Ukraine. He was not a pathological killer, a sadist, like some security officers. Khrushchev was an ordinary soulless careerist, ready for anything, for personal gain. An interesting fact is that if many of the “activists” of the repressions, then they themselves “cleaned out”, Khrushchev, like Malenkov, came out “dry out of the water”.

Khrushchev possessed a strange "unsinkability", despite the mass of mistakes for which others paid with their lives, or career. So, in 1942, Khrushchev, as a member of the Military Council of the Front, together with Marshal Tymoshenko proposed an offensive near Kharkov, with the Barvenkovsky ledge. They "overlooked" on the flank tank von Kleist’s army. The General Staff objected, believing that stepping out of a ledge was dangerous, it was actually a ready-made "boiler." But Khrushchev and Tymoshenko insisted on their own. The case ended in disaster, and for the entire southern strategic direction. Khrushchev was not injured.

There is a version that Khrushchev had a personal motive of hatred towards Stalin. This is a dark story with his son. Leonid Khrushchev, an Air Force officer, committed a crime in the rear. According to one version, Khrushchev was able to beg the leader for forgiveness — he was sent to the front, he died there. According to another version, he survived the fall of the plane, was captured and collaborated with the Germans, when they learned about it after his release, he was shot. This version is indirectly confirmed in the memoirs of Vyacheslav Molotov: “Khrushchev was opposed to Stalin in his heart. Stalin - everything and everyone, but in the soul is different. Personal anger at any steps pushes him. Anger at Stalin for the fact that his son was in such a position that he was actually shot. After such bitterness, he does everything, just to dirty the name of Stalin. ”

In the 1946-1947 years, Khrushchev led the Communist Party of Ukraine. He was a bad manager, with his flow of instructions, administrative twitching, he confused the situation in agriculture. And when crop failure happened, this situation led to famine. Initially, he fell into disgrace, but soon he headed the entire agriculture of the USSR. And here he “distinguished himself” by ill-conceived experiments and “reforms”. After that, he was again not removed, became the first secretary of the Moscow regional party committee and secretary of the Central Committee. By the way, if you recall Lysenkoism, then Lysenko’s patron was Khrushchev.

It is clear that Khrushchev himself is difficult to blame for the fact that he was a conscious agent of "world imperialism", although there was a lot of harm from his activities. The legend of his big mind and cunning, which he hid in the guise of a "jester" and a peasant joker, is not confirmed either. Although the petty bourgeoisie was in him, she helped to be afloat, to make a career. But to make him the head of state could not. Khrushchev was too stupid, it confirms all his activities as head of the USSR. How could he become the head of the Union? There is an impression that he was “led”, from fasting to fasting, defended from disgraces. Indeed, many needed just such a man at the head of the USSR — a former Trotskyite, an imitator of violent activity that leads to destruction. Not smart, able to “break the wood” in any position, offended by Stalin.

Elimination of Beria

The reforms of Beria, the successor of Stalin’s work, were not pleasing either the “backstage of the world” or a significant part of the highest party apparatus of the USSR. Here their interests converged. Part of the then party elite of the USSR wanted to retain the levers of power that made it possible to "live beautifully." Western elites needed a standoff, it gave superprofits.

It is clear that the myth of the "Beria conspiracy" was invented. If Beria were such a conspiracy, would he be so careless. Allowed you to kill yourself so easily? The conspirator was Khrushchev and those who stood behind him. It was Khrushchev who was guilty of this "palace coup", which interrupted a rather interesting scenario for the future of the USSR. Other leaders of the Union participated in the conspiracy, their motives are different. Malenkov apparently feared for his power, fearing the omnipotence of Beria. “Conservatives” - Molotov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich were afraid of radical changes, and perhaps the “Institute of Jewish Wives” said its weighty word. Khrushchev's main trump card was Zhukov, behind whom stood the military. For the military, Beria was a traditional competitor, the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and special services. Zhukov also had a personal motive that does not paint this commander — Beria uncovered the Marshal's “trophy operation” when he exported a lot of valuables from Germany. Then the marshal of Stalin fell into disgrace.

10 July 1953, troops led to the capital. According to the official version, Beria was arrested as a "conspirator", shot in December. In reality, Bergo's son Sergo speaks about this, and Khrushchev himself let it out, Beria was killed immediately. They were afraid that he would be beaten off. After the murder, a plenary meeting of the Central Committee was convened, where Lavrentiy Pavlovich was accused of “criminal encroachment on the party leadership of the society”, “plans for the restoration of capitalism”, recognized him as an “English spy”. Under the pretext of “exposing the plot”, Khrushchev proposed “strengthening the party leadership at all levels of the party and the state apparatus” (i.e., completely bury the plans of Stalin and Beria to remove the party from the state power), as a result, the party leader Khrushchev, bypassed Malenkov.

A wave of terror rolled: they shot "the executioners of Beria" - Dekanozov and Kobulov, although they had no relation to the punitive bodies, but were engaged in intelligence and diplomacy. Conducted "cleaning" in the scientific institutions, which were supervised by Beria. Its magnificent strategic intelligence system was deliberately crushed. The best specialists in this field - Raikhman, Eitington, Sudoplatov, Meshik, Milshtein, Zarubin, Korotkov, Polyakov and others were repressed. Some were executed, others were put to prison, others were dismissed. It should be noted one more interesting moment - those who ensured the creation of a nuclear weapons and organized the liquidation of Trotsky.

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.
Semanov S.N. Stalin. Lessons of life and activity. M., 2002.
Shambarov V. Anti-Soviet. M., 2011.
16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Evgan
    -2
    1 September 2011 09: 45
    We quote:
    1. "Part of the then party elite of the USSR wanted to retain the power levers that made it possible to" live beautifully "" - that is, under Stalin this was allowed.
    2. "Reforms of Beria, the successor of Stalin's cause"

    From which it follows that it is unclear why on earth Beria will struggle with the privileges of this very party elite.

    I agree that the conclusion I made is nothing more than sophistry, an exercise in words, but I did it only to show the weakness and stupidity of the argumentation of most Samsonov’s statues.

    Although, of course, it is difficult to argue with conclusions about Khrushchev :)
    1. Sitev
      0
      1 July 2012 00: 06
      Quote: EvgAn
      “Part of the then party elite of the USSR wanted to retain the power levers that made it possible to“ live beautifully ”" - that is, under Stalin, this was allowed.

      Read the published diary of Beria, it says that Stalin, Beria and someone 3rd wanted to clean up without executions, and apparently this same 3rd passed them, which led to their elimination!
  2. Old Cat Basilio
    0
    1 September 2011 10: 34
    Dekanozov and Kobulov had nothing to do with the punitive authorities ?! The first of them was in 1938-39. was in the post of deputy. Head of the Main Directorate of State Security of the NKVD, the second - Commissioner of State Security of the 2nd rank (since 1945 - Colonel General). Straight lambs of God! As for their intelligence and diplomatic activities, as I. Babel wrote in "Odessa Stories": "It is not known where the police end and Benya begins, and where Benya ends and the police begin."
  3. gans
    +6
    1 September 2011 10: 48
    it is unfortunate that Stalin at one time did not shoot Nikita’s court jester
  4. SVD
    SVD
    0
    1 September 2011 11: 50
    Very often, talkers with the initiative jump out ahead of real professionals. And very often they are heard (obeyed). I observe this especially in the current government. In addition to chatter (verbal diarrhea) they are of no use ...
  5. Evgan
    -3
    1 September 2011 12: 13
    "So, in 1942, Khrushchev, being a member of the Military Council of the front, together with Marshal Timoshenko proposed to conduct an offensive near Kharkov, from the Barvenkovsky ledge"

    And not a word that the General Staff could not oppose anything to this plan, because Stalin supported the proposal of Khrushchev and Tymoshenko. Of course, Khrushchev can be blamed for this, but Stalin - he cannot keep track of everything! :)))

    "And when there was a crop failure, this situation led to hunger" - and in many ways less than the famine that occurred in 1932-1933. Again, apparently, Khrushchev can and should be blamed for the famine in Ukraine in 1947, but Stalin cannot be blamed for the famine of the 32nd! The king simply did not know about the situation on the ground!
    1. dmb
      +4
      1 September 2011 12: 37
      Let's be objective. Well, Samsonov does not write that Stalin knew nothing. And the responsibility for the position lies primarily with the leader. However, let's not forget that the king is made by the suite. Emperor Bokassa ate his subordinates because the subordinates allowed it and willingly took part in the feasts themselves. By the way, the topic of "Holodomor" has not been seriously studied by anyone. And I would like to read a serious reasoned article. Only not from the series "Bloody tyrant in the morning only thought about who else to strangle." After all, he was a pragmatist, and aimless destruction of the people was hardly the limit of his dreams.
      1. Evgan
        -3
        1 September 2011 13: 21
        Quote: dmb
        Well, Samsonov does not write that Stalin did not know anything.


        Yes, he doesn’t write here, I agree. I'm talking about his other articles and the fact that he already has a very one-sided analysis often comes out.

        Quote: dmb
        However, let's not forget that the king is made by the retinue


        Well, let's just say, the retinue and the king himself. And so I do not understand how it is possible to strongly separate Stalin and the same Khrushchev.

        Quote: dmb
        Nevertheless, he was a pragmatist, and the aimless destruction of the people was hardly the limit of his dreams.


        No, of course, he did not set himself this goal, and the goals were noble, in general. But was it worth it to achieve them in such a way?
        1. dmb
          0
          1 September 2011 15: 02
          You can separate them according to the consequences for the country. I used to definitely count. Stalin is a bastard. Yes, and now I can not forgive him many things. But now we really know more, and giving an assessment, we are trying to understand why a person acted in this or that situation. Criticizing is always easier than doing. But when you try to put yourself in the place of the doer, you involuntarily think about what you would do. It’s easier for us now, we know the consequences of the act, but we don’t always know its reasons. If the goals were noble, then how could they be achieved.
          1. Evgan
            0
            1 September 2011 16: 01
            Well, what am I talking about? I mean that the unambiguously positive assessment given to Stalin in Samsonov’s articles is unacceptable. Well, he says the maximum that there were excesses and immediately justifies it - they say, he could not keep track of everything.

            As for criticism, the question is complex - on the one hand, it seems that we really do not have a right, because we are not in those conditions. On the other hand, does this mean that we cannot discuss / condemn our former rulers? Indeed, much depended on them in our lives.
  6. +1
    1 September 2011 12: 22
    There is a good saying. The thief himself screams the loudest screams.
    So Nikita is like that. Didn’t he sign the execution lists?
    1. Evgan
      +1
      1 September 2011 13: 17
      Yes, the same.
  7. zczczc
    0
    1 September 2011 23: 42
    Almost the topic of the article: http://www.esoreiter.ru/index.php?id=0804/180804_9.htm&dat=news&list=08.2004

    They found a note of a captured German, where he predicted the death of Stalin with an accuracy of two days.
  8. 0
    1 September 2011 23: 57
    In fact, do not forget that "only" 70 years have passed between the events under discussion ... We assess them from our bell tower, our intellect. BUT: did those we discuss today also thought? Unlikely. After all, we will not be more stupid and will be more educated.

    "Everyone imagines himself to be a strategist, seeing the battle from the side."

    And I would not change places with Stalin for any awards and pleasures. With anyone, but not with him. Honestly. Now, after ebn - yes at once. Then no. Even on a hypothetical time machine, with all the knowledge.
  9. iz2a36
    +2
    4 September 2011 19: 29
    Quote: vlbelugin
    So Nikita is like that. Didn’t he sign the execution lists?


    At one time, Nikita wrote complaints to Stalin - (something like this) I submit lists in the first category (VMN) for 20000 people, but they allow me only 2000. To which Stalin replied, “Get down, you fool!”
  10. Priest
    0
    15 September 2011 20: 19
    quote (Lenin): one person - a tragedy, a thousand - statistics. Not one ruler does not bring anything new to life - he brings people out of the rule of the ruler lol .