The historian of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yuri Zhukov analyzed an article in a Spanish newspaper about Lavrentiy Beria and separated the historical truth from journalistic fiction.
On March 29 (O. S.), 1899, in the village of Merheuli, Kutaisi province, Lavrenty Beria was born - a famous revolutionary, whose figure still raises many questions from historians. Having made a dizzying career in the state security organs, where in 1938 he replaced Nikolai Yezhov as the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR, Beria experienced an equally dizzying fall. After Stalin's death in 1953, a struggle for power unfolded in the country, in which Beria, Khrushchev and Malenkov became the main opponents. As you know, despite the powerful support of the law enforcement agencies, Beria did not manage to win, and on December 23, 1953, one of the most powerful statesmen of the Soviet Union was arrested, accused of treason and shot.
It is obvious that Beria became a victim of a conspiracy, and his figure today continues to cause heated discussions among historians and journalists. They also show interest in the personality of Lavrenty Pavlovich abroad; for example, a major Spanish newspaper ABC recently published an article entitled "How Comrade Beria, Stalin's Favorite Executioner, Was Eliminated in the USSR."
Even a person without a history education can easily understand that this text is replete with inaccuracies and lacks the sources supporting it. Obviously, the article by Cesar Servers does not pretend to be an accusatory investigation, but the author did not bother himself with a minimal reference to at least some authoritative sources. Server writes that Stalin allegedly considered Beria his personal "Himmler", accuses the People's Commissar of ethnic cleansing and even makes a frank nod towards the version that he poisoned the leader of the peoples himself. This lie, on the one hand, is especially disgusting, but on the other, it is quite predictable in the light of attempts to push the openly Russophobic and disgusting film “Death of Stalin” onto our screens …
The Istoriya. RF portal asked Yuri Zhukov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Chief Researcher of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, to understand the material of Cesar Servers. Yuri Nikolaevich, who studied Beria's political biography in detail, as expected, began our dialogue with a refutation …
Big cleaning of the NKVD
Promotional video:
Yuri Nikolaevich, could Stalin really compare Beria with Himmler? To be honest, I first read about this in this Spanish newspaper
- It's not even a version, it's just a blatant lie! The Spaniards must write about Franco's cruelty, how he dealt with the Republicans, shot them, kept them in concentration camps. They have enough of their own problems, and I would advise them to better remember about their Spanish fascism, which they called "phalangism".
But in any case, Beria was one of the most powerful people close to Stalin in the country. How did he manage to win such a love of the leader? ABC claims - "thanks to intrigue and toadying" …
- Wait a second, there was never any love - it's all fiction. The fact is that Beria lived and worked in the Transcaucasus until the fall of 1938. There he was elected first secretary of the Transcaucasian Regional Committee of the CPSU (b). At that moment, what Yezhov (People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR. - Ed.) Was doing, began to threaten both Stalin and all the other members of the Politburo. Therefore, they began to select new candidates for this position, and Stalin settled on Beria. He summoned him to Moscow and made him deputy people's commissar of internal affairs (that is, Yezhov's deputy), transferring the main state security department to Beria.
How did Lavrenty Pavlovich prove himself in the new post?
- Almost immediately, Beria begins to do what can only be assessed with a plus sign. Firstly, it significantly reduces the scope of illegal repressions that Yezhov carried out, and secondly, it arranges show trials - unfortunately, in districts and regional cities far from Moscow. There, the arrested NKVD members, who created fake trials, were tried and sentenced to death or to long terms of imprisonment.
It turns out that Beria really established discipline in the ranks of the NKVD?
- Not only discipline - he just started cleaning the NKVD! Anyone who was soiled with fake cases was dismissed from work and either simply sent home, or - to the dock. Moreover, Beria carried out a purge in general of all the personnel of the NKVD, where for some reason people of Jewish nationality prevailed and, moreover, illiterate. Beria began to hire mainly Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians (they made up 75-80% of the commissariat's employees) and certainly either with a higher education or with an incomplete higher education. This immediately changed the qualitative composition of the NKVD. Therefore, with the arrival of Beria, the first rehabilitation began, when most of the illegally arrested were released. Let's say the classic example of this is Rokossovsky. In total, under Beria, about a million people were released! And everything in the country with this problem was put in order. So you can't saythat Beria was the same as Himmler. This is a blatant lie!
Power Struggle and Conspiracy
The author of the article assures: "The death of Stalin is also the decline of Beria," and, making a comparison with Himmler, he notes that both Hitler's associate and Beria "outlived their bloody" patrons "for a short time." Is it true that Stalin's death put an end to Beria's career?
- On the contrary, it continued and went even higher. In February 1951, Stalin became so bad that the Politburo made a decision: all issues for him are decided by a troika - Bulganin, Beria and Malenkov, but Stalin also signs (under their decrees. - Ed.). This is the decree of the Politburo of February 16, 1951, it can be easily found in the archive. Therefore, until the 19th Congress of the CPSU, all decisions were made by this troika, but in fact - Beria and Malenkov. At the first plenum of the Central Committee after the 19th Congress, in November 1952, it was decided that Beria would act as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, and Malenkov would act as First Secretary of the CPSU. Thus, in fact, since 1951, the struggle for primacy between Beria and Malenkov continued.
What was the outcome of this struggle?
- In November 1952, Beria was in first place. Then Stalin dies, and the plenum, held jointly with the meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on March 5, 1953, decides to appoint Malenkov as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. And according to tradition, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers since the time of Lenin was the one who led plenums, congresses and party conferences - that is, he was the first person in the party.
Malenkov, presumably, did not like Beria? What was the reason for their conflict, apart from the power struggle?
- Beria proposed an alternative line of development for the country, completely different from that of Malenkov. Malenkov proposed abandoning the arms race within the country and switching to the production of what people need: cars, refrigerators, televisions, etc. And Beria, together with Khrushchev, insisted that heavy industry and the production of weapons remained the main thing in the enemy environment. That is why, taking advantage of the fact that Beria left for a few days in the GDR to organize the suppression of the rebellion that Adenauer had perpetrated, a conspiracy was prepared against him. And when Beria returned, he was immediately taken from the airport to a combined meeting of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Presidium of the Central Committee, where he was offered to resign. He refused for a long time, and only towards the end of the day, closer to 10 in the evening, as he resisted,he was arrested and taken to the headquarters of the Moscow military district - the former Kriegskommissariat (the institution in charge of supplying the army; formed in 1731, abolished in 1864 - Ed.). There he awaited trial and sentence.
It was pointless to remove Stalin
As for the circumstances of Stalin's death, then various versions constantly pop up, where Beria often appears in the role of the executioner. In this article, the author, also without referring to any sources, asserts that Beria allegedly rejoiced at Stalin's death, deliberately called doctors late when he felt bad, and even indirectly confessed to Molotov in the murder of the leader. Does this whole theory have any foundation at all?
- No theory! Stalin died of a fourth stroke, ask any cardiologist. Moreover, I told you that since February 1951 he no longer acted as the leader of the country. Therefore, it was pointless to remove him, he did not interfere with anyone. Moreover, until Beria and Malenkov decided which of them was more important, it was all the more impossible to remove Stalin! It took time …
And yet, what did Stalin's death mean for Beria? Could he really be happy as he expected to take his place?
- You see, any person who climbed to such a tremendous height of power claims to be the first. This is normal. If he did not want this, he would have resigned.
As a result, Beria was not accused of anything - even of working for British intelligence and of rape! Could any of this be true?
- This is all nonsense, idiotic official secrecy. Instead of saying that Beria was removed because he claimed power, they began to invent what kind of spy he was. Then they figured out that he allegedly traveled around Moscow and hunted for girls. This is all a lie! The girls were hunted by the chief of his security Rafael Sarkisov. Moreover, the KGB archive contains a note to Beria that Sarkisov is engaged in indecent deeds. Beria responded by writing a half-joking, half-knotted resolution stating that this must be stopped. Beria did not have time to hunt for girls: he created an atomic bomb, and then dealt with missiles, which Khrushchev appropriated for himself! It was all started by Beria. Had he not worked 24 hours a day then, Khrushchev would have been proud of Gagarin.
False accusations
Can Khrushchev be called one of the main enemies of Beria?
Khrushchev was a rather spiteful and envious person. He drove Stalin's son into prison, he also pursued Beria's wife and son. Nevertheless, Khrushchev was an ally of Beria for a long time, he abandoned him only after his arrest. Moreover, from March to June 1953, Khrushchev, together with Beria, carried out resolutions that were beneficial to them.
Who, in this case, approved the arrest of Beria?
- Malenkov. He, along with Molotov, organized a conspiracy against Beria.
As for the circumstances of Beria's death, here, too, the author of the article talks about some kind of mystification. He writes: "The details of Beria's execution are shrouded in a dense fog of secrecy characteristic of the USSR." What is actually known about his execution?
- He was shot, as it should be, after the trial. Together with him, several more people, his associates, were shot. And all these versions are invented by journalists who want to earn money, come up with another "duck" - and launch it. That's all!
After the death of Beria, his widow and son tried to achieve his rehabilitation, but to no avail?
- Unfortunately yes. Although in what he was accused of, Beria was clean. We will not say that everything in his work was perfect, but he did not do what he was accused of and for which he was shot.
Author: Sofia Vastanova
