Lavrentiy Beria

What is the real truth about this man?

There are so many contradictory accounts, and so many vested interests, it's hard to make out what's true and what isn't.

According to Khrushchev, he was a traitor who wanted to restore capitalism. Ironic, considering Khrushchev did exactly that himself.

But Molotov, a close Stalin loyalist and anti-revisionist who opposed Khrushchev, also made the same claim in "Molotov Remembers".

Hoxha in "The Khrushchevites" claims Beria was very rude to him in person (interrupting him, treating him like a child), but nevertheless believes he was a Stalin loyalist and anti-revisionist, whose "crimes" were fabricated by the Khruschevites.

Who is right? How would the USSR and the world have looked like with Beria leading the USSR instead of Khrushchev?

Other urls found in this thread: tunisia rape&oq=beria tunisia rape's_death Beria remains embassy tunisian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK68aNwoPZAhWIy4MKHcaEA6sQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Lavrentiy Beria remains embassy tunisian&f=false Beria embassy tunisian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq0faXwoPZAhVB64MKHa63AFEQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=Lavrenty Beria embassy tunisian&f=false Beria embassy tunisian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq0faXwoPZAhVB64MKHa63AFEQ6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=Lavrenty Beria embassy tunisian&f=false nkvd 1939 number&source=bl&ots=rTvII3HWbl&sig=9xrEEheZ2dn6oz6skHtvH1i8cUs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-9rbCyoPZAhVNwWMKHcnjDskQ6AEIaDAM#v=onepage&q=executions nkvd 1939 number&f=false

sideshow bob of ussr

I highly doubt he was a traitor, but he was definitely a serial rapist.

This, I mean the crime they got him for in the end was being a psycho motherfucking messed up in the mind.

Proofs? Serious question, the accounts on wikipedia are obviously fabricated but I don't know what sources are good.

I wouldn't trust anything the Khrushchevites said regarding Beria, considering they made up so many lies about Stalin (see Grover Furr).

Beria was the only viable alternative leader to Khrushchev, so obviously Khrushchev had every reason to smear him to the max.

In OP's mind these categories exist:

IIRC a bunch of bodies of young women were dug up on the property of his mansion in the early 90s.

Also I can’t think of a time when accusations of personal indiscretions of any magnitude were leveled at someone during a soviet show trial.
Political crimes (imaginary or otherwise) were more than sufficient to get someone convicted. This lends credibility to the accusations of rape/murder.

Perhaps those charges were exaggerated, but I doubt they were invented.

Nice source

Out of curiosity - the claims of treachery (and the occasional more extreme allegation that he was somehow behind the murder of Stalin) have been contested. Has the same actually occurred for the well-known claims that this major figure in Stalin-era Russia was a serial rapist? The claim that bodies were found on his property later? It seems like something like that could be refuted quite easily.

Anyway, that got me thinking about one anti-communist who was trying to argue that–even though the authors of the Black Book admit to deliberate exaggeration–the number of so-called victims of communism keep changing because mass graves keep being uncovered. Obviously, there's no need to deny that the USSR did plenty of terrible and shady stuff, but I have my doubts

he killed millions


wow such a leap of faith

Khrushchev accused many people of various things. Most of those accusations turned out to be fraudulent. See "Khruschev Lied" by Grover Furr for more info.

Trusting a proven liar is simply stupid. Would you trust George Bush to tell you the truth about Syria, when he already lied about Iraq?

construction workers literally found bodies buried in his garden during the 1990s
I don't think those were planted by kruschev

You're posting the children's tv show, and complaining about Reddit?

Where is your source?

The article here

made the following claim:

You're telling me Beria's garden was in the Tunisian embassy?

Are you literally that retarded that you think Tunisia had an embassy in Moscow before it existed as an independent country?

The Tunisian embassy is located at Beria's old residence. Other sources make this more clear.

Maybe you're right and he was a rapist, but I wish you had a better source than The Independent.

He was a fucking asshole and should have been purged sooner. An incompetent idiot is less dangerous than a competent madman who wants to reign the Soviet Union for counter revolutionary purposes after you're dead

They've been saying this for 60 fucking years, not even here. in the fucking Soviet Union. Countless women admitted they were kidnapped, some saying he killed those who fought back. And there were bones from around the time period these accusations came across found in the back of the building where the sound proof room was located, corroborating it.

You can't just yell "fake news!" when soviet men and soviet women reported this.

Not Americans. Soviets.

People he was supposed to be protecting, but all he did was fucking rape and murder the ones who fought back in his spare time

And he wanted to grab the seat of power from Stalin after he died

do you honestly think a man like that would have been better than Khrushchev? As shit as that guy was? If Beria took power he would make Robert Mugabe look competent. Stalin never found an adequate successor, and the fact history nearly had Beria take over the fucking USSR shows one of Stalin's greatest incompetencies. Failure to to think about succession.

Fucking read a book.

Weeping and screaming like a bitch how sorry you were while the judge told you to shut the fuck up because you weren't letting anyone speak with your incessant weeping about how sorry you were is a thing innocent men do.

It's the only english language media source I could find. There aren't a lot of news articles from 1993 are archived online today
It seems that the finding of bodies on the embassy's grounds made it into a many books though, some with their own citations. tunisia rape&oq=beria tunisia rape

What was Khrushchev's problem, anyway?

if you have only a surface level understanding of soviet history, perhaps you are using the wrong flag

For one, Beria wanted to rule, and he started a crisis in Germany after the death of Stalin. Leading to accusations that may or may not be true in terms of legitimacy of treachory (it wouldn't be hard to imagine this weasel fucker was as much of a counter revolutionary, but either way dubious), but he obviously shouldn't have been allowed to come to any sort of higher political power within the Soviet Union.

He did rape women, he did kill women, there are corroborating witnesses to everything that happened in regards to that, with bones being dug up in his residence later.

All points to people in power knowing how ethically, morally, and mentally compromised he was, and not wanting to assume seat of power when not long after Stalin's death he already caused a crisis.

He was mad. Whatever they needed to shut him up and throw him aside outside of conventional means was probably justifiable. A bullet to the head was the easy way out. Though he did go out crying and screaming apologies like a bitch.

The imperialists lie about rape all the time, see the ridiculous lies about Qaddafi. We don't have to LISTEN AND BELIEVE without proof. Give us a fucking source you cretin.

I'm not the one believing truly anything, it is in fact, you. He may not have been removed because of legitimate treachory, but he was removed because Soviet political power at the time knew what an ethical fucking quagmire Beria being in power would look like.

You should be thanking your lucky stars Beria didn't assume power because he would have tanked the Soviet Union faster than the following four premiers combined.

I'm trying to gauge his personality and beliefs.

Just because Kruschev was a shitty leader, does not a great leader Beria make. They both were honestly terrible fucking possible leaders, and the fact either had the ability to leap at the power gap in succession, that a man Stalin didn't even trust his own fucking daughter around could have succeeded him; is one of the dumbest fucking things Stalin ever did.

How do you manage to create a situation where Khrushchev or Beria could possibly succeed you. How fucking incompetent.

Yes, the imperialists DO recruit local traitors, "native informants," to do their bidding and spread their lies. I am explicitly saying that this is possible and happens all the time, and you therefore have to prove it's not happening. If you outright reject your task to provide evidence, you are a snake.

shilling for Lenin

shilling for Stalin

shilling for Kim Jung Un

shilling for Beria

The minute he had any sort of clout he immediately started a crisis in Germany. Wow, what a great fucking start to a wonderful promising career he could have had. What could have been.

hahahaha holy shit every woman accusing Beria of corroborating stories of rape are making it up, the guards, they made it up to, everyone made it all up because poor innocent little baby Beria

Also him screaming "I'M SORRY! I'M SORRY! PLEASE FORGIVE ME! BLESS MY STARS I'M SORRY!" and other bullshit before he died and during his trial like a weepy baby everyone witnessed also never happened because either Kruschev did it because he's a spy, or they're all spies, everyone is spies, it's spies all the way fucking down to the poor workers who were corroborating witnesses.

The bones from the time were planted by Khrushchev, but instead of leaping at the opportunity to show the evidence he made up, you know, he just left it there and didn't do anything about it even after he died.

What an elaborate conspiracy you've uncovered user.

You fucking buffoon

This is the funniest defense of Beria I've come across thus far. The amount of mental gymnastics this requires is beyond convoluted. It's like fucking Ozymandias from Watchman did Beria in if you actually look at "all of it was planted spies" and actually apply it to the witnesses.

According to a number of sources, including Molotov's memoirs, Beria actually poisoned Stalin, because Stalin was about to purge him and other officials, replacing them with new young idealistic people. If Stalin succeeded in doing this, I really doubt revisionism would have emerged victorious after Stalin's death.'s_death

Nobody seriously believes this theory

It's entirely within his character.

In Hoxha's "The Khrushchevites" he gives a really good analysis of Khrushchev's personality and beliefs. Seems to me like he was a complete opportunist, interested primarily in personal wealth and power.

When Hoxha came to Stalin to ask for aid to Albania, it was granted without a second thought.

After Stalin's death, Hoxha asked for a similar aid package but was refused. The Khruscevites kept badgering him, "what can you do for us in return?" as if a piss poor country like Albania could offer anything of use to the Soviet Union?

Here he speaks about Mikoyan, Khruschev's trade minister and closest supporter.

You're right user. That one time he raped somebody was a total accident. While a woman was admiring his sound proof room with a bed in it, he just managed to slip on a banana peel and fall dick first into the woman conveniently in the way of the convenient room in the convenient sound proof room that he conveniently instantly came in. The next day he, tripped on the same bannana. And the next day. And the next day. And the next day. And the next day.

The real criminal here was these fucking banana peels Beria kept slipping on, who put them there? Was it an American plot to put banana peels near Beria's soundproof bedroom? Who was behind all these banana peels that he hazardously slipped on into someone dick first?

Also the corroborating accounts were people just jealous of Beria being the P I N P of P I N P

Even if Beria was a gud boy who dindu a damn fing and kept his nose all clean, Stalin not having a good line of succession to the point Khrushchev could have done that to Beria (Beria was not an angel I'm just entertaining this idiotic notion), and vice versa, and one of these bumbling morons had to come to power after him while accusing the other of everything in the book

Really shows how badly Stalin prioritized the USSR after his death. It's like didn't even manage to think "You know, I could die by natural means or by poison any fucking day now, and I have no clear line of succession besides people who look conspicuously guilty who would be my immediate successors, this is soundproof, foolproof, genius even"

I don't think he realized what a clusterfuck this was. This was an extremely foolish mistake on Stalin's part, not to let you know, Beria or Khrushchev take over his position and do some really, just insanely stupid shit.

Samefag detected. Fuck off to tumblr or /r/socialism if you think you don't need evidence for your claims. I have no doubt you cheered on the death of Qaddafi and countless other imperialist crimes because evidence isn't needed to prove that the enemies of capitalism are rapists, murderers, thugs, have nukes, etc.

You haven't even provided evidence these women exist!

I don't even care that much about Beria, whether or not he was a rapist is irrelevant to the greatness of the USSR. All I'm asking for is fucking proof and you are prattling on like a high school gossip.

yeah fuck stalin for trusting the party.

I'm not a samefag and even if I was, your defense of Beria being "fuck off to tumblr" isn't going to win over hearts and minds who for the past 60 years hated the fuck out of Beria.

Here's the book this user is talking about:

You are ignoring the bodies that were found in garden. Were those planted by the CIA?
Occam's razor says that he raped and killed those women.


I'm asking for proofs.

hahahahahahahahaha oh man

what would it take for you to believe that there were bodies dug up from his former residence in 1993

You are listing no evidence that Beria was the best boy who ever knew how to tie his shoes and accusing everyone and their mother in a court of law of being spies.

You aren't winning this argument by denying 60 years of extensive evidence. This level of Tank is just unreasonable even for Tanks. I'm proud of you son.

user you won't be satisfied until one of us invents a fucking time machine so why are you asking.

What do you think? Just come up with something real and substantial, not in some shit rag like NYT.

You remind me of a kid who just annoys everyone around him by asking "WHY' and then when given an answer 'WHY" and then when given an answer for why, you scream "WHY", then it goes on and on and on and on

burden of proof on the accuser shitposter.

You are the one accusing about over 100 people including guards of being secret James Bond 007 spies just to get rid of a moron who couldn't cover his tracks managed to trap himself in such a series of coincidental situations

So I'm gonna have to ask you for proof that they're spies.

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove Beria was the smollest angel who ever lived uwu

Ok shitposter, I'm waiting.

You're waiting for yourself to post evidence that they every single person who testified against the leader of the NKVD who not only was capable of doing all these things, but was accused by everyone from his guards to his mistress to fucking





western spies




Still waiting for evidence.

I read somewhere that Stalin was grooming a number of people to be his successors, but each was framed and murdered by Stalin's inner circle, including Beria. One of them was Voznesensky, a very smart economist who helped rebuild the USSR after the war.

The motivation to frame and kill them was obvious, since it would ensure only someone from the inner circle would come to power after Stalin's death.

Stalin was perfectly aware how fucked this situation was and how terrible these people were, which is why he was planning another purge. Sadly his untimely death prevented this from happening.

Ok so this entire trial never happened and they were all spies

That would change history forever, where is your evidence

Still waiting for evidence.

Are there any photos of the grave or the bones? I'm not that user, and I'm not claiming Beria was innocent. But for all we know, The Independent could have just falsified that quote, just like they've falsified so many other things previously. Beria remains embassy tunisian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK68aNwoPZAhWIy4MKHcaEA6sQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Lavrentiy Beria remains embassy tunisian&f=false Beria embassy tunisian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq0faXwoPZAhVB64MKHa63AFEQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=Lavrenty Beria embassy tunisian&f=false Beria embassy tunisian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq0faXwoPZAhVB64MKHa63AFEQ6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=Lavrenty Beria embassy tunisian&f=false

Prove that over 100 people including guards accused Beria of rape. It may very well be true, but not providing any evidence at all for your claim isn't helping your case.

Well for one, the declassified files of the USSR Putin released in 2003. They all show not too pretty a picture of someone who, the past 60 years was known for what the exact same documents fucking paint him as, and the magic skeleton found in the Tunisian embassy that used to be his residence that was from the time period.

alright i'm done handing out (you)s
read a fucking book
not a single notable scholar or historian disagrees that Beria was a serial rapist

I can't find any primary sources in the links you've posted. They're just claims, unsupported by evidence. Where are the photos of the bones and graves?

I am completely agnostic about this subject. I have no idea what's true or what isn't true regarding Beria. But your links are not convincing.

Kliment Voroshilov. one of the original five fucking marshals of the Soviet Union, who previous to Beria's downfall observed and grew terrified/disgusted by Beria's interest in his daughter in law and reported it, was a spy.

He was a spy certainly because everyone who ever spoke out against Beria was a spy. Because they were speaking out against Beria. So they were a spy. Because only spies would do that sort of thing right. Because Beria was innocent and only spies could have done this

God damn spies

Why not link those files, or post relevant quotations from them? Are we just supposed to just believe you without any evidence?

This could be true. But you're not providing any sources for your claim. So I have no reason to believe it.

Sorry you tried so hard, but all these sources are shit. They all just repeat the same claim with no evidence or anything whatsoever, and they only do so incidentally. I mean look at this shit:
The only exception is this, which is evidently a biography, yet you give no page number or screencaps or anything to indicate it has evidence:
I think this one has promise! If you can actually read it and go find those proofs, I'll thank you.

Alright. On top of the original five fucking Marshals testifying against him

Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Nikolay Shatalin, said that Beria had had sexual relations with numerous women and that he had contracted syphilis as a result of his sex with prostitutes he picked up. Later in life, Beria did suffer from symptoms of Syphilis, but without a proper diagnosis, you're right this is hear say.

But having one of the original Marshals and a Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR say, hey this guy was a real piece of fucking shit, that happened.

Nobody is providing you sources because all of this is so fucking documented that asking for it is patently retarded because it's been on record for 50+ fucking years

If it's so easily documented, why can't you give any proof?

Here you go. The Russian Supreme Court refusing to exonerate his name for crimes the court provided he did. I'm sure they're spies to after the fact lol

This looks like a nice man who I would trust with my daughter.

2 paragraphs in and it already reeks of bullshit.

Grover Furr:

This extreme anti-communist book called "Red Holocaust" makes the claim that total executions for counter-revolutionary crimes from 1939-1945 was 46,350. Not the millions your source claims. nkvd 1939 number&source=bl&ots=rTvII3HWbl&sig=9xrEEheZ2dn6oz6skHtvH1i8cUs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-9rbCyoPZAhVNwWMKHcnjDskQ6AEIaDAM#v=onepage&q=executions nkvd 1939 number&f=false

It doesn't matter what it claims, what matters is that it reports the Russian Supreme Court refuses to exonerate his name.

Whatever his crimes, he more than made up for them with his pre-wartime and wartime contributions.

Beria Gang O U T

What makes you think the Russian Supreme Court is trustworthy or reputable?


You know for as much as you worship him as your Gangly Sexual Predator Edge Papa, as soon as he gained an ounce of power in the Soviet Union, he offered basically the same (if not more) liberalization reforms that Khrushchev eventually fucking did anyways, so really how you love one but hate the other is really hilarious and transparent.

It's just edgyness to be edgy.


Whether or not Beria was a rapist has nothing to do with imperialism or anti-imperialism. Whether or not the bourgeois Russian state is a trustworthy source regarding Soviet leaders has nothing to do with imperialism or anti-imperialism.

Not the person you thought I was, that was my first post in the whole thread. Anyway, I never said he didn't eventually fuck up, just that he did have some good use for a time.

That's funny because Beria did the exact fucking same liberalization policies when he had enough power that Khrushchev did anyways later. Some political motivations, I'd say.

That's you right now

rape man did a revisionism and is therefor corn man. beria was krushchev in disguise. fight me stalinists

Beria didn't do "a revisionism" he did exact revisions Khrushchev did eventually anyways while he did have enough power, and did things often times which Khrushchev wouldn't even do.

So yes, Beria was not the gulag daddy Stalin replacement you really wish he would be in your edgiest fantasies.

Here's what I don't get about Beria gang, better than Khrushchev. He did the same things as Khrushchev, except his reforms in East Germany offering up market reforms that went farther than what Khrushchev did and lead to an immediate crisis.

So let's compare the two to ice creep scoops.

Scoop one is Khrushchev. He looks expired and he stinks, I think we can all agree we wouldn't touch this moldy looking ice cream. On the other hand, we have Beria, now Beria looks the same, except he's an accused serial rape monster and created a crisis in East Germany, all of this not long after coming into power; so he has the same mold as the other scoop, it's just flies are on this one.

They're both inedible shitty scoops of ice cream who Stalin should have purged when he wasn't about to mysteriously stroke out.

Can I get some sources on this?

im agreeing with you calm your shit faggot.

Among other things everyone in East Germany hated Beria for when he had power, under his watch the fucking 1953 uprising occurred and he mishandled it and let grow out of control. People didn't like Beria in East Germany, they honestly thought he was shitty, and they weren't wrong. They organized a protest, which grew into a strike, which grew into a series of riots when countless people died because Beria got spooked by the strike and sent in not just the military but tanks.

As the rioting continued, Beria ordered the military to hold firm and continue firing, hoping that show of force would eventually stop the uprising.

It didn't. Other people in power in Soviet government began to question his judgement, and even his closest allies began to shrink away from him. His mismanagement of East Germany at every level, ending in a riot that would not stop intensifying, followed his inner circle to abandon him and Khrushchev to take power.

And you know what the ironic thing is. Khrushchev was more or less the same in terms of reform policy and idea as Beria, except Beria went even further than Khrushchev in some cases. Many in power thought he was compromising the Soviet Union early on, and might even try and end the Cold War which just started.

So whether or not he had any of these plans, we can't say for sure. What we are sure of is history. And history tells him Khrushchev and Beria were both terrible choices as Stalin's successor. And one stands historically accused of being a terrible rape beast, which if you stand accused of being, you probably shouldn't end up in the position of power he ended up in.

Thought you were mocking my point. My apologies.

Wasn't Beria in that dumb "death of Stalin" film.

Weird how you STILL refuse to give evidence. I went INTO this thread thinking that Beria might have been a serial rapist, but seeing how UTTERLY HOSTILE you people are to basic inquiry, and how awful your "sources" are, I am now leaning towards it being false.

I'm one of the people you replied to and the first thing you did was ask why I didn't consider whether the witnesses were planted spies. And I said, that's ridiculous because they were born in the Soviet Union, and you said that still didn't matter.

You came in here wanting to defend the purse lipped rape machine, and literally nothing will satisfy you short of a time machine that transports you to the sound proof bedroom that he had where a woman is screaming "help me somebody please" and then you would probably say "Tough shit lady, why are you complaining about the guy who saved the Soviet Union, clap for the man"

The whole accusation reeks of the usual imperialist projection narrative, where the USA falsely accuses its enemies of doing the exact same things that the USA itself is openly and factually engaging in. American and British elites, soldiers, and cops rape with impunity and murder or send agents after their victims, and this is a fact they don't even bother to cover up. It would be no surprise to me if Beria was yet another victim of this kind of smear campaign.


What if…people who have power in society often times abuse it for sexual purposes.

This has never happened before. This started with the US. It's shocking how no historian has ever noticed this.

Proofs pls.

Are you asking for proof that people in power historically use it for sexual purposes

What do anons here think about Beria's 100 days, Furr believes he was trying to pass through Stalin's program of a secret ballot and other democratic reforms:

The Red Army rapes were a revolutionary act

Stenographic Report of July's Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Other Documents, International Democracy Foundation, Moscow, 1953, declassified 1999

Now shut the fuck up



I'm not being ironic

What does that have anything to do with what I said. Are you saying rape accusations are silly? Then why did you bring up rape accusations? I just said that people in power across the spectrum of political power usually end up doing sexually subversive things to their subjects, it's a tale as old as fucking time.

Nobody is being sensitive but you at the mere thought Beria (my dad who shant be disrespected) might have abused his position to pick up prostitutes. And none of this was accused by people outside the Soviet Union, this was inside the Soviet Union.

This guy is the only one in this thread who's posting claims that are actually supported by primary sources.

Buddy, everything is an American smear against Uncle Joe and his rootin' tootin' imperialist shootin' family unless it's good. Everything was fine until Corn Man did a revisionism and everything went to shit. Analysing history is pointless because everything was fine and perfect and revisionism happened because of what ever the red version of original sin is not because the material conditions led to it.

ELI5 the difference between the Central Committee and the Council of Ministers.

Very interesting that those in Beria's inner circle, Mikoyan and Molotov, were planned to be purged right before Stalin decided to have a stroke. Stopping the purge, and coincidentally, instantly lead Beria to a path to succeed Stalin himself. I am sure he would very happy if Stalin didn't die, and his inner circle was purged, and he didn't have a direct path to succession. There couldn't be a motive here to prevent prospective future political plans Beria had.

Pure coincidence.

That's not evidence that anything happened. Hell, even if he was a rapist that would not necessarily tell us whether he was a good leader or not, whether he did, on balance, more good than harm. We should be materialists and not moralists on such matters and only the blind cannot see that the atmosphere surrounding such matters in capitalist countries today has approached hysteria.

So Beria=Rapist, is a very convenient way to slander both his and Stalin's legacy and furthermore, it actually takes us away from viewing things as they were, as materialists, once we succumb to the mainstream narrative that he was a monster.

“One of the specialists who has been able to study Beria’s case file and that of General Vlasik, commander of Stalin’s guard [dismissed in 1951 – GF], both still top-secret, discovered an extremely interesting fact. The list of women, to the rapes of which Beria supposedly confessed according to his case file, is almost identical to the lists of women with whom Vlasic was accused of having affairs with — and Vlasic was arrested long before Beria.”
Sounds suspicious, to say the least.

Yes, right after he was murdered extrajudicially, he was the highest soviet official to simply be blatantly killed extrajudicially ever to my knowledge. There is still some debate over whether or not Stalin had Trotsky killed or the assassin acted on his own motives but lets assume that the Soviets did have him killed. The facts are that Trotsky had been expelled from the party and from the Soviet Union itself for a long time.

Speaking strictly about the internal politics of the Soviet Union itself, the murder of Beria was a far greater scandal than the murder of Trotsky.

Proofs pls.

It is material to assume people who are violent are not mentally healthy and are therefore not ethically and morally and realistically sound to control the convulution of occupying central government.

Considering declassified documents from 1999, 2003, it is entirely within reason to believe Beria was this, or at least became not mentally fit enough later and life and grew violent urges.

I would hardly calling it slandering "Stalin's legacy" if Stalin himself did not trust to have his daughter around Beria alone.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha Beria fucking caused the 1953 riots in East Germany what the fuck are you smoking. Of course they wanted to get rid of him, he wasn't competent

Interesting. Are these files available to the public?

You keep claiming Beria had something to do with the 1953 riots, but you're not posting any sources to support your claim.

He was the one who ordered the people on strike to be killed by the military and a division of fucking tanks. This lack of foresight escalated a strike to a never ending riot

hello? proofs?

Thank you for posting some proofs against the anti-Beria narrative, I guess I got redpilled today.

I'm sure killing people on strike wasn't counter revolutionary, when as soon as they began getting slaughtered, the city flooded the streets and exploded and began shouting "long live Eisenhower" and "We are not slaves". The more people that died, the more intense the rioting, the more military showed up.

You don't solve a strike with tanks, you start a war and you engender mistrust. Beria only knew one thing, how to sniff people out, but he didn't know how to properly govern. His reforms, as bad as Khrushchev's, his attitude, worse than Kruschev's.

Not a single source posted.

p r o o f s

The 1953 riots were what made Beria's inner circle sly away from him enough that Khrushchev could intervene and force him from power. The aftermath of the 1953 riots in East Germany were the literal catalyst to Beria's trial and subsequent death.

You have just proven you have no knowledge of Soviet history, so why are you so open to stanning for Beria? Also why pluralize proof? His policy was just as bad as Kruschev's, I don't understand why you're going on and on badgering anyone who dare speak ill of this reformist wanker.

Are you retarded. I just said he ordered the military to intervene, because at the time he was in power. The very short time.

wow amazing proofs

nice spam

Would you ever shut the fuck up

your posts are as good as spam when you don't post proofs, samefag.

Stop sucking cock

What the fuck do you not get about "the 1953 riots lead to Khrushchev being in power and Beria being disposed" that's just a fucking historical fact

Why are ☭TANKIE☭s so autistic

worst spurdo meme

When You cry like a little bitch and beg for forgiveness at your own court hearing that's obviously the trait of an innocent man

I don't care what you said, since what you said isn't supported by any source.

In "The Khrushveties" Hoxha claims he had a conversation with a top Soviet general who claimed this was a fabrication. According to the general, Beria was composed throughout the trial and defended himself thoroughly. The only source for your "crying like a little bitch and beg for forgiveness" claim is Khrushchev.

The fact that he was deposed after the 1953 riots is supported by every fucking source you moron. Do you not know fucking history?

What about the bodies ks that not the least suspicious to you?

Lavrentiy Beria, head of the Soviet NKVD, was an innocent little boy in a sailors outfit, and how dare you imply anything different, sir!

Nice source



Just post a fucking link man

This quote isnt really to good without the rest of the book but it has a claim and a sourced author,
I hope this will show i am arguing in good faith.
I will try to find the book

What did he mean by this?

I wonder what he means by this

"Just google it" isn't really an argument. Almost every link you'll find when you google about communism and the USSR is pretty hostile. If you want to make an argument its best to use books and even then go for the primary sources. The history of the USSR is so maliciously distorted that even basic facts about it can be subject to contention.

Everyone should do this when possible instead of believing what they read in the tabloids and on the internet. Beware secondary and tertiary sources.
"If you keep relying on secondary sources, folks, and you’ll learn lots of things that aren’t true"

I'm not even the same user you're fucking talking to who provided you links. I've provided you no links. In fact I just got in the thread, It isn't an argument, it's a demand.


He was better than Yezhov

Read it you faggots

Knight, Amy (1995). Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant. Princeton University Press.
Knight, Amy (1995). Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant. Princeton University Press.
Knight, Amy (1995). Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant. Princeton University Press.
Knight, Amy (1995). Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant. Princeton University Press.
Knight, Amy (1995). Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant. Princeton University Press.
Knight, Amy (1995). Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant. Princeton University Press.
Knight, Amy (1995). Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant. Princeton University Press.