Lavrentiy Beria, head of the NKVD (Soviet secret police) under Stalin. He has been unfairly besmirched by revisionist liberal historians to have been some sexual deviant sadist mass-murderer and leader of mass torture campaigns. In reality, he was instrumental in ending political torture in the USSR and had his predecessor executed for using torture during interrogations.
He was an old-guard Bolshevik and fiercely loyal to Stalin. There was some talk of him being Stalin’s successor as the chairman of the CPSU. Khruschev and his clique then orchestrated a coup d’etat that led to a near-complete destruction of Stalin’s legacy and executions of those loyal to Stalin and Marxism-Leninism, Beria included. Just like Stalin, his legacy of being a brilliant intelligence officer and abolitionist of torture was tarnished and destroyed through claims from Khruschev that he was a sexual deviant, sadist and Stalin’s torturous goon, and perhaps even that he personally assassinated Stalin. I recommend Khruschev Lied by Grover Furr to learn more – the majority of that work is dedicated to debunking lies about Stalin but he does talk about Beria.
I understand that there is a metric-shit ton of slander surrounding former officials of the Soviet Union, and that Beria stopped the crimes and excesses of Yezhov, and that Cornchev lied numerous times.
But I’ve read that Stalin himself never trusted Beria and never let his daughters spend time alone with him, and multiple Soviet officials gave testimony about Beria’s alleged pedophilia and rape. And that Beria himself was purged after Stalin’s death, because even if he didn’t try and have Stalin killed, he did make for power grabs.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, and I’d love to see your sources. I’m just very skeptical and don’t want to deny anything that sounds horrific just because I don’t like it.
Sorry for the late response, lemmygrad was having issues for me.
I appreciate you asking for sources and questioning veracity comrade. Sticking up for Beria looks like even worse apologia than for Stalin to a lot of people.
IIRC the claim that Stalin mistrusted Beria stems from Bri’ish “historian” Montefiore’s character assassination “Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar” and is “sourced” from an unnamed formerly Soviet woman. Difficult to disprove a negative. It should be noted that a LOT of this disparagement comes from Montefiore. You can go down a rabbit hole looking for sources on these accusations, and all roads lead to that asshole’s pseudo-fanfic.
I looked at Mentefiore’s “writing” and it claims to have sources from those who knew Stalin.
That could easily be a lie or a twisting of the truth, and I’ll read what Grover Furr has to say and your other links.
Its nothing personal. I’m just a very skeptical person, and again I don’t want to seem like I’m dismissing something just because I don’t like the implications, and because it gives ammo to anti-communists that “oh my gawd evile tankie denies that Stalin strangled kittens!”
I really like Grover Furr and I think he’s right most of the time, and neoliberal “historians” mostly dismiss him because he challenges their narrative, and I don’t want to make the same mistakes.
Absolutely nothing personal taken. Beria’s a difficult subject to find trustworthy resources on and it’s kind of become like a “dinner-table conversation” with how ubiquitous the idea is. I feel like Beria used to be more of someone who was whispered about in hushed tones by communists and people who spend their time reading about the USSR in a similar vein as to how communists talk about Pol Pot. Seems like now everyone and their mother gives a shit about what Beria was up to lol. Mostly just an internet thing I’m sure.
From the Editor’s Preface to “Beria, my father”
“The testimonies also confirm the kidnapping of women and what people in
Tbilisi called Beria’s ‘Sultan’s habits’.” The only source they refer to with this line is “testimonies”. Those testimonies appear nowhere in the rest of the book. It’s incredible, the words “kidnap”, “r***”, “torture”, “sadist”, “sex”, “SA”, in this proper context, don’t exist in the work. They imply a sort of tautological truthiness to the idea. His son never mentions it, regardless of being very critical of Stalin and his father throughout the book. So this wasn’t exactly a good source for disproving the argument, just another example of complete lack of evidence or sourcing presented as if there were.
edit: “The Chekist M. Shreider reports the evidence of this given by the former
head of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, Mirzoyan. ‘He spoke of Beria with
hatred. He told me that when Beria was proposed for secretary of the Party in
Transcaucasia, Sergo Ordzhonikidze and a group of Caucasian Bolsheviks showed
strong opposition. They claimed to have information proving that Beria was a traitor,
about his links with the Musavatists and the role he played in the Menshevik revolt
… They also referred to his debauchery. In Caucasia Beria was nicknamed the
Turkish Sultan, and it was almost as though he kept a harem … Stalin knew all
about that, but insisted on Beria being nominated.’ Shreider, op. cit. 175” Can’t find the OG source. This is the only source that makes a claim about his supposed debauchery, and the claim it’s being used as a source for is entirely unrelated.
Who was Beria?
Lavrentiy Beria, head of the NKVD (Soviet secret police) under Stalin. He has been unfairly besmirched by revisionist liberal historians to have been some sexual deviant sadist mass-murderer and leader of mass torture campaigns. In reality, he was instrumental in ending political torture in the USSR and had his predecessor executed for using torture during interrogations.
He was an old-guard Bolshevik and fiercely loyal to Stalin. There was some talk of him being Stalin’s successor as the chairman of the CPSU. Khruschev and his clique then orchestrated a coup d’etat that led to a near-complete destruction of Stalin’s legacy and executions of those loyal to Stalin and Marxism-Leninism, Beria included. Just like Stalin, his legacy of being a brilliant intelligence officer and abolitionist of torture was tarnished and destroyed through claims from Khruschev that he was a sexual deviant, sadist and Stalin’s torturous goon, and perhaps even that he personally assassinated Stalin. I recommend Khruschev Lied by Grover Furr to learn more – the majority of that work is dedicated to debunking lies about Stalin but he does talk about Beria.
I have to push back on this.
I understand that there is a metric-shit ton of slander surrounding former officials of the Soviet Union, and that Beria stopped the crimes and excesses of Yezhov, and that Cornchev lied numerous times.
But I’ve read that Stalin himself never trusted Beria and never let his daughters spend time alone with him, and multiple Soviet officials gave testimony about Beria’s alleged pedophilia and rape. And that Beria himself was purged after Stalin’s death, because even if he didn’t try and have Stalin killed, he did make for power grabs.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, and I’d love to see your sources. I’m just very skeptical and don’t want to deny anything that sounds horrific just because I don’t like it.
Sorry for the late response, lemmygrad was having issues for me.
I appreciate you asking for sources and questioning veracity comrade. Sticking up for Beria looks like even worse apologia than for Stalin to a lot of people.
IIRC the claim that Stalin mistrusted Beria stems from Bri’ish “historian” Montefiore’s character assassination “Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar” and is “sourced” from an unnamed formerly Soviet woman. Difficult to disprove a negative. It should be noted that a LOT of this disparagement comes from Montefiore. You can go down a rabbit hole looking for sources on these accusations, and all roads lead to that asshole’s pseudo-fanfic.
https://espressostalinist.com/2011/11/15/grover-furrs-response-to-mike-elys-charges-against-beria/ Here’s a wonderful excerpt from Grover Furr himself challenging the Beria pedophile narrative.
Furr mentions the vicious anti-communism of the idiot Amy Knight here, and even she had this to say:
https://espressostalinist.com/2012/01/09/on-lavrenty-beria-one-criticism-on-martens-another-view-of-stalin/ Interesting write-up criticizing Ludo Martens’ description of Beria and insinuations that he was behind Stalin’s demise.
I promise I’ll update this w/ more sources. Currently scouring through Sergo Beria’s “Beria, my father” for more info.
I looked at Mentefiore’s “writing” and it claims to have sources from those who knew Stalin.
That could easily be a lie or a twisting of the truth, and I’ll read what Grover Furr has to say and your other links.
Its nothing personal. I’m just a very skeptical person, and again I don’t want to seem like I’m dismissing something just because I don’t like the implications, and because it gives ammo to anti-communists that “oh my gawd evile tankie denies that Stalin strangled kittens!”
I really like Grover Furr and I think he’s right most of the time, and neoliberal “historians” mostly dismiss him because he challenges their narrative, and I don’t want to make the same mistakes.
Absolutely nothing personal taken. Beria’s a difficult subject to find trustworthy resources on and it’s kind of become like a “dinner-table conversation” with how ubiquitous the idea is. I feel like Beria used to be more of someone who was whispered about in hushed tones by communists and people who spend their time reading about the USSR in a similar vein as to how communists talk about Pol Pot. Seems like now everyone and their mother gives a shit about what Beria was up to lol. Mostly just an internet thing I’m sure.
From the Editor’s Preface to “Beria, my father” “The testimonies also confirm the kidnapping of women and what people in Tbilisi called Beria’s ‘Sultan’s habits’.” The only source they refer to with this line is “testimonies”. Those testimonies appear nowhere in the rest of the book. It’s incredible, the words “kidnap”, “r***”, “torture”, “sadist”, “sex”, “SA”, in this proper context, don’t exist in the work. They imply a sort of tautological truthiness to the idea. His son never mentions it, regardless of being very critical of Stalin and his father throughout the book. So this wasn’t exactly a good source for disproving the argument, just another example of complete lack of evidence or sourcing presented as if there were.
edit: “The Chekist M. Shreider reports the evidence of this given by the former head of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, Mirzoyan. ‘He spoke of Beria with hatred. He told me that when Beria was proposed for secretary of the Party in Transcaucasia, Sergo Ordzhonikidze and a group of Caucasian Bolsheviks showed strong opposition. They claimed to have information proving that Beria was a traitor, about his links with the Musavatists and the role he played in the Menshevik revolt … They also referred to his debauchery. In Caucasia Beria was nicknamed the Turkish Sultan, and it was almost as though he kept a harem … Stalin knew all about that, but insisted on Beria being nominated.’ Shreider, op. cit. 175” Can’t find the OG source. This is the only source that makes a claim about his supposed debauchery, and the claim it’s being used as a source for is entirely unrelated.